![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Falcon 1e will never fly. Still it is listed in the comparison table. Remove that column? Kcauwert ( talk) 23:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 convert: unit mismatch (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)
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)
kN
for kilonewtons).
Johnuniq (
talk)
07:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
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: [1]
Calscot ( talk) 16:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calscot ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
I should note that we can't automatically apply this discussion to other pages. Red Slash 17:58, 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)
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)
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)
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":
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.
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)
The falcon 1 isnt partially reusable, and not even the source claims it is Fehér Zsigmond-03 ( talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
[t]he first stage was originally planned to return by parachute to a water landing and be recovered for reuseand 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)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Falcon 1e will never fly. Still it is listed in the comparison table. Remove that column? Kcauwert ( talk) 23:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 convert: unit mismatch (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)
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)
kN
for kilonewtons).
Johnuniq (
talk)
07:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
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: [1]
Calscot ( talk) 16:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calscot ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
I should note that we can't automatically apply this discussion to other pages. Red Slash 17:58, 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)
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)
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)
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":
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.
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)
The falcon 1 isnt partially reusable, and not even the source claims it is Fehér Zsigmond-03 ( talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
[t]he first stage was originally planned to return by parachute to a water landing and be recovered for reuseand 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)