Talk:Firefly Alpha

This article reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage. Please help improve it by adding independent secondary sources. (June 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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

Spaceflight Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Rocketry 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Parts of the article reads like it comes from press releases or advertising. Most specifically regarding capabilities and how successful launches are described. Reformulating some sentences to be more neutral would also help the general tone. Amphioxi (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Within the article, after the mention of the name in each section, can it just be referred to as "Alpha" instead of "Firefly Alpha"? Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Probably shouldn't. It's formal, recognizned name is Firefly Alpha, not Alpha. @UnknownM1 Starship SN20 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Expect delays. Firefly confirms ‘anomaly’ and fire during first stage hotfire test --mfb (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://firefly.com/wp-content/themes/firefly_aerospace/files/Firefly_Aerospace_Payload_User's_Guide.pdf

Firefly has kindly made a few tech stats available, in the users guide, does it make sense to add them to the article?--Patbahn (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Should we make a notes column in the launch history table? Maybe stating that the Firefly Alpha launch yesterday had anomaly and why. Starship SN20 (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The launch provider is not the company who determines success or failure. Firstly they're a primary source, and secondly they're labeling something that is judged externally. For other rockets, notably SpaceX, when they released payloads at a lower orbit than planned then we mark that as "partial failure". Ergzay (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Jrcraft Yt Please stop reverting and discuss. Ergzay (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

You keep stating they only partial payload deployment occurred. I've added references for all payloads being deployed. You cite celestrack TLE's as your source, but since decay has occurred, you cannot use expired TLE's alone. Because obviously there won't be TLE's for the others. I'd argue that continued use of that is bias and knowingly pushing false information. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Jrcraft Yt I'm not sure what you mean by "expired TLE's". The last known TLE for each object is given there, if it was seen at all. They don't remove the TLEs for objects that have deorbited as far as I am aware. Ergzay (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, do you have third party sources that actually state "partial failure" rather than "success"?. Because it's speculation on your end if you don't. It's widely reported as successful. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I've added one to the article, and it's by the company that runs spacetrak. In fact they call it a "90% failure". There hasn't been enough time for others to come around and critically analyze the initial reports of success that Firefly themselves have been pushing. Also if Wikipedia is to be consistent then I suggest looking over the discussion archives on the talk page of List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches around the CRS-1/Orbcomm OG2 launch (in 2012). Ergzay (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you want to open discussion on this, go ahead, but you're going to have to show consensus in reporting for partial failure and not success. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Was the latest launch a failure or a partial failure? Redacted II (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Assuming the payload has been deployed, I am leaning towards partial failure because the spacecraft seems like it reach orbit, albeit lower than intended for obvious reasons. I say we wait until there is any confirmation the payload separated from the second stage or if the staging mishap caused that to fail. Ngpiii (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

IIRC, Firefly did remove the claim that it reached a lower than planned orbit.

So there's a good chance its burned up. Redacted II (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've changed the outcome to pending to reflect the uncertainty and lack of a source to support one or the other at this moment. Redraiderengineer (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

It failed.

https://fireflyspace.com/missions/alpha-flta006/ Redacted II (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

NASASpaceflight says "Problem during stage separation and second stage ignition caused disintegration of the separated 1st stage and the loss of the Lightning engine nozzle extension on the 2nd stage, substantially reducing the engine’s thrust. 2nd stage reached 320 km in altitude but did not reach orbital velocity, eventually impacted the Pacific Ocean north of Antarctica.

So yes, it's a failure. Starship V2 (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply