Talk:Falcon 9/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The summary/side bar section lists total launches at 34. Unless this is counting some initial test launch, I believe we have 33 flights of the falcon 9? No? --Emaier138 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That's correct. The 34 in the side bar apparently comes from counting the pre-launch event which destroyed the Amos-6 satellite. That wasn't a launch or a flight, so the side bar is a bit misleading. I suggest changing it to read 33 ``Total Launch and changing "Other 1 (FT, Amos-6)" to "Pre-launch loss of payload events 1 (FT, Amos-6)". If someone can think of a better way to phrase it, please let us know. Fcrary (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"Other" is the field planned for such cases in {{Infobox rocket}}, and there is a clear explanatory note "One rocket and payload were destroyed before launch in preparation for static fire." This should be enough. — JFG ^talk 04:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I'm fine with "Other", but the 34 "total launches" still bothers me. A pre-launch accident, even if it destroys the payload, isn't a launch or an attempted launch. Would 33 launches, 31 successes, one failure, one partial failure and one "other" be better? Fcrary (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. That would be an appropriate debate at Template talk:Infobox rocket, to agree a uniform rule for all rocket losses. — JFG ^talk 20:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I have opened a consultation at Template talk:Infobox rocket#How to count accidents prior to launch? and solicited comments from WT:WikiProject Spaceflight members. — JFG ^talk 21:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I updated the 1.1 payload specs based on http://spacenews.com/39558updated-ses-books-falcon-9-for-2016-launch/ which states there was an additional 450kg capacity available for primary payload but had been reserved for spacex and was subtracted from originally published specs. 104.244.192.51 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have undone this change; better stick to contemporary specs rather than add a "secret reserve" alleged by a SpaceX employee in an interview. The SES-10 satellite mentioned in this source ended up being launched on the uprated Falcon 9 Full Thrust. The heaviest bird launched by the 1.1 version was TürkmenÄlem 52°E / MonacoSAT with 4,707 kg, well within the published performance figures. — JFG ^talk 20:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3Aa8b87703-93f9-4cdf-885f-9429605e14df
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809000459/http://www.spacex.com/downloads/spacex-brochure.pdf to http://www.spacex.com/downloads/spacex-brochure.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928162454/http://www.c-span.org/Events/National-Press-Club-The-Future-of-Human-Spaceflight/10737424486/ to http://www.c-span.org/Events/National-Press-Club-The-Future-of-Human-Spaceflight/10737424486/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928162454/http://www.c-span.org/Events/National-Press-Club-The-Future-of-Human-Spaceflight/10737424486/ to http://www.c-span.org/Events/National-Press-Club-The-Future-of-Human-Spaceflight/10737424486/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 15:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I've seen this particular logo [1] many times associated with Falcon 9, so it would seem that a cleaner version of that should be added to this page -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I have a draft at DRAFT: Falcon 9 booster B1031 which can be merged somewhere, if needed -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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/20111016081034/http://msdb.gsfc.nasa.gov/MissionData.php?mission=Falcon-9%20ELV%20First%20Flight%20Demonstration to http://msdb.gsfc.nasa.gov/MissionData.php?mission=Falcon-9%20ELV%20First%20Flight%20Demonstration

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.

• 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) 10:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is some discussion questioning the numbers we have in the article. Do we have sources that clearly distinguish which number refers to which configuration? --mfb (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The sidebar currently reports:

Total launches 47 FT: 27 v1.1: 15 v1.0: 5 Successes 44 FT: 26 v1.1: 14 v1.0: 4 Failures 1 (v1.1: CRS-7) Partial failures 1 (v1.0: CRS-1)[6] Other 2 (FT: Amos-6[a], Zuma[b])

So that's total 47, success 44, fail 1, partial fail 1, other 2. 44 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 48 != 47

William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Launches is definitely 47. I think Washington Post ref for operations continuing indicate SpaceX believes its statements that they did everything correctly is about as good as we are going to get and we should have Zuma as rocket success, payload (or customer adapter) failure. So for the rocket (rather than for payloads), it is 45 success, 1 fail, 1 partial fail which adds to the 47 launches. Then in addition there is 1 other being Amos - loss before launch. crandles (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX states the launch was nominal (successful). Why list it as failure if the satellite or the Grumman's adaptor were badly designed? If there was a technical failure, why put it on the launcher when nothing is known? That is not neutral.

