Talk:2025 in spaceflight

Undefined reference

Hi Abdullah1099! In this edit, you added a footnote that depends on a citation named "rl-20230228". But that citation is never defined in this article and causes the article to generate an error when displayed. Are you able to provide a definition for that citation so that the error can be fixed, and the material that you've added is properly referenced? -- mikeblas (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Another undefined reference

Hello Abdullah1099! In this edit, you added three different footnotes that depend on a citation named "otterpup2-odar". There's no such citation defined in the article, so your edits cause a referencing error and leave the items you've added to the article unreferenced. Are you able to provide a correct definition for that citation so that the error can be fixed and the material that you've added is properly referenced? -- mikeblas (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I had not added Otter Pup 2 Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the specific change where you added the dependnecies to "otterpup2-odar". Maybe it's best to simply revert the change, since you aren't able to fix it. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, You can revert it. But Please do not delete the article. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the unreferenced payloads. Note that I never suggested deleting the article. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

A new undefined reference

Hello again Abdullah1099! In this recent edit, you added a footnote that depends on a citation named "Cert-2". But there is no citation with that name defined here, causing a referencing error in the article. Are you able to provide the citation so the material is correctly referenced, and the error is fixed? By the way, are you copying this material from some other part of Wikipedia? -- mikeblas (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I not coping but aligning this with the Vulcan Centaur launches list. Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Splitting up the launches

What does anyone think of splitting up the launches for 2025 into four season articles (Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, Jul-Sep, Oct-Dec) instead of two half-year articles? ----Poomfang ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

With potentially over 300 launches in 2025, that might be something to be debated. AmigaClone (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

While we are at it, spaceflight is getting common over the years and while it may not come closer to airline numbers anytime soon, even four season articles may not suffice. How do we plan for that? Footy2000♡; 07:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I can see a few different ways to deal with the issue.

1) Split the existing launch articles into orbital and suborbital;

2) Have monthly launch articles;

3) Condense Starship missions that include launches of tanker Starships into one entry, with separate articles describing the various launches involved for each mission in detail. The launch time and date for the entry in the main launch article would be for the launch that does not involve a tanker Starship.

AmigaClone (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

As of now, In 2025, there is not that much launches in the list that needed separating it from half to quarters. But i think in near future we should need to do. Abdullah1099 (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The process of splitting the Spaceflight launches in 2025 in 4 articles has been completed. I would suggest that unless the major launch providers indicate a major reduction in the number of launches that the 'Spaceflight launches in 2026' also be split into 4 or perhaps 5 parts from the get-go. In the second case, there would be four quarterly orbital launch articles and one suborbital launch article. AmigaClone (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I think i will choose the second option and will be a great idea. My Proposal is that we should make two half list for Orbital launch or four quarter lists and a separate list for Suborbital launches. Abdullah1099 (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Four articles are fine for now unless the need arises for a standalone suborbital article, after they hit WP:PEIS where the sections collapse into a single giant article.

This is how splits were done till now:

1. Half yearly split (2)

2. Quarterly split (4)

This is how it can be done in the future (post WP:PEIS)

3. Suborbital launches with an article of their own (4+1)

4. Monthly (12)

5. Space flights start becoming common, close to airlines with monthly articles now collapsing. Only notable flights and those with scientific missions can be included.

6. Far into the future when space flights are extremely common, year in spaceflight articles alone may suffice and can include a broad overview of major events every day, similar to Year in science articles. Footy2000♡; 02:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, But for now splitting the list into four separate quarterly articles what done in 2025 in Spaceflight is done and it is AmigaClone wonderful idea to edit 2026 in splitting into quarters now. So, in future there is no need of doing split and splitting into four quarterly orbital launch with one annual Suborbital launch list is the best idea (4+1). Yeah, Your Suggestion is true and will be needed to do in future. Thank for your suggestions. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I have created a standardized table which says when to split the list of launches. Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group#Launches. It is now future-proofed. Footy2000♡; 08:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Very Much. Abdullah1099 (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Use of EU flag for European Data

I am not sure if it is okay to use European Union flag for ESA/European related data. The ESA has Norway, Switzerland and United Kingdom members which aren't part of the EU. I'm coming from List of missions to the Moon#Mission milestones by country where EU flag isn't used but rather ESA's logo. Footy2000♡; 15:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't make any more sense to categorize the Ariane and Vega rockets as ESA rockets when the rockets are being categorized by their country of origin. If anything Ariane should be categorized as a French rocket and Vega should be categorized as an Italian rocket. Lomicto (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this. So we can conclude with: every statistic attributed to the rocket's country of origin except in obvious cases of spaceports where its location in a country is maintained as usual. Footy2000♡; 07:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

France as a country achieved an orbital flight back in 1965, with its own rocket, separate from the rest of Europe. Also, what flag should be used for the Europa rocket?

