Falcon 9 is a partially reusable, human-rated, two-stage-to-orbit, medium-lift launch vehicle[a] designed and manufactured in the United States by SpaceX. The first Falcon 9 launch was on 4 June 2010, and the first commercial resupply mission to the International Space Station (ISS) launched on 8 October 2012.[14] In 2020, it became the first commercial rocket to launch humans to orbit.[15] The Falcon 9 has an exceptional safety record,[16][17][18] with 425 successful launches, two in-flight failures, one partial failure and one pre-flight destruction. It is the most-launched American orbital rocket in history.
The rocket has two stages. The first (booster) stage carries the second stage and payload to a predetermined speed and altitude, after which the second stage accelerates the payload to its target orbit. The booster is capable of landing vertically to facilitate reuse. This feat was first achieved on flight 20 in December 2015. As of 15 January 2025, SpaceX has successfully landed Falcon 9 boosters 383 times.[b] Individual boosters have flown as many as 25 flights.[19] Both stages are powered by SpaceX Merlin engines,[c] using cryogenic liquid oxygen and rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) as propellants.[20][21]
The heaviest payloads flown to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) were Intelsat 35e carrying 6,761 kg (14,905 lb), and Telstar 19V with 7,075 kg (15,598 lb). The former was launched into an advantageous super-synchronous transfer orbit,[22] while the latter went into a lower-energy GTO, with an apogee well below the geostationary altitude.[23] On 24 January 2021, Falcon 9 set a record for the most satellites launched by a single rocket, carrying 143 into orbit.[24]
Several versions of Falcon 9 have been built and flown: v1.0 flew from 2010 to 2013, v1.1 flew from 2013 to 2016, while v1.2 Full Thrust first launched in 2015, encompassing the Block 5 variant, which has been in operation since May 2018.
Development history
Conception and funding
In October 2005, SpaceX announced plans to launch Falcon 9 in the first half of 2007.[27] The initial launch would not occur until 2010.[28]
SpaceX spent its own capital to develop and fly its previous launcher, Falcon 1, with no pre-arranged sales of launch services. SpaceX developed Falcon 9 with private capital as well, but did have pre-arranged commitments by NASA to purchase several operational flights once specific capabilities were demonstrated. Milestone-specific payments were provided under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program in 2006.[29][30] The NASA contract was structured as a Space Act Agreement (SAA) "to develop and demonstrate commercial orbital transportation service",[30] including the purchase of three demonstration flights.[31] The overall contract award was US$278 million to provide three demonstration launches of Falcon 9 with the SpaceX Dragon cargo spacecraft. Additional milestones were added later, raising the total contract value to US$396 million.[32][33]
In 2008, SpaceX won a Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract in NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to deliver cargo to ISS using Falcon 9/Dragon.[33][34] Funds would be disbursed only after the demonstration missions were successfully and thoroughly completed. The contract totaled US$1.6 billion for a minimum of 12 missions to ferry supplies to and from the ISS.[35]
In 2011, SpaceX estimated that Falcon 9 v1.0 development costs were approximately US$300 million.[36] NASA estimated development costs of US$3.6 billion had a traditional cost-plus contract approach been used.[37] A 2011 NASA report "estimated that it would have cost the agency about US$4 billion to develop a rocket like the Falcon 9 booster based upon NASA's traditional contracting processes" while "a more commercial development" approach might have allowed the agency to pay only US$1.7 billion".[38]
In 2014, SpaceX released combined development costs for Falcon 9 and Dragon. NASA provided US$396 million, while SpaceX provided over US$450 million.[39]
Congressional testimony by SpaceX in 2017 suggested that the unusual NASA process of "setting only a high-level requirement for cargo transport to the space station [while] leaving the details to industry" had allowed SpaceX to complete the task at a substantially lower cost. "According to NASA's own independently verified numbers, SpaceX's development costs of both the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 rockets were estimated at approximately $390 million in total."[38]
Development
SpaceX originally intended to follow its Falcon 1 launch vehicle with an intermediate capacity vehicle, Falcon 5.[40] The Falcon line of vehicles are named after the Millennium Falcon, a fictional starship from the Star Wars film series.[41] In 2005, SpaceX announced that it was instead proceeding with Falcon 9, a "fully reusable heavy-lift launch vehicle", and had already secured a government customer. Falcon 9 was described as capable of launching approximately 9,500 kilograms (20,900 lb) to low Earth orbit and was projected to be priced at US$27 million per flight with a 3.7 m (12 ft) payload fairing and US$35 million with a 5.2 m (17 ft) fairing. SpaceX also announced a heavy version of Falcon 9 with a payload capacity of approximately 25,000 kilograms (55,000 lb).[42] Falcon 9 was intended to support LEO and GTO missions, as well as crew and cargo missions to the ISS.[40]
Testing
The original NASA COTS contract called for the first demonstration flight in September 2008, and the completion of all three demonstration missions by September 2009.[43] In February 2008, the date slipped into the first quarter of 2009. According to Musk, complexity and Cape Canaveral regulatory requirements contributed to the delay.[44]
The first multi-engine test (two engines firing simultaneously, connected to the first stage) was completed in January 2008.[45] Successive tests led to a 178-second (mission length), nine engine test-fire in November 2008.[46] In October 2009, the first flight-ready all-engine test fire was at its test facility in McGregor, Texas. In November, SpaceX conducted the initial second stage test firing, lasting forty seconds. In January 2010, a 329-second (mission length) orbit-insertion firing of the second stage was conducted at McGregor.[47]
