Major General James G. Blunt

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight: SpaceX working group Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by SpaceX working group. Rocketry Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

In the media, I've always heard Full Thrust (or upgraded Falcon 9 or something to that effect) but never lowercase full thrust. Is there a precedent for that? I'd rather use the conventional uppercase Full Thrust internal name unless there's multiple sources using full thrust (in the lowercase). Appable (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a bit of a mess. With SpaceX having used so darn many internal descriptors for this new version (as sourced in the article), and with it only having flown once, I suspect it is going to take some time to see just exactly what this launch vehicle is referred to. Ultimately, WP:COMMONNAME will prevail, and we'll call the article that.

But because there have been so many names, even recently (e.g., a USAF press release this week called it the "Falcon 9 upgrade", where they use both the proper noun, "Falcon 9 Upgrade," and the improper noun "Falcon 9 upgrade,", forms in their press release.) That is why I left the lower case form in the article title, which is what WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) recommends. While SpaceX does use, and has used, many different names for this version of the rocket, it is not at all clear to this Wikipedia editor that any one of them is both a proper name and widely used. Time will tell. Cheers. 00:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Good points, thanks for the response. I wish SpaceX would just announce a name and roll with it. They still haven't even done that officially with Crew Dragon/Dragon V2/Dragon 2/DragonRider. Appable (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And now we have space media writeups on that USAF press release. One calls it Falcon 9 Upgrade (proper name form) in its headline, and the other calls it Falcon 9 upgrade (lower case "u") in its headline), perhaps reflecting the ambivalence in the AF press release. That's another illustration of why we are just gonna have to wait to see what becomes the common name, and then do an article rename then. Wish it was clearer, but looks like patience will be required to get this one figured out. N2e (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right. This might be better for another discussion, but Amos-6 is 5300kg and launching on F9FT (or whatever it's called). Would a source or sources saying that 1) it's launching on F9FT, 2) it's 5300kg, and 3) it's headed to GTO be sufficient evidence to say max payload to GTO is "at least 5300kg?". Thanks. Appable (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I moved it to its own separate section. Feel free to update the section heading to your liking. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would an infobox, such as a modified version of the Falcon 9 v1.1 article, be helpful given the standard for them on rocket articles? I could try to edit the known parameters to the newer model, but the changes may be better in just a table. Appable (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Go for it. Most launch vehicles have an infobox; this article just hasn't got that far yet. And this is a quite important LV, with over 40 manifested launches in the next 5 years. N2e (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I messed up and broke things. I can't figure out what went wrong though. Any idea what I messed up on?

Fixed. Missing "]]" in wikilink. --IanOsgood (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm terrible at Wiki-debugging. Appable (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N2e, I noticed you reverted the edit I made regarding the name. The reason I say that it's never mentioned in a secondary source is because the AvWeek article only quotes Shotwell in saying a few names. No media appears to have ever adopted the name "Enhanced Falcon 9" or "Full Performance Falcon 9" - those sound like early-revision names that were abandoned by SpaceX in the end. I don't see a point in making such a long list of names when there's only a few in use. Regarding "Falcon 9 Upgrade", I believe that's so similar to "Upgraded Falcon 9" that it should be counted as the same name. Additionally, I haven't seen "Falcon 9 Upgrade" used in any other source, so it seems like a one-time twitter name rather than an actual name.

