Talk:SpaceX Merlin

message: Should this article be at Merlin (rocket engine), sort of like Kestrel (rocket engine)? --NeuronExMachina 07:42, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Duk 20:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: I'd like to propose that Merlin 1B and Merlin 2 be merged into Merlin (rocket engine).  The two child articles are very brief stubs, and not much outside information is available about the separate models.  These models can adequately be covered as sections for the main Merlin article.  If enough detail about one model becomes available in the future then it can be broken out.  At this point the breakout just results in unnecessary clicking. --StuffOfInterest 17:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good --Duk 17:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  With the possible launch in a couple of days it seemed to prudent to get the cleanup done before the likely visitors show up. --StuffOfInterest 00:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merger 

message: This article could really use a good photo or diagram of a version 1C engine.  There are some good ones here:   
I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia image guidelines to know if we can use one of these, and under what size/limitation conditions, so will leave that for other more graphic-aware Wikipedians.  N2e (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article has a photo now, and it's a Creative Commons image, I have disabled the  tag. If there are additional/better images needed, feel free to undo my actions. Avicennasis @ 05:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article requires a replacement for the years-obsolete Merlin 1A engine diagram used in the infobox. This should be a diagram or illustration rather than a photo. --IanOsgood (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic of Merlin 1C available for Wikipedia? 

message: The following exchange is from an interview at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/09/24/DI2008092402502.html 
Urbana, Ill.: Right now you have two rockets based on the same first-stage engine (Merlin). To launch Falcon 9 Heavy, you'll need 27 of those engines to fire simultaneously. Do you have any plans to develop a larger engine in the future so that such clustering is not necessary?
Elon Musk: Yeah, I think there is an argument for a really really big Falcon engine or BFE, as we call it :)
That would be equal or greater to the thrust of 27 Merlin 1C engines. Would be exciting to see that fire! On the other hand, lots of small engines can give very high reliability. Google uses lots of small PC computers for their search service and it has never ever gone down.
91.107.42.12 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BFE = 27 Merlin 1C engines? 

message: I'm not trying to be picky, but I feel the overall layout and content was better before the infobox was added. I don't really think the infobox is ready for primetime; it's used in only one other rocket engine article that I can see. And the content was changed; "sea level thrust" was changed to simply "thrust", and "vacuum thrust" became "thrust at altitude". I think the infobox itself needs more work before it should be added to the article, or at least before it is used to replace in-article information. Djd sd (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some work on the infobox; resize image instead of 'thumb' image, added thrust(Vac) and thrust(SL). --Duk 15:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rocket engine infobox 

message: Anyone know why the section on Merlin 2 was removed? Djd sd (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because other than some vague hints three years ago, there aren't any sources for it. I just commented it out, looks like someone else deleted it. --Duk 05:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good enough reason. With all the recent changes, I was having trouble figuring out who was doing what. Djd sd (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merlin 2 

message: Is the Merlin still a Pintle injector?
I thought the Merlin 1 and 1A were pintles but they went to a Showerhead injector on the 1B, and there after.  
Granted the press info is just a little confusing, but, I thought i would ask  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.199.89 (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merlin Injector 

message: I believe it might be time to consider expanding the Merlin 1C Engine specifications section of the article to become a more general Specifications section that would provide an historical comparison of the various important versions of the engine.  (this Talk section is independent of who would do the work of creating such a table; just interested for now to see if other editors thinks such a table a good idea).
It would seem that the first flight Merlin, the Merlin 1A, as well as the now-flown Merlin 1C and Merlin Vacuum would be included, along with perhaps the under-development-but-not-yet-flown Merlin 1D.  What do others think about this?  N2e (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential table for comparison of engine version specs 

