Talk:Falcon 9/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

EELV

The article states that the Falcon 9 is an EELV, or Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, but surely this is not the case, seeing as it is re-usable, and therefore not expendable. --GW_Simulations 19:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe SpaceX has called it a EELV Class vehicle meaning that it has the same lift capability as the EELV family. The article may need clarified a bit. --StuffOfInterest 19:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Richard (April 29, 2010): I think only the dragon spacecraft is reusable.

No, The first stage booster is intended to be reusable as well. Second stage won't be reusable, from what I read on SpaceX's site. Christian Science Monitor first launch scheduled as 5-28 or 5-29. NASA site lists it as 5-27. SpaceX site doesn't show latest launch date. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BFTS

It would be nice to get some information on the "BFTS" ("Big Falcon Test Stand", my definition, I know there are several others for the "F") into the article. With testing for the Falcon 9 due to start this summer[1], the BFTS should be getting some attention. There were a few good pictures of the stand released on 2005[2], but I haven't seen anything lately. Does anyone have any info that could be used to help out in a "testing" section for the Falcon 9? --StuffOfInterest 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Falcon 9 Heavy

The description of the Falcon 9 - S9 says "Based on the Falcon 9 - S5, it will add an additional two nine-engine boosters". So it should have 4 boosters. However, the picture in the box ony shows 2 boosters. Is the picture wrong or do I misunderstand something? Vinnivince 22:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The 9-Heavy looks like it will follow the plan laid out by the Delta IV and Atlas V: the common core will be replicated in two boosters. The text to which you refer should be changed: rather than adding two 5-engine boosters, the Heavy will have two 9-engine boosters. SpaceX says, "It consists of a standard Falcon 9 with two additional Falcon 9 first stages acting as liquid strap-on boosters." http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php All the mentions in the Wikipedia article of a "Falcon 9 - S5" may now be obsolete anyway. If you feel like it, please update the article based on what SpaceX says today makes sense in general! (Sdsds - Talk) 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have any details of the expected Falcon 9 Heavy operation been released? For instance, is it designed for fuel transfer from the boosters to the first stage, allowing the first stage to run at full thrust from the start, or is the first stage initially operated at reduced thrust (as with the Delta IV heavy)? Have they given any indication of burn times for the boosters and first stage? 58.147.58.179 (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not been able to locate any such detailed design description for the heavy. Still looking. Moreover, based on the sources I have been able to find (which are cited in the article), it appears that the Falcon 9 heavy may be little more than a concept based on early paper studies; that is to say, it is not clear, for purposes of Wikipedia that the F9 heavy is really "in development." Perhaps it is more correct to say F9 heavy is a concept space vehicle that would, conceivably, go into development mode only after the Falcon 9 initial lauch(es) are successful and a customer is found for the higher mass rocket. N2e (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reuse of the second stage

Is there any solid source for the reuse of the second stage of the Falcon 9? If its based on Falcon 1 technology, only the first stage would be reusable (as it does not need any aerodynamic heat shields, just parachutes), while the second stage would be traveling to fast for a reentry without serious protection. If have found no SpaceX document saying that the second stage is reuseable. --Urwumpe (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know. I think I've heard of it, but maybe I just read it here in the article. I also doubt that it would work considering the reentry. ColdCase (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that the "Falcon Program Overview" section of the Falcon 1 Payload User’s Guide claims that all stages of the Falcon 9 will be reusable. I doubt just hearing that some document makes a claim is citable, though. (sdsds - talk) 21:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not a reliable source, but I've heard that statement in multiple articles, so while I can't verify it enough to put a ref on wikipedia, I know that it is a stated goal of Falcon 9. It's part of the design of the program to save money both in reusability and raw savings from a larger single-launch payload as the rockets get bigger. aremisasling (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's now already sited in the article using another source. But, here is a press release from spaceX that states "...all stages are designed for reuse." http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=18 I don't know if this is possible or not, so I'm not changing the article. --Lightenoughtotravel (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to clarify the article to reflect that this is merely a SpaceX ambition -- a hoped for outcome after many incremental design changes over many launches -- not a "design" that exists for the intial launches of either Falcon 1 nor Falcon 9, with a citation and Musk quotation added to the article. A key graf from the early-2009 nasaspaceflight.com article where Elon Musk spoke about this is "By flight six we think it’s highly likely we’ll recover the first stage, and when we get it back we’ll see what survived through re-entry, and what got fried, and carry on with the process. ... That’s just to make the first stage reusable, it’ll be even harder with the second stage – which has got to have a full heatshield, it’ll have to have deorbit propulsion and communication." N2e (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This video (http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=0) shows how SpaceX plans on reusing the second stage. Vary cool if I may say. Wingtipvortex (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Description of first-stage reuse needed

There seems to be no detail in the article on the design or process for reuse on the first stage. Does anyone have a source on this? If we can find a source, perhaps a subsection describing this would be in order.N2e (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Four years on, there is much more information here: SpaceX reusable rocket launching system. In addition, as noted in the related F9 Talk page section dated 25 Mar 2013 (below), SpaceX is planning on attempting post-mission tests on control, reentry and rocket-powered descent and simulated landings (over open ocean) of the already used F9 first stages as early as mid-2013. (This info started becoming public in late 2011 with several announcements, and SpaceX began experimental test vehicle landings in 2012 with the Grasshopper (rocket) Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Man-rated

Even though the vehicle has not yet been produced or been man-rated, the info box description refers to the launchers intended function rather than to its current state. The explicit, well-cited fact that SpaceX is developing the Dragon manned spacecraft for the Falcon 9 heavy is more than adequate proof of its man-rated function without the need for additional citations in the info box, so the "citation needed" tag should be removed. --Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Price

The price for Falcon 9 Heavy is given as: "90 to LEO; 55 to 90 (according to Satellite Mass) to GEO". This doesn't seem right. Why can a payload be boosted to GEO for 55M, but it costs 90M to boost to LEO? 206.15.73.55 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Aragorn

I calculate the cost to be $3,039 per kilogram ($90,000,000 / 29610kg), but the article says $3,273 per kilogram. What's the source for these numbers? 76.126.222.164 (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Very thorough description of final pre-flight prep for Falcon 9 flight no. 1, between late-Jan and early-March 2010

There is a very thorough description of final pre-flight prep for Falcon 9 flight no. 1, between now and early-March 2010, in a Spaceglight Now article here.N2e (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A brief quote on the schedule:

The static test firing [planned for Feb 2010] will include officials from the Air Force-controlled Eastern Range and the SpaceX launch team for a full-up mission rehearsal.

"We're going to act like that's launch day, and there we get the cadence between the two groups," [SpaceX's vice president of launch operations, Tim] Buzza said.

After the engine test, which is expected to last a few seconds, SpaceX will move the rocket back to the hangar for the final installation of the the vehicle's self-destruct system that would terminate the flight if problems developed during launch.

When the Falcon 9 reaches the pad again, some time no earlier than the first week of March, it will be ready for flight. Liftoff is currently set for around March 8 during a four-hour launch window that opens at 11 a.m. EST.

Company leaders stress the launch date is preliminary and is subject to change, saying liftoff could occur between March and May.

Final pre-flight press, the night before the launch

This post by Clark Lindsey has links to seven articles that came out today following the SpaceX press conference this morning, all are from durably-archived media and thus suitable for verifiably sourcing relevant assertions that may be added to the article in the coming days. (Washington Post, Orlando Sentinel, Popular Mechanics, Reuters, Space.com, MSNBC Cosmic Log, etc.) N2e (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Development cost

Does anyone have a reference for the development cost of the Falcon 9? I know a lot of that work was done before SpaceX received its Cots contract. I'm guessing it was around one-hundredth of the $40 Billion estimated for the Ares I. EntrenchedBcrat (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

SpaceX got 100 million dollars from elon musk, and additional 200 Million dollars from NASA and Air Force. makes up to now 300 million dollars. but the developement is finished yet. until they reach exactla the orbit, and until they once brought up a real payload (and not only a shape) one flight cost now about 90 million dollars and several will be nessesary to test the rocket. in the end i guess the developement will cost about 1.5 billion dollar. but don't forget that the ares I had to be very safe (loss of crew 1:2000), but nobody knows how safe falcon9 is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.239.55.11 (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC) en

Space-X has not released a number for the development cost. Encyclopedia astronautica lists the development cost as $378 million ([www.astronautix.com/lvs/falcon9.htm], but doesn't quote a source. It will also depend on whether you count the cost of the Merlin-1C engine development or not, as well as whether you count the Dragon cost. Lulu71339 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Future launches

SpaceX is apparently marketing this to launch the next generation of Iridium communications satellites as well. [3]. Iridium did get it's backing that was mentioned in the article, and has selected a company to manufacture the satellites. That happend in late May. It would be a significant order if SpaceX got the launch deal. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Significant to the tune of $492 Million. --71.214.226.227 (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Data discrepancy

I've found that there's a bit of a discrepancy between the data on the infobox and in the table, as well as the info in both and the SpaceX website (specifically these pages: http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php , http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9UsersGuide_2009.pdf ). Can anyone who knows a bit more about this look over it? Thanks KimiNewt (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Launcher Versions Section and Infobox Cleanup

