Talk:Falcon 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robert Horning (talk | contribs) at 02:41, 6 January 2018 (→‎First or third reusable launch vehicle?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Summary/Side Bar

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just checked the video, confirming that CRS-12 first stage was equipped with the old-style aluminum grid fins.[1] This may be a block 3 first stage with a block 4 second stage? — JFG talk 08:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

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

checkY 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)[reply]

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

I've seen this particular logo [2] 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)[reply]

Falcon 9 booster B1031

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

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) 10:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First or third reusable launch vehicle?

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, Reusable launch system, says the Shuttle was reusable, so it's also inconsistent to say Falcon 9 was the first reusable. Does anyone else have an opinion on the subject? Fcrary (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also forgot the Buran spacecraft which was also clearly intended to be reused (even though in practice it never was) and did achieve orbit. That is a heck of a lot better rational for inclusion to make the Falcon 9 #3 than by using the absurd example of the New Shepherd that wouldn't even be #1 for suborbital class flights. That is also like saying SpaceX was the first private company to achieve spaceflight (which they weren't.... by well more than a decade with the Conestoga I easily getting that prize). I agree with you that the Falcon 9 should be in a similar category with those two other reusable orbital rocket systems. The Falcon 9 isn't even 100% reusable as the upper stage is obviously thrown away after every flight.... something the STS was able to bring back home (depending on what you call a "stage"). It is a remarkable and 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falcon_9&oldid=818871655"