The elements of the stack arrived at the launch site for integration at the beginning of February, 2010.[48] The flight stack went vertical at Space Launch Complex 40, Cape Canaveral,[49] and in March, SpaceX performed a static fire test, where the first stage was fired without launch. The test was aborted at T−2 due to a failure in the high-pressure helium pump. All systems up to the abort performed as expected, and no additional issues needed addressing. A subsequent test on 13 March fired the first-stage engines for 3.5 seconds.[50]
In December 2010, the SpaceX production line manufactured a Falcon 9 (and Dragon spacecraft) every three months.[51] By September 2013, SpaceX's total manufacturing space had increased to nearly 93,000 m2 (1,000,000 sq ft), in order to support a production capacity of 40 rocket cores annually.[52] The factory was producing one Falcon 9 per month as of November 2013[update].[53]
By February 2016 the production rate for Falcon 9 cores had increased to 18 per year, and the number of first stage cores that could be assembled at one time reached six.[54]
Since 2018, SpaceX has routinely reused first stages, reducing the demand for new cores. In 2023, SpaceX performed 91 launches of Falcon 9 with only 4 using new boosters and successfully recovered the booster on all flights. The Hawthorne factory continues to produce one (expendable) second stage for each launch.
Rockets from the Falcon 9 family have a success rate of 99.32% and have been launched 439 times over 15 years, resulting in 436 full successes, two in-flight failures (SpaceX CRS-7 and Starlink Group 9–3), one pre-flight failure (AMOS-6 while being prepared for an on-pad static fire test), and one partial failure (SpaceX CRS-1, which delivered its cargo to the International Space Station (ISS), but a secondary payload was stranded in a lower-than-planned orbit). The active version of the rocket, the Falcon 9 Block 5, has flown 371 times successfully and failed once (Starlink Group 9–3), resulting in the 99.73% success rate.
In 2022, the Falcon 9 set a new record with 60 successful launches by the same launch vehicle type in a calendar year. This surpassed the previous record held by Soyuz-U, which had 47 launches (45 successful) in 1979.[55] In 2023, the Falcon family of rockets (including the Falcon Heavy) had 96 successful launches, surpassing the 63 launches (61 successful) of the R-7 rocket family in 1980.[d][56] In 2024, SpaceX broke their own record with 134 total Falcon flights (133 successful) accounting for over half of all orbital launches that year.
The Falcon 9 has evolved through several versions: v1.0 was launched five times from 2010 to 2013, v1.1 launched 15 times from 2013 to 2016, Full Thrust launched 36 times from 2015 to 2015. The most recent version, Block 5, was introduced in May 2018.[57] With each iteration, the Falcon 9 has become more powerful and capable of vertical landing. As vertical landings became more commonplace, SpaceX focused on streamlining the refurbishment process for boosters, making it faster and more cost-effective.[58]
The Falcon Heavy derivative is a heavy-lift launch vehicle composed of three Falcon 9 first-stage boosters. The central core is reinforced, while the side boosters feature aerodynamic nosecone instead of the usual interstage.[59]
Falcon 9 first-stage boosters landed successfully in 398 of 410 attempts (97.1%), with 373 out of 378 (98.7%) for the Falcon 9 Block 5 version. A total of 374 re-flights of first stage boosters have all successfully launched their second stages and, all but one, their payloads.
Flight 4, CRS-1 — first operational cargo mission to the ISS, and the first demonstration of the rocket's engine-out capability due to the failure of a first-stage Merlin engine,
Flight 32, SES-10 — first reflight of a previously flown orbital class booster (B1021, previously used for SpaceX CRS-8), first recovery of a fairing,[60][61]
Flight 81 — Starlink launch, was a successful flight, but had the first recovery failure of a previously flown and recovered booster,
Flight 83 — successful Starlink launch, saw the first failure of a Merlin 1D first-stage engine during ascent, and the second ascent engine failure on the rocket following CRS-1 on flight 4,
Flight 85, Crew Dragon Demo-2 — first crewed launch of the Crew Dragon, carrying two astronauts,
Flight 98, Crew-1 — first crewed operational launch of the Crew Dragon, holding the record for the longest spaceflight by a US crew vehicle,
Flight 101, CRS-21 — first launch of the Cargo Dragon 2, an uncrewed variant of the Crew Dragon,
Flight 106, Transporter-1[broken anchor] — first dedicated smallsat rideshare launch arranged by SpaceX,[i] set the record of the most satellites launched on a single launch with 143 satellites, surpassing the previous record of 108 satellites held by the November 17, 2018 launch of an Antares,
Flight 108 — routine Starlink launch which experienced early shut-down of a first-stage Merlin 1D engine during ascent due to damage, but still delivered the payload to the target orbit,
Flight 126, Inspiration4 — first orbital spaceflight of an all-private crew,
Flight 236 — first launch with a fairing half flying for the tenth time,[67]
Flight 300 — 200th consecutive successful vertical landing for the orbital class Falcon booster,
Flight 323 — B1062 becomes the first Falcon 9 booster to fly and land 20 times; this was preceded by certification of boosters to fly that often, double the initial goal,[68]
Flight 354 — Starlink Group 9–3 — Second stage failed to relight, Starlink satellites deployed into lower orbit than planned. This resulted in loss of all 20 Starlink satellites.[69]
The booster stage has 9 engines, arranged in a configuration that SpaceX calls Octaweb.[72] The second stage of the Falcon 9 has 1 short or regular nozzle, Merlin 1D Vacuum engine version.