Could we get rid of this section. It is just repeating information that's already in the sidebox.71.38.174.81 (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative view. As I understand it, infoboxes (sideboxes) ought to merely summarize/highlight the key information that is already contained in , and verifiably sourced in, the main body of the article. So I see two things here: 1) it is not clear that all of the assertions in the article section are sourced, or rather, which claims tie to which source as of what date. 2) it is not clear that all of the low-level detail in the sidebar is helpful to the article (and also not clear where the Falcon 9 Heavy sidebar stuff ends...) -- maybe that should be trimmed back a bit. I'll start some work on these. N2e (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding an infobox cleanup tag. Don't know that it says any more than already said above, but it might bring some infobox experts to the page to help out. N2e (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

first stage recovery

SpaceX says now, that it was not a problem with the parachute. the problem is that de first stage isn't strong enough. so the first stage broke into pieces bevore it came back into the athmosphere. this is a very important point, because if they can't save the first stage, it will make the rocket much more expensive (the second stage cost about 10 million dollars. they wanted to use the first stage several times. the first stage is 5 times heavier and has ot 9 engines, so it will cost at least 50 million dollars plus per rocket, so the new price would be 150+ millions and not 100+ million dollars) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.239.55.11 (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Need to know where this information is coming from before this can be changed. All reports I have come across say the parachute simply failed to deploy. Breakup upon re-entry can also potentially be resolved, so no conclusions should be jumped to until a sited source can be confirmed that there is no way to recover the first stage. (Signing comment by User:Mafiamoe, 2010-11-24T08:30:39)

FYI, on the second flight, they did maintain telemetry lock on the first stage, including confirmation that at least the recovery system reached the ocean intact. However, the stage had sunk by the time the recovery boat arrived at the broadcast location. If ever salvaged, there is apparently a "black-box" that could be recovered. --IanOsgood (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

engine-out capability?

The Falcon 5 article mentions that that rocket was designed with engine out capability, is the Falcon 9 also so designed? In either case, it would be good to mention it in the article. 64.229.101.17 (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I don't have the source handy but I believe it is explicitly designed for multiple-engine out capability, as long as the engine goes out after the launch release. (An engine out in the first three seconds, while the launch hold down clamps are still in place, would result in a shutdown and safe mission abort while still on the ground.) And yes, it should be in the article--just as soon as someone can do so with a source.

On another point, it is worth noting that the F9 second-stage Mvac engine has restart capability, and this was used quite successfully in the Dragon C1 flight, after the release of the Dragon capsule payload, in LEO, to put the second-stage into an orbit with an 11,000 km apogee. N2e (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Added to a new "Reliability" section. --IanOsgood (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Pre-flight processing

Article seems to lack a general description of what is intended to happen, in routine trouble-free operation, to a Falcon 9 before launch - something along the lines (with added timetable in days) of :

 Built, Hawthorne
 By road to McGregor
 By road to hangar at Canaveral
 Assemble vehicle horizontally onto strongback
 Roll out (road/rails?)
 Raise to vertical
 Static fire
 Fill
 [Insert Crew]
 Launch

I make no pretence that the above is right; it merely illustrates what I mean. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing for the detailed specifications in the table(s)

I just updated a lot of the information in the Falcon 9 Heavy specification table in the main body of the article. There was so much wrong/out-of-date, that I propose we will need to move toward individual sourcing of these technical claims, not just a single source at the bottom of the table. I've already done so in the F9H column of the table, but the F9 column still needs attention.

The single-source-at-the-bottom might work for a single table from a scholarly paper on some relatively static subject—but for a bunch of technical specs, many taken from SpaceX sources that are rather dynamic over time, and for specs added to the table by various WP editors who often don't bother to update the accessdate in the source at the bottom of the table, my claim is that approach is not working for this article. (NOTE: there is another discussion in an earlier section of this Talk page on redundancy between the table and the sidebar; please take a look at that, and comment there too.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted a couple of the unsourced claims temporarily, pending a source citation to support the claims. There is still many more assertions in the table that need sources to avoid deletion. N2e (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrobotic Technology

This just out: Astrobotic Technology Announces Lunar Mission on SpaceX Falcon 9, 6 Feb 2011; they claim the contract is signed and launch could be 2013. We should probably wait for a reliable secondary source before adding it to the launch manifest. N2e (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Here you go: http://news.discovery.com/space/moon-rocket-private-space-110207.html -Arb. (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And I just read this morning the Aviation Week article here: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/02/08/01.xml&headline=SpaceX%20Lands%20Contract%20To%20Fly%20To%20Moon I have added a line to the future launch table to reflect this, now, scheduled launch. Pricing was not announced. N2e (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Time to split article?

With today's press conference about the Falcon Heavy I wonder if it is time to split this article into separate Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy articles? The two rockets will use some common components but the specificaitons are very divergent. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No question. Falcon Heavy will deserve an article of it's own. Don't have time to do it right now.

But let's be sure to retain the old "Falcon 9 Heavy" historical data as well. N2e (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done already. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Falcon 9 Heavy was scrapped (like Falcon 5 was scrapped in the past), in favor of the higher and more capable Falcon Heavy. I think we should keep the old data/statistics for Falcon 9 Heavy in one of the articles Falcon 9 (as abandoned modification), Falcon Heavy (as abandoned predecessor design), SpaceX (as one of the abandoned designs) - or combine Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 Heavy in a single article about abandoned SpaceX designs. Alinor (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Falcon 9 Heavy and Falcon Heavy are the same rocket, the design is slightly modified and renamed. Falcon 5 was a completely different design that was abandoned. I see no reason to have any Falcon Heavy or Falcon 9 Heavy information in the Falcon 9 article. Falcon Heavy article has a notation that it used to be called Falcon 9 Heavy. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if they are "the same rocket" the specs of the F9H need to be mentioned, not only the name. And I wouldn't call a ~20% higher and ~66% more capable design "the same rocket". I don't think it's a coincidence that SpaceX changed it name.

(a note - the F9H webpage had already disappeared from SpaceX website) Alinor (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the F9H would best be described as part of the Falcon Heavy article. The FH is the matured version of the F9H. They really are the same rocket, F9H was just the developmental placeholder while the specifications were worked out. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I support the emerging consensus. The F9H historical info and specs should not be lost, as Alinor has pointed out. And I would be okay with the F9H info going into the FH article, as StuffOfInterest suggests. N2e (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable launch dates for COTS 2 and 3

At the moment, the reliability of the launch information on the COTS 2 and COTS 3 missions is very questionable. At the moment, there are no planned launches on the Kennedy Space Center manifest for the Falcon 9 during this fall. That might change, but at the moment, there is a total lack of reliable sources that would indicate an 8 October launch. Furthermore, information about combining the two COTS missions is only speculative at this time, since there has been no decision as to whether that will happen. This affects whether or not OG2 launches with COTS 2 or is its own launch. I believe all these issues will be cleared shortly, when NASA or SpaceX publish a press release giving dates and missions. Hopefully sooner than later.--Abebenjoe (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

According to a recent article at Aviation Week, http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/07/20/02.xml&headline=SpaceX%20Station%20Cargo%20Mission%20Planned, Nasa and Spacex "officials reached agreement on planning dates of Nov. 30 for the launch and Dec. 7 for the rendezvous and berthing of the Dragon cargo spacecraft with the station during a July 15 meeting." The article states this would be a combined COTS 2 and 3, but with the details of the two small satellites (OG2) to be worked out. These are planning dates however.

The Astrobotic Moon launch has been removed from the SpaceX manifest

There remains a claim in the article, based on an Aviation Week story from Feb 2011, that Astrobotic has reserved a SpaceX Falcon 9 for a "no earlier than 2013" unmanned Moon mission. However, I note that the latest update by SpaceX to the launch manifest no longer shows this mission. Does anyone know why? Ought we remove it from the WP article? N2e (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

History of the (former) "Falcon 9 Heavy" has been lost

When the Falcon Heavy was announced, and an FH article created, there was discussion here that we should not lose the history of the formerly announced Falcon 9 Heavy, a rocket with some 20 to 30% less capability than the Falcon Heavy. In the event, the history of the original F9H appears to be lost (in Wikipedia), and does not appear in either article. N2e (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The old reference: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/spacex-hopes-to-supply-iss-with-new-falcon-9-heavy-launcher-201518/

70.24.251.208 (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

SpaceX new Reusable Falcon 9 launch vehicle

SpaceX is developing the first fully reusable rocket. This is a full-blown reusable Falcon 9 RLV, both stages, apparently much more than the SpaceX "Grasshopper" empty first-stage tank and single Merlin 1D test vehicle that will be used in Texas for testing, per paperwork filed with the FAA and mentioned at Talk:SpaceX#SpaceX_new_VTVL_suborbital_rocket:_Grasshopper.

Coverage of the new project has appeared in a number of media outlets, which will provide decent sources for any improvements to the article:

• MSNBC
• Washington Post

“I wasn’t sure it could be solved, for a while, but then I think just relatively recently — probably in the last 12 months or so — I’ve come to the conclusion that it can be solved and I think SpaceX is going to try to do it,” Musk said. “Now, we could fail — I’m not saying we are certain of success here — but we are going to try to do it. And we have a design that on paper — doing the calculations, doing the simulations — it does work,” he added. “Now we need to make sure that those simulations and reality agree, because generally when they don’t reality wins.”

on costs:

Musk said a Falcon 9 costs about $50 million to $60 million but the cost of fuel and oxygen for a launch is only about $200,000. “So obviously if we can reuse the rocket, say a thousand times, then that would make the capital cost of the rocket per launch only about $50,000,” he said. Musk did not detail a timeline or cost for development. “If it does work it’ll be pretty huge,” he said.