Also I feel like I'm overusing the talk page right now. But I'd rather discuss issues here than in the "view history" section through the wonderful Wikipedia process of WP:BRRR. Appable (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, at home now. There are some things online for "Falcon 9 Upgrade" so it's probably worth including. I've found references to "Enhanced Falcon 9" as well. I can't find anything except one brief Vice article online for "Full Performance Falcon 9" so I'm going to remove that for now - feel free to add back if it seems to be used any other time. Appable (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As we've both noted before, SpaceX has left this a bit of a mess. I wouldn't pull any name out just yet, since all are sourced, even the full performance Falcon 9. I want to think on it a bit more. But you've got a point, the lede (especially) may not need the less-frequently repeated names. On the other hand, it isn't Wikipedia's job to clean up for SpaceX, and the very different (and unclearly named, and for a long time) names are notable, and probably worth a short mention in the prose of an encyclopedia on thisi rocket. It's just how to do it, and do it well, that is a question. BTW, to make it even more complicated, I looked at some of the old sources for "Reusable Falcon 9", F9R, (or as Musk tweeted once, say it "F-niner"); those sources are pretty clear that the F9v1.1 taking advantage of full thrust and leaving better margins for the recovery on the GEO launches was what the F9R was; so eventually, when we get the sources reviewed, one or more of those (older) names may get added to the menagerie of names of this version of the F9. Very strange. N2e (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think the inconsistent naming is some kind of internal joke at SpaceX :P. Intentional or not, they clearly have no interest in maintaining a standardized naming scheme for any of their rockets or sometimes even components. — Gopher65_talk 03:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following @C-randles:'s idea, I updated the Template:Infobox rocket to display landings when available. — JFG ^talk 09:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In recent SpaceX press articles, it seems that SpaceX wishes to use the term "flight-proven" in place of "used" or "reflown", and after the Amos-6 accident, it isn't clear whether this term refers to a used first stage or whether they might launch Falcon 9 on the more established v1.1 standard for a flight or two during the investigation. I changed the "last flight" to "most recent flight" to acknowledge the possibility. Is Spacex losing their mojo? 207.47.199.32 (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been clear that SpaceX means reused cores. Flying on the v1.1 standard would be impossible; they've already modified GSE for the Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral pads and the common bulkhead placement has shifted. There have been other small changes to the vehicle, too, like the addition of a center pusher. These changes would be difficult to revert at this point. Sources, such as SES's press release, indicate that flight-proven is a marketing term for reused core. Appable (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Featherwinglove: You may be interested in this discussion. Appable (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any infos when the Falcon 9 FT will fly again? 2018? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.76.119 (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, three days? Static fire was yesterday. --IanOsgood (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again delayed. New date, 14 January. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.105.79.196 (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an alternative naming for Falcon 9 FT? - http://spacenews.com/spacexs-final-falcon-9-design-coming-this-year-two-falcon-heavy-launches-next-year/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.149.191 (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First time talking here in Wikipedia. I'm working on getting to the root of the Block V debacle and after lots of research and talking to many sources (who I cannot name), it's come to my conclusion that Block V is indeed the FIFTH iteration of the current Full Thrust Falcon 9 and not the third block change of the Full Thrust as is stated in this wiki article. It's time we update this wiki to reflect the reddit wiki of cores seen here - https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores#wiki_b1020_.2716 . Again, the naming of "v1.2" has never been said by SpaceX, was just something the public came up with, so unless we can find a quote from Elon or SpaceX, we should no longer call it V1.2 and only call it "Full Thrust" and block V is the 5th iteration of "Full Thrust"^[1] Everydayastronaut (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block 1 and 2 of FT didn't have that name (publicly) when they were flying and it looks like most flights were Block 3. The lack of material available for the first two, and SpaceX apparently changing the naming scheme in between, makes that difficult. --mfb (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a solid source to use to identify all launches by Block, it makes little sense to use that information (especially for statistics, such as inside charts) in Wikipedia. Merkhet (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong, Block 5 is not the 5th iteration of "Full Thrust". Block 1 was v1.0, Block 2 was v1.1, as stated in SpaceX documentation from 2009.^[2] Block 3 was the version branded "Full Thrust", which was documented for flight licensing purposes as "v1.2". More recently came Block 4 and Block 5, which were not re-branded; Gwynne Shotwell said "we just call it Falcon 9". Block 4 is considered a minor evolution of v1.2 "Full Thrust", while Block 5 has more changes, especially geared towards rapid reuse and NASA human rating. It is unclear whether Block 4 or Block 5 are called v1.3 or remained licensed as variants of v1.2, so for now we stick with the block numbers. — JFG ^talk 13:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This indicates that block 5 is the 5th version of 1.2, or 1.2.5. This says the same think, but original link is dead. Nergaal (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This as well. Eucalyptine (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG @Mfb @Appable @C-randles @N2e

Per Koenigsmann: F9B5's GTO-1800 performance:

3,500 kg RTLS;
5,500 kg for drone ship landing;
6,500 kg if expended.

I don't know how to understand these figures.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1047420731401953280

--PSR B1937+21 (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing this now. @PSR B1937+21: RTLS means "return to launch site", needs more fuel to perform the longitudinal "back home" burn, so that payload to GTO is significantly smaller. That's why we never saw a GTO mission's booster land on the ground pad: they have all wither used a drone ship or been expended. — JFG ^talk 20:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in simple terms fuel needed for landing means that fuel can't be used to propel such a heavy payload to the orbit in question.