Falcon 9 is capable of losing up to 2 engines and still complete the mission by burning the remaining engines longer.
Each Merlin rocket engine is controlled by three voting computers, each having 2 CPUs which constantly check the other 2 in the trio. The Merlin 1D engines can vector thrust to adjust trajectory.
Tanks
The propellant tank walls and domes are made from an aluminum–lithium alloy. SpaceX uses an all friction-stir welded tank, for its strength and reliability.[4] The second stage tank is a shorter version of the first stage tank. It uses most of the same tooling, material, and manufacturing techniques.[4]
The F9 interstage, which connects the upper and lower stages, is a carbon-fibre aluminium-core composite structure that holds reusable separation collets and a pneumatic pusher system. The original stage separation system had twelve attachment points, reduced to three for v1.1.[73]
Falcon 9 uses a payload fairing (nose cone) to protect (non-Dragon) satellites during launch. The fairing is 13 m (43 ft) long, 5.2 m (17 ft) in diameter, weighs approximately 1900 kg, and is constructed of carbon fiber skin overlaid on an aluminum honeycomb core.[75] SpaceX designed and fabricates fairings in Hawthorne. Testing was completed at NASA's Plum Brook Station facility in spring 2013 where the acoustic shock and mechanical vibration of launch, plus electromagneticstatic discharge conditions, were simulated on a full-size test article in a vacuum chamber.[76] Since 2019, fairings are designed to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and are reused for future missions.
Control systems
SpaceX uses multiple redundant flight computers in a fault-tolerant design. The software runs on Linux and is written in C++.[77] For flexibility, commercial off-the-shelf parts and system-wide radiation-tolerant design are used instead of rad-hardened parts.[77] Each stage has stage-level flight computers, in addition to the Merlin-specific engine controllers, of the same fault-tolerant triad design to handle stage control functions. Each engine microcontroller CPU runs on a PowerPC architecture.[78]
Legs/fins
Boosters that will be deliberately expended do not have legs or fins. Recoverable boosters include four extensible landing legs attached around the base.[79]
To control the core's descent through the atmosphere, SpaceX uses grid fins that deploy from the vehicle[80] moments after stage separation.[81] Initially, the V1.2 Full Thrust version of the Falcon 9 were equipped with grid fins made from aluminum, which were eventually replaced by larger, more aerodynamically efficient, and durable titanium fins. The upgraded titanium grid fins, cast and cut from a single piece of titanium, offer significantly better maneuverability and survivability from the extreme heat of re-entry than aluminum grid fins and can be reused indefinitely with minimal refurbishment.[82][83][84]
Versions
Falcon 9 rocket family; from left to right: Falcon 9 v1.0, v1.1, Full Thrust and Block 5. Also seen are the various configurations; reusable with capsule, reusable with payload fairing and expendable with payload fairing.
The Falcon 9 has seen five major revisions: v1.0, v1.1, Full Thrust (also called Block 3 or v1.2), Block 4, and Block 5.
V1.0 flew five successful orbital launches from 2010 to 2013. The much larger V1.1 made its first flight in September 2013. The demonstration mission carried a small 500 kg (1,100 lb) primary payload, the CASSIOPE satellite.[73] Larger payloads followed, starting with the launch of the SES-8GEOcommunications satellite.[85] Both v1.0 and v1.1 used expendable launch vehicles (ELVs). The Falcon 9 Full Thrust made its first flight in December 2015. The first stage of the Full Thrust version was reusable. The current version, known as Falcon 9 Block 5, made its first flight in May 2018.