"Wouldn’t that be SpaceX’s fault? Not necessarily. According to an article in Wired last November, Northrop Grumman not only built Zuma but also provided the part that connected the satellite to the rocket known as the payload adapter. For most launches, SpaceX provides the payload adapter." [2].

talk

) 01:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is currently "listed" as "other", not as failure William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is listed as a fail at this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falcon_9&diff=next&oldid=819201058

talk

) 14:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure; but was moved to "other" soon after [3], and well before the comment starting this section. Meanwhile, the "news" reporting is shifting somewhat: SpaceX has said quite clearly that as far as they are concerned, all of their bit worked nominally (aka perfectly), and NG aren't saying anything and the rumours of loss haven't been substantiated. It looks like we'll have to wait ~a week for the amateurs to start looking for Zuma (e.g. http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2018/0068.html) so "other" seems OK for now. There's a long thread on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7p3w9i/cnbc_highly_classified_us_spy_satellite_appears/ William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Infobox seems to have the Zuma mission listed as a success (increased to 45) and other (changed to 2) based on changes from Jan. 6 until today. I'm fine with listing this under the Other field btw. -Finlayson (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

(mischievously) does SpaceX (or anyone else) maintain an official list of which missions have failed / succeeded / other; or is this SYN by us? https://spacexnow.com/stats.php exists, but doesn't look official William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yea. It's us, of course. The published references differ, depending on how the source feels about the company. Even the partial failure is debatable, since it was about putting a secondary payload in a (very) suboptimal orbit and the customer didn't complain. This sort of thing involves more details that we can easily put in an Infobox. It's probably best just to make sure the text of the article is clear. In this case (the Zuma launch), it's possible we'll never know. It could be classed as a success, a "other" or a failure, depending on the results of a failure investigation which will probably be classified. I'm not sure we want to add a "outcome classified" category... Fcrary (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Besides us there is [4] but I guess neither are "official" crandles (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

While "outcome classified" would be the most accurate description, I think it's best to just classify it as "other" since that would technically include "outcome classified" 2601:3C2:8200:70:C811:17C9:A6F3:FD10 (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Long discussions on Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Zuma_mission_outcome seemed to reach fairly wide consensus on "rocket success, payload failure". (Though still being edited away.) I think we should reflect that consensus at least in places about the rocket as opposed to about the payload. crandles (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. That page appears to have reached consensus. Additionally, this article is internally inconsistent throughout. Even the sentence with 45 out of 48 successes immediately pivots two mention only two failures. HiltonLange (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into an edit war, but William M. Connolley seems quite insistent on the article saying Falcon 9 is the first reusable launch vehicle. The previous text called it the third, citing New Shepard and the Space Shuttle. I'm more than willing to exclude New Shepard by inserting the word, "orbital" (New Shepard is a suborbital vehicle.) But pretending the Space Shuttle wasn't partially reusable is absurd. The orbiters were clearly reused many times. The link to the wikipedia article on the subject,

You also forgot the

notable that SpaceX is in this very lofty group of reusable vehicles and by far the cheapest of any reusable launch system and that should be sufficient rather than getting into an edit war over if it was #1... which it decidedly isn't. --Robert Horning (talk

) 02:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is using the term "launch vehicle", which is an ambiguous term. If you include the shuttle, then you should include the X-15 as well, as it went into space and was reused (though we can exclude it as nonorbital if we wish). The term that SpaceX uses is "Orbital Rocket Booster", and that seems like a good choice here. 73.140.212.73 (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I was reading this article on BBC News http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42692673 it show the payload of different rockets (check the comparison pic). I checked wikipedia article for Ariane 5 and Proton M, both are listed as heavy lift, while Falcon 9 with similar payload as Proton M and more than Ariane 5 is listed as medium lift. Any one know why the discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3003:106:200:2162:b70:6880:e7d1 (talk • contribs)

Funnily enough I was just looking at Heavy-lift launch vehicle. The reason that gives for not putting F9 in that category is that it hasn't yet demonstrated the capacity for 20+ tonnes to LEO William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Falcon 9 also has a structural limitation of its Payload Attach Fitting (PAF), whose "heavy" version can only support 10,886 kg of payload, per SpaceX's own user manual for the rocket.^[1] A really heavy payload such as an ISS module would also require SpaceX to design a larger fairing or address other weight-related issues. For all these reasons, I'm not holding my breath for a heavy-lift certification of Falcon 9 before it gets retired. — JFG ^talk 00:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The article says nothing about the refurbishment process. Is a core taken from the landing site to the local processing facility or is it taken to Hawthorne?

