Talk:SpaceX launch vehicles

Stratolaunch rocket

I'm thinking the main section of the air-launch rocket should be in the main SpaceX article with this page having a small reference to it, because while the rocket may be based on the Falcon series it isn't officially part of the Falcon family, let alone have any SpaceX branding. 69.38.128.246 (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not disagree actually. I am not entirely sure that even this wikipedia article is necessary, as almost all of the current "rocket family" all derivations of the Falcon 9: but that is for another debate at another time.--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is necessary because it's about the rockets from mostly a technical standpoint while the other article should be reduced to spacex as a business, including some details about the falcons but also, dragon, company history, missions, nasa/stratolaunch contracts, etc TMV943 (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I, too, don't believe that the Falcon (rocket family) article ought to be deleted, or merged. Why? It is a (fairly newly created) article that documents a notable set of 21st century private rocket development projects.

I believe the—perhaps poorly executed—intent of the editor who created this article was to remove a good bit of the detail of the SpaceX rocket family of Falcon rockets from the main SpaceX article. I think this is probably a good intent, and worthwhile goal. However, when this article was created, nearly all the rocket info was totally deleted from the main SpaceX article, not leaving even well-written prose summaries, and without any prior discussion on the SpaceX Talk page; so I reverted the deletion in the SpaceX article. Probably still needs clean up, reduction, and copy editing over there. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks for being subtle :(. Actually the two things I removed was the chart (which is really all or nothing, but I'll let you decide when it's time) and the future development, which may have been more questionable. TMV943 (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Air-launched rocket and dubious claim about a "feathered-return reenty system"

The article currently claims that the Stratolauch "Air-launched rocket" that SpaceX is developing will "For the human-rated version, no exact details have been released on what spacecraft will be used; however, it will use a feathered-return,{{dubious|date=December 2011}} low-drag reentry system similar to [[Scaled Composites]]'s sub-orbital [[SpaceShipOne]] spacecraft.<ref name=avw20111213/>"

This claim is not supported by the referenced source. That Aviation Week article (13 Dec 2011) says this: "Rutan said the human-rated Falcon system will fly the “feathered” low-drag re-entry profile he used for SpaceShipOne." Flying a re-entry profile that may be low-drag, is not the same as utilizing a feathered return system on the human-carrying space capsule.

In short, we would need more direct evidence that Stratolaunch is intending something other than a capsule for this "air-launched rocket" before we should make this assertion in Wikipedia. So I will intend to remove the unsupported claim. N2e (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Grasshopper VTVL photographs now released

There are a number of photos released in the past few days of the Grasshopper (rocket) VTVL test vehicle, here. I would think that someone who is Wiki-photo-wise (which is definitely not me) could figure out how we could use one of these photos under a fair use rationale. I'll add a {{reqphoto}} tag. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the article as a whole has a large number of available-to-use free photos, I personally couldn't justify uploading a non-free image for a single section. Perhaps someone near McGregor could...get near and snap a pic? — Huntster (t @ c) 05:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Huntster. I see your point on the overall quantity of photos in the article. But of course, that fails to provide a photo of this particular VTVL rocket.

Well, I guess the logic for obtaining a photo for this particular notable new rocket that is under funded development will work better after some editor separates the mere article section into its own article, which will no doubt happen in the coming months or years. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done User:Craigboy has helpfully uploaded a Creative Commons licensed photo from the Flickr fotstream of Steve Jurvetson. Good work! Removed the reqphoto tag. N2e (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Falcon 1e status

Some editor has moved the Falcon 1e to cancelled, but I've not seen any cited source that supports that. Rather, the sources I've seen seem to indicate that the Falcon 1e was either "late in development" or "developed" at the time that SpaceX chose to discontinue offering Falcon 1e flights on the market (ostensibly at least in part because its order book was low/limited) and concentrate company operational resources on the Falcon 9. Does anyone have a source that the Falcon 1e is, indeed, "cancelled"? If not, I'll soon remove the rocket from the "Cancelled" section of the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Falon 1e was designed, but no Falcon 1e was launched or even built before the program was discontinued. That makes it a paper rocket, which justifies the statement "cancelled". At least that was my train of thought when I saw what had been done;). — Gopher65_talk 14:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks for offering your logic up. Appreciate that. But I believe that it was a serious, funded development program, that was well down the path of significant money having been spent for both development and also for verification and validation, and was already scheduled for the new model to come into the production line on a certain mission, when SpaceX decided that they would halt taking orders for all Falcon 1 launches (both F1 and F1e) and move the payloads they had manifested to Falcon 9. Either way, it is not dependent on my thoughts ("...I believe...") nor your thoughts ("my train of thought...". We just need a source that says Falcon 1e was actually "cancelled" as opposed to merely SpaceX decided to stop scheduling launches on a launcher that was well down the development path. Failing that, we should not show the launcher as "cancelled" in the Wikipedia article. N2e (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Falcon 1e basically went from being ready for payload orders to being wiped from the site much like the different Falcon 9 blocks. So I doubt it was just a concept rocket but without a launch there really hasn't been much tracking its development TMV943 (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Since no source supporting the "cancelled" claim has been provided in the past week, I have moved the Falcon 1e material back into the Falcon 1 section of the article, per discussion above. If a source surfaces later that indicates SpaceX has, indeed, cancelled the entire Falcon 1e program, we can update the article then. N2e (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Falcon 1e will never fly. Still it is listed in the comparison table. Remove that column? Kcauwert (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