A Falcon 9 v1.0 being launched with a Dragon spacecraft to deliver cargo to the ISS in 2012
F9 v1.0 was an expendable launch vehicle developed from 2005 to 2010. It flew for the first time in 2010. V1.0 made five flights, after which it was retired. The first stage was powered by nine Merlin 1C engines arranged in a 3 × 3 grid. Each had a sea-level thrust of 556 kN (125,000 lbf) for a total liftoff thrust of about 5,000 kN (1,100,000 lbf).[4] The second stage was powered by a single Merlin 1C engine modified for vacuum operation, with an expansion ratio of 117:1 and a nominal burn time of 345 seconds. Gaseous N2 thrusters were used on the second-stage as a reaction control system (RCS).[86]
Early attempts to add a lightweight thermal protection system to the booster stage and parachute recovery were not successful.[87]
Falcon 9 v1.0 (left) and v1.1 (right) engine configurationsThe launch of the first Falcon 9 v1.1 from Vandenberg SLC-4 (Falcon 9 Flight 6) in September 2013
V1.1 is 60% heavier with 60% more thrust than v1.0.[73] Its nine (more powerful) Merlin 1D engines were rearranged into an "octagonal" pattern[88][89] that SpaceX called Octaweb. This is designed to simplify and streamline manufacturing.[90][91] The fuel tanks were 60% longer, making the rocket more susceptible to bending during flight.[73]
The v1.1 first stage offered a total sea-level thrust at liftoff of 5,885 kN (1,323,000 lbf), with the engines burning for a nominal 180 seconds. The stage's thrust rose to 6,672 kN (1,500,000 lbf) as the booster climbed out of the atmosphere.[3]
The stage separation system was redesigned to reduce the number of attachment points from twelve to three,[73] and the vehicle had upgraded avionics and software.[73]
These improvements increased the payload capability from 9,000 kg (20,000 lb) to 13,150 kg (28,990 lb).[3] SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell stated the v1.1 had about 30% more payload capacity than published on its price list, with the extra margin reserved for returning stages via powered re-entry.[92]
Development testing of the first stage was completed in July 2013,[93][94] and it first flew in September 2013.
The second stage igniter propellant lines were later insulated to better support in-space restart following long coast phases for orbital trajectory maneuvers.[95] Four extensible carbon fiber/aluminum honeycomb landing legs were included on later flights where landings were attempted.[96][97][98]
SpaceX pricing and payload specifications published for v1.1 as of March 2014[update] included about 30% more performance than the published price list indicated; SpaceX reserved the additional performance to perform reusability testing. Many engineering changes to support reusability and recovery of the first stage were made for v1.1.
A close-up of the newer titanium grid fins first flown for the second Iridium NEXT mission in June 2017
The Full Thrust upgrade (also known as FT, v1.2 or Block 3),[99][100] made major changes. It added cryogenic propellant cooling to increase density allowing 17% higher thrust, improved the stage separation system, stretched the second stage to hold additional propellant, and strengthened struts for holding helium bottles believed to have been involved with the failure of flight 19.[101] It offered a reusable first stage. Plans to reuse the second-stage were abandoned as the weight of a heat shield and other equipment would reduce payload too much.[102] The reusable booster was developed using systems and software tested on the Falcon 9 prototypes.
The Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) replaced the ground-based mission flight control personnel and equipment. AFSS offered on-board Positioning, Navigation and Timing sources and decision logic. The benefits of AFSS included increased public safety, reduced reliance on range infrastructure, reduced range spacelift cost, increased schedule predictability and availability, operational flexibility, and launch slot flexibility".[103]
FT's capacity allowed SpaceX to choose between increasing payload, decreasing launch price, or both.[104]
Its first successful landing came in December 2015[105] and the first reflight in March 2017.[106] In February 2017, CRS-10 launch was the first operational launch utilizing AFSS. All SpaceX launches after 16 March used AFSS. A 25 June mission carried the second batch of ten Iridium NEXT satellites, for which the aluminum grid fins were replaced by larger titanium versions, to improve control authority, and heat tolerance during re-entry.[82]
Block 4
In 2017, SpaceX started including incremental changes to the Full Thrust, internally dubbed Block 4.[107] Initially, only the second stage was modified to Block 4 standards, flying on top of a Block 3 first stage for three missions: NROL-76 and Inmarsat-5 F5 in May 2017, and Intelsat 35e in July 2017.[108] Block 4 was described as a transition between the Full Thrust v1.2 Block 3 and Block 5. It includes incremental engine thrust upgrades leading to Block 5.[109] The maiden flight of the full Block 4 design (first and second stages) was the SpaceX CRS-12 mission on 14 August.[110]
In October 2016, Musk described Block 5 as coming with "a lot of minor refinements that collectively are important, but uprated thrust and improved legs are the most significant".[111] In January 2017, Musk added that Block 5 "significantly improves performance and ease of reusability".[112] The maiden flight took place on 11 May 2018,[113] with the Bangabandhu Satellite-1 satellite.[114]
As of 15 January 2025, Falcon 9 had achieved 425 out of 428 full mission successes (99.3%). SpaceX CRS-1 succeeded in its primary mission, but left a secondary payload in a wrong orbit, while SpaceX CRS-7 was destroyed in flight. In addition, AMOS-6 disintegrated on the launch pad during fueling for an engine test. Block 5 has a success rate of 99.7% (371/372). For comparison, the industry benchmark Soyuz series has performed 1880 launches[128] with a success rate of 95.1% (the latest Soyuz-2's success rate is 94%),[129] the Russian Proton series has performed 425 launches with a success rate of 88.7% (the latest Proton-M's success rate is 90.1%), the European Ariane 5 has performed 117 launches with a success rate of 95.7%, and Chinese Long March 3B has performed 85 launches with a success rate of 95.3%.