message: The opinion "The engine's 160:1 thrust-to-weight ratio would be the highest ever achieved for a rocket engine" seems wrong. Just look at the old Soviet and Russian rocket engines:
* RD-270 - thrust-to-weight ratio was 201:1
* RD-253 - thrust-to-weight ratio was 172:1
* RD-701 - thrust-to-weight ratio was 212:1
Shpankov (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it stated explicitly once (I think), but most of the time it's just implied: the Merlin 1D has the best thrust to weight ratio of any rocket engine of its type, not any rocket engine ever made. Not sure about thrust-to-weight specifically, but I don't think it's physically possible for a kerosene engine to achieve the same level of efficiency as a straightup hydrogen/oxygen burning engine. Lower costs, ease of use and transport, and higher fuel density all play a role kerosene use. There are reasons it's used, but high efficiency isn't one of them. — Gopher65talk 21:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also suspect that the reason they've been calling it "record setting" is because Orbital Sciences claimed that their "new (wink wink, nudge nudge)" Russian built NK-33 engine was "record setting". The NK-33 has a thrust to weight ratio of 137:1, which (at the time it was originally built in the 1970s) was the highest T/W ratio for a RP-1 (kerosene) rocket engine. Compare that to the 160:1 of the Merlin 1D, and you can see where they got the idea that it was setting new records. Since Orbital's new Antares rocket will be in direct competition with the Falcon 9 v1.1, SpaceX probably thought it would be good press to say "see, our new rocket's engine is more efficient than their new rocket's engine!!1!1!eleven!!" The Merlin 1D is a neat engine, but any time you hear a company use the phrase "record setting" you know it is their PR department at work, not the engineers (even when it's... more true than it is in this case). — Gopher65talk 21:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. I'd also read 160:1 in the past, but the most recent press releases say 150:1. I've corrected this article and added a source. — Gopher65talk 21:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: The RD-701 used liquid hydrogen as well as RP-1. It wasn't a pure kerosene engine. — Gopher65talk 23:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that's clearly wrong. I've seen it in a few news articles too, but that doesn't make it any more right. — Gopher65talk 05:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I found astronatix.com is a very poor source of Soviet engine specs. For RD-107 they claim dry mass of 410 kg (really 1190 kg) and specific impulse an unbelievable 326s (really 313s). ScalarField (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merlin 1D thrust-to-weight ratio record 

message: In my opinion, it would be helpful to have a side by side comparison chart of the different versions of this engine to help show the advances made with each version.  Can somebody tackle this?
Ffejmopp (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison Chart?

message: I am trying to get my facts straight for a Wiki article about Thrust-to-weight ratio on the Dutch Wiki, part is a table with rocket engines. Because in the article about the Merlin (rocket engine) it is stated that the Merlin 1D has the highest thrust-to-weigh ratio (higher then the NK-33) but there is no source about the engine weight. I don't think the 1D weights the same as the 1C! According to the stated Thrust-to-weight ratio it should weight roughly 990 lbs. Do not get me wrong, I don't care which engine is the "best" I just want to know if someone has a reliable source for the engine weight of the Merlin 1D? Thanks --Felipe de Jong (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked around the web a bit for this a few weeks ago and couldn't find anything. Maybe someone else will have better luck. — Gopher65talk 01:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merlin 1D thrust-to-weight ratio  

message: It seems that the thrust numbers for Merlin IC are way too much in this article.
SpaceX was planning to make a "slightly upgraded Merlin IC engine" , slated for the Falcon 9 block II, and the numbers in spaceX website(and in this wikipedia page) are for this version of the engine. This engine however has never flown and will never fly, as SpaceX is jumping directly to Merlin 1D in Falcon 9 v1.1.
The real maximum  thrust of Merlin 1C in the flown configurations has been in the range of 423kN(sl), 483kN(vac). --Hkultala (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merlin 1C thrust - wrong 

message: There is a subsection in the article entitled "Raptor".  However, there is nothing in the sources given for the Raptor engine that indicates that SpaceX has given, or will use, the "Merlin" designator to the Raptor concept.  I suspect, therefore, that this section should be removed as 'out of scope'.
On a related note, recent SpaceX news has a very large new rocket engine, fueled by LOX/LH2, to operate on a very large launch vehicle designated the "MCT".  I have added this info to the Falcon (rocket family) article about a day ago.  Another well-intentioned copied that text (with citation) here today.  I just deleted it as there is no indication in the sources I've read that the "MCT" will be called by the designator "Merlin".  BTW, there is no indication in the sources that the "MCT" is what used to be the "Raptor" concept engine either.  So until sources come out clarifying that info, Wikipedia editors ought not to speculate.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With the recent (November 2012) SpaceX announcments about developing methane-based rocket engines, and with Raptor now explicitly identified as a LOX/methane engine, I have removed the Raptor section, and replaced it with a link in See also.  N2e (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Raptor" is not necessarily "Merlin" 