• Bloomberg
• Agence France Press
• Florida Today (a newspaper with a substantive "space" desk; so might be considered part of the "space press")
• SpaceX Unveils Plan for World's First Fully Reusable Rocket, Space.com

Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Added brief placeholder paragraph about above announcement. I hope it gets expanded later with correct terminology and potential great impact on the industry, perhaps with some number calculated by reputable experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.255.37 (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a well-sourced article on the full-size (first stage F9) test vehicle VTVL rocket now: Grasshopper (rocket) -- Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Rocket's Name

I know we have heard speculation that the rocket was named after the Millenium Falcon (Star Wars), but were unable to find a reliable source. Just found it on the COTS-2 Press Kit. Page 31. http://www.spacex.com/downloads/COTS-2-Press-Kit-5-14-12.pdf Enjoy! Wingtipvortex (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Block 2

Will Falcon 9 block 2 never been flown? --78.94.4.55 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's starting to look that way. As far as I can tell the Block 2 has been superseded by the slightly more expensive but much more capable v1.1. Various sources claim that the Falcon 9 will switch to Merlin 1D engines starting on flight 6 (the block 2 was to have Merlin 1C engines), and Elon Musk recently stated in an interview that flight 5 would be the last v1.0 flight. However, we don't actually know if they're still using the Block 1 design, or if they already switched to the Block 2. So for all we know Block 2 has already flown:P. No sources either way. If anyone gets a chance to ask a question at a press conference, please ask them to clarify this. I doubt they'd be reluctant. — Gopher65_talk 15:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The specs on the Falcon 9 webpage match the block 2 specs, it would seem the current Falcon 9 is the block 2 TMV943 (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

They updated those specs right when they announced the block 2, when they still had block 1s working their way through the production queue. So we don't actually know if any block 2s were produced, or if they were converted to v1.1s before production on them started. — Gopher65_talk 14:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The specs on the SpaceX website seems to match the "non-existent" block 2 because all their new customers were supposed to be flying block 2. When the block 2 design was replaced with the more powerful v1.1 design, they did not upgrade their webpage. Also it seems that some of the specifications quoted for block 1 are actually not the actual block 1 specifications but planned specifications for block 2, so actual pefrormance of current block 1 may be worse than stated. So maybe the block 2 should be removed from the version list?--Hkultala (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it even worth calling it "block 1" anymore? TMV943 (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't block 1 now be called v1.0 (flight 1-5)?--Craigboy (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Some info on Falcon 9 v1.1 - Euroconsult: Five Minutes With SpaceX--Craigboy (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the new image! However, it makes more sense to render the 1.0 version with Dragon on top, since that will be the only payload that version will be used for. --IanOsgood (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I know, the reason why I went with the fairing was mainly because it was easier to draw.--Craigboy (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This dubious blog post seems to be the only "source" for the octagonal arrangement, other than the Iridium brochure, which is obviously an artist's rendition and shows 7 engines. If you have another source that isn't a user-submitted blog for this info, please cite it. In the meantime, I'm removing your drawings from the article as they appear to be OR. Arthree (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The circular engine arrangement on the V1.1 (not the block 2, which still had the tictactoe arrangement, as SpaceX called it) has been mentioned by SpaceX directly. Their stated reason for the change is that the outer engines in the TTT arrangement were "carrying" the inner engines to some extent, decreasing the total payload mass. They said something like it's a live and learn moment. I have to go to work right now (then school after work, and same tomorrow) or I'd find a source myself, but in the future there is this thing called Google. Before you remove content, use it. If this hasn't been sourced by the time I have a day off, I'll source it. For now, I'll just revert your changes. — Gopher65_talk 13:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but claiming that I haven't done anything doesn't count as a source. All I can find is 1 offhand reference with no supporting information at the bottom of an article on an Aviation Week blog plus another blog post which quotes the first blogger. There is also an artist's rendition in an Iridium brochure which is obviously innacurate as it only shows 7 engines, but has nonetheless resulted in 50+ pages of wild speculation on the nasaspaceflight.com forums. I have not been able to find the actual Euroconsult recording where Gwynne apparently confirms this, but the "transcript" in the Aviation Week blog appears to be Gwynne answering a somewhat generic question about why a circular arrangement is good, and not specifically confirming that there is a different engine arrangement. In any case, we, as Wikipedians, should be referencing actual sources, not doing original research and making fancy drawings from our imagination and putting it into an article as though it's well-sourced information. If you find some other source than the blog posts on Aviation Week, great, but even if we can come to a consensus that that blog is good enough to use as a source, it still does not count as a source for someone's personal drawings. Arthree (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Amy Svitak is not a "user", she is a writer for Aviation Week, you can read more about her here. Aviation Week has posted another article re-iterating the octagonal configuration claim. There is only one way to form an octagon with nine engines. No information has since been posted that states the engines are not in an octagonal configuration.--Craigboy (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I know who Amy Svitak is, but her claim that there is an octagonal configuration is still not verification for the accuracy of your drawings, which are - by any standard - original research.

Furthermore, the claim is not supported by a source of hers and has not been vetted or confirmed anywhere other than her article. This quote, in particular, is interesting because it does not correlate to the transcript of that interview:

"Another change, she says, involves the rocket's nine Merlin 1D engines, which will be positioned in an octagonal configuration, rather than the “tic-tac-toe” placement on the current Falcon 9."

According to the interview transcript, it was Amy who claimed there was an octagonal arrangement:

"AWST: Why the octagonal arrangement on the engines on the upgrade?"

Nowhere in that interview does Gwynne confirm this arrangement; even her answer is vague and refers more to why an octagonal arrangement is good, not whether it is going to be on the F9 v1.1. All of this, combined with the glaring lack of confirmation from anywhere else, makes the quote in the AWST article dubious. Arthree (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

We have a claim that makes sense, is from an interview with the CEO of SpaceX and has been re-reported several times from a reliable source. If you still doubt it than it seems like it's your responsibility to find a source that states that the F9 v1.1 does not have an octagonal engine configuration.--Craigboy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have is not with the likelyhood of truth, but the lack of any source. The entirety of your source is 1 implied claim by Amy Svitak which has not been confirmed - anywhere - by any SpaceX representative. Even "official" sources do not make the claim, such as NLS and SpaceX brochures. Whatever the reason for this, Wikipedia should be properly sourced, and your drawings and the claims in this article are not. Whether you, I, and a thousand other people think the engine arrangement is likely to change is beside the point -- this is a Wikipedia article, not a blog for us to speculate on. Arthree (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

While I think it is unreasonable to demand an "official confirmation" of this information, it seems reasonable that there should be a "second source" of information to confirm what has been suggested here. Amy Svitak may have some "inside source" in the form of a SpaceX engineer or somebody else that she seems reliable enough to be producing this kind of information and to have it published in her publication. I also think it seems reasonable to count Aviation Week as a "reliable source" for this kind of information as well as its editorial policies prevent raw speculation and making up stats... so I do think this is properly a source. Still, since it seems like Aviation Week is going out on a limb here, it would be nice if there was at least one other significant publication or reliable secondary source that could somehow confirm this information independently. Given the number of media outlets for news about the aerospace industry and how many people are covering stories about SpaceX, somebody else should be talking about this "Falcon 9 v 1.1" with details independent of Aviation Week. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

SpaceFlightNow has confirmed that there is a new engine configuration. "Each flight will employ a new version of the Falcon 9 launcher with more powerful Merlin 1D engines, stretched fuel tanks, a payload fairing, and a new first stage engine configuration."--Craigboy (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The FAA has confirmed the new engine configuration "SpaceX is currently upgrading the Falcon 9; the new version will feature a longer first stage, new higher thrust engines (the Merlin 1D instead of the Merlin 1C), and an octagonal arrangement of engines on the first stage (instead of a “tic-tac-toe” pattern) to relieve loads on the vehicle during launch."--Craigboy (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

More info "Garrett Reisman, former NASA astronaut turned Program Manager at SpaceX, talked about Falcon 1.1, which (in his own words) is in fact more like a Falcon 2.0, with its 30% longer tanks, 50% higher thrust, 3-string avionics compared to single-string in the Falcon 1.0 and different engine arrangement (eight in a circle rather than the square configuration of Falcon 1.0). To top that, the Falcon production line has been completely redone to scale-up from 4 rockets a year to 20."--Craigboy (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Image of Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage being fired--Craigboy (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

ISS re-supply

The payload of 500kg or 550kg to the ISS is only 15% of what is planed for max payload to the ISS. Is this because the Falcon 9 v1.0 (block 1) is not capable to lift a full Dragon? The upgrade from 8500-9000 kg to 13,150 kg for the Falcon 9 v1.1 is changing this, but the block 1 looks of not being able to fulfill the needs.--Stone (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've heard some speculation like that but I personally don't believe it (or at least its no where as severe as being claimed here).--Craigboy (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That is my understanding, yes. The block 1 can juuuuuuust lift a standard issue ISS Dragon. The actual payload is almost nothing. The main benefit from the first 2 resupply missions (plus the test that docked) is to bring stuff back, a capacity that none of the other cargo launchers have. The cancelled block 2 would have been able to take up a moderate amount of payload, while the now in production v1.1 will be able to take up... what, ten times as much actual payload (ie, not including the Dragon itself) as the block 1? Somewhere in that ballpark, anyway. The block 1 really isn't up to the task of station resupply. — Gopher65_talk 00:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope the 9 v1.1 works, if not the thing is basically useless.--Stone (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I don't think this is the case. The Dragon weighs 4200kg alone, there's plenty of mass the Falcon 9 v1.0 can take up in addition to that but I think it's more an issue of room. Not everything they send up is concrete blocks. The 500kg payload from COTS looked like a basically fully loaded Dragon in terms of volume. There was more room but the astronauts need that to safely move about. So I don't think v1.1 will change much of that but it will be able to carry more unpressurized cargo (which doesn't look like it will be utilized as part of CRS) and/or secondary payload (more CubeSats) TMV943 (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There's some unpressurized cargo scheduled to go up in the trunk on SpX-3 and SpX-4.--Craigboy (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to have a quote for the there's plenty of mass the Falcon 9 v1.0'--Stone (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This would mean that they need 40 flights for the price of 12 to deliver the cargo quota they have to deliver to ISS .20000kg set by NASA for 12 flights is 1600kg for each flight. No chance that the density of cargo is that low.--Stone (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

