Talk:Falcon 9 prototypes

Info

Second generation Grasshopper in the works. It would have:

• "Lighter legs that fold up on the side of the rocket"
• "A different engine bay"
• "50% longer"
• No word on when it will fly.

http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/a-2nd-gen-grasshopper-a-new-video-of-first-hop.html --Craigboy (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. This is now reflected in the article text. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Ra said SpaceX’s lease will not be active until the company moves in at Spaceport America, and that the company will need a new experimental permit from the FAA to fly out of New Mexico. Anderson, citing conversations with the company, said Grasshopper activities would start sometime between October and February.

The launch pad Grasshopper will use at Spaceport America is still being built. Construction on the 30-meter-by-30-meter pad began in April and is slated to wrap up around July, Anderson said. The new pad, like Spaceport America’s existing vertical launch pads, will be located about 7 kilometers southwest of the spaceport’s main campus."

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/35306spacex-leases-pad-in-new-mexico-for-next-grasshopper-tests --Craigboy (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent Elon Musk lecture at the RAS

Some more info. I may give a summery if I have time. Elon Musk lecture at the Royal Aeronautical Society on Nov 16th, 2012 --Craigboy (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

@18:00 - Elon Musk critiqued the SpaceX promotional video that showed the reusable Falcon 9, he said that the legs are much larger, the first stage is taller and the interstage should be present.--Craigboy (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

@19:00 - The next generation of Dragon (Dragon V2) doesn't look how it does in the video. He said that they would be "unveiling it fairly soon". He hints at that it may look radically different.

@21:00 - The SuperDraco engines are much bigger than they are in the video.

@26:00 - Talks about how they are thinking about developing a methane engine?

@27:00 - A vehicle larger than Dragon would need to be developed to transport people to Mars in.

@30:00 - Talks about how difficult it was to reuse the Space Shuttle Main Engines.

@32:00 - They are eventually going to need a new engine if they are going to be sending people to Mars but they think they can still get to full reusability with the current engine (Merlin 1D).

@33:00 - Max acceleration during a nominal launch is 5Gs. During launch abort a crew will feel between 6Gs and 8Gs.

@35:00 - Four Falcon 9 flights next year, five if they're lucky.

@41:00 - Talks about China

@49:00 - MCT is not a engine. We're only doing one major engine and that's the raptor engine, which is the methane engine. We can talk more about the details of that next year but we're not doing another engine.

50:00 - I would like to go to Mars. I want to make sure things are going well on Earth basically, if I die than I want to make sure that things keep going the way they should. As long I felt comfortably with that, than I would go.

51:00 - Any variant of the Ariane 5 is not going to be competitive with the Falcon, so the right move to me would be to rethink the architecture of Ariane 6 or ....have a chance of competing against Falcon otherwise it's going to be a pointless...

52:00 - Not too sure about the space elevator

54:00 - Talks about crewed Dragon. Musk doesn't say anything too interesting here.

56:40 - "Why are you focusing on Mars rather than the Moon?" Well we'll be happy to take people to the moon. If someone wants to go to the moon, we'll do it. But as far as making life multi-planetary you would sorta logically want to establish it on a second planet. The moon is a small rock orbiting Earth, no atmosphere, 28 day period, very little water, lacking in a lot of the key elements in creating a civilization. In analogous to the arctic, the arctic is close to Britain but it kind of sucks over there and that's why America is not there instead of where it is. It's much harder to cross the Atlantic... It's really the place where someone could establish a self-sustaining civilization grow into something significant. ... If something happens to Earth it might affect the more too.

59:00 - Talks about how micro-gravity space colonies are inferior.

Photo of Grasshopper in the air: hovering or descending?

With three test flights now completed in late 2012, I think the article would be much improved with a photo of the rocket under power, and either hovering or descending. Have seen several in Elon Musk's twitter feed, but am unsure of what "fair use" rules are around the use of such photos in Wikipedia. Can anyone who knows the rules on such things help out? I'm adding a {{reqphoto}} tag to the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Grasshopper, on the ground showing preflight position of the six-foot cowboy mannequin (for perspective).
• Grasshoper, in-flight, 17 Dec 2012, showing the same six-foot cowboy mannequin near the top of the landing structure assembly.