New Super-heavy Launch Vehicle

SpaceX has announced development of a new Super-heavy launch vehicle, utilizing a new SpaceX-developed LOX/LH2 rocket engine called the "MCT". Little is known about it at present beyond very rough thrust and total payload mass to low-Earth orbit. I have found no name at all for the new SHLift launch vehicle. I had originally added a new section to this article with a summary and a source.

However, as another editor (User:TMV943) has pointed out, nothing in the sources to date says that this new launch vehicle will be known by the designator 'Falcon', so it would seem the new launch vehicle probably does not belong in this article at this time. (Ditto for the MCT, which has not been identified as a 'Merlin' engine; so probably does not belong in the Merlin series article either.) This could be opened for discussion. But to this point, I tend to agree with the editor who removed the MCT section, text I had previously added, and placed it in the SpaceX main article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Little is known about it at present beyond very rough thrust and total payload mass to low-Earth orbit."

We don't even know that really as the statements referring to the new engine and the payload mass of a SHLift rocket were two different announcements and the new engine may be part of a different vehicle design to the original concept. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. The published reports to date do not indicate whether the engines will be a member of the Merlin family (seems unlikely since the fuel is LOX/LH2 rather than LOX/RP1), or whether the upper stage LOX/LH2 engine is even the Raptor second stage engine concept that SpaceX has occasionally spoken out about since 2009. Also, as User:TMV943 pointed out, they may or may not be "Falcon" rockets. So as of now, having nothing about them is appropriate in this article. N2e (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The one caveat is that both of these (Merlin 2 and MCT) are intended to be used in "Super-heavy lift vehicles". It might be that there are two engine development programs, with the Merlin 2 intended for a range of lift capability under that of the MCT. However, there is far to litte information to really tell. My gut feeling is that the Merlin 2 is being replaced with MCT. In any event, it is perhaps better with one section/page on all SpaceX "Super-heavy lift" engine developments. After all, the Falcon X and HeavyX etc were merely conceptual "brainstorming ideas", just a "bunch of ideas for discussion," and not financed SpaceX projects as clarified by Elon (and the current text reads). That is, I agree that the MCT should not be included here, but in a sense, neihter should the Falcon X. They are both just heavy-lift concepts based on proposed new engines. FalconX can stil be included here, but the bulk of the information on "Super-heavy lift" designs and engines could be on a new page. SC2Buran (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

They have the Falcon name, so they get a mention on the Falcon rocket family page TMV943 (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to cover all SpaceX engines, whether RP-1, or Methane, or hypegolic, in the SpaceX rocket engine family article. Other editors are welcome to help to help improve that article. (Note that there is, as of December 2012, no mention of the MCT in that article, as various sources have explicitly indicated that MCT is not a a rocket engine, even though several media sources reported that when the "MCT" descriptor was first used by SpaceX earlier in the fall of 2012. Even though there is no MCT rocket engine at all, the article page MCT (rocket engine) is a redirect, and one that just survived an RfD discussion over the past couple of weeks.) There is, however, a mention of the VERY LARGE ROCKET ENGINE that SpaceX is developing in the SpaceX rocket engine family article, without giving it any name at all, since SpaceX has not named it yet. — Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Initial thrust of the F9

The table claims that the initial thrust of the F9 is 3400 kn, without any citation adjacent to the claim, but with a grouping of three sources given under the table that are purporting to support ALL of the claims in the table.

The one source that seems most likely for the F9 initial thrust claim, is the Dec 2011 archive (one of the three sources underneath the table) for the Falcon 9. This source reports that the "a total thrust on liftoff of just over 1.1 Million lbs-f." 1.1 million lbf is NOT 3400 kn, rather 1.1 M lbf is (1,100,000 lbf); or 9500 kN. A rather large error.

