|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falcon 9 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 6 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Article seems to have just v1, v1.1 and R versions with little or no mention of v1.1 FT. Is
- the v1.1 FT now going to be renamed or considered to be the Falcon 9R? or
- are these separate version? or
- is there further evolution of v1.1 FT needed before it becomes the 9R? or
- some other distinction?
- As I understand it the F9R is still the F9 v1.1, just with the legs and other stuff added. That is backed up by this page , saying
- In its F9R configuration, the launcher has all characteristics of the Falcon 9 v1.1 with the addition of four landing legs, a cold gas attitude control system and four grid fins to the first stage.
- and this page  saying
- Essentially the v.1.1 and F 9-R are the same vehicle, although the upgraded F9 will not fly with the key reusable hardware – such as landing legs – until a later date.
- As the article reads now the F9R seems like a separate version which I don't think it should. The F9 v1.1 FT on the other hand deserves it's own section and mentioning in the lead section. Ulflund (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- the Problem with the falcon 9 and trying to categorise all the 'versions' is that pretty much every rocket they've fired off is an incremental evolution of the last. I agree with User:Ulflund 12:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- The F9R has, at least in public sources, always been about what they would do... Whereas the F9 v1.0 and the F9 v1.1 and the F9 v1.1 FT are all things/versions that SpaceX actually has done, and flown. It really isn't clear how SpaceX themeselves intend to use the F9R descriptor to apply to any or all of this.
- For example, does the F9R term begin to apply once they have successfully recovered one (December 2015) or two (maybe this month?) stages and they go "operational" with the recovery ops, and quit calling them "experimental tests" as they did on the December 2015 flight? I don't know. But it seems clear, to me anyway, that SpaceX is a bit unclear themselves oftentimes on which descriptor to use, and which subcategories of rockets apply in which super category. But, life happens. And we have to deal with the reality, and sources, as they are. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- This doesn't matter for the article yet (no reliable sources), but the scuttlebutt is that SpaceX is going to do away with the version numbers altogether (possibly to avoid antagonizing the US Airforce's certification team). Every rocket will continue to be ever so slightly different than the one that came before it, but they'll all just be referred to as "Falcon 9" from now on. — Gopher65talk 03:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Note: there is an article on this new/upgraded (or "upgrade") version of the former Falcon 9 v1.1 version. That article is at Falcon 9 full thrust. Enjoy.
Secondly, there is already a discussion on just what the correct name of the new version is on that article's Talk page; here is the link. Feel free to go over there and join the discussion, because SpaceX has not made it exactly straightforward to know what to call the thing.
(Bonus item: there is a link on that Talk page to the recent USAF certification of the new version where they, get this, use another/different name than the "Full Thrust" ,"v1.1 Full Thrust", or "full thrust" descriptors that have been used in quite a bit of media lately.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Falcon 9 v1.0 Payload numbers
The payload numbers for 1.0 are incorrect. The problem is that the correct numbers are nowhere. The numbers that state the 10 tonne payload in SpaceX website were for the version with the updated version of the Merlin 1C engine which never materialized because they skipped the updated version of Merlin 1C and went directly to the much better Merlin 1D engine and v1.1 of the rocket. --Hkultala (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yup. The correct number for the original F9 Block 1 is 8.5 to 9 tonnes to a very low LEO with zero change in inclination. It was a really light launcher compared to the F9 of today. It could *barely* launch an empty Dragon Cargo to the ISS. That's why all the early Dragons had like 500 pounds of cargo in them... that's all that the block one could haul on top of the Dragon itself. The Block 2 (which was never built) very quickly replaced the Block one in all official communications, including on their website. This is where the 10+ tonnes to LEO numbers come from. Unfortunately SpaceX removed the correct Block 1 numbers, and now we don't have a source for them.
- It went like this:
- Originally publicized (unrealized) paper version of F9 with Merlin 1A: 12 tonnes to LEO
- Block 1: 8.5 tonnes to very low LEO
- Block 2: 10+ tonnes to very low LEO
- v1.1: ~16 tonnes to very low LEO (expendable mode)
- v1.1FT: ~20 tonnes to very low LEO (expendable mode)
- F9R (same as FT model, but reusable booster): 13.5 tonnes to LEO
- That's my recollection, anyway. Hard to find reliable sources for stuff like this though. — Gopher65talk 01:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Very long infobox
I think having data about v1.0, v1.1 and v1.1 FT in the infobox makes it difficult to read. I sugest keeping only the data about the current version and extending the version comparison table further down in the article with any data removed from the infobox. Any objections or comments? Ulflund (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Realistically, there is no one set of numbers for many aspects of just what a "Falcon 9" is, since there are (at least) three major versions of a Falcon 9. So, in my view, you either put all three of the differing specs in the infobox (long, a bit messy, but workable, as shown over the past couple of years in this article), or you pull the specs that vary out of the infobox (or have no infobox). To list only the most recent F9 specs would be misleading. This is an encyclopedia; and if someone is only looking at Falcon 9 (with no more descriptive adjective), then it is this article's job to inform them of the full extent of the "Falcon 9", and not resort to a misguided form of a presentist view that the only F9 worth talking about is the present F9. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Specific Impulse on infobox
Specific Impulse is listed twice in the infobox, but with different values. The first time only for versions 1.1 and 1.0, with both sea level and vacuum thrust. The second listing for all three versions that is higher those in the fist listing, w/o discriminating vacuum or sea level. Even if everything is right, it is confusing. Caroliano (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Happy to clarify this for you: the first ISP values are for the first stage, which travels from sea level to vacuum, hence two values. We haven't found a reference yet for ISP of the full thrust version, so we only list v1.0 and v1.1 there. The second mention concerns the Vacuum version of the Merlin 1D engine on the second stage, whose nozzle has a greater expansion ratio, so the ISP is different than the first stage engine version. Also, the second stage operates only in vacuum and is optimized for this purpose, this is why ISP at sea level is not mentioned. — JFG talk 21:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not only is it optimized for vacuum operation, it couldn't even operate at sea level. It would blow itself apart:). So there is doubly no reason to list the second stage sea level ISP. — Gopher65talk 05:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't see the "first stage" and "second stage" section markers, they don't stand out. But I guess this is a general wiki style issue and can't be solved here. Caroliano (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)