Since we already have some images of Grasshopper (licensed under Creative Commons) I doubt we'll be able to use fair-use (for example see what happened on the Cygnus page).--Craigboy (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it not okay for Wikipedia to utilize one or more of the photos that SpaceX releases to the media, specifically as media photos intended to document company press releases??? Would not those photos have the proper license? Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Likely not. Press photos are not released under GFDL, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Grasshopper v1.1

Early info on the Grasshopper v1.1 test vehicle here: Spacex May try to "land / recover" the first stage of it next Falcon 9 v1.1 launch this summer, NextBigFuture, 23 mar 2013. Includes these bits:

• "Falcon 9 v1.1 qualification tank is on a structural stand in Texas and will be rebuilt as the next Grasshopper (reusable test rocket), with flight-like landing legs
• "the next Grasshopper will be tested only at White Sands, and will go up to approximately 300,000 ft."

Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of that is old info.--Craigboy (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps, but both bullets were new to me, and neither are currently reflected in the article, so I'm guessing it is fairly new to many Wikipedia readers. 03:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)~

Either way, it would be good to put Grasshopper no. 2 in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.93.211.50 (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It's already mentioned but it can be expanded. "Beginning in October 2012, SpaceX discussed development of a second generation Grasshopper test VTVL vehicle, one that would have lighter-weight landing legs that fold up on the side of the rocket, would have a different engine bay and would be nearly 50% longer than the first Grasshopper vehicle."--Craigboy (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Craig. I see what you mean. What I meant is that several of these particular set of facts are new: the name (Grasshopper v1.1.), the fact that it would be built around the F9 v1.1 qualification tank, a tank that is already (now) on the Texax site, and that the v1.1 GH will only be tested at White Sands, and not Texas. It is just those three things that are new, and those three that are not currently in the article. Now, whether they should be, that is a different question. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think they should be added.--Craigboy (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but see below. N2e (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done—all the info we have about the Grasshopper v1.1 now is reflected in the article.N2e (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• as is, also, the info on the high-altitude, high-speed (Mach 10) turnaround maneuver and deceleration testing, along with over-water pseudo-landings, that will be done on boosters that are neither Grasshopper v1.0 designs, nor Grasshopper v1.1 test vehicles. See the subsection below entitled: A "Grasshopper" v1.n test on every Falcon 9 v1.1 flight N2e (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

A "Grasshopper-like" booster controlled-descent flight test on some Falcon 9 v1.1 flights

SpaceX has announced that future F9 v1.1 (block 2) first-stage boosters may do a controlled descent over water and "landing test" above the water. This will greatly accelerate the test program, and give them multiple tries to decelerate a Mach 10 booster without frying it, getting re-ignition on the first-stage engine(s), and asserting control authority during the controlled descent, while being able to run new/upgraded flight software on each subsequent test. They expect a few crashes. I have updated the article, with a citation included. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

First test flight occurred, on 29 Sep 2013, and the test was quite successful, per sources. Article has been updated. Also, later information indicates these tests will not be occurring on all F9 v1.1 flights, so have updated/corrected the section heading of this section. The original source was not explicit that the tests would be done on all future flights, so my March 2012 summary of it above was, in this regards, incorrect. N2e (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Phase?

Where is the data in the "Phase" column of the Test flight table sourced? I've not seen "Phase" listed in any reliable source. If we have a source, let's leave it in; if not, I'll remove it after a while. N2e (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

sorry, my bad, new at this, added source Jp3raptor (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. It is good information, and useful for the article. I appreciate you adding the source for it. N2e (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Test phases

Now that the Grasshopper v1.0 is retired after 8 flights in 2011-2013, and now that we have quite a few sources that indicate the Grasshopper v1.1 flight test vehicle will mostly be flying at Spaceport America in New Mexico, I'm not sure that the rather outdated info in the "Test phases" section of the article—sourced entirely from an FAA Environmental Impact Assessment exclusively about the Texas flight test location, and researched in mid-2011—is of much encyclopedic value in the article.