I have not fixed that error yet, but it is illustrative of a larger problem: attempting to source an entire table full of specific claims—claims that will inevitably change over time in the emergent world of Wikipedia—from one or more sources at the bottom of a table, is problematic. Even if the entire table is correctly sourced at some point in time, it inevitably won't be at a later time as my efforts to confirm the F9 data showed today. Definitely will need much more work. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

1.1M lbf is actually about 4900 kN. I'm not going to comment on the sourcing issue but at least mathematically it seems to makes sense; a Merlin 1C has about 350kN Sea level thrust, 350kN*9 = 3150kN. The 4900 kN could be for the 1.1 TMV943 (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, TMC943. That number is still a rather large difference from what is in the article. Please take a look at what the convert template does with the 1,100,000 lbf above; it seems to come out with 9500 kN. Do you think the Wikipedia convert template has a calculation error in it? N2e (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Testing convert:1,100,000 pounds-force (), using: {{convert|1100000|lbf|kn}}. Yeah, there's a bug in there somewhere. Are we sure we're talking pounds force and not something like foot-pounds? 1.1 million pounds-force = ~4900 kilo-newtons (Google convert claims 4850 or so). There are 4.448 newtons in 1 pound (linky). If we're talking foot-pounds though, that's a unit of energy , and isn't directly translatable into newtons. Dunno why we'd be talking foot-pounds, I'm just trying to figure out the discrepancy. — Gopher65_talk 03:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Gopher65: We are definitely talking units of force here, that is to say, either Newtons or pounds-force (lbf). We are not talking foot-pounds, which is a unit of torque, not force. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have started a discussion over at Template_talk:Convert#Potential_conversion_error:_lbf_to_Newtons, asking for some help from a Convert template guru. N2e (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

See my reply there (use kN for kilonewtons). Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Johnuniq. It was my editor error in the use of the {{convert}} template. "kn" is knots. "kN" is kilonewtons.

So, we see, testing 1,100,000 pounds-force (4,900 kN), using: {{convert|1100000|lbf|kN}} gives us 4900 kN. Cool.

With a few other features turned on, we get 1.1 M lbf is 4,900 kN. — N2e (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done — the table is fixed now, and I found a way to get the convert template to output only the converted number, and not the units, so now it looks right at home in the table cell. N2e (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing for the "Launch vehicle comparisons" table

For quite some time, the "Launch vehicle comparisons" table in the article has purported that it was sourced from three sources via a footnote at the bottom of the table. The three sources were two from 2011, and one from 2007.

On 24 Dec 2012, I did a careful update of the Falcon 9 claims in that table. MOST of the table entries were incorrect, and the numbers that had been in the article were not, in general, supported by those three sources. I have cleaned up the Falcon 9 v 1.0 column (on 24 Dec) and individually cited the claims that can be supported by a known source. Today (25 Dec), I've done the same for the Falcon 9 v1.1 column.

NET: these three (old) sources clearly DO NOT source the ENTIRE table. Leaving them in the article just encourages sloppy editing when many editors, and many readers, improperly assume that (old) sources at the bottom of a table source everything in a table. While this is possible, it generally quickly degenerates in the emergent world of Wikipedia where subsequent editors may change the numbers, without updating the sources.

I will plan to remove those archaic/outdated sources from the footnote at the bottom of the table at a later time. They may, however, be useful for supporting particular individual claims in the table. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Price per Kilo

N2e's recent editing has highlighted what I've long seen as a problem with these articles: the "price per kilogram" section of the table is nothing more than guesswork derived from the maximum payload and the published price ranges. Even if Wikipedia editors were in a position to do original research like that (we're not), those two values ranges are both approximate. The max payload depends greatly on the exact orbital altitude and the inclination of the orbit (merely saying "to LEO" doesn't tell the reader much), while the price of the launch depends on mission requirements, size of contract, etc. They are not set values, and thus we can't use them to compute a reliable price per kilogram. Even computing a minimum price per kilogram is problematic, because we don't know what the "normal" price per launch and normal max launch masses are going to turn out to be (both will differ from their theoretic min values).

I'd like to remove 3 price per kilo rows from the table. I don't want a vote, but instead I'd like to discuss this and see if anyone can justify the existence of those rows beyond the obvious "it's fun speculation". — Gopher65_talk 20:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support the proposal to remove the three "price per kilogram" rows in the table. They are unsourced (and therefore likely {{original research}} and are notoriously difficult to be compared in a table anyway, since if sources are found for some claims, they are typically done at different times by different authors using different cost methodologies, and so are simply not comparable in any meaningful way. N2e (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Gopher65_talk 00:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Good work. Glad to see that done! Now there are many more places where these non-comparable and only partially complete price/kg comparisons have been inserted into launcher-related articles. See, for example, Comparison of orbital launch systems. N2e (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Grasshopper

The sections for Grasshopper and reusable launching system are a bit redundant. What's more they may not be placed correctly. Grasshopper is only intended as a testbed so in a way it can be considered active in its mission rather than "under development". However, I wouldn't put it on the active list since it's more of a related rocket than an actual Falcon. Instead I'd take the reusable rocket section and put it in "under development" since it is under development in that Grasshopper is part of that goal, and add Grasshopper as a sub-section to that TMV943 (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point. SpaceX seems to be doing a lot of work on the reusable launching system, only one part of which is the Grasshopper version 1 (short tank, low-altitude) rocket. There is the v1.1 Grasshopper (long-tank, higher-altitude, fold-up legs, supersonic-flight capable) rocket, and with announcement in only the past week, a fairly extensive very high-altitude, very fast (Mach 10 (12,300 km/h; 7,610 mph)) booster-return and over-water simulated "landing" testing they are going to be doing on all future F9 v1.1 rockets, beginning this June. I like the idea that Grasshopper is probably a subsection of the reusable development and test program that SpaceX is doing. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The SpaceX reusable rocket launching system is now described in an article of its own. Grasshopper v1.0, and the under construction Grasshopper v1.1, vehicles are a couple of components of that very active experimental technology rocket vehicle development program. As well, the fly-back tests of the Falcon 9 v1.1 first stages that will begin at mid-year 2013 is also a part of the the SpaceX reusable rocket launching system program. Take a look at that article, and then feel free to help improve the effort to describe the two things in context in that article, or on that new article's Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Falcon 9: Falcon 9 v1.0 and Falcon 9 v1.1

