Talk:Falcon 9

Rocketry Unassessed

	Rocketry portal 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.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.