If no one has an objection, I'll remove it in the next week or so. Alternatively, if we can develop a consensus here about how to improve/update that info, we could do that. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That section is pretty much obsolete now. There might be half a sentence that should be saved, but that's about it. — Gopher65_talk 14:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I neglected to get back here in November as I had planned. Did so today. Per consensus, have eliminated 95% of that section on the "test phases" as they were once discussed in regulatory documentation. N2e (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Grasshopper v1.1 text deletion

Recently, an IP editor (38.70.1.26) deleted a bit of the article (about 700 characters) and left the edit comment: "(I am the author of the cited article (and would be happy to provide proof). The contained information is false.)"

Fair enough; if it is false, we don't want it in Wikipedia. But some questions would yet remain. So I left a message on the IP editors Talk page. ... Since I've not heard back, and maybe that editor might not get back to Wikipedia again very soon, thought I should leave the crux of the comment here on the article Talk page.

1. Re being the author of the (now falsified?) source on which that information in the encyclopedia was based: I take you at your word. That alone does not make a reliable source for Wikipedia articles; but I do start with the assumption that you are indeed the author.
2. Moreover, I had heard somewhere that the Grasshopper v1.1 test vehicle might be fitted with only three engines, not nine as had been indicated by that source. I believe the editor who may have tried to update the encyclopedia with that info (3 engines, not 9) did not have a reliable source for it—perhaps it was just from a blog or something—so that info ultimately did not stay in the encyclopedia, at least not without and until we get a better source. Net: so I am inclined to agree with your take on the false info.
3. Having said that: WP does work on veriafiable information. So can you perhaps refer us to a source for the new information that supersedes what was published in your article?
4. What specifically is erroneous? Was it just the number of engines? Or nearly all of the info in that article? Etc.

Thanks for your effort to help, and to help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Since it has been four days and 38.70.1.26 has not joined the discussion, I went ahead and reverted the edit per WP:BRD. I think it probably does need some change, once a source for the change is found, or a source for the falsity of the initial source is found. (Has the magazine published a correction? Or a retraction?) Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Grasshopper v1.1 and Grasshopper v1.0 both vertical in the Texas scrubland

This photo was taken 18 Jan 2014 by a pilot flying over the SpaceX test facility in McGregor, Texas, and captures both the old Grasshopper v1.0 test vehicle (now retired) and the new Grasshopper v1.1 development test vehicle vertical. v1.1 is on the pad where all eight flights of GH v1.0 were launched in 2012–2013. The source is not suitable for the article, but if the pilot releases this photo, or preferably a later better quality photo, on Flickr with the right license, it might be possible to use it to improve the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The orange crane is 220 feet (67 m) tall per this twitter post by Elon Musk in December.

BTW, in the official SpaceX-released video of the first test flight of Falcon 9-R Dev 1 in mid-April 2014, both Grasshopper v1.0, and the Grasshopper v1.1 (now mostly referred to as F9R or F9-R) sitting fueled on the launch pad, are visible in the opening scene filmed by a robot hexacopter carrying a camera. So GH v1.0 is still at the McGregor facility as of right now. N2e (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Name change?

Now that the second Grasshopper test vehicle has flown, it appears that SpaceX has taken to regularly and consistently referring to the vehicle as Falcon 9-Reusuable or F9-R. When originally announced it was a second Grasshopper vehicle, or Grasshoppper v1.1 (built on the larger tank and structure of the Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket), and then later, sometimes as Grasshopper v1.1 and sometimes F9-R.