I feel that the EU flag shows that both rockets and other missions are from the same set of countries, not agencies (for example NASA and SpaceX are both under the U.S. flag) 73.160.112.44 (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Both rockets means Ariane and Europa 73.160.112.44 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Europa rockets were developed by ELDO so ELDO logo. EU is not a country and neither does it include members like UK, Norway and Switzerland. Plus EU wanted to create their own agency which ESA objected. 'National firsts' with EU flag makes no sense, and as @Lomicto suggested we should ideally use country flags of the rocket's origin instead. Footy2000♡; 07:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

i am telling about LSP side we can use the Company logo as in a single country many Companies are there and makes almost no sense of using flag instead of each Companies logo Abdullah1099 (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

National flags in LSP column makes perfect sense because as you said there are many companies in each of the countries, so it is rather useful to identify company's origin instead of having logos which provide no additional information while the company's name is sufficient. Footy2000♡; 08:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I would agree except for the small detail that outside of ESA Launch Vehicles (Ariane and Vega) rockets are classified in this and other "year in spaceflight" articles according to the UN's definition of country of origin.

In the 'Online Index of Objects Launched into Outer Space' maintained by United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) the list of nations and organizations includes ESA.

I would suggest that instead of using the EU flag for Ariane or Vega rockets that instead ESA's patch is used. AmigaClone (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This thing should be used for other organization especially in the LSP Section we can put the Company logo instead of country of origin. Like NASA ULA, SpaceX, and if possible then can also put on rocket also. Abdullah1099 (Talk) 15:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm not a fan of this. The Ariane and Vega rockets originate as a pan-European effort and if ESA were to fall apart, France and Italy wouldn't be able to continue them on their own even though the manufacturers are in those respective countries. I would argue that using the EU flag is efficient shorthand for this fact.

All that said, this is not going to be a fight worth having and using the national flags can at least be consistent with prior precedent of the R-14, R-36 and Zenit families being counted as Ukrainian rockets post-USSR due to the design bureau being in Kyiv. So call it a soft oppose, for what little that's worth. Torlek (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree-these rockets have the flags of all ESA countries on them, not just France or Italy, and the EU flag symbolizes that-no other rocket gets a logo instead of a flag.

I also hate how one person’s suggestion happened so quickly when the past implementation was fine 73.160.112.44 (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't fine imo. Grouping together certain countries that don't belong to the union under a flag that isn't even national creates PoV issues. Plus, ESA isn't under EU either and did have a tussle with the union when it tried creating it's own space agency. Footy2000♡; 14:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Happy with this change. These are not EU rockets and should be attributed to the country of origin. France & Italy for Ariane and Vega respectively. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

But one country isn’t their country of origin

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GOX9NoubIAAef9D?format=jpg&name=large 73.160.112.44 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Every rocket has components that are made by firms from a different country than the main manufacturer, e.g. Atlas V uses Russian engines. That doesn't mean that it should categorized as a partially Russian rocket.

The prime contractor for Ariane 6 is ArianeGroup which is headquartered in Paris an the prime contractor for Vega is Avio which is headquartered in Rome, which is why they are best attributed to France and Italy respectively. Lomicto (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Should all ESA mission then be listed under the French flag, since no other organization/company gets a logo on here

European Space Agency 73.160.112.44 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Did I not just answer that? If not, I don't think I understand your question. Lomicto (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

No-right now the rockets are getting the French or Italian flags, while European satellites get the logo of their manufacturer in the place of a flag-I should have worded it better.

Also, the Europa rocket Europa (rocket)#First stage, where each stage was from a different country, doesn’t have any flag/logo-this whole thing seems like a big fuss over nothing that’s just causing problems. 73.160.112.44 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Well we aren't listing satellites but rocket launches, so it isn't really something we have to account for. Lomicto (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s annoying when you look at the payload section for a launch carrying a European payload, such as Mars Express in 2003 2003 in spaceflight 73.160.112.44 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Besides the Wikipedia articles for the Ariane 5 and Vega both list them as European multi-national, while the article on Atlas V, form above, lists its country of origin as United States and it gets a U.S. flag in the launch lists. 73.160.112.44 (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

"For the purposes of this section, the yearly tally of orbital launches by country assigns each flight to the country of origin of the rocket, not to the launch services provider or the spaceport." Lomicto (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes-I get that. The Wikipedia articles Ariane 6 and Vega (rocket) specifically show multiple countries of origin. Of the European Union flag, which I thought was good, can’t be used should the U.N. Flag be used to indicate that multiple countries worked on these rockets? 73.160.112.44 (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Further, previously the flags for European rockets and payloads were consistent, and now arbitrarily they aren’t-something consistent needs to be introduced 73.160.112.44 (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The dark blue with gold stars flag was originally not for the EU, which adapted it, but for the Council of Europe and it represents all of Europe-I think it’s the appropriate flag for both European rockets and payloads 73.160.112.44 (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