It depends on the booster, and it is likely to change again with Block 5. --mfb (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Useful reference.

Yes. I believe it's being used for some specs already. — JFG ^talk 23:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7l4gzd/elon_musk_on_twitter_max_thrust_at_liftoff_is_51/drk5qpg/.

Well, that's a very confusing statement by this employee. We can't rely on that at all anyway. — JFG ^talk 18:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Block 5

This indicates that block 5 is the 5th version of 1.2, or 1.2.5. This says the same thing, but original link is dead.

Musk confirms on Instagram that Block 5 is the 7th version of F9. 1.0, 1.1, and 5 versions of FT. --mfb (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"Call it V7 now." Elon is toying with us all… — JFG ^talk 23:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Another article confirming it. --mfb (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

A very good read to recap all the iterative improvements on the rockets, we can surely cite this in several articles. However, the author is also joking about names at the end, and gives us no clue what if anything the "Final Falcon" will be called. — JFG ^talk 01:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Saturn V gives empty and gross weight for each stage - Falcon 9 article does not seem to give empty weights of the variants. - Rod57 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

http://theclimategap.com/falcon9-evolution/

https://imgur.com/SkTjC2P

"This is arguably Falcon 9's version 6." - Elon Musk

They keep adding numbers for Block 5 --mfb (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that we know that the performance figures on the SpaceX site were for block 5, is it time to lower the figures for FT? Or should Block 5 be considered an evolution of FT, and just mention that Block 5 were when the performance targets were first hit? - Almightycat (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Block 5 is considered an evolution of Full Thrust. SpaceX has been touting the "full thrust" figures for a long time before the rockets could actually reach them. I'd be open to changing performance figures for blocks 3 and 4, but it will be hard to find sources. — JFG ^talk 11:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I put up a change saying that Falcon 9 can lift 7,075kg to GTO but it was reverted by PSR B1937+21 claiming that the launch was sub GTO, however there is no listed criteria of what constitutes a GTO launch (either across the industry or SpaceX in particular). The Telstar 19V launch was -2,200 m/s delta V, very similar to Hispasat, and yet Hispasat is listed at List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches as GTO, the 19V launch is also listed on that page as GTO. Can we all agree on a common criteria of what constitutes an orbit instead of having those with "wiki influence" become opaque subjective arbiters? If something is GTO then call it GTO, if not then don't, "Wiki Barons" need to make their minds up. 82.7.191.68 (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#Orbit definitions. PS: There are no "wiki barons"; all editors have equal standing. — JFG ^talk 16:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

'Falcon 9 is a family of two-stage-to-orbit medium lift launch vehicles, named for its use of nine Merlin first-stage engines,'

This is incorrect as far as I am aware. See this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwMIAKabRngt @2:24

Thomas Mueller, CTO of propulsion at SpaceX also says this is wrong, although his name origin story for it is also conflicting with Musk's. See https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Merlin-a-name-commonly-used-to-name-engines-Rolls-Royce-Merlin-Falcon-heavy-Merlin-engines

However, both ways, the original sentence is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasamj (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

See this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwMIAKabRngt @2:24 - errm, its kinda irritating that you don't bother quote what is said at that point. Listening, I think Musk says "its named after the Millennium Falcon". Fine, that's where the "Falcon" comes from, and the 9 comes from the number of Merlin engines, so what exactly are you objecting to?

Muellers story doesn't conflict, since he is telling you where the name "Merlin" for the engine comes from William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't think that that at all confusing, that you only say where less than half the name comes from? The first time I was reading it, I didn't even realize it was referencing just the 9, I realize it now. It kind of makes it sound like the name Falcon comes from the name Merlin don't you think? Since Merlin is a type of Falcon, when in fact the origin of the name is the opposite, that the names of the merlins came from the Falcon. Perhaps we should add a name origin section or add it somewhere else? Or maybe edit that first sentence to include where the name of the Falcon family comes from or just say that the reason for the 9 is because of the first stage engines?

