Talk:Falcon 9 Full Thrust

Article name: "...Full Thrust" v "...full thrust"

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)

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)

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)

F9FT max payload, and sources

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)

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)

Infobox

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)

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)

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)

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

Falcon 9 FT naming

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)

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)

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)

Landings in infobox

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

Requested move 25 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move even after 2 relistings. (closed by a page mover). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Falcon 9 full thrust → Falcon 9 v1.2 – For consistency with the similar articles Falcon 9 v1.0 and Falcon 9 v1.1. Also, "Falcon 9 Version 1.2" is the official name of the vehicle per this Commercial Space Transportation License, so it makes sense to use it as the article title. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 17:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC) --2nd relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep as Falcon 9 full thrust My impression is that ft is more common than 1.2 and more so recently. Falcon 9 ft generates 1770000 hits on google compared to 502000 for falcon 9 v1.2 crandles (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Wouldn't "Falcon 9 ft" result in a lot of false positives? "ft" can refer to lots of other things, like feet. "Falcon 9 1.2" gives 791,000 google results, while "Falcon 9 full thrust" only gives 423,000 google results.
  Here's a Google Trends graph of four search terms on this matter: http://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=falcon%209%20full%20thrust%2C%20falcon%209%201.2%2C%20falcon%209%20v1.2%2C%20falcon%209%20ft Given that there are lots of searches for "falcon 9 ft" between 2007 and 2012, before the current rocket was announced, I'm inclined to dismiss most searches for "falcon 9 ft" as being false positives — and the next most widely-used search term is "Falcon 9 v1.2".
  Therefore, I think your argument is completely wrong, and v1.2 is in fact the WP:COMMONNAME. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• Too soon – As much as we'd like to show nicely progressing version numbers, sources do not consistently use the v1.2 moniker and SpaceX themselves prefer calling the rocket simply "Falcon 9", meaning "whatever is the latest specs in our continuous upgrades". Sadly "Falcon 9 full thrust" seems to be the best name we could find to distinguish this latest upgrade from the generic Falcon 9 family. I'm not saying that "Falcon 9 full thrust" is a better name than "Falcon 9 v1.2" or "Falcon 9 Upgrade". Indeed the licensing documents are a great nugget of information and I'd be happy to change the page title once a sufficiently dominant name emerges from real-world use. Note that we are facing a similar problem with naming the new version of the Dragon spacecraft, should it be "Crew Dragon", "Dragon V2", "Dragon 2" or even just "Dragon"… — JFG ^talk 15:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• Not now - SpaceX naming is remarkably inconsistent, and there are many names floating around. AS JFG noted, other SpaceX projects often have the same naming confusion and at this point the best thing to do is step back and wait until there's a consistent naming - or choose one and keep it with redirects for other names. Regardless, I don't think changing names will ever get consensus since news sources and SpaceX itself haven't come to consensus. Appable (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Flight-proven"

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)