1 cubic metre of water (a pittance, really) is 1 metric tonne, by definition. Food isn't that much less dense, even when you consider packaging. They could easily get several tonnes of cargo inside the Dragon... unless it is voluminous things like experiments. I can imagine a few hundred kilos of plant an mineral growth experiments taking up an entire Dragon. — Gopher65_talk 03:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I was looking at this source (PDF), even though it's a bit old. It says: "Typical maximum payloads in the Falcon 9 class are 6,800 kg (15,000 lb) in mass. For payloads greater in mass than these values, contact SpaceX." Given the age of the source, we can safely assume they're talking about the pre-block-1 design that was never realized (it lists the max Falcon 9 payload as 12,500 kg (for a 185 km orbit), and says that it will cost 36 million and be ready to go in 2008, hehe). So even though they thought the first iteration of the Falcon 9 would be more powerful than it was, they still didn't think it would be taking up much more than 7 tonnes. That got me to thinking which led to some wild speculation: in reality the first iteration of the Falcon 9 can only carry ~8.5 to 9 tonnes, max weight. Assuming that the standard safe carry mass ratio is still the same as what is listed above, a block one would only be carrying 4.9 tonnes to a 185 km orbit on a standard mission (dunno what the inclination of that orbit is suppose to be, but isn't the ISS at like 60 degrees or something silly like that?). A Dragon's dry mass without fuel, trunk, solar panels or cargo is 4.2 tonnes. That only leaves 700 kilos of mass, even if you don't count the Dragon's fuel and accessories.

Of course, I just made some huge assumptions above. For instance, I don't understand why there is such a huge difference between the theoretical max payload and the practical payload mass. Without that understanding it's impossible to say for sure what the practical payload mass of the block 1 is. Regardless, all of the sources say that the Dragon itself is capable of carrying 6 tonnes, if you stick it on a powerful enough launcher. So the piddly payloads we've seen so far aren't due to limitations in the Dragon itself. — Gopher65_talk 15:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The CRS SpX-1 press kit says Dragon can carry 3,310 kilograms.--Craigboy (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody questioned that the Dragon is capable to carry 3,310 kilograms if you mount it to a Falcon Heavy I would think of even a larger payload, but the point is: Why do they only take 500kg when 3,310kg are possible.--Stone (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

404 Not Found is a good answer for the "CRS SpX-1 press kit" on the spacex website.--Stone (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Works fine for me. From the press kit it states "Total Cargo Up Mass 882 pounds (400 kilograms), Total Mass w/Packaging 1995 pounds (905 kilograms)" However their numbers seem out as the total unpackaged mass is more than 400 Kg...but the point is the quoted payloads are only useful mass, not total mass. There is also the issue of the secondary payload on the second stage (is that confirmed btw?) which will have an associated payload mass penalty anyway. So all in all I think it will turn out that the mass up isn't that far off the maximum capable in this mission. ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The secondary payload is confirmed but it's not something NASA would let fly if it interfered with the payload Dragon needs to deliver.--Craigboy (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

At the SpaceX CRS-1/Dragon Pre-Launch Briefing at minute 14 it is stated that the density is low. Within the 11 flights they will try to get 60 metric tons up and down to the ISS. Now they have 0.5t up and 1t down leaving 58.5t for 11 fligts 5318kg each with 3000kg down and 6000kg up this means that they have to go to 59% loading which is quite good. I personally will believe that after the first loaded flight.--Stone (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The CRS-2 will only bring 600kg to the ISS so this is another low density, low weight ISS resuply. The claimed performance of the Falcon 9 v1.0 Dragon combination will never be demonstrated. I hope the Falcon 9 v1.1 shows more than that.--Stone (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Partial success of Flight 4

While the Dragon reached its target orbit (in spite of what looks to be the explosion (or at least shutdown) of one of the first stage engines early on in the launch!), the secondary payload failed to reach orbit due to the failure of the second stage to reignite after deploying the Dragon. Due to the failure of one of the payloads to reach its target orbit, the mission constitutes only a partial success. Still, I'm happy that the engine out capability of the Falcon 9 was successfully demonstrated:D! — Gopher65_talk 15:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that anomaly being reported in a video was what brought me to this page, interesting feature. EdwardLane (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Clicking through to the reference article and then following the news article source for the Orbcomm-G2 failure ends up at a Facebook post with a single line of text and no supporting data or information. I'd call that speculative at best. Please wait for a press release or confirmed news source before stating there was a payload failure. It's quite possible that the information is either wrong or that the secondary payload insertion hasn't happened yet. — Goofball222 (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

All is not lost until either SpaceX/Orbcomm give up, or the combined second stage and Orbcomm satellite reenter the atmosphere due to orbital decay. It can be safely assumed that SpaceX is trying to troubleshoot the problem, in the hope of trying the orbit adjustment again. It would certainly explain their silence on the subject... --Rpapo (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this failure to boost the Orbcomm satellite to its proper orbit was a safety feature, required for the ISS rendezvous. See http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/08/14297705-spacex-launch-problems-revealed-dragons-ok-but-satellite-goes-awry for further details. --Rpapo (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What kind of precedence is there for similar shuttle missions? For example, is STS-51-F considered a success or failure? The Orbcomm satellite was deployed successfully and it seems to be producing reliable telemetry, but it wasn't put into an optimal orbit or even the orbit it was intended to be in. It also seems as though the reason for the current orbital parameters is more political and not technical... so far as it violated "mission rules" to even attempt an alternate trajectory. Since this Orbcomm satellite was supposed to be a test flight anyway, can Orbcomm be able to meet most of their mission goals even in this current orbit? I think it is premature to declare this even a "partial failure"... at least until Orbcomm declares it to be such. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Both payloads reached orbit. Primary payload is nominal. Only the secondary payload missed the intended orbit (but may still achieve the mission objectives). One of the multiple engines failed. The rocked is designed to withstand such failures - that's part of its redundancy arrangements. The rocket performed as designed - corrected the burns to compensate for the failed engine. Do we have a consistency for marking all satellites reaching wrong orbit as "partial failure"? Even the secondary payloads? And finally, is it a "partial success" or "partial failure"?

I would call the flight successful, but of course it's better to have some source for that (if there was only one customer we could refer to him, but in this case maybe the most authoritative assessment is from SpaceX... but they are not impartial...) - do we have a source how NASA is classifying the launch? Do they say "we're satisfied the COTS/CRS program brought a new launcher with 4 successes in a row" or "ISS mission is fine, but the launch overall is partial failure/success"? Jeffsapko (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Part of the flight was not successful. That is, by definition, a partial failure. --W. D. Graham 02:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Per NASA Policy Document NPD 8610.7D, , "A 'successful flight' is a flight which met the primary mission requirements," thus, this mission would be classified as a successful flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.45.132.72 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The first stage on the first Falcon 9 v1.1 flight will attempt a "test" practice landing over the ocean surface

More info on additional reusable Falcon 9 test vehicle(s) here: Spacex May try to "land / recover" the first stage of it next Falcon 9 v1.1 launch this summer, NextBigFuture, 23 Mar 2013. It appears that SpaceX will be using the F9 first stages, after separation of the second stage and completion of the paid-for launch "missions" hereafter, as a test vehicle to practice attitude control and re-entry of the stage to complete rocket-powered controlled descent and "practice landing". Includes these bits:

• "Falcon 9 v1.1 qualification tank is on a structural stand in Texas and will be rebuilt as the next Grasshopper (reusable test rocket), with flight-like landing legs
• "The first Falcon 9 v1.1 vehicle ships from Hawthorne to Texas in late March
• "After separation during its first launch, the 1.1 first stage will flip around using cold gas thrusters, and relight its engine to reenter more slowly. Then it will try to "land" on the ocean as practice for eventually landing back near the pad."

Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, they're progressing far more quickly with the next step after the grasshopper than I'd have thought! I'd be a little bit worried if I were MDA though. Experimental rockets are always a bit more dangerous for the customer:). — Gopher65_talk 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

First F9 launch to geosynchronous orbit

The first Falcon 9 launch to place a satellite into geosynchronous orbit was announced today. Scheduled for first quarter of 2013, it is an SES communications satellite. I have made an initial update to the article. N2e (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Status: still on, but now scheduled for the fall of 2013. N2e (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

engine layout

I feel like we should get rid of the image. There's enough to support that the layout will change with v1.1 but I haven't seen anything that shows it will look like the depiction in the image. If anything, comments made by Shotwell suggest the layout will be more spread out, with the other 8 engines sitting on the edge like the corner ones do in v1.0 TMV943 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

For v1.0, the four engines that sit on the edge require fairings. If you had eight engines on the edge than all eight would need similar fairings. None of the Falcon 9 v1.1 pictures that have been leaked show such fairings.--Craigboy (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall where, but SpaceX recently confirmed an octagonal/circular layout. — Gopher65_talk 14:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Shotwell reconfirmed the octagonal engine configuration during the SpX CRS-2 press conference. She initially mentioned it in this interview. The FAA has also stated "SpaceX is currently upgrading the Falcon 9; the new version will feature a longer first stage, new higher thrust engines (the Merlin 1D instead of the Merlin 1C), and an octagonal arrangement of engines on the first stage (instead of a “tic-tac-toe” pattern) to relieve loads on the vehicle during launch." The "octagonal" configuration has also been re-reported by NASASpaceFlight (not affiliated with NASA but they're a credible source).--Craigboy (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't argue that the layout will become circular. But what I think it will be is a more spread out circle with a skirt fairing. What leads me to this conclusion is a comment by Shotwell where she says that having the engines on the inside means that the load, which runs along the outside, has to be carried inward but instead, having the engines along the edge makes for a more optimal design. TMV943 (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There's only been two renderings released of the Falcon 9 v1.1 and neither showed a skirt. I've uploaded them here (be sure to download them in full resolution).--Craigboy (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Engine layout is now crystal clear in SpaceX-released documents and photographs. See the "Octaweb" info in the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Info on testing of v1.1

1 June 2013 - Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage is fired for ten seconds. [4] Chris Bergin (owner of NASASpaceFlight) is stating that an abort occured.[5]

--Craigboy (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture of new engine configuration

I've been out of the loop for a while, so this may not be news to y'all. Anyway, SpaceX released this photo, which shows the new engine configuration of the Falcon 9. Cheers! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 15:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the first photo I've seen released of the new engine config with the (finished) covers on. If you want another view, with some fire from the igniters during a test run, see First test of the Falcon 9-R (reusable) ignition system, 28 April 2013. Also, for the clearest view with no covers, see the "Octaweb" info in the current instantiation of the F9 article, currently supported by citation no. 11, which has the relevant photo on a SpaceX website at the citation link. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Falcon 9 v1.1 — article organization

I think that having the Falcon 9 v1.1 model information spread across all parts of the article is not working very well right now. The v1.1 rocket is a substantially different rocket, with substantially different payload capacity, and of course has the rather unique post-mission testing being done on the first stage booster.

This is somewhat more problematic as the current version of WP:LAUNCHES has, to date, precluded a separate article for the Falcon 9 Flight 6 launch, which is notable by all WP measures, and various editors would like to see less launch vehicle and launch related information in the CASSIOPE article, which is the single article we have for it—the launch, the primary satellite, and the secondary nanosats—right now, per WP:LAUNCHES. (See Talk on CASSIOPE for more background on this.)

I'm thinking that reorganizing this article (Falcon 9) where, in some fashion, we have a Falcon 9 v1.0 (design, development and test)section and a separate Falcon 9 v1.1 (design, development and test) section. The launch history summary would probably still fit in a single section, as would the History.

I could just be bold and make the change, but I think this is a sufficiently significant change that it ought to be offered for discussion on the Talk page first. Perhaps we could settle on a rough outline here, to guide the edits and changes as material is moved around. What do others think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of separate sections, why not go one step further and split the article. Split the v1.0 stuff to Falcon 9 v1.0 (or Falcon 9 (rocket) to avoid using a slightly anachronistic name), give the 1.1 its own article at Falcon 9 v1.1 and make Falcon 9 a summary article about the Falcon 9 family, including Grasshopper, F9R, Heavy and everything else. Launch history can either stay at F9 or be merged into List of Falcon 9 launches. --W. D. Graham 10:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your idea is probably better. There is sufficient sourced info, and the new version of the rocket certainly is notable. N2e (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Per consensus, I have started this process, by creating an article for Falcon 9 v1.1. That article could now use some more eyes on it, and other editors may want to consider whether it would be appropriate to make a model-specific article for the Falcon 9 v1.0. N2e (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Second stage thrusters

Info on second stage Draco thrusters was removed twice by an IP with the edit summary "Removed note about Draco thrusters on S2. S2 is not, nor ever was, equipped with Dracos, and carries no hypergols. The citation listed also no longer exists." The reference in question, the Falcon 1.0 Users' Guide from 2009 is still on line at http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/3855656/falcon-9-launch-vehicle-payload-user39s-guide-spacex and does say in Table 2.1 that stage 2 has 4 Draco thruster and hypergolic propellants. It's not clear how second stage engine restart would be accomplished without some attitude control system. --agr (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to chase it down right now, but the second stage definitely had RCS thrusters. There were four on the Falcon 9 v1.0 second stage. I don't know how many there are on the Falcon 9 v1.1 second stage, but it quite possibly is more, because we have seen on the v1.1 first stage that many things have been engineered in for the future reusability of the rocket, even thought the v1.1 booster is not currently reusable. It would be likely that given the major redesign for v1.1, SpaceX engineers also added a few capabilities that might be needed for future testing of the reusable second stage, which is further out. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The second stage has to have some kind of system to stop roll, otherwise it spins out of control like the very first Falcon 9 launch did. They don't *have* to be hypergols, and I'm not sure whether or not they are. As to the possibility that they've put in currently unnecessary features in the current Falcon 9 second stage for useability purposes, I doubt it. The second stage would need a major redesign if only to accommodate a heat shield. Because of the need for major design changes, putting unnecessary features on the current second stage doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, the current second stage used on the Falcon 9v1.1 and Falcon Heavy is a bit under-preforming compared to competing final stages. — Gopher65_talk 01:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Err, I forgot to complete my thought in that last sentence, hehe. It was suppose to say: "Also, the current second stage used on the Falcon 9v1.1 and Falcon Heavy is a bit under-preforming compared to competing final stages, so there has been speculation for quite some time that SpaceX is designing a new second stage, possibly with the Raptor engine." — Gopher65_talk 00:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is well beyond speculation. SpaceX publically released info about a year ago that they are definitely building a new liquid methane/LOX second stage engine called Raptor. I believe the sources are cited in Raptor (rocket engine). Moreover, they recently (fall 2013) said they would begin testing "components" of that engine (not the full engine) in Mississippi in early 2014. N2e (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is a credible source, like a journal or a book .... For me an interview is speculation or advertising. --Stone (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Stone. I'm not sure which subtopic your question is about: the topic of the main section heading (second stage thrusters)? or the topic of the comment that immediately preceded your comment (Raptor engine, etc.)? Perhaps you could restate it in more detail so as to clarify. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Archive?

It's mentioned at the top of this page that old posts are archived, and a quick check of the history shows comments older than those currently on the page; but there's no link to the archive or any indication of where to find it. 31.205.120.176 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Falcon 9/Archive 1. I don't know why there isn't a link. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I added an archive box template to the top of the page as a temporary measure. If someone knows how to fix the mizabot template so that it works correctly and displays an archieve navigator please feel free to do so. — Gopher65_talk 00:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Article cleanup

With a new article having been recently created (see above discussion and consensus) for Falcon 9 v1.1, this article needs a bit of clean up.

I'll start doing a few changes to reduce excessive detail on Falcon 9 v1.1 in this article, with a pointer to the main article where one could expect to find that detail. But for now, plan to limit my change to the margins of the article.

Other editors feel free to weigh in, and especially on more substantive changes that might be needed (for example, for now, this remains the article to contain all the Falcon 9 v1.0 launch vehicle detail. Should that change? Who's interested in working on article improvement? Etc. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Per the abortive proposal to rename, and narrow the scope, of this article to just the v1.0 rocket (see next Talk section below), a working consensus has emerged: the scope of this article will be the Falcon 9 family of launch vehicles, with the explicit inclusion of Falcon 9 v1.0, Falcon 9 v1.1, and Falcon 9-R, as well as other F9 rockets in the future. A [Falcon 9 v1.1]] article has already been created. As of today (11 Oct), no [Falcon 9 v1.0]] article has been created, so the F9 v1.0 detail will remain here for now. N2e (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move: rename Falcon 9 v1.0

An editor has recently removed the Falcon 9 v1.1 specs from the infobox. If that stands, then this article is quickly becoming an article with a scope of the first version of the Falcon 9, that is "Falcon 9 v1.1". If that is the way we are going, then the article ought to be renamed to Falcon 9 v1.0. An alternative, would be to create a F9 v1.0 article, and let this one be a meta-article for all F9 versions, up to now, and in the future. Either way, we should get this resolved so that we know which way we are going.