message: The only photo/diagram in the article is of the smallest Merlin engine, a Merlin 1A.  With the Merlin 1C being substantially more powerful and having now powered multiple flights, and the even greater thrust Merlin 1D having completed ground testing and scheduled for initial flights in 2013, I think the article would be improved by a better cross-section of Merline rocket engine graphics.  I'm adding a  tag.  N2e (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this has been a problem for over four years! See previous comments. One idea: Steve Jurvetson is a SpaceX insider and amateur photographer who licenses all his photos under Creative Commons.  Perhaps his SpaceX Flickr stream could yield a more recent Merlin photo. For example: A Merlin 1C on the factory floor. --IanOsgood (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

text: *Here is an excellent Merlin 1C diagram from Flickr (30 Jan 2008).  Perhaps the author could be contacted to give permission to use the copyrighted image on Wikipedia. --IanOsgood (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

text: *Here is yet another really excellent detailed diagram of the Merlin 1C engine, this time from a December 2007 SpaceX update that remains online in the SpaceX "Update Archive".  detailed diagram of Merlin 1C engine, with labels  Perhaps SpaceX image will be easier to license, or perhaps the Flickr one, I don't know. — Cheers.  N2e (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the same diagram, published a few months earlier. I presume it is the original. Perhaps we could import it for fair-use, since SpaceX is the author? --IanOsgood (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's good if a fair use rationale can allow it's use.  I don't have any expertise in the Wiki-photo rulz game so generally leave that to other experts to help with.  So if anyone believes fair use covers that diagram, I think it would be a really good diagram to have in the article, and Merlin 1C is so very different from Merlin 1A that the simple 1A graphic is a total misrepresentation.  N2e (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo is outdated 

message: I am proposing a move of the article from Merlin (rocket engine) to Merlin (rocket engine family).  
Rationale:  the article has emerged over time and has become an article not about any single rocket engine, but rather about an entire family of LOX/RP-1-propellant rocket engines all made by the same manufacturer.  The three main engines in the series (Merlin 1A, Merlin 1C, and the Merlin 1D are substantially different rocket engine designs.  For example, 
: - the Merlin 1D () has more than twice the thrust of the Merlin 1A (340 kN (77,000 lbf) of thrust), which means twice the mass flow rate of propellant, different injectors and nozzles, etc; 
: - the Merlin 1C uses an entirely different design of the nozzle cooling system (a regeneratively cooled nozzle and combustion chamber) while the Merlin 1A used an ablatively-cooled carbon fiber composite nozzle;
: - Merlin is a manufacturer's name for a family of LOX/RP-1 engines, just as news reports are showing that SpaceX has planned a family of Raptor LOX/methane engines.  
: - The fact that the manufacturer chose to leave the lead-digit ("1") in the engine designator the same may have more to do with marketing, reducing perceived risk of change, and reduction of launch vehicle insurance rates than as an indicator of engine sameness.
*SUPPORT — per nom rationale, as nom.  N2e (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: . No one objected after this had been here for a while, so I moved it. — Gopher65talk 21:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move:  Merlin (rocket engine family) 

message: *This article profiles Tom Mueller, VP of Propulsion Development and founding employee at SpaceX, who led development of their Merlin engines Under the Hood with the SpaceX Merlin Engine - Pinehead.tv, January 2013.
*And here is an old source, from 2009 (might be worth adding to the External Links?):  a 5 minute Livescribe lecture by Mueller on the Merlin design: Tom Mueller Describes Merlin Engine - Livescribe - July.30.09.
—N2e (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new source on the Merlin engine 

message: Apparently someone from Barber Nichols just went through the article and added a bunch of things saying they created the turbopump. Special:Contributions/184.96.79.5 Do we delete these or keep these? The information is unsourced. Ergzay (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know the IP (184.96.79.5) is from there? Although that is juicy info, we can't use primary sources. Tag it with {citation needed}. It's also not clear whether SpaceX designed their own pump for the Merlin-1D, since they tend to bring key technologies in-house. --IanOsgood (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing by Barber Nichols 

