SpaceX manufactureslaunch vehicles to operate itslaunch provider services and to execute its various exploration goals. SpaceX manufactures and operates two members of theFalcon 9 family, theFalcon 9 Block 5medium-lift launch vehicle and theFalcon Heavyheavy-lift launch vehicle – both of which are powered bySpaceX Merlin engines and employVTVL technologies toreuse the first stage. As of 2024, the company is also developing the fully reusableStarship launch system, which will replace Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon.[1]
SpaceX's first launch vehicle, theFalcon 1, was the firstprivately developed liquid fueled launch vehicle to be launched into orbit, and used SpaceX's Merlin andKestrel engines for its first and second stages, respectively. It was launched five times fromOmelek Island between 2006 and 2009 – theFalcon 1e andFalcon 5 variants were planned but never developed. TheFalcon 9 v1.0, using upgraded Merlin engines on both its stages, was developed as part of theUnited States Air Force'sEvolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program andNASA'sCommercial Orbital Transportation Services program. It was first launched fromCape Canaveral in 2010 and later replaced by theFalcon 9 v1.1 series in 2013, which was also launched fromVandenberg Air Force Base in California. TheFalcon 9 Full Thrust andFalcon Heavy variants followed in 2015 and 2018. Falcon Heavy launches fromKennedy Space Center in Florida, and Falcon 9 additionally launches fromCape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida andVandenberg.
Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, has stated that the Falcon 1, 9, and Heavy are named after theMillennium Falcon from theStar Wars film series.[2]
Falcon Heavy (FH) is asuper heavy lift space launch vehicle designed and manufactured bySpaceX. The Falcon Heavy is a variant of theFalcon 9 launch vehicle comprising three Falcon 9 first stages: a reinforced center core, and two additionalside boosters. All three boosters are capable of being recovered and reused, although most flights use unrecoverable stripped-down center cores to increase performance. The side boosters assigned to Falcon Heavy's first flight were recovered from two prior Falcon 9 missions. SpaceXsuccessfully launched the Falcon Heavy on February 6, 2018, delivering a payload comprising Musk'spersonal Tesla Roadster ontoa trajectory reaching the orbit of Mars.[3]
The "Full Thrust" version of Falcon 9 is an upgraded version of the Falcon 9 v1.1. It was used the first time on December 22, 2015, for the ORBCOMM-2 launch at Cape Canaveral SLC-40 launch pad.[4]
The first stage was upgraded with a largerliquid oxygen tank, loaded withsubcooled propellants to allow a greater mass of fuel in the same tank volume. The second stage was also extended for greater fuel tank capacity. These upgrades brought a 33% increase to the previous rocket performance.[5] Five sub-variants have been flown; onlyFalcon 9 Block 5 is still active.[6]
By default the first stage lands and gets reused, although it can be expended to increase the payload capacity.[7]
Starship is atwo-stage,fully reusable,super heavy-lift launch vehicle under development by American aerospace companySpaceX. Currently built and launched fromStarbase in Texas, it is intended as the successor to the company'sFalcon 9 andFalcon Heavy rockets,[8] and is part of SpaceX's broaderreusable launch system development program. If completed as designed, Starship would be the first fully reusable orbital rocket and have the highest payload capacity of any launch vehicle to date. As of October 13, 2025, Starshiphas launched 11 times, with 6 successful flights and 5 failures.
The vehicle consists of two stages: theSuper Heavy booster and theStarship spacecraft, both powered byRaptor engines burningliquid methane (the main component ofnatural gas) andliquid oxygen. Both stages are intended to return to the launch site andland vertically at the launch tower for potential reuse.[9] Once in space, the Starship upper stage is intended to function as a standalone spacecraft capable of carryingcrew andcargo.[10] Missions beyondlow Earth orbit would require multiple in-orbitrefueling flights. At the end of its mission, Starshipreenters the atmosphere usingheat shield tiles similar to those of theSpace Shuttle.[11] SpaceX states that its goal is to reduce launch costs by both reusing andmass producing both stages.
