Talk:List of Electron launches

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 13 June 2019 by reviewer Bkissin (talk · contribs). Rocketry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spaceflight Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from List of Electron rocket launches. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

In total 2 from those 22 launches scheduled for 2024 are not orbital, but they are sub-orbital. The graph here is displaying all 22 launches as orbital. This info is based on the last presentation (November 8th, 2023) available in the Investor Section of Rocketlab's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.24.138.95 (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I changed it Labvista (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the content from this article has been from

 Done OkayKenG (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Lab website says here says 2835 satellite launched. Here we only have 2734. Researching right now. but does anybody know why they don't add up? OkayKenG (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this 2018 in spaceflight and 2019 in spaceflight collectively indicate that there were 31 satellites launched OkayKenG (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update 1: For flights 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 they are seem to be correct on both this list and the 2018/2019 spaceflight pages, bringing the total number of satellites to 15. (using sources like Space Flight Now and Rocket Lab's press kits), the issue appears to be with flight 4.

The total number of satellites lauched during that mission, assuming (flights 2,3,5,6, 7 are correct) should be 13. 10 of them can be accounted for officially using NASA's site "Past ElaNa CubeSat Launches". So these are the ones we know have launched (ALBus, CeREs, CubeSail, DaVinci, ISX , NMTSat, RSat-P, Shields-1, STF-1)

So we have 3 satellites that are "missing". Here on this list we have two extra satellites (i.e. not ElaNa 19, but still launched) "ANDESITE and SHFT-1". Bringing the total to 1 missing satellite. We know that there was more then 10 payloads b/c on press kit it says "loft more then 10 cubesats".

The 2018 in spaceflight then has too many satellites (16). These are the extra ones ( ANDESITE, CubeSail 2, GeoStare, STF-1SHFT-1, TOMSat Eagle Scout, and TOMSat R³ (AeroCube 11)) OkayKenG (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In summery the "debated" satellites are: ANDESITE, CubeSail 2, GeoStare, SHFT-1, TOMSat Eagle Scout, and TOMSat R³ (AeroCube 11) OkayKenG (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at "NASA, Rocket Lab partner on successful satellite launch from New Zealand" right now. OkayKenG (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this site three payloads other then the 10 of the ELaNa is SHFT 2, Eagle Scout, TomSat r3. OkayKenG (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update 3: Okay got it (I think). So this should be the list of all of the satellites that were on flight 4, ALBus, CeREs, CHOMPTT, CubeSail, DaVinci, ISX , NMTSat, RSat-P, Shields-1, STF-1, and SHFT 2, TOMSat EagleScout, TOMSat R3. [1]

 Done OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 11:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Announced by Rocketlab for October 14-28. Is that the October launch we have in our table? The payload looks completely different. Is that an additional mission? --mfb (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say, but I think they are different, there is this article "Rocket Lab launch switcheroo shows the flexibility of the new orbital economy" that says "a customer" (does not say who), wanted to launch later so this "Astro Digital" took the launch instead. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 21:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfb: Actually this might be the Alba Cluster 2 that was delayed? Per https://twitter.com/AlbaOrbital/status/1175028719775358976 ? But per that Tweet and other sources the only missions we know that will fly in 2019 is the Crow flight and Alba Cluster 2 flight. Also for the Alba Cluster 2 mission those listed payloads may not be the only ones flying. (Per https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/discovery.htm). The other future 2019 ones I’m not sure, they could be next year? And to be honest I think most of the future 2019 ones are incorrect, so far this year few of the miSsions we had listed actually flew (this might be wrong) OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Soumya-8974:, for the 'Booster landings' graph, do you think instead of 'Success' we could put "Successful Reentry" or something like that? Because the landing itself was not a success. Also, Rocket Lab probably won't "land" their boosters so maybe we should put "Booster recovery"? OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 20:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The description for mission 20 includes the following strange sentence. "Second stage engine shut down early to ignite causing the mission to be lost". I'd correct it but I don't know what it was supposed to say. 74.113.176.80 (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which flights used the kick stage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.248.240.122 (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flights 14 "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Optical" and 19 "They Go Up So Fast" so far.SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All flights other than possibly the first one used the kick stage. Two of the flights (those with First Light and Pathstone as payloads) subsequently converted that kick stage into an on-orbit long-term satellite. Rwald (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The graph displays 3 items which are now essentially the same thing. "Block upgrade (thrusters)" is a booster equipped with RCS thrusters for recovery, "Block upgrade (parachute)" is a booster equipped with a parachute for recovery. And Block upgrade (parafoil),... well the parafoil was only used for testing purposes and was never used on a real mission (and also not used in the graph).

I suggest we remove the parafoil group and combine "thrusters" with "parachute" and simply rename it "recovery" or something similar. Since all (new) recovery missions have the RCS thrusters upgrade, parachute upgrade, radio upgrade, TPS upgrade....

I think it's a bit too confusing to keep them separate. Any thoughts on this?

Labvista (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers in the table seem to be off by one. For example, "Four of a Kind" is shown here as flight nr 42 but in the livestream for that launch, they refer to it as "our 43rd Electron mission". I think this is due to separating out Haste into its own table, which RL counts as an Electron flight. 49.226.171.17 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I think it's a bit confusing too. A decision has to be made if we combine the numbers or keep them separate. Then the question is, so we merge the HASTE table with the Electron table or do we keep those seperate? Might be a bit confusing to start a table with flight 38.

Labvista (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]