message: Thought this might be useful. The 70-100% throttling for Merlin D: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/06/spacex-merlin-1d-orbital-fire-aj-26-engine/ Davecporter (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source for dead link 4 

message: The 100th Merlin ID engine has come off the manufacturing line as of mid-October 2014.  Here's the source.  Includes "SpaceX is currently the largest private producer of rocket engines in the world." and "Engines are currently manufactured at a rate of four per week, projected to rise to five per week by the end of 2014."
Also includes this bit on the specific manufacturing process for the engine, a process with elements of mass production involved that have not been traditionally used in rocket engine production:  "The production process begins with major engine components – injector, turbopump, gas generator, thrust chamber, valves and actuators – integrated with tubing, sensors, and other small components to form the major sub-assemblies of the engine. These sub-assemblies are put together to become the engine’s lower and upper assembly. Once the lower and upper assemblies are stacked and mated, the engine undergoes a series of quality checks prior to testing."  N2e (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  SpaceX has manufactured the 100th Merlin 1D now 

message: This source shows the  bipropellant valve used for throttle control of the Merlin 1, and is spec'd to handle up to  of pressure in the fluid streams.  It controls both the LOX and RP-1 fuel simultaneously from a single input.  Quotation:  "The Bi-Propellant Valve simultaneously meters liquid oxygen and RP-1 thru two separate channels using a single electromechanical actuator device for the SpaceX Merlin second-stage vacuum engine turbopump preburner."
The link is a primary source, so not as good as a secondary source for citation, so I'm not adding anything to the article at this time.  But it does provide verifiable information about the nature of the throttle valve on the Merlin 1.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the WP:PRIMARY policy, wouldn't it be acceptable to provide a factual statement that JASC manufactures the biprop valve? (I might just not understand the policy completely) It restricts any analysis or synthesis of primary sources, but from the information given on the JASC site it seems like a factual statement from it would still contribute to the article. Appable (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what the policy says. We can take things like specs from the SpaceX website, but we can't take interpretations from a primary website. So we can, say, list the thrust-to-weight ratio of a Merlin 1D from straight from SpaceX, but we can't use a statement like "this is the highest thrust to weight ratio of any RP-1 gas generator engine". The first is a factual statement by the manufacturer, the second is a interpretation by the manufacturer. The former is usable from a primary source, the latter is not. — Gopher65talk 04:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merlin 1 bipropellant valve 

message: The previous Vacuum Isp of 311s was likely the Merlin 1C value. The 340s value is found here spacex.com/falcon9 click on 'inside the interstage': the relevant bit: "SpaceX's Merlin vacuum engine has the highest vacuum specific impulse (isp)--a measure of engine efficiency--of any American liquid oxygen/kerosene engine with a vacuum isp of 340 seconds.  The engine is housed inside the rocket's interstage."
It would seem that the sea level Isp of 282s is also incorrect, but I cannot find a reliable source for the correct value. I don't think spacex has ever released sea level Isp for merlin 1D. Most sources on the web confuse it with the 1C number.
It should be noted that a Vacuum Isp of 340s is very good for a gas generator cycle engine. Infact, this number is on par with the staged combusion RD-180 Vac Isp of 338s. Unless that number is incorrect as well.Rocketdude78 (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In my personal list of rocket engine ISP/thrust, I have these values: Sea level: Merlin1C 266/556kN, Merlin1D 282/654 kN; Vacuum: Merlin1C 305/616kN, Merlin1D 309/741kN, Merlin1D-Vac 340/801kN, Merlin1C-Vac 342/411kN.  Sadly, I don't have references; they may have been directly from SpaceX employees and thus not are not usable on Wikipedia. --IanOsgood (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

text: This article needs to better distinguish between Merlin-1D and Merlin-1D-Vac.  I think the top info box is confusing the two: the first-stage Merlin-1D performance in vacuum should be stated separately from the second-stage Merlin-1D-Vac performance. --IanOsgood (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

text: The infobox should give the performance of the Merlin1D, NOT the Merlin1D-Vacuum. 282s at sea level and 311s in vacuum are the correct numbers. A(Ch) 07:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Or, rather, more correct. An engine producing 6,672/9=740 kn vacuum with an Isp 311 will produce 670 kn sea level with Isp 282, close to the 655 from 5,885/9. 340 s Isp applies only to the M1D-V used on the second stage, the first stage engines will be around 310 s, as Tom Mueller suggested.  A(Ch) 08:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merlin 1D-Vac Isp corrected 