I've added a bit of information to begin to clarify/summarize the distinctions between the (now retired) Falcon 9 v1.0 and the currently-in-service Falcon 9 v1.1. Even though we will want to leave most of the detail on those two rockets in their respective articles, there is probably a bit more summary info to add, and definitely more cleanup of this article to do, to present that story more encyclopedically. I'll try to get back here and do it sometime, but if anyone else in interested in copyediting and organizing to improve the Falcon rocket family article, that would be fine by me. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Great additional information about the v1.1, thanks. Karl (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove Merlin 2

I'm curious as to what other people think about this article's inclusion of the Merlin 2 and other related material (like the Falcon X). It seems to me that these projects have been superceded by the MCT and the Raptor family of engines. We haven't heard anything about a Merlin 2 engine in a long time, so I think maybe we should start culling outdated references to that engine and its "just brainstorming" rockets. — Gopher65_talk 14:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Remove Merlin 2, it doesn't exist, and it was mentioned only officially once.--Abebenjoe (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, remove it. See my comment below, in the next section. N2e (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

K, I've removed the Merlin 2 content at least. I left the Raptor stuff that was in that section, but it's not correct. According to the most recent Reddit AMA by Elon Musk (as well as an MIT talk he gave), the Raptor will only be 1/4 as powerful (and 1/5th as large) as previously estimated by the SpaceX fanclub (which was where the 1 to 1.5 million figure came from), because that is the "sweet spot" for the thrust-to-weight ratio with the design they're working on. — Gopher65_talk 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing, updating Future proposals

The section dealing with Future proposals is a total mess, and is completely out-of-date. I will be heavily revising it, as those concepts are not "future", but are "historic" what-ifs, and should not be in this article.--Abebenjoe (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur. All the material on "Merlin 2", "Falcon X", and "Falcon XX" were merely conceptual powerpoint slides presented at a conference, and which were quickly walked back by Musk and the official company a few days/weeks later. Moreover, what has since come to past, and is now actual development work, is not very much like any of that conceptual stuff. I'd be fine if the material was removed, or summarized with a sentence or two, either one. N2e (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible new lead image

Would this image be usable on Wikipedia? It's a highly encyclopaedic image created by reddit users /u/ethan829 and /u/dante80 source, essentially by compositing public renders made by SpaceX. All SpaceX photos are released under public domain licences, I wonder if that includes these renders? Anxietycello (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Article cleanup, and Falcon history

The article has some strangenesses now. The v1.1 section starts talking about 2005 (which is clearly and more correctly either the F5 or the F9 v1.0). The "under development" Falcon 9R, a term used extensively by SpaceX for while during development (along with other related terms like reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 reusable etc.) is pretty clearly not still under development as is currently stated. But that material should also not just be deleted completely and lose the History of the family of rockets and its development. F9R and reusable Falcon 9 lingo was clearly a chapter in the development of this launch vehicle family. (I just reverted a complete and large deletion of that material.)

But clearly, the article needs some considerable work to get it in better order. Anyone have ideas? Anyone want to help? Let's discuss a few meta-concepts here and see if we might develop consensus on some top-level organisation and then get some editing underway. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Falcon (rocket family). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.universetoday.com/1465/spacexs-falcon-1-briefly-reaches-space/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.space.com/2200-fuel-leak-fire-led-falcon-1-rocket-failure-spacex.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.space.com/2196-spacex-inaugural-falcon-1-rocket-lost-launch.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.universetoday.com/16900/video-of-spacex-falcon-1-flight-3-shows-stage-separation-anomaly/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1336868/SpaceX-Dragon-privately-funded-spaceship-launched-orbit.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/falcon5.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/stratolaunch-rutan-designed-air-launched-system-falcon-rockets/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203224447/http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/007/131124commercial/ to http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/007/131124commercial/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715094112/http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715094112/http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715094112/http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Falcon (rocket family). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222034638/http://www.spacex.com/Falcon1UsersGuide.pdf to http://www.spacex.com/Falcon1UsersGuide.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320221234/http://msdb.gsfc.nasa.gov/launches.php to http://msdb.gsfc.nasa.gov/launches.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Big F* Rocket

The planned BFR launch vehicle is not part of the Falcon line. For example, it would use the Raptor, not the Merlin engines. Also, BFR does not stand for Big Falcon Rocket. This section should be removed, and possible replaced with a reference to a page on the BFR or a note that the Falcon line will be discontinued to facilitate development and production of the BFR.