I'm going to be looking over all of the reliable source media coverage of SpaceX over the next few days. If that is consistently using "F9-R", then the article will need a bit of a copyedit to update the prose to the new descriptor SpaceX is using for the vehicle. N2e (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've already done some preliminary looking around, and I haven't seen it called anything other than "Falcon 9R" once. The sudden renaming struck me as odd, but it appears to have happened. — Gopher65_talk 13:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and in addition to the model designation of Falcon 9-Reusuable, or F9-R, they seem to have individually named the (now two) F9-R test vehicle(s) that we were formerly calling, as the early news articles had over a year ago, Grasshopper v1.1. Those two vehicle designators are:

• F9-R Dev1—apparently the vehicle they've been building in Texas out of the old Falcon v1.1 full-duration engine test qualification tank. It has now flown one test flight.
• F9-R Dev2—according to the post-flight news conference on 18 April, this is apparently the vehicle they will be flying for higher altitude tests in New Mexico, and is likely in-manufacture at the SpaceX factory now.

I'm going to wait a few more days before I begin to mod the article. I still haven't had the time to read all the new coverage yet. Never a dull moment. N2e (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources, and the names they are using for the new, second-generation prototype test vehicle that flew in Texas.

• SpaceX F9R First Test Flight, SpaceNews: "F9R", "Falcon 9 Reusable". Grasshopper mentioned only in the past tense: as in F9R is the heir to SpaceX's Grasshopper vertical-takeoff and -landing vehicle."
• Rockets that return home – SpaceX pushing the boundaries, NASAspaceflight.com: "F9-R", "Falcon 9-R", "Falcon 9-R Dev-1", ""Falcon 9-R Dev-2"; "Grasshopper" is also used in the article, but exclusively in the context of describing the first prototype returnable test vehicle based on Falcon 9.
• Falcon 9 launches Dragon; promising news from reusability experiment [Updated], NewSpace Journal
• SpaceX’s F9R Reusable Rocket Launches on 1st Test Flight, Space.com: "F9R"; Grasshopper mentioned only in the context of a previous flight of the earlier test vehicle.
• Video of Falcon 9 Reusable Test Vehicle Flight, Parabolic Arc: "Falcon 9 Reusable", "F9R", "Falcon 9 Reusable Test Vehicle"
• interestingly, I could find nothing on the Aviation Week website, either for the F9R nor the recent SpaceX orbital launch with the ocean booster recovery tests. I'm guessing SpaceX doesn't buy enough advertisements on AvWeek to get good coverage. Looks like later on, when history is looked at, AvWeek will have become marginalised by missing coverage of the key technological advancement in the sixth decade of spaceflight, the advancement that could change the entire space industry.

That's all I have for now. Looks like the sources we have are all calling it "F9R" and not Grasshopper v1.1, so time to begin to update/change the article.

I'll intend to get back here and start doing that fairly soon. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have made a serious effort to go through the article and make (somewhat) extensive copyedits to reflect the new nomenclature. Would very much appreciate other eyes reading it over and seeing how it looks, and editing further as necessary. N2e (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Delta Clipper

So, I think there needs to be some kind of comparison to the Delta Clipper project. At the very least we should mention its existence and link over to that page. Any thoughts? Ray (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well sure, if you find a reliable source that discusses and compares Grasshopper and the Delta Clipper, then it would very likely be appropriate to add to the article. But if not, it seems it may run afoul of the original research policy. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The Delta Clipper was a Single Stage to Orbit vehicle. Yes it was suppose to be a VTVL rocket, but that was only a small part of what it was suppose to accomplish. I'm not sure the comparison would be apt. — Gopher65_talk 09:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There is an indirect link to Delta Clipper (actually the McDonnell Douglas DC-X) via Vertical takeoff, vertical landing rockets in "See also". That is sufficient; as Gopher65 says, it was a different concept (and only a prototype at that). However, there might be scope for a "VTVL Rockets" navigation box if any one feels so inclined. -Arb. (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Breaking news: grasshopper/F9R-dev appears to have crashed

Photograph: https://twitter.com/EthansMommy17/status/502951421713469440/photo/1 - Anxietycello (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It was a Falcon9R 3 engine test unit. Rocket automatically self-destructed after detecting anomaly. Source — Gopher65_talk 00:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Second source: businessinsider. — Gopher65_talk 00:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

F9R Dev2 may no longer be planned by SpaceX

As of 15 May, the article has a reliable source that indicates there is speculation that SpaceX may no longer be planning to do low-altitude or high-altitude ground-launched tests on the so-called "F9R Dev2" vehicle that was previously planned, and referred to in several reliable sources. That's fine as far as it goes, and I've still not seen any reliable source that indicates SpaceX definitely will not do that.