SpaceX has proposed a wide range of missions for Starship, such as deploying large satellites,space station modules,[12] andspace telescopes.[13][14] A crewed variant, developed under contract withNASA, is called theStarship Human Landing System, which is scheduled to deliver astronauts to the Moon as partArtemis program, beginning withArtemis III currently scheduled for 2027.[15] SpaceX has also expressed ambitions to use Starship forcrewed missions to Mars.[16][17][18]
SpaceX begandeveloping concepts for a super heavy-lift reusable launch vehicle as early as 2005, with different names throughout the years. Starship's current design and name were introduced in 2018. Development has followed aniterative and incremental approach, involving a high number of test flights and prototype vehicles. Thefirst launch of a full Starship vehicle occurred on April 20, 2023, and ended with the explosion of the rocket four minutes after liftoff.[19] The program has failed to meet many of its optimistic schedule goals, with its development having had several setbacks, including the failure of the first four Block 2 upper stages in 2025.[18][20]
The Falcon 1 was a small, planned to be partially reusable rocket capable of placing several hundred kilograms into low earth orbit.[21] It also functioned as a testbed for developing concepts and components for the larger Falcon 9.[21] Initial Falcon 1 flights were launched from theUS government'sReagan Test Site on the island atoll ofKwajalein in the Pacific Ocean, and represented the first attempt to fly a ground-launched rocket to orbit from that site.[22]
On March 26, 2006, the Falcon 1's maiden flight failed only seconds after leaving the pad due to a fuel line rupture.[23][24] After a year, the second flight was launched on March 22, 2007, and it also ended in failure, due to a spin stabilization problem that automatically caused sensors to turn off the Kestrel 2nd-stage engine.[22] The third Falcon 1 flight used a newregenerative cooling system for the first-stage Merlin engine, and the engine development was responsible for the almost 17-month flight delay.[25] The new cooling system turned out to be the major reason the mission failed; because the first stage rammed into the second-stage engine bell atstaging, due to excess thrust provided by residual propellant left over from the higher-propellant-capacity cooling system.[25] On September 28, 2008, the Falcon 1 succeeded in reaching orbit on itsfourth attempt, becoming the first privately funded, liquid-fueled rocket to do so.[26] The Falcon 1 carried its first and only successful commercial payload into orbit on July 13, 2009, on itsfifth launch.[27] No launch attempts of the Falcon 1 have been made since 2009, and SpaceX is no longer taking launch reservations for the Falcon 1 in order to concentrate company resources on its larger Falcon 9 launch vehicle and otherdevelopment projects.[citation needed]
The first version of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle,Falcon 9 v1.0, was developed in 2005–2010, and was launched for the first time in 2010. Falcon 9 v1.0 made five flights in 2010–2013, when it was retired.
On September 8, 2005, SpaceX announced the development of theFalcon 9 rocket, which has nineMerlin engines in its first stage.[28] The design is anEELV-class vehicle, intended to compete with theDelta IV and theAtlas V, along with launchers of other nations as well. Both stages were designed for reuse. A similarly designedFalcon 5 rocket was also envisioned to fit between[29] the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, but development was dropped to concentrate on the Falcon 9.[28]
The first version of the Falcon 9,Falcon 9 v1.0, was developed in 2005–2010, and flew five orbital missions in 2010–2013. The second version of the launch system—Falcon 9 v1.1—has been retired meanwhile.