Fcrary (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Falcon (rocket family). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016081034/http://msdb.gsfc.nasa.gov/MissionData.php?mission=Falcon-9%20ELV%20First%20Flight%20Demonstration to http://msdb.gsfc.nasa.gov/MissionData.php?mission=Falcon-9%20ELV%20First%20Flight%20Demonstration

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Falcon heavy NOT delivering Tesla Roadster into "orbit around Mars"

There is no single source for this but a bit of research shows that there is no mention of attaining Mars orbit and in any case is unfeasible until April/May at the earliest.

The logical conclusion is that the second stage will send the payload into a Hohmann transfer orbit which will pass near to the PATH of the orbit of Mars (not Mars itself which will arrive around that point about 3 months later) and then without a further burn will just stay in that precessing, elliptical orbit, presumably coming back round the the sun with its periapsis at the distance of the Earth's orbit and then back to its apoapsis at the distance of the Mars orbit.

There is no info on the following, but to avoid close passes to either planet, you would have to assume that they would tilt axis of the plane of the orbit slightly off of the planetary plane, making collision or interference with satellites etc, impossible in the future, and allow it to continue safely in its orbit for "billions of years".

I think it would be good to clear up this common misconception.

Here's a ref that backs this up:

Calscot (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calscot (talk • contribs) 16:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Haven't all falcon 9 full thrusts been retired now

Therefore we can add this rocket to the retired spacex vehicles — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSoftBanana (talk • contribs) 13:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No, in that the current Block 4 (which are no longer being manufactured, but a few remain to be flown and/or reflown) and forthcoming Block 5 are just enhancements of the Full Thrust version. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Split and merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In a discussion at Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#Requested move 21 August 2019, a consensus against a scope change of that list to include all flights of this rocket family in one list was rejected by a consensus largely based on the idea that the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 family were too different to be considered part of the same hardware continuity. Relevant quotes as follows:

• "The only component that Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 have in common is the Merlin engine, and it was a rather primitive version of it. Different body, different upper stage, different fairing, different launch site. Conversely, Falcon Heavy is a clear derivative of Falcon 9 : same body ×3, same upper stage, same fairing, same launch site. There is just no case for merging information about these vastly different launch vehicles. The only consistency would be their branding." – JFG
• "Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 are completely different vehicles, the Falcon Heavy was added to the list a few years ago because they are basically the same vehicle and it makese sense to put them in here seeing it will only have a couple or few handfulls of flights before Falcon retirement in the 2030's or earlier." – AndrewRG10
• "The Falcon 1 is a different vehicle altogether." – Insertcleverphrasehere
• "The Falcon 9 and Heavy are similar enough to be in 1 article, but the Falcon 1 is different enough." – OkayKenji
• "Falcon 1 is such a very different launch vehicle, that flew all of its flights in an entirely different epoch." – N2e

Evidently this consensus is at odds with the existence of this article, Falcon (rocket family), which depicts the Falcon 1 as part of the same family of vehicles as the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. I'd like to see that some consistency be applied here, since the very premise of this article goes against the discussion reached at Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. Content on this article should ideally be split and merged into their relevant articles. Opinions? A simple survey of Support and Oppose comments would be appreciated. Also pinging C-randles, mfb, Rowan Forest, and Soumya-8974 as participants in the aforementioned discussion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Splitting this section into a "Discussion" and "Survey" section as to not confuse any future discussion closer on the outcome of a consensus. "Support" and "Oppose" votes should go into "Survey". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Unless I'm dreaming, there was a recent discussion of splitting the Ariane launch vehicle pages, on the grounds of length and the fundamental difference between the Ariane 1 to 4 and the Ariane 5. I think the consensus was in favor of this. Why should the Falcon launch vehicle be treated differently. And, no offense intended, why should we repeat the same discussion on the Falcon and the Falcon launch list talk pages? Requesting a second vote on the same issue didn't work well for PM May... Fcrary (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fcrary: Is this the discussion you're referring to? Also, unlike the former Prime Minister, I'm not asking for the same thing twice, I'm simply asking that the consensus reached at Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#Requested move 21 August 2019 be applied here. I'm opening this discussion up instead of BOLDing it because that would be the right thing to do for such a proposed fundamental change. There might be opposition to this change and I think it's fair to let them, if there's any, speak their opinion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how the discussion about the launch lists would be relevant here. We do have Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy as separate articles. Making redundant launch lists would be pointless, but here the articles have different scopes. --mfb (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Mfb, Well, I really have no idea why wre need this article at all. We have separate articles on the F1 F9 and FH. The OP is correct that this is not a true family of launch vehicles. I guess I'd be in favour of deletion and merging any unique info found here that isnt already on other pages. The other possibility would be reworking this into an overview of all SpaceX launch vehicles (i.e. add starship, super heavy, grasshopper, and starhopper). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry this is not a "support" or "oppose", but just a comment, lets not forget about the other planned "Falcon" rockets which were canceled, we already have coverage on them here.nevermind I didn't read the nomination close enough, I am not confident enough to give a support or a oppose here yet. Also pending the discussion here, the template Template:Falcon rocket launches will be effected. "different enough" in my comment quoted above also suggests the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9/Heavy are similar, but will support whichever concensus is given here. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 01:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

COMMENT — I think this is a quite valid discussion to have, and thank User talk:PhilipTerryGraham for asking the questions and kicking it off. That said, I don't think I know where I stand on the more specific proposal parts of the OP.