• Support Oppose article move to Falcon 9 v1.0, as nom, per the rationale given above. N2e (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Changing my position to Oppose. I think the logic presented by the two editors below is strong. That said, with the article remaining an overview article, then someone probably ought to revert the removal of all the F9 v1.1 info from the infobox, as occurred yesterday. I don't have time to do it at present. 11:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I reverted the info box changes, and have begun to refactor the article to support the consensus that this article will cover/overview the entire Falcon 9 family of launch vehicles. N2e (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment/Weak oppose. We need to have a central article on the Falcon 9, and this one has the page history and overhead on the rest of the programme. I fully agree that we need an article on the v1.0, but it would be far easier to split the v1.0 article from this one than vice versa. --W. D. Graham 08:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment/Oppose I doubt that most people who had heard of the Falcon 9 would have any idea about it having two rather different variants, so re-naming this article to Falcon 9 v1.0 would NOT work (particularly when none of the other Wikipedia Falcon 9 articles in other languages have this division). Better to restore those edits deleting F9-v1.1 materials and leave this as the main F9 article, and start a new Falcon 9 v1.0 page for the details. Incidentally I was just getting start to translate this article for the Chinese Wikipedia so the new page movements would affect how I should proceed with that. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment — I agree with the rationals above. A central article (this one) with two 3 satellite articles would work best: Falcon 9 v1.0, Falcon 9 v1.1, and eventually Falcon 9R (currently contained inside SpaceX reusable rocket launching system and v1.1 until the program is further along). — Gopher65_talk 13:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Creation of new detailed articles on Falcon 9 v1.0 and Falcon 9 v1.1

 Done — Per the above consensus, this article—Falcon 9—was to remain a central one, with new articles to be created for Falcon 9 v1.0 and Falcon 9 v1.1. I created Falcon 9 v1.1 on 7 October 2013 (UTC), and created a separate Falcon 9 v1.0 article yesterday, 28 November 2013. — N2e (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There is still a cleanup/reduction of the detail on v1.0 yet to do on this article, but that should be completed in the next few days. N2e (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There now seems to be massive redundancy between the articles; from the edit history it seems that you've spent more time adding even more stuff to Falcon 9 than removing all the details that should be on the vehicle-specific pages. —Ben Brockert (42) 01:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That is probably true. And I would think that there is still additional detail that can be removed from the main Falcon 9 article. The creation of the separate articles for the block 1 and block 2 vehicles was done per consensus, and I believe that only a first pass or two of copyediting may have been done on the main F9 article. So feel free to edit and better summarize what you think ought to be left in this article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent payload

The summary gives the payload for v1.0 as 10,450 kg to LEO & 4,540 kg to GTO but the Comparison table gives 8,500-9,000 for LEO & 3,400 for GTO. 69.72.92.96 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There were two planned versions of the v1.0: block 1 and block 2. All v1.0 that were launched were block 1, while block 2 was scrapped before it entered into production in favour of the bigger v1.1 (mostly for cross compatibility of the first stage with the latest design of the Falcon Heavy, I think).

Unfortunately for us, at some point SpaceX pulled the stats for the v1.0 block 1 from their website and replaced them with the v1.0 block 2 stats. Hence the 8500 (block 1) to 10450 (block 2) discrepancy. — Gopher65_talk 23:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Update on the payload.

 Elon Musk: "So our current payload capacity is more like 3.5 tonnes (3,500 kg) to 1,500 meters per second delta-v."

Falcon 9 Performance: Mid-size GEO? --Stone (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

NASA funding

I notice that some text which gave additional details on the NASA funding of the initial Falcon-9 development was deleted by a (well intentioned) editor. Please don't delete text that is both accurate and well-sourced. I am aware that a lot of people like to downplay NASA's role in Falcon-9's development (even Elon Musk tends to downplay it), but it is nevertheless a part of the historical record. EngineeringIsFun (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your source does not state anything specific about Falcon 9 or SpaceX. There needs to be a source that actually states Falcon 9 development was started with the COTS contract. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That announces the contract. Scroll down to the third paragraph and click the link labelled Round 1 Announcement, which gives the details of the solicitation. Given that the solicitation says what they are buying, and the announcement says from whom they are buying it-- that is, SpaceX-- yes, this is "specific". The following two links give more details.

The citations are specifically about the COTS contract to Space X for the development of commercial space transportation, which is the contract which developed Falcon 9. I'm not sure what could be more specific. May I suggest you read a little of contemporary references that are not sourced from Elon Musk quotations? This is not news. It is not controversial. This is the way SpaceX funded Falcon 9. EngineeringIsFun (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, but the sources need to actually say Falcon 9 development was begun with the COTS contract to match your text per Wikipedia's policies such as WP:Verify. The COTS sources and Lindenmoyer source do say Falcon 9 development was heavily aided by the NASA funding, which is the point of the section. No reason to get into program milestones there. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact, Falcon 9 development was done with the COTS funding, this is what all those citations which you have deleted state. If you believe it was not, please cite some references saying so. (And be careful what the references say. There are plenty of references talking about how SpaceX funded Falcon 1.)

You deleted this text: (funded) "with a directly-funded Space Act Agreement (SAA) in 2006 "to develop and demonstrate commercial orbital transportation service."" The words are directly from the citation. Do you disagree with this text?

You deleted all the text-- and the citations-- stating that NASA paid for the design process, starting from the System Requirements Review (SRR) all the way through the Critical Design Review (CDR). If you have some experience with engineering, you will understand that this is the design. You are simultaneously telling me to give details and citations showing that NASA paid for the design, and then deleting the details and citations given. Pick one or the other.

Here is the phrasing from "The Space Review": "the two companies funded by NASA to develop launch vehicles and spacecraft to ferry cargo to and from the International Space Station, Orbital Sciences and SpaceX..." That seems pretty specific: funded by NASA to develop launch vehicles. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2406/1 EngineeringIsFun (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You added 1 reference initially and I kept that with the summary text. There is not real need for such detail to just say the Falcon 9 was heavily funded by NASA commercial space programs. Program specifics should be covered in more relevant sections, but whatever.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll put my two ¢ in and put back in the wording that NASA "initiated" rather than "supplemented" the funding of the rocket. "Supplemented" implies to me that Space-X had other sources of funding to develop the rocket, and the NASA SAA merely added to these funds. But Space-X was out of money in 2006: they had used all their original capital developing Falcon 1 and didn't have any more money to develop a new vehicle. And they didn't yet have a track record: in 2008, when NASA contracted for launch services for Falcon 9, Space-X was a company that had a track record of four launches, three of which failed.) Elon Musk has, in many interviews, said that the NASA funding "saved" Space-X; so I'd say if Fnlayson says that Space-X already had development funding which NASA "supplemented," he needs to find a good citation for this.

I do remember a statement from Space-X saying that their plan was to use profits from the Falcon 1 launches to develop the Falcon 9 vehicle (not sure I can dig this up in my piles of paper). But in 2006 Falcon 1 was still years from turning a profit, so this would be support for the next sentence:this is the funding source that NASA funds replaced, not supplemented.

On the other hand: it is important to note that (1) while NASA may have initiated the funding, they did not provide all the funding, nor did they fund the later evolved versions of Falcon-9; and (2) NASA did not design the rocket (many Space-X interviews emphasize this point: NASA had input, but did not have final design decisions on the vehicle.) Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I changed the wording to: "the Falcon 9 received NASA funding.." That seems to covers the situation and what the sources state accurately. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Find a reliable source showing that Space-X had funding to develop Falcon-9 before receiving the NASA contract, and I will accept your wording. Good luck with that.

You wrote "Also, space act agreements include cost sharing; the company has to add its own funds)". Yes, that's right. Obtaining additional funding was one of the milestones of the SAA. It was one of the milestones because they didn't have it when the contract was signed. This is listed in the text and the citations you cut out earlier [6]. Your words were: "No reason to get into program milestones". Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

CRS-1 launch outcome

Looks like someone is trying to kick open the can of worms again. I think this issue has been rehashed over and over so I'm not going to discuss about it here beyond letting the discussion flow here and stating my opinion that this shouldn't been changed.

Any new opinions? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• See Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches #Regarding success of CRS-1 mission for a discussion 2 years ago. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the vehicle suffered a failure and didn't put both payloads where it was supposed to. SpaceX agreed to the conditions under which a stage relight could be carried out; the launch didn't meet those terms and can't be considered a full success. A(Ch) 02:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomenclature and accuracy issues

There are some fairly major issues with outdated/incorrect nomenclature on here. 1.0 is of course not part of any launch family as it has been phased out for some time. There are no significant differences between the bog standard 1.1 and R, R is just a 1.1 with legs, grid fins and ACS added, listing them as separate rockets makes no sense. In fact, R properly refers to the putative future completely reusable (including second stage) version of the 1.1. Moving on, Falcon heavy is not based on 1.1, and hasn't been for a while. The boosters are stretched, and whilst the core is more like a 1.1, it's not the same either. I won't bother changing, as I know how wiki works, and the incorrect information will be back in there in no time, I'm not going to waste my time. I suggest a careful reading of well-informed websites, mainly NSF, which gets their info straight from SpaceX more often then not. Should be required reading for anyone editing articles like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Few points:

1) NSF is great. I love them. And yes, we read it. I read every article they publish. I also read everything that comes out of the SpaceX Reddit. In fact, I have probably read every English language SpaceX article written by anyone:P. Some are definitely better than others, and NSF is at the top of the heap. But as great as NSF is (and SpaceX Reddit too), a large part of what you read there is random guesswork. Much of it from L2. It's interesting to read, but you have to take everything you read there with a giant grain of salt. Re-reading old NSF articles about SpaceX is hilarious, because they're so very wrong, so very disconnected from the eventual reality that would occur. It's basically a fan blog. Don't take what you read there as gospel. But I love it anyway:). It's fun.

2) That brings us to another point you bring up: inaccuracy. Why is NSF inaccurate? It's not for lack of effort on their part, it's because they're not working with good data. SpaceX is constantly iteratively advancing their designs and overall plans. For instance, they say they're going to try something new. Then everyone reports on it (including much handwringing on L2 about whether or not it's a good idea). Then SpaceX tries it. It doesn't work. Then they try 6 more things over the next year or two, without publicizing what they're doing. Meanwhile, NSF (and, I'll add, Wikipedia) are still talking about the first, publicized idea SpaceX had, which has long since been discarded by the company itself. Half the stuff on the SpaceX Wikipedia articles ends up getting eventually deleted for this reason.

