| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falcon 9 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
"Partial failures" metric
editThe summary box still shows only one partial failure (Partial failure(s) 1 (v1.0: CRS-1)[9]), however, another "partial failure" is Transporter 6 mission. Also, Zuma mission's outcome remains unknown, so maybe it is reasonable to have additional metric "outcome unknown"? 207.102.27.181 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- @207.102.27.181 King Ali Aljanabi monuiy 2A02:AA7:460F:1129:1:1:1C6B:3E0F (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Zuma wasn't a failure of Falcon 9, and I don't know of any issue with Transporter 6. Redacted II (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Large specification change without supporting reference
editThis page previously listed specifications which were the same as those on the Falcon Heavy page, which are at least supported by a (broken) reference link.
These were replaced with substantially different numbers for EG 2nd stage propellant. There appears to be absolutely no citation for the new numbers. (Am I missing something?)
Addtionally, diameter was previously listed correctly as 3.66m, and has now been "improved" to 3.7m.
What is the justification for such a large change to the specifications without support by link to a reference source? MP99 (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Supporting this - the ~93t prop figure is for a very old version of F9US according to this:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20220406013729/https://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html MP99 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I came here to post the same link.
- ISTM the previous version needs to be reverted, as it is clearly closer to the true values.
- Thanks. MP99 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Add A Fact: "California rejects increase in SpaceX launches"
editI found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below
The Space Force had sought to increase the number of launches of SpaceX’s flagship Falcon 9 rocket from 36 to 50 per year out of California. But on Thursday, the California Coastal Commission denied the bid in a 6-4 vote, pointing to its previous requests for the military and SpaceX to mitigate the disruptive sonic booms caused by the rockets and to keep a closer eye on the operations’ effects on the state’s wildlife.
The fact comes from the following source:
This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.
Wrong launch tally
editAs of November 4 the total launch tally says 390 but shouldn't it be 388? 2010: 2, 2012: 2, 2013: 3, 2014: 6, 2015: 7, 2016: 8, 2017: 18, 2018: 20, 2019: 11, 2020: 26, 2021: 31, 2022: 60, 2023: 91, 2024: 103 (so far)
That's 388 in total. Am I missing something? Lomicto (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)