Also sorry for not including the quote. I'm not used to wikipedia talk pages yet. Sasamj (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The rocket is named Falcon 9 and we are told it is named so because it uses 9 Merlin engines. I read that many times and never got the idea to interpret anything in it beyond the 9=9 match. --mfb (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well the Merlin part only refers the 9 part of the "Falcon 9" name, not the full name. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this discussion more-or-less proves the current text is confusing. Not surprising given how SpaceX names their vehicles... I suggest removing all discussion from the lede, since a through discussion is too long to really belong there, and putting the whole thing somewhere else. Maybe under Launcher Versions, where we go through the even more confusing v1.0, v1.1, Full Thrust, Block 4 and Block 5 nomenclature. Fcrary (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: You make a good point. I think we could simply say that "Falcon" was inspired by the Millenium Falcon and 9 is the engine count. No need to mention the engine name at this stage. I have updated the lede section accordingly, also clarifying versions and reusability. I would be grateful if somebody could add a citation for the Millenium Falcon inspiration. — JFG ^talk 05:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Reusability must have a limit. I have seen some reusable systems remark the maximum number of flights, but I don't see that for Falcon 9. Does anybody know how many flights can it be reused? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a reference handy, but on several occasions, either Mr. Musk, SpaceX or both have said a Falcon 9 Block 5 can manage ten flights before requiring major maintenance. But that wouldn't include attrition due to landing and launch failures. I think they've also said something about a hundred flights total, but that sounded very speculative. Fcrary (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed Musk has repeatedly touted "10 flights with routine maintenance" and "refurbishment after 100 flights", but that is obviously an "inspirational goal" far removed from reality. Turnaround time on Block 5 boosters has been in the same ballpark as the last Block 4s, meaning they are going through a lot more than "routine maintenance". I'm also pretty damn sure customers and insurers demand just the same rigorous inspections on re-flown boosters than on new ones. What improved with Block 5, per a recent interview of their fleet manager, is that SpaceX needs to replace fewer components than on previous iterations, hence re-use is now economically viable. Components and assembly are also better designed for swapping, e.g. engine blocks and heat shields. Finally, there is simply not enough demand in the satellite industry to justify flying boosters dozens of time. SpaceX can perfectly handle their manifest with a dozen active boosters, even if it grows to 50 or 100 flights per year. The Starlink fleet could fill many Falcon 9s, but still not to the point of flying them hundreds of times each (and that is if we dismiss BFR entirely). I bet that no Falcon 9 core will ever fly 100 missions, so that Elon will never even be proven wrong! — JFG ^talk 02:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

click me!)

00:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX is still in the early phase of Block 5 reuse. Over time they'll learn more what has to be done and what not, they'll also improve some more components, reuse should go faster. Musk said something about ~30 cores for ~300 flights in total a while ago, that would be an average of 10 flights per booster. --mfb (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't seem to find this figure in the infobox or anywhere else in the article. I assume it is around 10,000kg, Given the Iridium NEXT launches have been 9,600kg. We should have this figure somewhere in this article (ideally in the info box). —

Should be a bit more. One of the ITS/BFR/... presentations had a graph for it. --mfb (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi.

On the price section of the article it states that the launch prices in "2018" are 50 million dollars. As far as I can tell that was not the case for 2018. The source that is quoted is inconsistent with SpaceX's current launch capabilities webpage, and is inconsistent with everything that I've seen about what customers pay for a falcon 9 launch. SpaceX's current launch capabilities page prices a Falcon 9 at 62 million USD for "2018 launch". That is 12 million dollars more than the listed price of 50 million USD. See https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities for SpaceX's official launch capabilities webpage, which places the price of a Falcon 9 at 62 million USD for "2018 launches".

This may be something that should be changed to better reflect the reality of current launch prices; because I haven't been able to find anything else which would suggest that the 2018 launch prices were 50 million dollars.

