Talk:2021 in spaceflight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned references in 2021 in spaceflight[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2021 in spaceflight's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "us-com":

  • From International Space Station: Pietrobon, Steven (19 January 2019). "United States Commercial ELV Launch Manifest". Retrieved 19 January 2019.
  • From 2020 in spaceflight: Pietrobon, Steven (20 August 2018). "United States Commercial LV Launch Manifest". Retrieved 21 August 2018.
  • From 2019 in spaceflight: Pietrobon, Steven (9 January 2019). "United States Commercial ELV Launch Manifest". Retrieved 9 January 2019.

Reference named "gunter-falcon9":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of Spacecraft[edit]

I don’t understand why SLS and Orion test flights are under “lunar exploration” while Starliner’s test flight is under Human Spaceflight, and Starship test flights are under rocket innovation. All of these vessels are comparable and should be covered in the same section for consistency. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SLS and Orion will never fly to LEO as they are designed to go to the Moon, Starliner will likely never fly beyond LEO as it is designed to fly humans to the ISS. Starship could fit in several categories, that's a difficult case. The most general one is "rocket innovation". --mfb (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template post-expansion include size exceeded[edit]

"Houston, we have a problem."

We've hit Wikipedia's post expansion include size limit for templates.

This means templates near the bottom of the screen won't work any more.

If it gets much worse, references will start to fail.

I'm not sure what the best solution is, but if the page can be split at June 30th that should solve the problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The improvised solution sounds reasonable. I think a better solution would be to increase or remove the artificial "post-expand include size"-limit and trying to identify the underlying problem/s and possible alternative solutions.
Without further info from devs / WMF on this so far, engaging in the latter made me think that the underlying problem is that templates (and transclusions) are not prerendered/preparsed after either a change to the template itself or the content of templates in the article (in the case of the article mostly {{TLS-RL}}- and the reference-templates) (or transcluded target section in the case of transcluded content) and hence that the MediaWiki code for templates is designed in a way that's highly unperformant and should probably be overhauled.
Further info and discussion about it here.
With code changes there could also be collapsed sections in this article that e.g. only load the data after clicking a [show] or [show all] button and/or when expanding a section in the mobile view. This allows all content to reside – and be viewable – on a single page without long loading times for those who don't wish to see this information until the loading times are reduced with MediaWiki code changes that improve performance/capacity.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: I have split the article. There is still some duplicate information that needs to be removed from one article or the other. Decisions like "what to do with unscheduled/TBD flights" might wind up undoing some of the "game-time" decisions I made, that's fine. I've marked the sections on both articles that need cleanup/de-duplication. The "original" name 2021 in spaceflight redirects to 2021 in spaceflight (January–June). Thanks to the genius who made sure Template:TLS-M worked in situations like this, that saved a major headache. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 21:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 21:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We could have tried to reduce the size first, that would have been far less impactful. But it's likely the page will only grow over time. What do we do with the introduction and stats? I would prefer to keep them yearly for consistency and to have more material. We could write them in one article and then transclude them in the other. Alternatively we can keep 2021 in spaceflight for text and stats and then have the launch lists separate. --mfb (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are correct, there was a lot of "blank" stuff that could've been stripped out. NOT considering this option was an error on my part. However, the approach I took will buy us all the time we need, rather than being only a few more entries in the tables away from breaking the limit again.
As for keeping things yearly, there is merit to that. As to which approach to use, I like both approaches. However, since this is likely going to be a problem in the future, I recommend a more centralized discussion. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group seems like the logical place but it doesn't look heavily trafficked, its parent page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight, might be a better place for a discussion.
If the decision IS to restore 2021 in spaceflight, I would recommend first moving 2021 in spaceflight (January–June) back to that name then creating a new "January-June" page. This way the full edit history will be with the "main" article of the series. This shouldn't be done until a "what do we do going forward" decision has been made. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 23:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a main 2021 in Spaceflight article for text and stats with launch lists separate. So far, 1967 saw the most attempts at orbital launches with 139. The reason is that there would be only one place to update the initial comments, instead of having to ensure that it refers to events that happened within the time of the article, as well as avoid duplication if there are the same type of tests in both parts of the year. It also would be more flexible if there is a need to divide the lists or orbital launches into three or more.
Finally, it would set things up to eventually have a separate list of extra-terrestrial launches when there is more than a certain number of extraterrestrial launches in a year. AmigaClone (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3/3 for having text and stats by year, and Prototyperspective prefers that as well as far as I understand. If no one objects I'll move the article back to the original place and then copy the table here. This format is more flexible if things change. If SpaceX manages to fulfill its promises for Starship we will stop listing every launch. --mfb (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds okay by me, but give it 24 hours to see if anyone new has other, possibly better ideas we haven't thought of. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If SpaceX does manage to achieve Elon Musk's goal of more than one orbital flight a day it would be time to talk about how to deal with that large number. Same as for using Starship as point to point transportation - if the flights cross 100km. I think there is some time to think of solutions for that issue - if it ever becomes an issue. AmigaClone (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it ever became that much, I would suggest having monthly articles such as List of spaceflights in January 2021, with 2021 in spaceflight being the summary article. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 18:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, maybe not for 5-10 years yet, these will become so routine that they are no longer encyclopedic. Yeah, I know I'm stating the obvious, but at least now in 5 or 10 years someone will be able to dig through the edit history and say "on 1 January 2021, editors already saw that someday space flights would no longer be automatically worth putting in a list article in Wikipedia." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 19:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see possibly having a table with Launch site, Landing site, Distance, Average Apogee, Service Started, and Frequency to deal with the site to site flights, once they become common.AmigaClone (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said 4 days ago last year: "we will stop listing every launch". Which is perfectly fine if individual launches get so common that people don't write articles about them any more. We'll keep writing articles about spaceports and maybe high profile connections/launch profiles just like we do for air travel. --mfb (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this page back to 2021 in spaceflight, created the new 2021 in spaceflight (January–June) with launches only and reduced 2021 in spaceflight (July–December) to launches. I don't see remaining reference errors or other obvious problems, but more eyes help. I merged deeps-space rendezvous and kept EVAs here as these lists don't get long. --mfb (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think we can call this a wrap now. I added or updated {{copied}} on all 3 talk pages and put WikiProject templates on the Jan-Jun talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I expect most users here to also watch the subpages, but anyway: There is a proposed move discussion for them. "2021 in spaceflight (January–June)" → "List of spaceflight launches in January–June 2021" and analogous for the second half. --mfb (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spacewalk updates[edit]