However, this post on an internet spaceflight-related forum, from a known poster who has previously done direct interview questions to Elon Musk and has done good field work, says it is definite. Moreover, the rocket core that was going to be F9R Dev2 will be repurposed as the in-flight abort test vehicle (which conceivably saves SpaceX the expense of one booster core, since the in-flight abort is part of the contractually-required milestone tests NASA has asked for on the way to flying NASA crew on SpaceX vehicles. Since it is a forum, it doesn't meet Wikipedia source standards, but I thought I should point to it on this Talk page. Will keep looking for an wiki-acceptable source to confirm before editing the article. Others please do the same. N2e (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard the same thing. People have seen the Dev2 core modified and vertical for testing at... Vandenberg ? I think? Also, they're apparently going to continue the high altitude portion of the grasshopper test program with one of the first cores they land on a barge, engaging in two test regimes at the same time: continued testing of high altitude boostbacks and landings (also note that this also helps test EDL on Mars as well, because the atmospheric densities at those altitudes are similar), as well as testing how reused hardware performs. Two birds with but one stone, as Teal'c would say.

No reliable sources for that though, as you've said. Just rumours, leaks, and people getting looks at hardware as they go past. Nothing official from SpaceX yet, though I'd expect that soonish. — Gopher65_talk 14:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Cutdown of the final part of this article

The last part of the article had developed into a section that overlapped the Falcon 9 booster landing tests article. Since we already have a detailed article on that testing program, I've removed the detail on that from this article by reducing that section to a summary, and pointed the reader to the main article for details. -- The Anome (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grasshopper (rocket). 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/20111118200035/http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=33072 to http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=33072

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) 18:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The proposal is withdrawn and the article is moved to "Falcon 9 prototypes" per mfb. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Grasshopper (rocket) → SpaceX Grasshopper and F9R Dev — The scope of the article is not only to the "Grasshopper" test article, it is to the "F9R Dev" test article as well. Therefore, I suggest to split that into two independent articles. I also suggest to rename the "Grasshopper (rocket)" to "SpaceX Grasshopper" because the latter is a natural disambiguation. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

We could rename the article into something the encompasses both vehicles. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 21:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

They are part of the same program and closely related, I suggest to keep them in the same article. Not sure what would be a better name. --mfb (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This is why I suggest to split this article. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Falcon 9 reusability prototypes or simply Grasshopper and F9R Dev if we don't find something better. Difficulties finding a good name shouldn't be a reason to rip apart two closely related things. --mfb (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment there is no consensus in this discussion. Therefore, I am requesting to withdraw the proposal. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:53, 9 January 2020 (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.

Article name currently is not the WP:COMMONNAME

The current article name—"Falcon 9 prototypes"—is not the WP:COMMONNAME for these very unique test articles where SpaceX pioneered the entire concept of reusable orbital launch vehicles, and did eventually get to fairly consistent reusable first stages.

I'm not finding a discussion where "Falcon 9 prototypes" was discussed as better. Just seeing a discussion where a consensus seemed to be that the two SpaceX VTVL test rockets, Grasshopper (version 1) and F9 Dev1 (version 2), should remain together in the same article. — N2e (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC) OkayKenji , mfb, Soumyabrata any thoughts?

• Not all articles have to be WP:COMMONNAME. There are other factors to favor uncommon names. For example, the title 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is favored, even though coronavirus pandemic, COVID-19 pandemic, etc. are WP:COMMONNAME.

References

--Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 05:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)