Chuckstablers (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

50 million was given as price with a reused booster at some point last year. Originally on twitter probably, but there should be secondary sources around. --mfb (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but that is not what SpaceX's own website says. I'd love to see actual sources suggesting that, in 2018, falcon 9's were being sold for 50 million dollars. Because all I saw is Musk claiming that he 'will' be reducing Falcon 9 prices, not that Falcon 9 prices were currently 50 million dollars. Given that SpaceX's own website quotes a figure of 62 million dollars I think it's likely that the cost in 2018 was 62 million dollars on the 'standard payment plan'. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

-> I have been questioning the same thing. The $50 million was a projection for the company and only able to happen if they hit a certain launch rate per year. Anyways I changed it since the rest of the article mentions this already. (I am going to let the bot sign for me cause I forgot the code)

The current understanding on this article, the

– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I added two columns, moved the links to their scope and added one more reference in the table. I think it is a pretty consistent picture even though we don't learn what exactly SpaceX changed within the first three FT versions. --mfb (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mfb: Please don't do that. There's no need to duplicate the column three times over. 5 versions vs. 7 versions is an adequate enough simplification to illustrate the competing lineages so that we can discuss them. We now need to find citations that illustrate what the alledged Blocks 1-3 of the Full Thrust are so that we know if they exist or not, and are not just editorial errors by various sources. Otherwise, it's gonna looks silly if we have a one-sentence subsection in this article that says something along the lines of "this block exists, but its nature is unknown". Accuracy disputes will most certainly arise all over again as a result of such a vague statement. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

They were different columns and the difference is important. Why do you link to the talk page guidelines? It is common practice to have tables like this expanded together, I assumed this table was not different - and you kept the Teslarati article, so apparently you are not fully against the idea of editing it together (otherwise I might consider adding my own table). If we go by "editorial errors by various sources" (including Musk!) you can question everything. How many parallel editorial errors do we assume? Too many and we have to question the existence of the rocket in general.

There is no need to make the article look silly. "Full Thrust had five versions, called blocks. Blocks 1-3 were flown from x to y, it is unknown which changes were made between them. Block 4 was ...". This is a minimal version if we don't find anything. --mfb (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mfb: I linked the talk page guidelines because it states "The basic rule [...] is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission."; I just wanted to remind you of that. I kept the Teslarati source because it's important that we gather as many sources as we can to try to paint a clearer picture. We need to still prove exactly what Blocks 1-3 were if we want to say that they even existed so that we can be definitively sure that they existed. My main concern is that Musk says there's seven versions of the Falcon 9, but actual empirical evidence is non-existent. Here's a famous example of how one person can cause this kind of mass source pollution in a similar way, where no empirical evidence exists and only anecdotal evidence; it can be picked up by even the most reliable third party sources. It should also be of great concern that Blocks 1 and 2 allegedly existed before 2017, yet no sources from prior to 2017 have ever mentioned a "Block 1" or "Block 2" of a Full Thrust rocket. I've added a new source I recently found to the table from Futurism that corroborates the Space Launch Report's ~2017 dating. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

We have Musk telling us there are seven versions, two of them are 1.0 and 1.1, and we have tons of sources discussing Block 3, 4 and 5 of the Full Thrust variant, with a few mentioning Block 1 and 2, which is an independent confirmation. It is a simple counting exercise. Finding early sources can be challenging because (a) SpaceX didn't tell us much about versions back then and (b) it probably got its name only after subsequent versions were used. No one called WW I like that before WW II. --mfb (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

One more thing I forgot: I don't think Futurism is a very reliable source, but it says something different than Space Launch Report. It says Block 3 started launching 2017. The first Full Thrust launch was December 2015. That leaves Block 1 and 2 for the 2015 launch, all the 2016 launches and potentially some 2017 launches. --mfb (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

SpaceX VP of Production Andy Lambert has stated in an AMA[5] that "we have never built any two vehicles identically." Presumably Only Block 5 is stable enough for NASA to certify it for human transport. (quote from NSF: "NASA is requiring SpaceX to fly a “frozen” configuration of the Block 5 – meaning every vehicle is built the same way – successfully for at least 7 flights."[6] In the same AMA, an ex-SpaceX employee confirmed that a particular version of the Octaweb was "likely debuting on Block 3 with with AMOS-6 or Iridium-1 or so". That gives us an anchor point for Block 3. Unrelated informative tidbit from Lambert: when asked "how long it takes to manufacture the full stack for the Falcon 9", he wrote: "Approximately 3 months from start of tank build to shipping". We may quote him on this. — JFG ^talk 07:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a very useful point. No two vehicles were identical (and, from recent comments, it seems that even Block 5 is still subject to continuous improvement, as long as NASA understands and signs off on the changes). I think this article would be better off without the Kremlinology of trying to retrofit block numbers to various boosters. Marking the important transitions as the article currently does (1.0, 1.1, Full Thrust, Block 5) is worth keeping, but I would remove the 'also known as "Block 3"' comment. MatthewWilcox (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the "also known as Block 3" remark could be removed. On the other hand we have many sources referring to the "Full Thrust" variant as "v1.2", including some FAA requests. It's also striking that SpaceX started advertising its "Full Thrust" performance long before the vehicles actually achieved it. In this manner, they could keep touting "10% improvement" over and over again without touching the published performance figures. Thus "Full Thrust" evolved into "Fuller Thrust" and "Fullest Thrust, we really mean it now"… — JFG ^talk 07:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed the "also known as". --mfb (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment Sorry was not sure where to put this in the discussion but "Falcon 9 was updated in the summer of 2015 to a Full Thrust configuration from its previous v1.1 configuration (flown from 2013 – summer 2015). Falcon 9 underwent further updates and first flew its Full Thrust Block 5 configuration in spring 2018. The Falcon 9 Block 5 architecture...for commonality, reliability, and performance. " per SpaceX's Falcon User Guide (page 9) [7]. Based off this SpaceX is clear then from 2013-2015 it flew v1.1 but then updated to a "Full Thrust" version. Then it moves to a "Full Thrust Block 5". Its unclear per SpaceX source how their rocket was updated between 2015 - spring 2018 (i.e. between the first Full Thrust and Block 5). (attempt to find a "SpaceX" source). Also an older version of the user guide mentions what their "Full Thrust" version changed. [8] Hope this helps. (page 9) OkayKenji (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Falcon 9 Landing Grid View.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Block 5 Falcon 9 Expendable production.jpg
• Merlin 1D Octaweb.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It definitely failed. Regardless of if it was on the pad or off it failed during the process of launch as a consequence of the booster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 10:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Post-mission flight tests and landing attempt" Section

The only post-landing loss of a first stage occurred on Falcon Heavy Arabsat-6A after the center core fell overboard during rough seas on trip to land.

This sounds wrong to my American ear. "...while traveling back towards land."?2605:6000:6FC0:25:681C:395:EC3B:52E9 (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I clarified the text some. Using 'trip' with the right wording seems fine to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

"On 18 March 2020 Starlink mission, one of the first stage engines failed 3 seconds before the main engine cut-off. The payload was inserted into the correct orbit, but the booster recovery failed. SpaceX stated in the webcast of the next Starlink mission that the engine had failed due to the ignition of some isopropyl alcohol that was not properly purged after cleaning the engine.[128]"

The section above implies that the engine-out event on March 18 2020 caused the failure of booster recovery, but that is not true per the cite source in this page under flight no.81: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches The failure of the booster recovery was due to incorrect wind data: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1236117435905785856 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.75.22 (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

When I saw the section named Design in the table of contents I wondered why it wasn't a subsection of the Development history section. I was thinking of it as the predevelopment design of a system; as in design and development. I think Vehicle description would be clearer and avoid this type of confusion.

I think that the "other outcomes" section should be removed, and AMOS-6 be categorized as a failure and ZUMA as a success. AMOS-6 is undoubtedly a failure even though the failure occurred during fueling for a static fire (the rocket failed, not ground support equipment or anything else). RS confirm that Zuma failed as a result of a payload adapter made specifically for Zuma, not as a result of a failure of the rocket (https://www.space.com/40246-spacex-not-to-blame-zuma-failure.html, https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/09/investigation-into-zuma-failure-reportedly-lays-blame-on-northrop-grumman/, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/northrop-grumman-reportedly-at-fault-for-loss-of-zuma-satellite.html ,https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/09/gov-officials-reportedly-conclude-spacex-not-at-fault-for-secret-zuma-satellite-separation-failure/?guccounter=1). Zuma was reverted before, but it's so unambiguous, I'm going to change that again. But AMOS-6 is arguably more ambiguous (there is no RS explictly clarifying that it should be considered a rocket failure), so I'll wait to see if anyone objects to that. Skrelk (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to agree that AMOS-6 was definitely a failure. However, I would like to make the distinction between a failure in-flight (CRS-7) and a failure pre-flight (AMOS-6). osunpokeh (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Mfb and User:Fnlayson you both seem to have an issue with me adding a link to this page and I'm confused why other than your personal preferences. There is no WP MOS page that Fnlayson mentioned several times that has anything against adding this link. And Mbf responded with saying simply that it was "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." How is it a "general rule" if it's simply someone's own personal opinion? Ergzay (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello @

MOS:ALSO twice. You clearly didn't read it since that policy has the direct quote "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." So absolutely not a "personal opinion" like you are stating here. So both User:Mfb and User:Fnlayson were correct to revert your change. --McSly (talk

) 22:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

My revert reason was an exact quote from the manual of style page you still didn't read (otherwise you would have recognized the sentence). As another general rule (this time from BRD): If you make changes to the article and they get reverted, don't re-revert, discuss your proposal on the talk page. --mfb (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I did read the manual of style page several times but didn't see the line you quoted until just now. I see it now, but I believe it to be incorrect in this case, because you naturally expect a list page like that to be in the see also section. As for WP:BRD, I completely disagree and have always disagreed with WP:BRD. If something is reverted it's better to keep the change and then discuss it while it's still in the page. A policy of preferring reverts over non-reverts removes information from the wiki. So I intentionally do not follow WP:BRD. Ergzay (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

If the default is "keep every change in" then you get endless edit wars. Why should we keep your change in, but not the change of someone else removing that link again? See the problem? The existing policy favors stable article versions, i.e. keep the previous consensus if there is no new consensus. Personally I expect the list of launches in the section "Launch history". --mfb (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

No that's not how it works. Someone does something to the article --> someone reverts --> someone puts the material back if they think the revert wasn't correct --> if there is further disagreement, discussion happens. This biases improvement to the wiki rather than biasing lack of improvement. Ergzay (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Now, as to adding the link, I think people expect to look in both locations. I tried to get to the list page from Falcon 9 page by looking in the see also section right away as that's the natural feeling location for information related to Falcon 9. I still say it should be added. If you choose to simply insist that it not be there when it's such an obvious improvement we should go to arbitration. Ergzay (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration would be a waste of everyone's time, since the result is pretty obvious. The fact is that the manual of style does say not to put previously linked articles in the "See Also" section, and you just don't like what's in the MOS. It seems like several other editors of this page disagree with you. Which makes the consensus following the MOS. Why don't you try getting a change to the manual of style instead? Fcrary (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Getting on the article page, I saw the "Launch history" link from the Table of Content, and the link to the list was immediately visible from that section. Exactly where I was expecting it. I don't see any reason to duplicate it in the "See Also" section. --McSly (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Mfb and User:Fnlayson You two seems to have issue with having primary unit for thrust in tonne-force, below are proper explanation for using it. What we do here must be collectively useful for ever one to understand, Below are examples from CEO/CTO Elon himself, I hope you accept the primary unit accordingly.

Time and again Elon Musk posted unit of thrust in tonne-force (tf) rather than Newton.

Reason is, As you could take this below tweet as example,

With 1.5 Thrust/Weight ratio, you need like 150 tf of thrust to lift 100 t rocket, Just simple as that.

Even simpler example is 1N = 100 gram of force which not practical unit, thats why kgF & tF are used by Elon.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1300700639786340353 Chandraprakash (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I was only going by the SpaceX cited sources for the specs. Refs 3, 4, 5, and 12 in the Infobox all list kN first with lbf in parenthesis. Listing either kN or MN first seems appropriate. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We should use the units in official SpaceX rather than something Mr. Musk tweeted. Tweets are not preferred as references when better sources are available. Fcrary (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Musk doesn't write Wikipedia's Manual of Style. ton-force is an obscure unit that shouldn't be used as primary unit in articles. --mfb (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The name of this methodology and its description are from a blog post.[9] It does not appear on Google except in that post and in our reference at "ACTIVE LAUNCH VEHICLE RELIABILITY STATISTICS". SPACE LAUNCH REPORT. Retrieved 21 December 2020., which is basically a table copied form the blog post. Neither the (uncited) blog post nor the reference look like reliable sources to me. I'm not complaining about the methodology or its results, but I don't think we can use them. I certainly see no justification for using the name "Lewis point estimate" with no definition or reference. -Arch dude (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I found [10] which claims to be published in "Journal of Usability Studies" and I found them at [11]. If you go to all issues and scroll down to May 2006 issue, the paper does appear to be listed, the link is [12]. There it claims the paper is peer reviewed. Whether this means much, I don't know but [13] might be a plausible reference for the method. C-randles (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the paper is referenced from the blog post, but the actual name "Lewis point estimate" is not used in the paper. Furthermore, the application of the methodology to this dataset is not peer-reviewed. We are forced to either accept a blog post as reliable, or review the blog post as a paper ourselves, which is disallowed as