I suggest changing the spacewalks from TBA to Feburary 28 at 6:00 am EST for the first one and the second one from TBA to March 5 at 7:00 am EST. I found this on https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/schedule.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eth132489 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eth132489:, thanks for the link, I found a NASA Blog post here https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2021/02/19/cygnus-resupply-ship-nears-launch-as-next-spacewalks-booked/. I will update the page. OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OkayKenji You very welcome, reply to this page if you need anything else. Can somebody update the spacewalk list with actual time for March 5th. Also please add another spacewalk for Saturday March 13th. Here is the link https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/schedule.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eth132489 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again there is a need to update the EVA table - this time with the details of the EVA on 25 June 2031. AmigaClone (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shenzhou 12[edit]

When Shenzhou 12 reaches orbit, it will mark the first time that an American, a Chinese, and a Russian/Soviet crewed spacecraft will be in orbit at the same time. There was a bit of research there (comparing the dates of crewed Shenzhou mission with the last Space Shuttle missions). AmigaClone (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket family chart width[edit]

With the addition of the LauncerOne label the chart started exceeding the page width, and since we should expect more and more launchers reaching an high enough launch pace to deserve a place in that chart this problem will only get worse in the future. Is there a way to reduce the label font size in order to make the chart less wide or, even better, should a different type of chart be considered for that data?--Fm3dici97 (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could the chart be rotated 90 degrees so that instead of the launches of the same rocket family being grouped in a column, they be grouped in rows?AmigaClone (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find a way to make a horizontal bar chart with stacked bars in the manner of what we have currently. It may be that we just need to increase the minimum number of launches for a launcher family to get its own column to at least three if not four. Torlek (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISS expansion[edit]

Should there be a comment in the Human Spaceflight section about changes that have been made to the ISS?:

  • Pirs module being detached from the ISS and deorbited.
  • Nauka Multipurpose Laboratory Module being launched and attached to the ISS in the spot vacated by Pirs?

AmigaClone (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Nebula-M not in the article?[edit]

SpaceNews reported that the Nebula-M small-lift launch vehicle made a VTVL successful launch and landing in August, 2021, and on 2 Aug, I added that as a source for the rocket in the article. Don't know why, but it was subsequently removed. I think this should be in the 2021 article somewhere, if other mentions of suborbital tests (such as Starship) are going to be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, we are just censoring Chinese rocket content from Wikipedia.

Here is that bit from the 2 Aug edit, with a good source citation:

Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you add it? Starship is a far larger and more noteworthy rocket. --mfb (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chinese space firm launches and lands small test rocket, SpaceNews, 2 August 2021.

Records[edit]

Should there be mention that this year has set several records related to spaceflight? Some that I know of are

  • Total number of orbital launch attempts.
  • Total number of completely successful orbital launch attempts.
  • Number of humans in orbit at 14.
  • Number of humans in space at 19.
  • Number of humans flown to space on suborbital trajectories (14 going above 100km and an additional 7 going above 50 miles)

Another possible record:

  • Most crewed suborbital missions in a year

AmigaClone (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first four are mentioned in the lead at the moment. The suborbital trajectories are discussed in the space tourism section. I think that covers the relevant records. --mfb (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 2021 in spaceflight[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2021 in spaceflight's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "spacecom":

Reference named "iss":

Reference named "JSR":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_in_spaceflight&oldid=1196896129"