Talk:Falcon 9

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)