Re whether or not the "SpaceX Falcon" series is sufficient to be a "family", I'll offer a three comments.

1) all the SpaceX "Falcon"-named rockets are common in a few characteristics: they all have first stages, and most have second stages, powered by some variant of the Merlin rocket engine; they are all gas-generator cycle RP1/LOX rockets; the Falcon 1 tech (engines, vehicle controls and embedded system software controllers, thrust-vector controls, etc. were clearly derivative in Falcon 9 where the technologies developed for F1 continued to iterate in the SpaceX way on the (now) 4 or 5 versions of F9. SpaceX has said they did not have the capital to develop a new engine for the new/larger F9 rocket, so they were constrained to figure out how to use the same base rocket engine technology (Merlin) in both rockets. These three rockets were, of course, quite different rockets in other characteristics: size, gross mass, payload mass, missions they are capable of performing, etc. Falcon 9 was clearly a very different rocket than Falcon 1, but used many of the derivative technologies.

2) it would be good to see whether we have SpaceX ever referring to them as a family. I don't know; but would be good to know.

3) it is clear that SpaceX choose to give them the same moniker, at the highest level. "Falcon" Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy. Maybe it was "just marketing.", but it was what SpaceX choose to do in their public naming to bring the several rockets together. Does this make them a "family"? To space geeks? To the general public and general readership of Wikipedia?

Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, a lot of thanks to PhilipTerryGraham for bringing up these discussions. Regarding question 2 (from right above) on SpaceX's "Falcons User Guide" published on there site here on page 5 (sections 1.2 and 1.3) do seem suggest that the Falcon 1, 9, and Heavy are "family".

Some quotes from the user guide:

• "...SpaceX has developed and flown the Falcon 1 light-lift launch vehicle, the Falcon 9 medium-lift launch vehicle, the Falcon Heavy heavy-lift launch vehicle, the most powerful operational rocket in the world by a factor of two..."
• "Drawing on a history of prior launch vehicle and engine programs, SpaceX privately developed the Falcon family of launch vehicles. Component developments include first- and second-stage engines, cryogenic tank structures, avionics, guidance and control software, and ground support equipment."

Some quotes from the older user guides:

• From the Falcon 1 User Guide, section 1.4 titled "FALCON PROGRAM OVERVIEW" says "Drawing upon a rich history of prior launch vehicle and engine programs, SpaceX is privately developing the Falcon family of rockets from the ground up, including main and upper stage engines, the cryogenic tank structure, avionics, guidance & control software and ground support equipment. With the Falcon 1, Falcon 1e, Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy launch vehicles, SpaceX is able to deliver spacecraft into any inclination and altitude, from low...". Looking at the same document, SpaceX also mentions "Falcon 1 Launch Vehicle Family includes the Falcon 1 and an enhanced version, Falcon 1e." (section 2.1), suggesting "a family within a family"?

Reading the guide its clear that the Falcon 9 and Heavy are family, not confident about Falcon 1, but its likely yes it is "Family". There may be bias in this doc as the current user guide will focus more on their now operational Falcon 9 and Heavy and not on Falcon 1. Not sure if I analyzed the sources correctly. Thanks OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 04:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

