![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Partial failures" metric
The 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)
Add A Fact: "California rejects increase in SpaceX launches"
I 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.
TJMSmith (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Wrong launch tally
As 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)
Upper stage?
There is almost nothing here about the upper stage, specs and re-use and everything 47.64.195.230 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- That's because the media doesn't really cover the second stage that much (probably because a reusable stage gets more clicks than an expendable second stage). If the media doesn't cover it that much, we can't write much about it (WP:NOTE). This is also why SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) has its own article, because there is a lot of attention about it from the media.
- Second stages aren't reused, and whatever specs we have is what SpaceX has released. So unless Elon decides to drop a bunch of info about Falcon 9 second stage for fun on X (pls Elon do it), SpaceX does some radical modifications that get covered by the media (not going to happen because F9 is pretty much frozen in design now), or another AMOS-6 happens (pls don't) and NASA and SpaceX releases info, we can't really add anything. Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 15:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
You must be logged in to post a comment.