Falcon 9 v1.1 was developed in 2010–2013, and made its maiden flight in September 2013. The Falcon 9 v1.1 is 60 percent heavier, with 60 percent more thrust than the v1.0 version of the Falcon 9.[30] It includes realigned first-stage engines[31] and 60 percent longer fuel tanks, making it more susceptible tobending during flight.[30] The engines themselves have been upgraded to the more powerfulMerlin 1D. These improvements increased the payload capability from 10,450 to 13,150 kilograms (23,040 to 28,990 lb).[32]
The stage separation system has been redesigned and reduces the number of attachment points from twelve to three,[30] and the vehicle has upgraded avionics and software.[30]
The new first stage was also supposed to be used asside boosters on theFalcon Heavy launch vehicle.[33]
The company purchased theMcGregor, Texas, testing facilities of defunctBeal Aerospace, where it refitted the largest test stand at the facilities for Falcon 9 testing. On November 22, 2008, the stand tested the nine Merlin 1C engines of the Falcon 9, which deliver 770,000 pounds-force (3,400 kN) of thrust, well under the stand's capacity of 3,300,000 pounds-force (15,000 kN).[34]
The first Falcon 9 vehicle was integrated atCape Canaveral on December 30, 2008. NASA was planning for a flight to take place in January 2010;[35] however the maiden flight was postponed several times and took place on June 4, 2010.[36] At 2:50pm EST (14:50 ET), the Falcon 9 rocket successfully reached orbit.[citation needed]
The second flight for the Falcon 9 vehicle was theCOTS Demo Flight 1, the first launch under the NASACommercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) contract designed to provide "seed money" for development of new boosters.[37] The original NASA contract called for the COTS Demo Flight 1 to occur the second quarter of 2008;[38] this flight was delayed several times, occurring at 15:43 GMT on December 8, 2010.[39] The rocket successfully deployed an operational Dragon spacecraft at 15:53 GMT.[39] Dragon orbited the Earth twice, and then made a controlled reentry burn that put it on target for a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Mexico.[40] With Dragon's safe recovery, SpaceX became the first private company to launch, orbit, and recover a spacecraft; prior to this mission only government agencies had been able to recover orbital spacecraft.[40] The first flight of the Falcon 9 v1.1 was September 29, 2013, from Vandenberg Air Force Base carrying several payloads including Canada's CASSIOPE technology demonstration satellite.[41] The Falcon 9 v1.1 features stretched first and second stages, and a new octagonal arrangement of the 9 Merlin-1D engines on the first stage (replacing the square pattern of engines in v1.0). SpaceX notes that the Falcon 9 v1.1 is cheaper to manufacture, and longer than v1.0. It also has a larger payload capacity: 13,150 kilograms to low Earth orbit or 4,850 kg to geosynchronous transfer orbit.[41]
Grasshopper was an experimental technology-demonstrator,suborbitalreusable launch vehicle (RLV), avertical takeoff, vertical landing (VTVL) rocket.[42] The firstVTVL flight test vehicle—Grasshopper, built on aFalcon 9 v1.0 first-stage tank—made a total of eighttest flights between September 2012 and October 2013.[43] All eight flights were from theMcGregor, Texas, test facility.
Grasshopper began flight testing in September 2012 with a brief, three-second hop. It was followed by a second hop in November 2012, which consisted of an 8-second flight that took the testbed approximately 5.4 m (18 ft) off the ground. A third flight occurred in December 2012 of 29 seconds duration, with extended hover under rocket engine power, in which it ascended to an altitude of 40 m (130 ft) before descending under rocket power to come to a successful vertical landing.[44] Grasshopper made its eighth and final test flight on October 7, 2013, flying to an altitude of 744 m (2,441 ft; 0.462 mi) before making its eighth successful vertical landing.[45] The Grasshopper test vehicle is now retired.[43]
TheFalcon 1e was a proposed upgrade of the SpaceX Falcon 1. The Falcon 1e would have featured a larger first stage with a higher thrust engine, an upgraded second stage engine, a larger payload fairing, and was intended to be partially reusable. Its first launch was planned for mid-2011,[46] but the Falcon 1 and Falcon 1e were withdrawn from the market, with SpaceX citing "limited demand," before its debut.[47][48] Payloads that would have flown on the Falcon 1 were instead to be flown on theFalcon 9 using excess capacity.[49]
