Talk:List of Vulcan launches

Title

I couldn't change but 2020 doesn't sound right. correct title should be List of Vulcan launches (2024–29). I think. 31.142.64.119 (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cert-2 outcome

Precedent is very clear. The launch outcome is a success if the launch vehicle gets its payload into the intended orbit. It doesn't matter if the first stage doesn't land, or the second stage doesn't deorbit properly. Ng.j (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Falcon 9 launches where there have been engine anomalies. An entire engine failed to light and it is still a success. Ng.j (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its success. An example would be the Starlink mission a year or 2 ago where they lost an engine on ascent, but still delivered the payload exactly where intended. Say with the Soyuz launching an Egyptian satellite, Fregat made up the difference. Engine out doesnt automatically mean failure if you can fully compensate. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say all of this discussion is a tad premature. It's okay for Wikipedia to be the last place to be updated. We need to wait for reliable secondary sources to declare the launch a success or a partial failure. All this talk of precedent is nonsense. We are not and have never been the arbiters of such disputes. I think listing the outcome as TBD for now is perfectly fine until reliable sources emerge. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several additional sources stating launch success. There are no sources that state the launch is a failure.

There is a clear difference between launch outcomes and mission outcomes. The first Vulcan mission comes to mind.

I am applying the same standard we have always used on WikiProject:Space. That is why precedent is important, rather than just using opinion. Ng.j (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Faust at SpaceNews calls the mission "complete, despite SRB anomaly" -- not exactly calling a "success" but not calling it a failure.
ULA's press release calls the mission a success while noting an "observation" (a fun weasel word) on a SRB).
USA Today calls the launch a success, but relies on ULA's characterization when reaching that conclusion.

It's not a clear slam dunk, but I'm okay with listing as a success. Please move the references to prose. We don't need a dump of three refs near Success.

Also, I stand by this... reliable, secondary sources are what matter on Wikipedia. Period. Full stop. We can talk about precedent, but those arguments will always be shut down quickly by another editor saying you're making an other stuff exists argument. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as another editor pointed out, ultimately the only arbiter that matters here is the Space Force. If they clear the rocket for NSSL missions, I think it’ll be a big success in ULA’s book. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]