If I was active on that discussion, I would vote "Support" because the "List of Falcon launches" would be better than "List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches". Anyway, the discussion was good, we gathered some consensus etc. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Re-scope to SpaceX rockets – First, let me also extend thanks to PhilipTerryGraham for raising the consistency issue. As mentioned in the prior discussion, I am of the opinion that Falcon 1 and Falcon 9/Heavy are too different to be considered part of the same rocket family, except by naming. Indeed, the split of Ariane 1–4 from Ariane 5 is a similar case. Now, looking at the contents of this "family" article, there is apparently very little to preserve that is not already mentioned in the individual rocket articles. Consequently, we should logically delete this one outright, or change its scope to provide an overview of all launch vehicles developed by SpaceX. That would allow WP:Summary style descriptions of the company's various rockets, including cancelled ones, and would offer our readers a practical introduction to rocket development spearheaded by SpaceX since their founding. — JFG ^talk 19:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Oppose split but Support JFG’s idea, a overview article will be nice. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 16:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm also happy to support an overview article of all SpaceX rockets, if that doesn't happen, I favour deletion. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Support per nom. I do not know what consensus we will have. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 9 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to SpaceX launch vehicles, which no one had any objection to. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Falcon (rocket family) → Rockets of SpaceX – Proposing a scope change to focusing on all of SpaceX's launch vehicles, rather than just "Falcon"-branded launch vehicles, as proposed by JFG. Their proposal was the most popular counter-proposal in a split and merge discussion which resulted in no clear consensus on the original proposal made by me. JFG stated in the original discussion that this rescoping of the article would "allow WP:Summary style descriptions of the company's various rockets, including cancelled ones, and would offer our readers a practical introduction to rocket development spearheaded by SpaceX since their founding." I agree with this rationale, and so putting it forward as a bona fida move proposal. The proposal has been modified from "SpaceX rockets", as the name format implies a brand or subdivision of SpaceX, where as "Rockets of SpaceX" would be consistent with similar articles such as History of SpaceX as a sub-article of SpaceX – the "Falcon launch vehicles" section of that article can also be similarly reworked as a summary of Rockets of SpaceX titled "Launch vehicles" or "Rockets". Also pinging Fcrary, Insertcleverphrasehere, mfb, N2e, OkayKenji, and Soumya-8974 as participants of the aforementioned discussion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Move to "List of SpaceX launch vehicles" "SpaceX launch vehicles". —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: The intention is to create a summary style article similar to how the page is currently, not a list per se, so it'd be inappropriate to call it a list. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support But, based on the description, we'll also need something on Grasshopper, Starship, etc. They're all "rockets of SpaceX". Fcrary (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - needs more sections after such a move of course. --mfb (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Perhaps, "SpaceX launch vehicles" as Soumyabrata pointed out could also be good title, whichever title we choose, support the "idea" of the move. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 19:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to SpaceX launch vehicles, and relevant re-scoping of the contents. — JFG ^talk 20:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Should this discussion be applied to Template:Falcon rocket launches and Category:Falcon (rocket family)? OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 19:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'd support renaming the navbox to Template:SpaceX launches, but it doesn't make much of a difference until Starship makes orbit; needs a discussion either way. Per usual practice, the category should be renamed to whatever name this article ends up having. — JFG ^talk 08:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I should note that we can't automatically apply this discussion to other pages. Red Slash 17:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure we can apply the rationale used in this page for the renaming of at least the category, started a discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 16#Category:Falcon (rocket family). OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 20:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I have restored the title "SpaceX launch vehicles" stipulated in the RM outcome. If you'd like to further switch to "Launch vehicles of SpaceX", you should open a followup RM. — JFG ^talk 04:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Patently unfair. There was no rationale to move it to that particular title, meanwhile I provided a rationale for "Launch vehicles of SpaceX". Surely the burden therefore is not on me to open a discussion on it. There needs to be some reason the article should be titled that way. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Three participants explicitly favored "SpaceX launch vehicles" over the initially-proposed title "Rockets of SpaceX", and the closer chose this accordingly. You then changed it unilaterally to "Launch vehicles of SpaceX", which was never mentioned in the discussion. Even if you provided a rationale for your change, that doesn't trump RM consensus. Thanks for opening a new RM to test acceptance of your proposal. — JFG ^talk 07:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: "...which was never mentioned in the discussion" – you've just further proven my belief that nobody actually reads the opening proposals of move discussions. Half of the opening is dedicated to describing why the "[subject] of [company]" format was put forward – "The proposal has been modified from "SpaceX rockets", as the name format implies a brand or subdivision of SpaceX, where as "Rockets of SpaceX" would be consistent with similar articles such as History of SpaceX as a sub-article of SpaceX". Please stop distorting reality to fit your narrative and recognise that the only thing close to a rationale in that discussion was that the "[company][subject]" format was that it "could also be good title", which is, and I cannot for the life of me stress this enough, not a rationale. Consensus is not a blind vote; "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns". Nobody attempted to argue against the original proposed format, and thus that logically means there was no problem with it. We're supposed to come up with a reason as to why one thing is better than the other. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Look, I have read your rationale before !voting, and you cannot presume that other participants somehow did not read it properly. Had there been straight support for your proposed title, that would have been readily apparent to the uninvolved closer. Instead, as often happens in RM discussions, several people settled on an alternate title. You may or may not like the outcome, but that's no reason to make a further move out of process. Re: ...which was never mentioned in the discussion, that's a fact. The title you suggested was "Rockets of SpaceX", and the title you now prefer "Launch vehicles of SpaceX" was indeed never mentioned until your bold move. — JFG ^talk 10:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested merge 18 September 2019