message: Hi. At the end of Variants section, it's written "this engine ...  can be throttled between 60 and 100 percent". Does this percentage refers to the propellant? or is it some kind of rocket stage percent ? --Fotte (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the amount of thrust it's producing. Which correlates fairly well with the fuel consumption (but not perfectly due to changes in burn efficiency at different thrust levels). Right now the Merlin 1D is throttled to about 75-80% of full thrust at most, because they've been running it in what we might think of as "safe mode" until they were sure it could survive full thrust. A very slightly modified version of the engine is due to debut in a few months (1D+) that will be rated to throttle over that full range. It will be regularly throttled to near 100% on standard missions. — Gopher65talk 13:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always been under the presumption that the current engine is running at 100% throttle but only around 80% of its potential. Is the 1D currently actually throttled down below what they think the engine can do, or is it just not running quite as high as it could with minor changes? Appable (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Variants section

message: Tom Mueller in quora.com 
The Merlin 1D weighs 1030 pounds, including the hydraulic steering (TVC) actuators.  It makes 162,500 pounds of thrust in vacuum.  that is nearly 158 thrust/weight.  The new full thrust variant weighs the same and makes about 185,500 lbs force in vacuum.  You can do the math!  BTW, I believe most other engines don't include the thrust vector control actuators in their F/W numbers.
I suggest that we can do the following changes in the M1D infobox
# change vacuum thrust to 723kN (from 740kN)
# add the engine weight @ 1030 pounds (or 467kg) with a reference that it includes the hydraulic steering actuators
# change TWR to 162500/1030 = 158 (from 150)
Also, I think it would be prudent to have a separate infobox about M1d vac, positioned at the section that describes it. Its really the same engine, but tuned for vacuum use, sporting a different nozzle and having more thrust, TWR and isp. 
Any and every feedback would be vastly appreciated, cheers..C:
--85.72.86.19 (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more information about current Merlin 1D weight and thrust.  

message: Vac Isp is currently listed as 348 s, but clicking on the citation shows that the 348 is the Isp for the Merlin Vacuum engine. The extended nozzle of the Vacuum version drastically changes how the engine performs and it seems disingenuous to have it listed for the base 1D engine. There is a source in the article showing that it is actually 311 s.
I'm going to change it for now, let me know if there was reason the information was set up this way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:900:8200:29B0:A460:CF76:847A:8726 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason i changed it to 348s is because the figure is for Vacuum Isp and this article contains both vacuum and standard versions. Perhaps we can put both Isp? Hammer5000 (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merlin 1D Vac Isp 

message: There should be an infobox for the Merlin Vacuum Engine. It's substantially different. Currently the infobox is using the thrust value for the sea level thrust of the Merlin 1D and the vacuum thrust of the Vacuum engine rather than the Vacuum thrust of the non-Vacuum engine. The Vacuum thurst is 914 kN not 934 kN. Ergzay (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merlin Vacuum Engine infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Merlin (rocket engine family). 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/20130501002858/http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=0205-0505
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=31499
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150621134912/http://aviationweek.com/awin/spacex-unveils-plans-be-world-s-top-rocket-maker to http://aviationweek.com/awin/spacex-unveils-plans-be-world-s-top-rocket-maker
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501002858/http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3Aa8b87703-93f9-4cdf-885f-9429605e14df
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Two unsourced assertions about the origin of the Merlin name (a bird or a legendary character) were competing under an "Etymology" section. I removed the whole section until one of the theories is sourced. — JFG talk 23:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: What angles can it slew, and how fast ? Are the TVC actuators hydraulic ? - Rod57 (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design could mention gimballing details 

message: SpaceX updated their Falcon 9 user guide. Among other changes they gave us minimal thrust values in table 2-1. They are 57% and 64% for sea-level and vacuum version, respectively, worse than performance claims we have for the same type of engine in the article. Does that mean they decided to not throttle them down that much any more? Or did they change the engines? --mfb (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Throttling capability (2019) 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 11:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress