HLFan

Welcome to Wikidata, HLFan!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! M2k~dewiki (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes to Starship Flight Test 2 (Q121255326) timeline

Source for these changes? — Huntster (t @ c) 12:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Jonathan's Space Report (Q6272367) #826 estimates ignition at 13:02:47 (Q95064677) which is around T-2 in the telemetry on stream. 199 seconds later Booster 9 (Q123485215) telemetry is lost at 13:06:06 (Q95064945), which Scott Manley (Q59811938) synced in his analysis to the RUD. This also puts the telemetry loss of Ship 25 (Q123485096) at T+8:04 at 13:10:53 (Q95065325).

However if this is Wikipedia:Synthesis or appropriate treatment of numeric data is above my understanding of the rules --HLFan (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

While this is not Wikipedia, being able to cite sources means the veracity of the data is easier to qualify. JSR 826 and MyRGV are the two "reliable sources" I've seen that have published actual numbers, but even they give...confusing times. Per the launch stream, ignition occurred at T+0 (the shock wave is rather noticeable), and launch appears to be at T+0:04 (visual first movement, but JSR suggests T+0:06?). First stage self destruct clearly comes at T+3:17 on stream, but JSR says T+3:20 and MyRGV says T+3:22. This is strange. Second stage self destruct does appear to come at T+8:04, and both JSR and MyRGV agree with this. So, the question is what to believe. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

My guess at the reason both those sources agree on second stage self destruct is that by then they had to base their claims on the telemetry, which is why I also stuck with this. The latencies of the tracking cameras and the freeze of the drone footage don't make it better.

And while SpaceX should have the data, they only stated booster breakup at "more than three and a half minutes into the flight", which doesn't help either.

The NSF stream shows visually ignition at 13:02:51, lift-off at 13:02:55 and B9 RUD at NLT 13:06:10. Tim Dodd's production with a lower latency shows ignition at 13:02:47, lift-off at 13:02:52 and booster self-destruct at NLT 13:06:07.

So whilst we're definitely in the right ballpark, since the way timestamps are represented in wikidata is non-numerical, specifying the time to the correct decasecond or even deciminute is not possible. --HLFan (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Flight 6

You cite GOES-16 as the source of the coordinates here, but that's not valid as a source. What is the actual site these coordinates come from? Thanks. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It is from the GOES east image 20243242211, that contained a hint of the Booster's location as pointed out by Scott Manley (Q59811938) in [1]. Taking a wider angle like [2] and projecting that on a map, the resulting coordinates also line up with [3]. HLFan (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while eminently reasonable, a better image from Nick Hague at File:The launch of the SpaceX Starship 6 rocket seen from the space station (iss072e220043).jpg specifically mentions the image is of the Booster landing, and shadows cast from the engine exhaust seem to indicate it landed much closer to shore than I thought. Looks like very, very roughly 25°59'N 97°05'W. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given the time from the camera is correct, that image was taken before the booster ended its boostback burn, so it could not already have caused this plume.

The shadows and lighting on the plume indicate the long white contrail is from Starship passing through the upper troposphere/tropopause.

This also lines up with the 3d impression of a stereoscopic pair of iss072e220043.jpg and Starship IFT-6 ISS.jpg, which was taken just after.

And given that the booster didn't cause a contrail on reentry [4], I think the NASA provided description is wrong. HLFan (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Entirely reasonable, though do keep in mind I often find the EXIF times on ISS photographs to be incorrect. For now, until more authoritative information is available, I've used the two links you've provided, but I've simplified the coordinates. Such a low-resolution image doesn't have enough information for more than degrees and minutes. Do you think those image descriptions should be updated? — Huntster (t @ c) 23:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

For a different reason I've been looking through the images from the ISS and stumbled across the bracket 220159 - 220161, which shows the booster splashdown site lining up with the GOES image. I've already put the merged HDR up at File:Launch of SpaceX Starship 6 rocket seen from the International Space Station (iss072e220161, cropped).jpg. This is probably the explosion, as it isn't visible on the other brackets, but I don't think this can be confirmed. HLFan (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Appearing in multiple images would rule out a cosmic ray strike, though hot pixel cluster wouldn't be. Very cool find! — Huntster (t @ c) 15:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Kurpark Bad Ischl

Hallo HLFan, du hattest bei Kurpark (Q122911090) die englischsprachigen Bezeichnungen gelöscht. Aus meiner Sicht ist der "Kurpark" ein Eigenname und sollte daher auch in Englisch gültig sein. Alternativ könnte man es übersetzen, aber einfach löschen macht m.E. keinen Sinn?! Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ja, hatte die Sprachanzeigenauswahl falsch in Erinnerung, hab jetzt den Eigennamen ohne "Bad Ischl" dran wieder eingefügt. HLFan (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Gut, danke. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)