3) This in turn brings us to the next issue: iterative design. The first v1.1 to launch was a very different rocket than the one that just launched. Every single v1.1 has been at least slightly - and sometimes significantly - different from every other one. One thing we do know: the v1.1 is definitely not the F9R. Why? Because the v1.1 is being retired in a few months, and replaced with the v1.2. At the very least, the F9R will therefore have a larger upper stage than the V1.1 (because the v1.2 has a larger upper stage). This is an issue because it becomes literally impossible for us to maintain a completely accurate article. Anything we have good sources for is already out of date.

4) Be a little bit nicer. "Don't be a dick", as some have said. You'll find people more receptive. Also, Wikipedia a a do-it-yourself site. If you don't like something, change it. If you can't be bothered, then you have no right to complain. Just like voting. Here you vote with your edits though, not with ballots. — Gopher65_talk 23:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If you were actually well-informed you wouldn't let such glaring inaccuracies stand in the article. Nomenclature is one thing, and can be debated, factual errors (FH being made up from 1.1s etc etc) another thing altogether. Calling me a dick whilst not actually addressing any of my points, charming. And people wonder why I don't bother editing.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have an updated, recent, verifiable source stating that the two booster stages will be stretched? That might be something to include if that source is more up-to-date than previous articles. Wikipedia prioritizes verifiable information over what is "a factual error". In the eyes of Wikipedia's policies, the current information is the most accurate that can be verified. If there is any other information more current, then any source would be helpful. Appable (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We've noted for some time that the image on SpaceX's website shows stretched boosters, but that's the only evidence we could find that the boosters were stretched. And given the terrible inaccuracy of SpaceX's media presentations in the past (senior management actually noted once that their animations and renderings were for illustrative purposes, and not meant to be taken literally), we need a lot more than that. Statements from SpaceX reps, or pictures of the rocket itself with stretched stages would be nice (if pictures exist, then articles will exist discussing them, and we can use those as sources). We should know for sure in a few months.

I think one of the issues is that people think of SpaceX as being "open", but it's actually moderately secretive. It's only open about its propaganda media statements, not about what it's actually doing. It's not quite like reporting on Blue Origin, but it's not like we're taking about Copenhagen Suborbitals here, with their open source way of doing things. — Gopher65_talk 04:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Debris

FYI, someone found wreckage washed up on shore [7] -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• @65.94.43.89: Good find! I've added content (with that article referenced) to the Payload Fairing section of the article mentioning the wreckage found and Musk's note of "fairing reusability". Appable (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Isn't it possible Musk was joking about reusable fairings? A(Ch) 20:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Anythingcouldhappen: I don't think it was a joke. Musk didn't seem to be joking and hasn't said anything as a follow-up. I mean, anythingcouldhappen in the future that would say this was a joke, but for now I think Musk's word is enough. Appable (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

How detailed a launch history?

A good bit of detail on all the Falcon 9 launches has been added recently, even though the Launch history section already has a link to the article with the full launch history (List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches).

I'm agnostic how much of that detailed launch info is appropriate to be repeated in this article, but will note two things to start a discussion with other editors.

• This article is already over 80,000 bytes in size, and will need the detail hived off if it gets much larger.
• Many of those individual launches that are now claimed in this article are unsourced. I'm going to add {{citation needed}} tags to those to see if any editor wants those in this article badly enough to cite them. N2e (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the launch section does not need to mention each individual launch and would be nicer to read if it gave a summary instead. The readable prose size of this article is only about 31000 characters, so according to WP:SIZE it is not too long yet. Ulflund (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As a replacement for the current Launch History section on this article, would something like this do? "To date, there have been X launches of the F9v1.0, and Y launches of the F9v1.1. All launches have been successful, with the exception of the partial failure of one F9v1.0 launch, and the total failure of one F9v1.1 launch. For more information, see List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches." Ringshall (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that's good, but it would be good to mention what launch had a partial failure and total failure through wikilinks, as well as first flight of v1.0 and v1.1. Instead of the "for more information" use the Template:Main at the top of the section. Appable (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

New Falcon 9 Upgrade (following on from the Falcon 9 1.1)

Details of the new Falcon 9 upgrade are now out, resulting in further improvements over the v1.1 in performance. Key improvements & changes are ...

- Stage 2 length increased. - MVac increased thrust. - The interstage has been changed to be longer & stronger with a center pusher added to improve stage seperation. - Changes to the descent guiding fins. - Upgraded stage 1 structure. - Improved landing legs over previous models. - Modified stage 1 engine mounts. - Increased M1D thrust (thrust is up to 6806kn for the 1st stage for example.)

These are reportedly further upgrades over the changes anticipated for the Falcon 9 reusable & are expected to fly by the end-2015.

Some details can be found at & via (thrust is up to 6806kn for the 1st stage for example.)

Stephen Gardiner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:412:C300:E454:5DE1:CBBD:3B4F (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Falcon 9 v1.1 FT User Guide released

http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf

Some very interesting information inside. Posting this here if anyone wants to use it for editing the page.

Dante 80 (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Falcon 9 v1.0 Payload numbers

The payload numbers for 1.0 are incorrect. The problem is that the correct numbers are nowhere. The numbers that state the 10 tonne payload in SpaceX website were for the version with the updated version of the Merlin 1C engine which never materialized because they skipped the updated version of Merlin 1C and went directly to the much better Merlin 1D engine and v1.1 of the rocket. --Hkultala (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup. The correct number for the original F9 Block 1 is 8.5 to 9 tonnes to a very low LEO with zero change in inclination. It was a really light launcher compared to the F9 of today. It could *barely* launch an empty Dragon Cargo to the ISS. That's why all the early Dragons had like 500 pounds of cargo in them... that's all that the block one could haul on top of the Dragon itself. The Block 2 (which was never built) very quickly replaced the Block one in all official communications, including on their website. This is where the 10+ tonnes to LEO numbers come from. Unfortunately SpaceX removed the correct Block 1 numbers, and now we don't have a source for them.

It went like this:

• Originally publicized (unrealized) paper version of F9 with Merlin 1A: 12 tonnes to LEO
• Block 1: 8.5 tonnes to very low LEO
• Block 2: 10+ tonnes to very low LEO
• v1.1: ~16 tonnes to very low LEO (expendable mode)
• v1.1FT: ~20 tonnes to very low LEO (expendable mode)
• F9R (same as FT model, but reusable booster): 13.5 tonnes to LEO

That's my recollection, anyway. Hard to find reliable sources for stuff like this though. — Gopher65_talk 01:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

V1.1 FT

Article seems to have just v1, v1.1 and R versions with little or no mention of v1.1 FT. Is

1. the v1.1 FT now going to be renamed or considered to be the Falcon 9R? or
2. are these separate version? or
3. is there further evolution of v1.1 FT needed before it becomes the 9R? or
4. some other distinction?

crandles (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it the F9R is still the F9 v1.1, just with the legs and other stuff added. That is backed up by this page [8], saying

In its F9R configuration, the launcher has all characteristics of the Falcon 9 v1.1 with the addition of four landing legs, a cold gas attitude control system and four grid fins to the first stage.

and this page [9] saying

Essentially the v.1.1 and F 9-R are the same vehicle, although the upgraded F9 will not fly with the key reusable hardware – such as landing legs – until a later date.

As the article reads now the F9R seems like a separate version which I don't think it should. The F9 v1.1 FT on the other hand deserves it's own section and mentioning in the lead section. Ulflund (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

the Problem with the falcon 9 and trying to categorise all the 'versions' is that pretty much every rocket they've fired off is an incremental evolution of the last. I agree with User:Ulflund  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  12:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The F9R has, at least in public sources, always been about what they would do... Whereas the F9 v1.0 and the F9 v1.1 and the F9 v1.1 FT are all things/versions that SpaceX actually has done, and flown. It really isn't clear how SpaceX themeselves intend to use the F9R descriptor to apply to any or all of this.

For example, does the F9R term begin to apply once they have successfully recovered one (December 2015) or two (maybe this month?) stages and they go "operational" with the recovery ops, and quit calling them "experimental tests" as they did on the December 2015 flight? I don't know. But it seems clear, to me anyway, that SpaceX is a bit unclear themselves oftentimes on which descriptor to use, and which subcategories of rockets apply in which super category. But, life happens. And we have to deal with the reality, and sources, as they are. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't matter for the article yet (no reliable sources), but the scuttlebutt is that SpaceX is going to do away with the version numbers altogether (possibly to avoid antagonizing the US Airforce's certification team). Every rocket will continue to be ever so slightly different than the one that came before it, but they'll all just be referred to as "Falcon 9" from now on. — Gopher65_talk 03:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: there is an article on this new/upgraded (or "upgrade") version of the former Falcon 9 v1.1 version. That article is at Falcon 9 full thrust. Enjoy.

Secondly, there is already a discussion on just what the correct name of the new version is on that article's Talk page; here is the link. Feel free to go over there and join the discussion, because SpaceX has not made it exactly straightforward to know what to call the thing.