WP:OR. I suppose we could just publish the raw success and failure numbers in a table, with references. -Arch dude (talk

) 00:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree that forum posts are not RS but having a quick look around spacelaunchreport.com it seemed more comprehensive than I would expect for "just a fan site". We should use the more reliable source - just because something in a reliable source is discussed on a forum doesn't make it unreliable. OTOH I agree that the naming does look odd and not standard. C-randles (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It's the other way around: the spacelaunchreport.com source appears to have simply picked up the forum post and trimmed it. The forum post appears to be the first occurrence of "Lewis point estimate" as the name of the method, and in fact declares that it is defining the name there. Our "RS" and our own article appear to be the only other uses of that name of the method. the RS removed the definition of the name, so the RS presents a bare table without any link to the methodology. I think that the methodology was applied properly and I think the data is fine, so I think the conclusion is also fine, but I do not think we have a valid chain of reference to allow a reader to check this, and I do not think we should an undefined name for a methodology in our article. -Arch dude (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Does it matter which way round it is? An editor for spacelaunchreport decided to publish it there. If an editor for spacelaunchreport happens to decide to discuss it on a forum first to check for reactions/errors before publishing it on spacelaunchreport, isn't this being careful or a form of checking before publishing? Perhaps it matters if this is an indicator of spacelaunchreport being a single person fan site, but nobody seems to be addressing that question here and instead focusing on a forum post which we know we cannot use. Just noticed, the index page [14] says "by Ed Kyle" (presumably same person that posted on forum, edkyle99) so that is looking more like spacelaunchreport is a personal web site. C-randles (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, we have no reliable source. We have (forensically) found a valid but non-RS dataset, a valid methodology, and a valid but non-RS result of that methodology applied to that dataset. Basically, we (with tears in our eyes) must remove the whole thing from our article unless we apply

WP:IAR. Does anyone know where we can find a reliably-sourced reliability number for the Falcon 9? What about a reliably-sourced reliability comparison to other launch vehicles? -Arch dude (talk

) 16:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a standard method but it doesn't have a universally agreed name as far as I know. Mathematically it is coming from Bayesian statistics with a uniform prior, taking the expectation value afterwards. Some discussion here for example. --mfb (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

What can we say about payload to trans lunar injection for an expendable F9 ? I haven't seen a SpaceX source but can we use 3rd party calculations, or the NASA websites that show launcher payloads to various C3 values ? - Rod57 (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

With 6 or 7 such flights planned, it does seem more useful than payload to Mars Transfer orbit (none? planned) but think the calc really ought to be in a RS. C-randles (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering that cost per launch generally refers to the internal cost for an organization to launch a rocket whereas the price per launch refers to the money a customer has to pay for a launch I think that cost per launch should be switched to price per launch. PROONTExchange (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@PROONTExchange: the label "cost per launch" comes from the template Template:Infobox rocket, which is used in 485 articles. You can join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox rocket. -Arch dude (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

By 2022, F9 is launching more than once a week. Most launches are Starlink, and others are Crew Dragon and Cartgo Dragon, plus others. The casual reader cannot get an insight into this. In additin F9 is launching more than two-thirds of the world's payload mass to orbit and is launching more frequently than any other launcher. I'm not sure how to introduce all of this into the article. -Arch dude (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Consolidate discussion on human transport 2600:1700:1C24:C070:5CF4:F70:F892:9166 (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Scott Manley mentioned "fastest turnaround" in his Deep Space Updates February 18th @1m59s, which would be a great addition under ==Capabilities== somewhere. -- Ponken (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)