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Falcon 1e, Falcon 5, and Falcon 9 Air → Launch vehicles of SpaceX – As relatively small articles on undeveloped and unflown launch vehicles, I feel that the content in these three articles can be better consolidated into this one instead. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. — JFG ^talk 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd venture to suggest that it would be better to put most of the content from Falcon 1e into Falcon 1, and Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 Air into the development history of Falcon 9 (and/or Stratolaunch as appropriate). Rosbif73 (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the bulk of the content about Falcon 1e should move to Falcon 1, and this overview page can have a one-sentence summary of the 1e development plans. On closer examination, Falcon 5 has a bit too much information to be merged into Falcon 9#Development history; it would have undue weight there. I think that can remain a standalone article, and a brief summary should be added here. Falcon 9 Air should be merged into Stratolaunch Systems, and again briefly summarized on this page. — JFG ^talk 11:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI I have trimmed down redundant information on the Falcon 5 article. Its development history should be further clarified from contemporary sources. — JFG ^talk 12:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 19 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: concensus not to move per below discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) PC78 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

---

SpaceX launch vehicles → Launch vehicles of SpaceX – Opening a move discussion since there were objections to the specific naming scheme. The previous move discussion did not come up with any rationale as to why "SpaceX launch vehicles" is better than "Launch vehicles of SpaceX". To expand upon my notes from the original discussion in support of "Launch vehicles of SpaceX", using the subject as a prefix followed by the preposition "of" makes it clear and explicit that the article is detailing a topic on SpaceX. It makes clear the seperation of subject and company name, and makes for a clear indication that the article is a child of the parent SpaceX article. Immediately following the company's name with the subject like in "SpaceX launch vehicles", however, makes it unclear as to whether it is a subdivision or brand of SpaceX, which it is not. Even accounting for MOS-mandated casing, it would still be confusing. Also muddied would be the otherwise clear indication that the article is a child of the parent SpaceX article, as "launch vehicles" would now be the subject of the name, rather than "SpaceX", implying that it is a child of the parent article Launch vehicle, which it is not. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – "SpaceX launch vehicles" and "Launch vehicles of SpaceX" are grammatically equivalent, and the former is more WP:CONCISE. — JFG ^talk 08:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – The previous discussion was rather brief and nobody made significant arguments one way or the other. "SpaceX launch vehicles" is more natural (at least to this native speaker), equally WP:PRECISE and more WP:CONCISE. The argument that it could be read as if it were a SpaceX entity or brand name fails due to WP:LOWERCASE. And I don't see that either alternative implies that the article is somehow a "child" of one "parent article" rather than another. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Poorly thought out, is this move proposal. Work like that, grammar does not._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – As others have written, "Launch vehicles of SpaceX" seems like awkward and unnatural grammar to me, without adding clarity. Fcrary (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per JFG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in SpaceX launch vehicles

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of SpaceX launch vehicles's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ars20200305":

• From SpaceX Starship: berger, Eric (5 March 2020). "Inside Elon Musk's plan to build one Starship a week—and settle Mars". Ars Technica. Retrieved 6 March 2020. Musk tackles the hardest engineering problems first. For Mars, there will be so many logistical things to make it all work, from power on the surface to scratching out a living to adapting to its extreme climate. But Musk believes that the initial, hardest step is building a reusable, orbital Starship to get people and tons of stuff to Mars. So he is focused on that.
• From SpaceX South Texas Launch Site: berger, Eric (5 March 2020). "Inside Elon Musk's plan to build one Starship a week—and settle Mars". Ars Technica. Retrieved 5 March 2020.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the same article. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 13:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 06:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Falcon 1 reusability

The falcon 1 isnt partially reusable, and not even the source claims it is Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The Falcon 1 article tells us that [t]he first stage was originally planned to return by parachute to a water landing and be recovered for reuse and cites sources. This is presumably the basis for the "partially reusable" wording in this article. If you're feeling WP:BOLD, you could always change the text to say "designed to be partially reusable" or similar. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Add A Fact: "Falcon Heavy thrust power"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

Falcon Heavy

Over 5 Million Lbs of Thrust

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/falcon-heavy/

Additional comments from user: SpaceX website shows, on the heading that it generates 5 million lbs of thrust.

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 22:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Starship

First, it is premature to add a prototype to the list of "launch vehicles". Then, no citation for the statements in the first paragraph. Then, a lenghty copy-paste-snippet from the main article that will never be kept up to date, completely unnessecary where a simple link and one sentence would have been enough. Now, this "under development"-section is longer than the section of the article about the vehicles in use! And finally, the table just makes no sense to include "Starship Block 1", as that will never be a working launch vehicle anyway, thus it should be version 2 or 3. Once more a certain editor wants to spam each and every space article with superfluous and redundant starship pseudofacts. 47.67.225.78 (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No citations in the first paragraph? That is incorrect: there are two four (EDIT: My bad, didn't notice two) as of writing this. And I'll add more when I have the time.

Yes, the under development section is now longer than operational vehicles (which should be expanded).

But retired vehicles dwarfs both of them combined. Not seeing any complaints there.

(Also, Falcon 1 was never really a "working" launch vehicle, given that it only delivered one payload to LEO on its final flight. Yet there are no issues with its inclusion)

Block 2 and Block 3 will be added when they fly. Right now, we do not have enough info to accuretly add them. Redacted II (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)