Info table uses this as ref for 8300Kg to GTO which is supported by that ref but also for 5500Kg reusable which no longer(?) appears in the ref. 6500Kg versus 5500Kg seems like a small difference (I remember 30% less payload being suggested) so I think 5500Kg and 8300Kg look about right (for B5) but we could do with a RS ref for the 5500Kg figure to GTO reusable. 30 April 2016 is first appearance of the 8300Kg up from 4850Kg before that but haven't found the 5500Kg figure being shown [1] crandles (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends what is called GTO. The 30% difference matches 6,500 vs 8,300 kg. For payloads in this range, Falcon 9 can only land its first stage if the satellite is sent to a sub-GTO orbit, from which the bird needs more time and fuel to reach GEO. It's a trade-off that gets adjusted for each customer. Compare Intelsat 35e at 6,761 kg (expended booster burned to depletion, achieving slightly super-GTO)^[1] with Telstar 18V/19V at 7,075 kg which were sent to ~18,000-km apogee orbits (with booster landing).^[2][3] The industry benchmark "GTO-1800" indicates a target orbit from which the satellite needs to add 1800 m/s of delta-v by itself to reach its geostationary position. Above 6,500 kg, it's more efficient to use a Falcon Heavy, so that SpaceX has stopped launching the heaviest commsats on Falcon 9. Case in point: at ~6,000 kg, Arabsat-6A could have been launched a long time ago on Falcon 9 if weight was the only consideration. This slide shows the launch configurations currently being marketed depending on payload mass. — JFG ^talk 12:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This figure was significantly lower than SpX's previous official promotion. (6,500kg vs 8,300kg, expended) I mean, is it related to Block 5's thermal management and strengthened structure for reusablity? PSR B1937+21 (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^ @elonmusk (July 6, 2017). "Thanks @INTELSAT! Really proud of the rocket and SpaceX team today. Min apogee requirement was 28,000 km, Falcon 9 achieved 43,000 km" (Tweet). Retrieved July 7, 2017 – via Twitter. ^ Clark, Stephen (September 10, 2018). "SpaceX, Telesat achieve repeat success with midnight-hour launch". Spaceflight Now. Retrieved September 10, 2018. ^ "SpaceX delivers for Telesat with successful early morning launch". July 22, 2018. Retrieved July 22, 2018.

The Block 5 evolution has now flown 12 times, and it has been confirmed as sufficiently different from the previous Full Thrust Blocks 3 and 4 that it warrants a separate article. This would also help us de-clutter the Falcon 9 main page. Regulars @Appable, C-randles, Mfb, N2e, Nergaal, and Rowan Forest: would anybody volunteer to get it started? I'm usually better at fixing up articles than starting them from scratch… — JFG ^talk 20:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adapt the lead here, use the Block 5 section as template for more content? I'm not a big article starter either and currently I'm quite busy with other stuff. --mfb (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the versions of the boosters, but I started the article in a basic format and structure for you to expand and correct: Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5. -- Rowan Forest (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Details table says there are Nitrogen gas thrusters on 2nd stage for attitude control. How many such thrusters, axial and tangential, top and bottom ? Are they used for ullage, settling the propellant before a relight in free-fall ? Is there a limit on how many times the 2nd stage main engine can be relit ? What total impulse is available from the nitrogen gas thrusters ? What mass of nitrogen is loaded ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I add up the masses of stage one (433,000 kg), stage two (111,000 kg), payload fairing (1,700 kg), and the payload for LEO (22,800 kg), I get 568,000 kg rather than 549,000 kg as stated in the article. Did I misscalculate? --Pyrrhocorax (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon 9 has never launched 22800 kg to orbit. The payload mass is variable and not part of the rocket. The remaining three tonnes difference can come from minor components like the payload adapter or smaller upgrades in between. --mfb (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of (or link to) mission extension kits on 2nd stage. Been used 6 or 7 times now - mentioned in List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches. Visible by grey band on 2nd stage. Includes more COPVs and maybe more batteries. There may be a 'medium' version (used on a FH). Would be good to describe the mission extension kit components and benefits/capabilities. - Rod57 (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... Found some refs in block 5 article - Made a subsection Falcon_9_Block_5#Mission_extension_kits and will link. - Rod57 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]