Talk:Falcon 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Rocketry (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article cleanup[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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

Yes check.svg 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[edit]

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. (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. — Gopher65talk 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[edit]

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."[1]" 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. 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 [1]. Your words were: "No reason to get into program milestones". Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ NASA, "Commercial Crew and Cargo," COTS 2006 Demo Competition (accessed August 26 2014); see announcement Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Demonstrations, Jan. 18 2006 (accessed August 26 2014)

How detailed a launch history?[edit]

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.

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)