F9's launch sequence includes a hold-down feature that allows full engine ignition and systems check before liftoff. After the first-stage engine starts, the launcher is held down and not released for flight until all propulsion and vehicle systems are confirmed to be operating normally. Similar hold-down systems have been used on launch vehicles such as Saturn V[130] and Space Shuttle. An automatic safe shut-down and unloading of propellant occur if any abnormal conditions are detected.[4] Prior to the launch date, SpaceX sometimes completes a test cycle, culminating in a three-and-a-half second first stage engine static firing.[131][132]
Like the Saturn family of rockets, multiple engines allow for mission completion even if one fails.[4][133] Detailed descriptions of destructive engine failure modes and designed-in engine-out capabilities were made public.[134]
SpaceX emphasized that the first stage is designed for "engine-out" capability.[4]CRS-1 in October 2012 was a partial success after engine number 1 lost pressure at 79 seconds, and then shut down. To compensate for the resulting loss of acceleration, the first stage had to burn 28 seconds longer than planned, and the second stage had to burn an extra 15 seconds. That extra burn time reduced fuel reserves so that the likelihood that there was sufficient fuel to execute the mission dropped from 99% to 95%. Because NASA had purchased the launch and therefore contractually controlled several mission decision points, NASA declined SpaceX's request to restart the second stage and attempt to deliver the secondary payload into the correct orbit. As a result, the secondary payload reentered the atmosphere.[135]
Merlin 1D engines have suffered two premature shutdowns on ascent. Neither has affected the primary mission, but both landing attempts failed. On an 18 March 2020 Starlink mission, one of the first stage engines failed 3 seconds before cut-off due to the ignition of some isopropyl alcohol that was not properly purged after cleaning.[136] On another Starlink mission on 15 February 2021, hot exhaust gasses entered an engine due to a fatigue-related hole in its cover.[137] SpaceX stated the failed cover had the "highest... number of flights that this particular boot [cover] design had seen."[138]
Explanatory graphic of Falcon 9's first stage barge landing
SpaceX planned from the beginning to make both stages reusable.[139] The first stages of early Falcon flights were equipped with parachutes and were covered with a layer of ablative cork to allow them to survive atmospheric re-entry. These were defeated by the accompanying aerodynamic stress and heating.[87] The stages were salt-water corrosion-resistant.[139]
In late 2011, SpaceX eliminated parachutes in favor of powered descent.[140][141] The design was complete by February 2012.[81]
Powered landings were first flight-tested with the suborbital Grasshopper rocket.[142] Between 2012 and 2013, this low-altitude, low-speed demonstration test vehicle made eight vertical landings, including a 79-second round-trip flight to an altitude of 744 m (2,441 ft). In March 2013, SpaceX announced that as of the first v1.1 flight, every booster would be equipped for powered descent.[97]
Falcon 9's first stage successfully landing on an ASDS for the first time, following the launch of SpaceX CRS-8 to the ISS
For Flight 6 in September 2013, after stage separation, the flight plan called for the first stage to conduct a burn to reduce its reentry velocity, and then a second burn just before reaching the water. Although not a complete success, the stage was able to change direction and make a controlled entry into the atmosphere.[143] During the final landing burn, the RCS thrusters could not overcome an aerodynamically induced spin. The centrifugal force deprived the engine of fuel, leading to early engine shutdown and a hard splashdown.[143]
After four more ocean landing tests, the CRS-5 booster attempted a landing on the ASDS floating platform in January 2015. The rocket incorporated (for the first time in an orbital mission) grid fin aerodynamic control surfaces, and successfully guided itself to the ship, before running out of hydraulic fluid and crashing into the platform.[144] A second attempt occurred in April 2015, on CRS-6. After the launch, the bipropellant valve became stuck, preventing the control system from reacting rapidly enough for a successful landing.[145]
The first attempt to land a booster on a ground pad near the launch site occurred on flight 20, in December 2015. The landing was successful and the booster was recovered.[146][147] This was the first time in history that after launching an orbital mission, a first stage achieved a controlled vertical landing. The first successful booster landing on an ASDS occurred in April 2016 on the drone ship Of Course I Still Love You during CRS-8.
Sixteen test flights were conducted from 2013 to 2016, six of which achieved a soft landing and booster recovery. Since January 2017, with the exceptions of the centre core from the Falcon Heavy test flight, Falcon HeavyUSAFSTP-2 mission, the Falcon 9 CRS-16 resupply mission and the Starlink-4, 5, and 19 missions,[148][149] every landing attempt has been successful. Two boosters have been lost or destroyed at sea after landing: the center core used during the Arabsat-6A mission,[150] and B1058 after completing a Starlink flight.[151]
Relaunch
The first reflight of a Falcon 9, in March 2017
The first operational relaunch of a previously flown booster was accomplished in March 2017[152] with B1021 on the SES-10 mission after CRS-8 in April 2016.[153] After landing a second time, it was retired.[154] In June 2017, booster B1029 helped carry BulgariaSat-1 towards GTO after an Iridium NEXT LEO mission in January 2017, again achieving reuse and landing of a recovered booster.[155] The third reuse flight came in November 2018 on the SSO-A mission. The core for the mission, Falcon 9 B1046, was the first Block 5 booster produced, and had flown initially on the Bangabandhu Satellite-1 mission.[156]
In May 2021 the first booster reached 10 missions. Musk indicated that SpaceX intends to fly boosters until they see a failure in Starlink missions.[157][158] As of 15 January 2025, the record is 25 flights by the same booster.
