F9 Versions

[StarshipSLS]

This is for discussing the different Falcon 9 versions.

File Attribution: Lucabon (based on work of Markus Säynevirta and Craigboy and Rressi ), CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

[Nomadd]

 Hopefully, you'll have some long fairings to add soon.

[klod]

It is not obvious that Block 5 means as well v1.2 (FT).

[soltasto]

It is not obvious that Block 5 means as well v1.2 (FT).

Yeah, Block 5 is the 5th block of v1.2 (FT), which also had Block 1, 2, 3 and 4.
IIRC v1.0 only had a single block (Block 1) while v1.1 had two blocks (Block 1 and 2).

v1.0 was supposed to also have a Block 2 but the upgrades were getting more and more substantial so it evolved into v1.1 Block 1.

[StarshipSLS]

It is not obvious that Block 5 means as well v1.2 (FT).

Yeah, Block 5 is the 5th block of v1.2 (FT), which also had Block 1, 2, 3 and 4.
IIRC v1.0 only had a single block (Block 1) while v1.1 had two blocks (Block 1 and 2).

v1.0 was supposed to also have a Block 2 but the upgrades were getting more and more substantial so it evolved into v1.1 Block 1.

NextSpaceflight says that the blocks are for all of the versions.
v1.0: Block 1
v1.1: Block 2
v1.2: Block 3, 4, 5

[StarshipSLS]

Note: I didn't create the graphic at the top. It is from Wikimedia Commons.

[klod]

It is not obvious that Block 5 means as well v1.2 (FT).

Yeah, Block 5 is the 5th block of v1.2 (FT), which also had Block 1, 2, 3 and 4.
IIRC v1.0 only had a single block (Block 1) while v1.1 had two blocks (Block 1 and 2).

v1.0 was supposed to also have a Block 2 but the upgrades were getting more and more substantial so it evolved into v1.1 Block 1.

NextSpaceflight says that the blocks are for all of the versions.
v1.0: Block 1
v1.1: Block 2
v1.2: Block 3, 4, 5

reddit says that v 1.2 has 5 blocks itself and the first two each one has only 1 block of modifications.

[StarshipSLS]

It is not obvious that Block 5 means as well v1.2 (FT).

Yeah, Block 5 is the 5th block of v1.2 (FT), which also had Block 1, 2, 3 and 4.
IIRC v1.0 only had a single block (Block 1) while v1.1 had two blocks (Block 1 and 2).

v1.0 was supposed to also have a Block 2 but the upgrades were getting more and more substantial so it evolved into v1.1 Block 1.

NextSpaceflight says that the blocks are for all of the versions.
v1.0: Block 1
v1.1: Block 2
v1.2: Block 3, 4, 5

reddit says that v 1.2 has 5 blocks itself and the first two each one has only 1 block of modifications.

That is incorrect.

[Lars-J]

It is not obvious that Block 5 means as well v1.2 (FT).

Yeah, Block 5 is the 5th block of v1.2 (FT), which also had Block 1, 2, 3 and 4.
IIRC v1.0 only had a single block (Block 1) while v1.1 had two blocks (Block 1 and 2).

v1.0 was supposed to also have a Block 2 but the upgrades were getting more and more substantial so it evolved into v1.1 Block 1.

NextSpaceflight says that the blocks are for all of the versions.
v1.0: Block 1
v1.1: Block 2
v1.2: Block 3, 4, 5

reddit says that v 1.2 has 5 blocks itself and the first two each one has only 1 block of modifications.

That is incorrect.

And what is your contrary source?

[soltasto]

That info about blocks on reddit came from a SpaceX employee that was under the name of Spiiice. That account was deleted a long time ago as probably he spilled too many beans.

[Nomadd]

That info about blocks on reddit came from a SpaceX employee that was under the name of Spiiice. That account was deleted a long time ago as probably he spilled too many beans.

There are 4 people claiming to be SpaceX employees for every one that really is. And the ones that are often don't know much more than is already public.

[soltasto]

That info about blocks on reddit came from a SpaceX employee that was under the name of Spiiice. That account was deleted a long time ago as probably he spilled too many beans.

There are 4 people claiming to be SpaceX employees for every one that really is. And the ones that are often don't know much more than is already public.

That one was verified

[StarshipSLS]

It is not obvious that Block 5 means as well v1.2 (FT).

Yeah, Block 5 is the 5th block of v1.2 (FT), which also had Block 1, 2, 3 and 4.
IIRC v1.0 only had a single block (Block 1) while v1.1 had two blocks (Block 1 and 2).

v1.0 was supposed to also have a Block 2 but the upgrades were getting more and more substantial so it evolved into v1.1 Block 1.

NextSpaceflight says that the blocks are for all of the versions.
v1.0: Block 1
v1.1: Block 2
v1.2: Block 3, 4, 5

reddit says that v 1.2 has 5 blocks itself and the first two each one has only 1 block of modifications.

That is incorrect.

And what is your contrary source?

The Falcon 9 Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

[Michael Baylor]

It is not obvious that Block 5 means as well v1.2 (FT).

Yeah, Block 5 is the 5th block of v1.2 (FT), which also had Block 1, 2, 3 and 4.
IIRC v1.0 only had a single block (Block 1) while v1.1 had two blocks (Block 1 and 2).

v1.0 was supposed to also have a Block 2 but the upgrades were getting more and more substantial so it evolved into v1.1 Block 1.

NextSpaceflight says that the blocks are for all of the versions.
v1.0: Block 1
v1.1: Block 2
v1.2: Block 3, 4, 5

I go with that because that's what someone who I cannot refute told me is how they want it. I do think they retrospectively simplified it to go from a total mess to a more mild mess, so that is why there may be conflicting info out there.

[StarshipSLS]

I have a question. Why are there no landing legs on Falcon 9 v1.0?

[jbenton]

I have a question. Why are there no landing legs on Falcon 9 v1.0?

Falcon 9 v1.0 wasn't designed for propulsive landing. The original plan was to have it parachute into the sea - just like one of the Mercury-Redstone boosters, most of the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, and now the Electron booster. There were a number of problems with that plan and the first two recovery attempts failed, so they came up with v1.1 and propulsive landing.
It's become such a feature of the system that it feels like it was always the plan, but it wasn't.

Here's a good article from the time about it:
https://web.archive.org/web/20171216042334/https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/09/falcon-rockets-to-land-on-thei.html



EDIT: I mentioned the Electron booster being recovered in the water above. This is currently the case. I forgot to mention that in the near future, Rocket Lab plans to catch the parachuting boosters mid-air Corona-style:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_(satellite)

[StarshipSLS]

I have a question. Why are there no landing legs on Falcon 9 v1.0?

Falcon 9 v1.0 wasn't designed for propulsive landing. The original plan was to have it parachute into the sea - just like one of the Mercury-Redstone boosters, most of the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, and now the Electron booster. There were a number of problems with that plan and the first two recovery attempts failed, so they came up with v1.1 and propulsive landing.
It's become such a feature of the system that it feels like it was always the plan, but it wasn't.

Here's a good article from the time about it:
https://web.archive.org/web/20171216042334/https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/09/falcon-rockets-to-land-on-thei.html

Thanks for the explanation!

[StarshipSLS]

Will there be anymore Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy versions

[groundbound]

Will there be anymore Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy versions

Very likely not unless Starship runs into a whole bunch of unforeseen problems. If I understand correctly, SpaceX at this point views F9/FH as "dead rocket launching" (like "dead man walking.") If that is correct, it bodes ill for other launchers that are currently having trouble competing with F9.

[cwr]

Will there be anymore Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy versions

Very likely not unless Starship runs into a whole bunch of unforeseen problems. If I understand correctly, SpaceX at this point views F9/FH as "dead rocket launching" (like "dead man walking.") If that is correct, it bodes ill for other launchers that are currently having trouble competing with F9.

I rather doubt that Gwynne would be that cavalier about the product line that
pays the bills that keeps the lights on and the computers running for the
engineering team working on SH/SS/Raptor.

All of my experience was in the computer industry, so I may be completely wrong
about how things are done in the Aerospace industry. However I do observe
that SpaceX seems to run more like a Silicon Valley computer company than the
more typical Aerospace companies like Lockheed and Boeing.

In my experience at computer companies the next generation product
usually has challenges in most engineering disciplines, so typically a handful of
architect level engineers would start identifying the major tradeoffs and making
the strategic choices that define the next generation product. This starts typically
1-5 years before new product introduction depending on the lead times of the
technologies [and their learning curves] involved in the next generation.

Its after those directions are set that the leaders from the current product start
moving over to the new product. This typically means that  people on the current product are asked to step up into broader or more demanding roles. This is an
excellent opportunity for more junior members of the current product team
to demonstrate their abilities.

This continues until the new product has built up the team that will deliver
the new product into manufacturing and is being sold by the sales force.

There still needs to be a current product team to deal with issues that
arise in manufacturing, such as a n item in the supply chain is going out of
production and current product engineering has to identify how to handle that
issue. Or a problem crops up in the field and requires engineering expertise to identify
the issue and the solution..

All the above is pretty generic and differs in details across different companies
and industries.

However, F9 and FH have quite a few years of manifest already booked.
While some F9/FH orders will be replaced by SH/SS at some point in time
there are some orders that will ensure F9/FH flying into the 2nd half of
this decade.
Plus there is development work that is required to meet existing contracts,
such as the larger fairing and vertical integration facilities required for
military launches.

So there will be an F9/FH/Merlin  engineering team for years to come
which will provide opportunities for more junior people to demonstrate
their abilities as they allow the cream of the company to develop the
next product.

Its not really a "dead man walking" scenario.

Carl