(Bonus item: there is a link on that Talk page to the recent USAF certification of the new version where they, get this, use another/different name than the "Full Thrust" ,"v1.1 Full Thrust", or "full thrust" descriptors that have been used in quite a bit of media lately.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Very long infobox

I think having data about v1.0, v1.1 and v1.1 FT in the infobox makes it difficult to read. I sugest keeping only the data about the current version and extending the version comparison table further down in the article with any data removed from the infobox. Any objections or comments? Ulflund (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Realistically, there is no one set of numbers for many aspects of just what a "Falcon 9" is, since there are (at least) three major versions of a Falcon 9. So, in my view, you either put all three of the differing specs in the infobox (long, a bit messy, but workable, as shown over the past couple of years in this article), or you pull the specs that vary out of the infobox (or have no infobox). To list only the most recent F9 specs would be misleading. This is an encyclopedia; and if someone is only looking at Falcon 9 (with no more descriptive adjective), then it is this article's job to inform them of the full extent of the "Falcon 9", and not resort to a misguided form of a presentist view that the only F9 worth talking about is the present F9. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Specific Impulse on infobox

Specific Impulse is listed twice in the infobox, but with different values. The first time only for versions 1.1 and 1.0, with both sea level and vacuum thrust. The second listing for all three versions that is higher those in the fist listing, w/o discriminating vacuum or sea level. Even if everything is right, it is confusing. Caroliano (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy to clarify this for you: the first ISP values are for the first stage, which travels from sea level to vacuum, hence two values. We haven't found a reference yet for ISP of the full thrust version, so we only list v1.0 and v1.1 there. The second mention concerns the Vacuum version of the Merlin 1D engine on the second stage, whose nozzle has a greater expansion ratio, so the ISP is different than the first stage engine version. Also, the second stage operates only in vacuum and is optimized for this purpose, this is why ISP at sea level is not mentioned. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not only is it optimized for vacuum operation, it couldn't even operate at sea level. It would blow itself apart:). So there is doubly no reason to list the second stage sea level ISP. — Gopher65_talk 05:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see the "first stage" and "second stage" section markers, they don't stand out. But I guess this is a general wiki style issue and can't be solved here. Caroliano (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, this layout is the way headers are displayed in infoboxes generally; doesn't stand out for boxes with several long sections such as this one. — JFG ^talk 11:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Falcon 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429015952/http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9UsersGuide_2009.pdf to http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9UsersGuide_2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104061453/http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=121007 to http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=121007
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/09/spacex-debut-falcon-9-v1-1-cassiope-launch/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/05/07/commercial-cape-canaveral/2141499/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131008212322/http://www.spacex.com/usa.php to http://www.spacex.com/usa.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715094112/http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Block 5 Thrust

People keep adding "8,451 kN" of thrust as a number for the Falcon 9 Block 5. This is not correct, and reflects a misunderstanding based on a tweet from Elon, who said that the Falcon 9 would be upgraded to reach 1.9 million pounds of thrust in-flight (~8,500 kN). First, that tweet is describing the Falcon 9 FT, not block 5, and perhaps more importantly, that is not the sea-level or liftoff thrust of the rocket, and thus is not an accurate comparison to other versions anyways. Do NOT re-add this number. As of April 2017, the thrust rating for the Block 5 is not final and has not been released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaylorJO (talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Falcon 9#Flights by landing outcome diagram

In the #Flights by landing outcome, year 2015, one launch is missing compared to the previous diagram. --Yug (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yug: That would be the CRS-7 mission which exploded in flight, so couldn't attempt to land. Same thing in 2016 with the Amos-6 incident. — JFG ^talk 04:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There are actually two missing. This issue was discussed over at Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches, and they were briefly included, but it was decided that the graph worked better without these two flights and they didn't add anything. (the flights did intend to land so they don't help define the grey area of flights that did not attempt a landing. We also don't know if they would have succeeded, to they don't add anything to the 'success/failure of landing' aspect of the graph either). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't them still appears in some way ? --Yug (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't think so. — JFG ^talk 20:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Comparison

What about adding first and last flight to the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.83.123 (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Is block 4 a part of v1.2 (Full Thrust)?

The recent Falcon 9 launch was reported to be a "block 4". Spacex has not said anything themselves about the CRS-12 flight being on a new revision of the rocket. Before this every major new version of the rocket was reported by Spacex(v1.1, v1.2(FT)). The FAA license from february 2017 for future flights of the dragon capsule from 39-A Clearly states that it only covers the "Falcon 9 Version 1.2 launch vehicle", since we have not seen a new license for Dragon launches from 39-A it can be assumed that the rocket that flew on CRS-12 was a v1.2 or "FT". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almightycat (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is the differences are minor enough to consider Block 4 an iteration of the Full Thrust vehicle, but of course that's not a source for Wikipedia. Sources have considered it different enough to report on it as a separate block, though, so I think it's fair to separate it out on Wikipedia even if the difference isn't significant for the FAA. Appable (talk | contributions) 04:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this. Initially I supported the insertion of "Block 4" statements as reported by a couple sources, but the lack of specific information on Block 4 is disturbing. I would tentatively call it "FT B4" in the table and point to the Falcon 9#Falcon 9 Block 4 section, but I would not create a separate category for stats and in the Falcon 9 infobox. For all we know, this was the 19th flight of a Falcon 9 Full Thrust, which included some unspecified tweaks from previous versions. The most visible change that happened recently were the titanium grid fins: SpaceX talked about it, sources gave details and nobody called it a new block. I suppose we would see stronger comments from the company if there were indeed significant changes to the newly-flown version. — JFG ^talk 08:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

At the post CRS-12 press conference they noted that it had aluminum grid fins. Given the lack of concrete verifiable information about Block 4 we really shouldn't be including much about it in the article Greg (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It is worth noting that sources such as NASASpaceFlight indicate that Block 4 has uprated thrust, but this launch obviously did not have that - so this Block 4 is likely not the full Block 4. (there's also some indications, obviously not a Wikipedia source though, that Block 4 upper stage has flown in multiple previous missions) Appable (talk | contributions) 17:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Perhaps "block 4" certification covers only the unspecified second-stage changes? I wouldn't be surprised that the X-37B mission required some special capabilities from the second stage to position their payload in an unusual orbit. Obviously that's just guesswork. I think we should refrain from making any assertions about this "block 4" until we get correct specs from an authoritative source. — JFG ^talk 04:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Just checked the video, confirming that CRS-12 first stage was equipped with the old-style aluminum grid fins.[10] This may be a block 3 first stage with a block 4 second stage? — JFG ^talk 08:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the block 4 a transitional designation? Maybe each block 4 will be outfitted slightly differently if this is the case. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 10:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, turns out I was very wrong. When I said the launch obviously did not have [uprated thrust], what I meant was it did. Here's a new NASASpaceFlight article, from an author that has in the past shown access to reliable insider sources. Note that the first Block 4 did make use of increased-thrust Merlin 1D engines and with a final thrust increase set to debut on the Block 5. So the changes are incremental, as InsertCleverPhraseHere suggested, but nevertheless Block 4 is a real designation. Appable (talk | contributions) 16:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

CRS-12 was Block 4

I don't want to join the current edit conflicts, but some wrong numbers about FT have been added, to be checked later. --mfb (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Another wrong thing is that CRS 12 / Block IV apparently did NOT have upgraded thrust. Can we agree to not quote a Tesla car blog as a source for SpaceX news ever again? https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6ttxhy/crs12_telemetry/ shows the thrust. Greg (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Greg Lindahl: While I love the community content posted on the SpaceX subreddit, analyzing telemetry that only states velocity and altitude is inherently fairly error-prone. Appable (talk | contributions) 17:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the numbers quoted as Falcon 9 Full Thrust performance are actually Block 5 performance. An old Elon Musk tweet noted that the numbers on the website were for a future version of the rocket with uprated thrust (compared to the Falcon 9 Full Thrust), which is now clearly Block 4/Block 5. Appable (talk | contributions) 17:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree that we should not be citing Reddit speculation as a source -- I'm just pointing out that it looks like the higher thrust that we're citing as fact has not actually happened yet... and it's still dumb for us to be citing a Tesla car blog as a source for SpaceX information! Greg (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this was still block 3, why? Block 4 and 5 will have upgraded grid fins as tested in Iridium-2 launch. CRS-12 core had old grid fins, and telemetry was same as crs-11, so no upgraded thrust. Block 4 probably will be next 39A launch, OTV-5. Most likely they will tell on webcast that this is launch of upgraded F9, crs-12 should still be marked as normal FT until official sources confirmation. Piotrulos (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If reports are to believed that the Block 4 upgrades are both incremental and not externally obvious, it's not surprising that we haven't heard about the changes. I would note telemetry was not exactly the same: SECO was slightly earlier on CRS-12, even though it was a heavier payload to the same orbit. SpaceX has clearly changed the hardware multiple times within block revisions - Iridium-2 was obviously Block 3, but had new grid fins. I think the best we can do is report on the blocks as indicated by reliable sources. Chris Gebhardt of NASASpaceFlight has been very reliable in the past, and given the new information in the article it's clear that he's fact-checked that this launch indeed was the first Block 4. Appable (talk | contributions) 16:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

One clue for the thrust upgrade is that CRS-12 carried a significantly heavier payload than previous Dragon missions: 3,310 kg vs 2,708 kg for CRS-11, 2,490 kg for CRS-10, 2,257 kg for CRS-9 and 3,136 kg for CRS-8 (well, that one was heavy too, with the BEAM spacecraft, but perhaps the rocket pushed it longer). — JFG ^talk 05:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

We aren't in the business of posting clues to Wikipedia. Also, SpaceX says the current LEO mass for Falcon 9 is TWICE the mass of wet Dragon + CRS-12's payload, so a 500kg increment is not so exciting. Greg (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Remember that the massive 22,800 kg LEO payload advertised by SpaceX is for an expendable booster, and for unspecified engine thrust settings. Reusable performance so far has been proven up to 9,600 kg with the Iridium missions. 600 kg extra on a fully-loaded Dragon is not so negligible. However, I do agree we're getting into WP:FORUM territory. We wouldn't be having this discussion if SpaceX had communicated some hard data about their Block 4 and Block 5 upgrades; hopefully this will come with the next B4 flights. — JFG ^talk 17:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)