Recovery of fairings
SpaceX developed payload fairings equipped with a steerable parachute as well as RCS thrusters that can be recovered and reused. A payload fairing half was recovered following a soft-landing in the ocean for the first time in March 2017, following SES-10.[61] Subsequently, development began on a ship-based system involving a massive net, in order to catch returning fairings. Two dedicated ships were outfitted for this role, making their first catches in 2019.[159] However, following mixed success, SpaceX returned to water landings and wet recovery.[160]
Recovery of second stages
Despite public statements that they would endeavor to make the second-stage reusable as well, by late 2014, SpaceX determined that the mass needed for a heat shield, landing engines, and other equipment to support recovery of the second stage was prohibitive, and abandoned second-stage reusability efforts.[102][161]
SpaceX has designated specific roles for each launch site based on mission profiles. SLC-40 serves as the company’s high-volume launch pad for missions to medium-inclination orbits (28.5–55°). SLC-4E is optimized for launches to highly inclined polar orbits (66–145°). LC-39A is primarily reserved for complex missions, such as Crew Dragon or Falcon Heavy launches. However, in 2024, SLC-40 was upgraded to accommodate Crew Dragon launches as a backup to LC-39A.[165]
On April 21, 2023, the United States Space Force granted SpaceX permission to lease Vandenberg Space Launch Complex 6 (SLC-6). This will become SpaceX’s fourth orbital launch site, providing a second pad for highly inclined polar orbit launches and enabling Falcon Heavy launches from the West Coast.[166]
Pricing
At the time of the Falcon 9's maiden flight in 2010, the advertised price for commercial satellite launches using the v1.0 version was $49.9–56 million.[4] Over the years, the price increased, keeping pace with inflation. By 2012, it rose to $54–59.5 million,[167] followed by $56.5 million for the v1.1 version in 2013,[168] $61.2 million in 2014,[169] $62 million for the Full Thrust version in 2016,[170] and $69.75 million for the Block 5 version in 2024.[171]
Government contracts typically involve higher prices, determined through competitive bidding processes. For instance, Dragon cargo missions to the ISS cost $133 million under a fixed-price contract with NASA, which included the spacecraft's use.[172] Similarly, the 2013 DSCOVR mission for NOAA, launched aboard a Falcon 9, cost $97 million.[173] As of 2020, U.S. Air Force launches using the Falcon 9 cost $95 million due to added security requirements.[174] Because of the higher prices charged to government customers, in 2020, Roscosmos administrator Dmitry Rogozin accused SpaceX of price dumping.[175]
The declining costs of Falcon 9 launches prompted competitors to develop lower-cost launch vehicles. Arianespace introduced the Ariane 6, ULA developed the Vulcan Centaur, and Roscosmos focused on the Proton-M.[176] ULA CEO Tory Bruno stated that in their estimates, each booster would need to fly ten times to break even on the additional costs of designing and operating reusable rockets.[177] Musk countered, asserting that Falcon 9's recovery and refurbishment costs were under 10%, achieving breakeven after just two flights and yielding substantial savings by the third.[178]
As of 2024, SpaceX's internal costs for a Falcon 9 launch are estimated between $15 million[179] and $28 million,[178] factoring in workforce expenses, refurbishment, assembly, operations, and facility depreciation.[180] These efficiencies are primarily due to the reuse of first-stage boosters and payload fairings.[181] The second stage on its own has been stated by SpaceX's COO to be $12 million.[182]
Rideshare payload programs
SpaceX provides two rideshare programs, regularly scheduled Falcon 9 flights for small satellite deployment: Transporter and Bandwagon. The Transporter program started in 2021 and specializes in delivering payloads to sun-synchronous orbits, primarily serving Earth observation missions, with flights typically operating every four months. The Bandwagon program started in 2024, offers access to mid-inclination orbits of approximately 45 degrees, with flights typically operating every six months.[183][184] Unlike traditional secondary payload arrangements, these programs do not rely on a primary mission. Instead, SpaceX provides a unique "cake topper" option for larger satellites between 500 and 2,500 kilograms (1,100 and 5,500 lb).[185]
Even though the Falcon 9 is a medium-lift launch vehicle, through these programs, SpaceX has become the leading provider of rideshare launches. Given the company's frequent launch cadence and low prices, operators of small-lift launch vehicles have found it difficult to compete.[185]
In 2019, SpaceX donated a Falcon 9 (B1035) to Space Center Houston, in Houston, Texas. It was a booster that flew two missions, "the 11th and 13th supply missions to the International Space Station [and was] the first Falcon 9 rocket NASA agreed to fly a second time".[188][189]
The Russian space agency has launched the development of Soyuz-7 which shares many similarities with Falcon 9, including a reusable first stage that will land vertically with the help of legs.[193] The first launch is planned for 2028-2030.[194]
China's Beijing Tianbing Technology company is developing Tianlong-3, which is benchmarked against Falcon 9.[195] In 2024, China’s central government designated commercial space as a key industry for support, with the reusable medium-lift launchers being necessary to deploy China’s planned low Earth orbit communications megaconstellations.[195]
^The Falcon 9 v1.0 only launched the Dragon spacecraft; it was never launched with the clam-shell payload fairing.
