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, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


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)
As a replacement for the current Launch History section on this article, would something like this do? "To date, there have been X launches of the F9v1.0, and Y launches of the F9v1.1. All launches have been successful, with the exception of the partial failure of one F9v1.0 launch, and the total failure of one F9v1.1 launch. For more information, see List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches." Ringshall (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that's good, but it would be good to mention what launch had a partial failure and total failure through wikilinks, as well as first flight of v1.0 and v1.1. Instead of the "for more information" use the Template:Main at the top of the section. Appable (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

CRS-1 launch outcome[edit]

Looks like someone is trying to kick open the can of worms again. I think this issue has been rehashed over and over so I'm not going to discuss about it here beyond letting the discussion flow here and stating my opinion that this shouldn't been changed.

Any new opinions? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the vehicle suffered a failure and didn't put both payloads where it was supposed to. SpaceX agreed to the conditions under which a stage relight could be carried out; the launch didn't meet those terms and can't be considered a full success. A(Ch) 02:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomenclature and accuracy issues[edit]

There are some fairly major issues with outdated/incorrect nomenclature on here. 1.0 is of course not part of any launch family as it has been phased out for some time. There are no significant differences between the bog standard 1.1 and R, R is just a 1.1 with legs, grid fins and ACS added, listing them as separate rockets makes no sense. In fact, R properly refers to the putative future completely reusable (including second stage) version of the 1.1. Moving on, Falcon heavy is not based on 1.1, and hasn't been for a while. The boosters are stretched, and whilst the core is more like a 1.1, it's not the same either. I won't bother changing, as I know how wiki works, and the incorrect information will be back in there in no time, I'm not going to waste my time. I suggest a careful reading of well-informed websites, mainly NSF, which gets their info straight from SpaceX more often then not. Should be required reading for anyone editing articles like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Few points:
1) NSF is great. I love them. And yes, we read it. I read every article they publish. I also read everything that comes out of the SpaceX Reddit. In fact, I have probably read every English language SpaceX article written by anyone:P. Some are definitely better than others, and NSF is at the top of the heap. But as great as NSF is (and SpaceX Reddit too), a large part of what you read there is random guesswork. Much of it from L2. It's interesting to read, but you have to take everything you read there with a giant grain of salt. Re-reading old NSF articles about SpaceX is hilarious, because they're so very wrong, so very disconnected from the eventual reality that would occur. It's basically a fan blog. Don't take what you read there as gospel. But I love it anyway:). It's fun.
2) That brings us to another point you bring up: inaccuracy. Why is NSF inaccurate? It's not for lack of effort on their part, it's because they're not working with good data. SpaceX is constantly iteratively advancing their designs and overall plans. For instance, they say they're going to try something new. Then everyone reports on it (including much handwringing on L2 about whether or not it's a good idea). Then SpaceX tries it. It doesn't work. Then they try 6 more things over the next year or two, without publicizing what they're doing. Meanwhile, NSF (and, I'll add, Wikipedia) are still talking about the first, publicized idea SpaceX had, which has long since been discarded by the company itself. Half the stuff on the SpaceX Wikipedia articles ends up getting eventually deleted for this reason.
3) This in turn brings us to the next issue: iterative design. The first v1.1 to launch was a very different rocket than the one that just launched. Every single v1.1 has been at least slightly - and sometimes significantly - different from every other one. One thing we do know: the v1.1 is definitely not the F9R. Why? Because the v1.1 is being retired in a few months, and replaced with the v1.2. At the very least, the F9R will therefore have a larger upper stage than the V1.1 (because the v1.2 has a larger upper stage). This is an issue because it becomes literally impossible for us to maintain a completely accurate article. Anything we have good sources for is already out of date.
4) Be a little bit nicer. "Don't be a dick", as some have said. You'll find people more receptive. Also, Wikipedia a a do-it-yourself site. If you don't like something, change it. If you can't be bothered, then you have no right to complain. Just like voting. Here you vote with your edits though, not with ballots. — Gopher65talk 23:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If you were actually well-informed you wouldn't let such glaring inaccuracies stand in the article. Nomenclature is one thing, and can be debated, factual errors (FH being made up from 1.1s etc etc) another thing altogether. Calling me a dick whilst not actually addressing any of my points, charming. And people wonder why I don't bother editing.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you have an updated, recent, verifiable source stating that the two booster stages will be stretched? That might be something to include if that source is more up-to-date than previous articles. Wikipedia prioritizes verifiable information over what is "a factual error". In the eyes of Wikipedia's policies, the current information is the most accurate that can be verified. If there is any other information more current, then any source would be helpful. Appable (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
We've noted for some time that the image on SpaceX's website shows stretched boosters, but that's the only evidence we could find that the boosters were stretched. And given the terrible inaccuracy of SpaceX's media presentations in the past (senior management actually noted once that their animations and renderings were for illustrative purposes, and not meant to be taken literally), we need a lot more than that. Statements from SpaceX reps, or pictures of the rocket itself with stretched stages would be nice (if pictures exist, then articles will exist discussing them, and we can use those as sources). We should know for sure in a few months.
I think one of the issues is that people think of SpaceX as being "open", but it's actually moderately secretive. It's only open about its propaganda media statements, not about what it's actually doing. It's not quite like reporting on Blue Origin, but it's not like we're taking about Copenhagen Suborbitals here, with their open source way of doing things. — Gopher65talk 04:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Debris[edit]

FYI, someone found wreckage washed up on shore [1] -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @65.94.43.89: Good find! I've added content (with that article referenced) to the Payload Fairing section of the article mentioning the wreckage found and Musk's note of "fairing reusability". Appable (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Isn't it possible Musk was joking about reusable fairings? A(Ch) 20:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Anythingcouldhappen: I don't think it was a joke. Musk didn't seem to be joking and hasn't said anything as a follow-up. I mean, anythingcouldhappen in the future that would say this was a joke, but for now I think Musk's word is enough. Appable (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)