For example, the Spectrum rocket correctly has the German flag 🇩🇪 , as it is built by a private German company, but the rockets developed by a group of European countries together should have the European flag 🇪🇺 73.160.112.44 (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the rocket's should have ESA logo. As EU and ESA are both very different things. Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

It is the flag of Europe. These are European rockets, as per Wikipedia. This change is unilateral and does not align with the internal consistency of Wikipedia. Transparentrose (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing with what seemed like common sense to me (an American)-is there any way it can be fixed? 73.160.112.44 (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

And Europe is not a country. Plus as mentioned earlier, ESA has members who do not belong to EU, Canada which is a council member, isn't in Europe. Adding country flags of the rocket manufacturer's origin in the section that lists other countries, does not make the European pride any less. About 'internal consistency of wikipedia' are the astronauts of European countries listed by European flag? Footy2000♡; 07:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Then should the rockets have the flag of every country that worked in them in their launch listing, like in this photo?

Ariane 6#/media/File:Ariane 62 and 64.svg 73.160.112.44 (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Quoting Lomicto's point

Every rocket has components that are made by firms from a different country than the main manufacturer, e.g. Atlas V uses Russian engines. That doesn't mean that it should categorized as a partially Russian rocket. The prime contractor for Ariane 6 is ArianeGroup which is headquartered in Paris an the prime contractor for Vega is Avio which is headquartered in Rome, which is why they are best attributed to France and Italy respectively.Footy2000♡; 04:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

A rocket such as the Atlas V, which has just the first stage engines made in Russia and the rest in the United States is different from a rocket such as the Ariane 6 https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2024/06/Ariane_6_who_makes_what_infographic or Vega https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/07/12/europes-upgraded-vega-c-launcher-ready-for-first-flight/ that has all it components made in different countries-also, the Wikipedia articles for Airbus aircraft list them as multi-national, with a subnote that final assembly is in France. 73.160.112.44 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Ariane 1, and the rest of the family, is not just a French rocket-notice all the flags painted on it Ariane 1#/media/File:Ariane 1 Le Bourget FRA 001.jpg 73.160.112.44 (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

We obviously cannot include a flag for every part of a rocket. It is best attributed to France since it's assembled by a company in France. Same goes to every other rocket. Footy2000♡; 02:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I think there is no need of either france or Italy or EU flag as Ariane and Vega rocket are part of ESA. So, Putting ESA logo will be the best option. Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Use of Booster numbers of reusable rocket that are launching the payloads.

I think we should Start using the booster number for example: "B1092.2",etc with the flight number like just below flight number. For Example: F9-400
B1095.1 This will be vety helpful in many ways and is already been used by People's like Jonathan McDowell in his GCAT launch log and many other places. Tell me if anyone has trouble with this idea. I mostly used Falcon 9 but it could be used for New Glenn, Terran R, Neutron, etc. Abdullah1099 (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

As of 27 March 2025 only Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have seen reused boosters. SpaceX has recovered two Starship Super Heavy boosters, and Rocket Lab has recovered several Electron first stages but neither has reflown a recovered stage.

I have no problem with the idea, with my biggest concern being on how easily available is the booster number might be for non-SpaceX launch vehicles. AmigaClone (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I am telling that which company has launched the booster and has List especially present in Wikipedia or any other website like next Spaceflight, etc. Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

So, Now many days have been passed and no one has any problems to the idea, if anyone has any problems in this then they can easily express it and will be considered. It will definitely take time first 2025 then 2024 and will be going on.

Format: Falcon 9: Falcon flight number/if Starlink Group launches then putting it other wise omitting it
(B1050.20).

Same will apply to other reusable rocket that has a very large database and is reusable or become reusable but it is promised from first day and has a good amount of information about it. Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

There is some improvement in the format no booster number are given at last in remarks section like Booster: B1077.17,etc instead of in flight section of every launch. Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand where you're intending to use this? Lomicto (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Tell me the problem bro you find in this idea Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Should Firefly Alpha not just be called Alpha?

We don't call it SpaceX Falcon 9 or Rocket Lab Electron in the launch statistics, but for some reason it's called Firefly Alpha? Firefly themselves call the rocket Alpha on their website. Lomicto (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

For article titles, the consensus was to use agency name along with the rocket, like SpaceX Starship. But since it isn't ambiguous on spaceflight related articles, Starship can be used without the agency name. So for Firefly Alpha, simply Alpha works across spaceflight related articles unless there's another rocket named similarly. Footy2000♡; 15:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There was an Italian ballistic missile by the name Alfa. An early version of the name of what is now called ISS was International Space Station Alpha. Alpha was also used as the call sign for the ISS during Expedition 1.

Bigelow Aerospace also called one of its proposed space stations Space Complex Alpha. AmigaClone (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Should the orbital rocket get a priority in spaceflight articles? I'm not sure. Also, I've personally heard people refering the rocket as Firefly Alpha more than simply Alpha, maybe that's because of its wiki article. Not sure if it's the same for everyone. Footy2000♡; 02:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)