^Payload was restricted to 10,886 kg (24,000 lb) due to structural limit of the payload adapter fitting (PAF).[122]
^Heaviest explicitly confirmed payload has been 17,400 kg.[123]
^On SpaceX CRS-1, the primary payload, Dragon, was successful. A secondary payload was placed in an incorrect orbit because of a changed flight profile due to the malfunction and shut-down of a single first-stage engine. Likely enough fuel and oxidizer remained on the second stage for orbital insertion, but not enough to be within NASA safety margins for the protection of the International Space Station.[127]
^The only failed mission of the Falcon 9 v1.1 was SpaceX CRS-7, which was lost during its first stage operation due to an overpressure event in the second stage oxygen tank.
^One rocket and payload were destroyed before launch, during preparation for a routine static fire test.
^ abGraham, William (21 December 2015). "SpaceX returns to flight with OG2, nails historic core return". NASASpaceFlight. Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. Retrieved 22 December 2015. The launch also marked the first flight of the Falcon 9 Full Thrust, internally known only as the "Upgraded Falcon 9"
^Kyle, Ed (23 July 2018). "2018 Space Launch Report". Space Launch Report. Archived from the original on 23 July 2018. Retrieved 23 July 2018. 07/22/18 Falcon 9 v1.2 F9-59 Telstar 19V 7.075 CC 40 GTO-.
^Money, Stewart (12 March 2012). "Competition and the future of the EELV program (part 2)". The Space Review. Archived from the original on 6 October 2014. Retrieved 2 October 2014. "The government is the necessary anchor tenant for commercial cargo, but it's not sufficient to build a new economic ecosystem", says Scott Hubbard, an aeronautics researcher at Stanford University in California and former director of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.
^Shotwell, Gwynne (4 June 2014). Discussion with Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO, SpaceX. Atlantic Council. Event occurs at 12:20–13:10. Archived from the original on 25 January 2017. Retrieved 8 June 2014. "NASA ultimately gave us about $396 million; SpaceX put in over $450 million ... [for an] EELV-class launch vehicle ... as well as a capsule".
^"Production at SpaceX". SpaceX. 24 September 2013. Archived from the original on 3 April 2016. Retrieved 29 September 2013.
^Svitak, Amy (10 March 2014). "SpaceX Says Falcon 9 To Compete For EELV This Year". Aviation Week. Archived from the original on 10 March 2014. Retrieved 11 March 2014. Within a year, we need to get it from where it is right now, which is about a rocket core every four weeks, to a rocket core every two weeks... By the end of 2015, says SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell, the company plans to ratchet up production to 40 cores per year.
^"Falcon User's Guide"(PDF). SpaceX. April 2020. Archived(PDF) from the original on 2 December 2020. Retrieved 28 June 2021.
^Mission Status Center, June 2, 2010, 19:05 UTCArchived 30 May 2010 at the Wayback Machine, SpaceflightNow, accessed 2010-06-02, Quotation: "The flanges will link the rocket with ground storage tanks containing liquid oxygen, kerosene fuel, helium, gaserous nitrogen and the first stage ignitor source called triethylaluminum-triethylborane, better known as TEA-TAB".
^"Octaweb". SpaceX News. 12 April 2013. Archived from the original on 3 July 2017. Retrieved 2 August 2013.
^"Landing Legs". SpaceX News. 12 April 2013. Archived from the original on 3 July 2017. Retrieved 2 August 2013. The Falcon Heavy first stage center core and boosters each carry landing legs, which will land each core safely on Earth after takeoff.
^ ab"Musk ambition: SpaceX aim for fully reusable Falcon 9". NASAspaceflight.com. 12 January 2009. Archived from the original on 5 June 2010. Retrieved 9 May 2013. "With Falcon I's fourth launch, the first stage got cooked, so we're going to beef up the Thermal Protection System (TPS). By flight six we think it's highly likely we'll recover the first stage, and when we get it back we'll see what survived through re-entry, and what got fried, and carry on with the process. That's just to make the first stage reusable, it'll be even harder with the second stage – that has got to have a full heatshield, it'll have to have deorbit propulsion and communication".
^Svitak, Amy (24 November 2013). "Musk: Falcon 9 Will Capture Market Share". Aviation Week. Archived from the original on 28 November 2013. Retrieved 28 November 2013. SpaceX is currently producing one vehicle per month, but that number is expected to increase to '18 per year in the next couple of quarters'. By the end of 2014, she says SpaceX will produce 24 launch vehicles per year.
^"Landing Legs". SpaceX. 29 July 2013. Archived from the original on 6 August 2013. Retrieved 24 June 2017.
^ abAnanian, C. Scott (24 October 2014). Elon Musk MIT Interview. Event occurs at 14:20. Archived from the original on 2 February 2015. Retrieved 16 July 2017 – via YouTube.
^Kyle, Ed. "SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.2 Data Sheet". spacelaunchreport.com. Archived from the original on 25 August 2017. Retrieved 23 August 2017.
^"Fiche Technique: Falcon-9" [Technical data sheet: Falcon 9]. Espace & Exploration (in French). No. 39. May 2017. pp. 36–37. Archived from the original on 21 August 2017. Retrieved 27 June 2017.
^Bergin, Chris (8 February 2016). "SpaceX prepares for SES-9 mission and Dragon's return". NASA Spaceflight. Archived from the original on 2 June 2017. Retrieved 9 February 2016. The aforementioned Second Stage will be tasked with a busy role during this mission, lofting the 5300 kg SES-9 spacecraft to its Geostationary Transfer Orbit.
^Opall-Rome, Barbara (12 October 2015). "IAI Develops Small, Electric-Powered COMSAT". DefenseNews. Archived from the original on 6 May 2016. Retrieved 12 October 2015. At 5.3 tons, AMOS-6 is the largest communications satellite ever built by IAI. Scheduled for launch in early 2016 from Cape Canaveral aboard a Space-X Falcon 9 launcher, AMOS-6 will replace AMOS-2, which is nearing the end of its 16-year life.
^Krebs, Gunter. "Telkom-4". Gunter's Space Page. Gunter. Archived from the original on 15 May 2019. Retrieved 7 August 2018.
^Clark, Stephen (20 December 2014). "Falcon 9 completes full-duration static fire". Spaceflight Now. Archived from the original on 5 June 2015. Retrieved 10 May 2015. SpaceX conducts the static fire test — that typically ends with a 3.5-second engine firing — before every launch to wring out issues with the rocket and ground systems. The exercise also helps engineers rehearse for the real launch day.
^"Updates: December 2007". Updates Archive. SpaceX. Archived from the original on 4 January 2011. Retrieved 27 December 2012. "Once we have all nine engines and the stage working well as a system, we will extensively test the "engine out" capability. This includes explosive and fire testing of the barriers that separate the engines from each other and from the vehicle. ... It should be said that the failure modes we've seen to date on the test stand for the Merlin 1C are all relatively benign – the turbo pump, combustion chamber and nozzle do not rupture explosively even when subjected to extreme circumstances. We have seen the gas generator (that drives the turbo pump assembly) blow apart during a start sequence (there are no checks in place to prevent that from happening), but it is a small device, unlikely to cause major damage to its own engine, let alone the neighbouring ones. Even so, as with engine nacelles on commercial jets, the fire/explosive barriers will assume that the entire chamber blows apart in the worst possible way. The bottom close-out panels are designed to direct any force or flame downward, away from neighbouring engines and the stage itself. ... we've found that the Falcon 9's ability to withstand one or even multiple engine failures, just as commercial airliners do, and still complete its mission is a compelling selling point with customers. Apart from the Space Shuttle and Soyuz, none of the existing [2007] launch vehicles can afford to lose even a single thrust chamber without causing loss of mission".
^de Selding, Peter B. (15 October 2012). "Orbcomm Craft Launched by Falcon 9 Falls out of Orbit". Space News. Archived from the original on 12 May 2015. Retrieved 15 October 2012. Orbcomm requested that SpaceX carry one of their small satellites (weighing a few hundred pounds, versus Dragon at over 12,000 pounds)... The higher the orbit, the more test data [Orbcomm] can gather, so they requested that we attempt to restart and raise altitude. NASA agreed to allow that, but only on condition that there be substantial propellant reserves, since the orbit would be close to the International Space Station. It is important to appreciate that Orbcomm understood from the beginning that the orbit-raising maneuver was tentative. They accepted that there was a high risk of their satellite remaining at the Dragon insertion orbit...
^Simburg, Rand (16 June 2010). "SpaceX Press Conference". Archived from the original on 18 December 2010. Retrieved 16 June 2010.. Musk quote: "We will never give up! Never! Reusability is one of the most important goals. If we become the biggest launch company in the world, making money hand over fist, but we're still not reusable, I will consider us to have failed".
^Foust, Jeff (22 August 2011). "New opportunities for smallsat launches". The Space Review. Archived from the original on 23 December 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2011. SpaceX ... developed prices for flying those secondary payloads ... A P-POD would cost between $200,000 and $325,000 for missions to LEO, or $350,000 to $575,000 for missions to geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO). An ESPA-class satellite weighing up to 180 kilograms would cost $4–5 million for LEO missions and $7–9 million for GTO missions, he said.
This template lists historical, current, and future space rockets that at least once attempted (but not necessarily succeeded in) an orbital launch or that are planned to attempt such a launch in the future
Symbol † indicates past or current rockets that attempted orbital launches but never succeeded (never did or has yet to perform a successful orbital launch)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