The Falcon 1e was to be 6.1 m (20 ft) longer than the Falcon 1, with an overall length of 27.4 m (90 ft), but with the same 1.68 m (5 ft 6 in) diameter. Its first stage had a dry mass of 2,580 kg (5,680 lb), and was powered by an upgraded[50]pump-fed[51]Merlin 1C engine burning 39,000 kg (87,000 lb) ofRP-1 andliquid oxygen. The first stage burn time was around 169 seconds.[51] The second stage had a dry mass of 540 kg (1,200 lb) and itspressure-fed[51]Kestrel 2 engine burned 4,000 kg (8,900 lb) of propellant. The restartable Kestrel 2 could burn for up to a total of 418 seconds.[52]
The Falcon 1e planned to useAluminum Lithium alloy2195 in the second stage, a change from the2014 Aluminum used in the Falcon 1 second stages.[51]
Falcon 1e launches were intended to occur fromOmelek Island, part ofKwajalein Atoll in theMarshall Islands, and fromCape Canaveral, however SpaceX had announced that they would consider other locations as long as there is a "business case for establishing the requested launch site".[52] Following a demonstration flight, the Falcon 1e was intended to make a series of launches carryingOrbcomm O2G spacecraft, with a total of eighteen satellites being launched, several per rocket.[53]EADS Astrium had been responsible for marketing the Falcon 1e in Europe.[46]
TheFalcon 5 was a proposedtwo-stage-to-orbit partially reusable launch vehicle designed by SpaceX.[54]
The first stage of Falcon 5 was to be powered by fiveMerlin engines, and the upper stage by one Merlin engine, both burningRP-1 with aliquid oxygen oxidizer. Along with theFalcon 9, it would have been the world's only launch vehicle with its first stage designed for reuse.[55]
The Falcon 5 would have been the first American rocket since theSaturn V to have full engine-out capability, meaning that with the loss of one engine, it can still meet mission requirements by burning the other four engines longer to achieve the correct orbit.[56] In comparison, theSpace Shuttle only had partial engine-out capability, meaning that it was not able to achieve proper orbit by burning the remaining engines longer.[56]
In 2006, SpaceX stated that the Falcon 5 was a Falcon 9 with four engines removed.[56] Since the launchers were being co-developed, work on the Falcon 9 was also applicable to the Falcon 5.[56][57]
Falcon 9 Air would have been anair-launchedmulti-stagelaunch vehicle underdevelopment by SpaceX in 2011–2012. Falcon 9 Air was to be carried to launch position and launch altitude by aStratolaunch Systemscarrier aircraft, the world's largest aircraft by wingspan. Payload tolow Earth orbit was projected to be 6,100 kg (13,400 pounds).
Propulsion for the rocket was planned to be provided by fourMerlin 1Drocket engines, engines that were also to be used in theFalcon 9 v1.1 beginning in 2013, and also on theFalcon Heavy in 2014. Its first flight was notionally planned for 2016.
In December 2011Stratolaunch Systems announced that it would contract with SpaceX to develop anair-launched, multiple-stagelaunch vehicle, as a derivative of Falcon 9 technology, called the Falcon 9 Air,[58] as part of the Stratolaunch project.[59] As initially conceived with the SpaceX Falcon 9 Air (F9A) launch vehicle, Stratolaunch was to initially place satellites of up to 6,100 kg (13,400 pounds) into low Earth orbit; and once established as a reliable system, announced that it would explore a human-rated version.[60] The system can take off from airfields with a minimum 3,700 m (12,100 feet) length, and the F9A carrier aircraft was proposed to travel to a launch point up to 2,200 km (1,200 nautical miles) away from the airfield and fly at a launch altitude of 9,100 m (30,000 feet).[59]
A month after the initial announcement, Stratolaunch confirmed that the first stage of the F9A launch vehicle would have only four engines, not the five that were shown in the mission video in December, and that they would be SpaceXMerlin 1D engines.[61]
As initially announced, Stratolaunch Systems was a collaborative project that included subcontractors SpaceX,Scaled Composites, andDynetics, with funding provided byMicrosoft co-founderPaul G. Allen'sVulcan investment and project management company.[62] Stratolaunch set out to build a mobile launch system with three primary components: acarrier aircraft (aircraft concept was designed byBurt Rutan, but the aircraft will be designed and built by Scaled Composites); a multi-stage launch vehicle to be developed and built by SpaceX; and a mating and integration system—allowing the carrieraircraft to safely carry and release the booster—to be built by Dynetics, aHuntsville, Alabama-based engineering company.[60] The whole system will be the largest aircraft ever built; with the first test flight of the carrier aircraft originally expected in 2015 from Scaled Composites' facilities inMojave, California,[60] while the first test launch of the rocket was not expected before 2016 at the time of the project getting underway.[63]
As the Stratolaunch development program progressed, it became clear that Stratolaunch and the system integrator, Dynetics, wanted modifications to the SpaceX basic launch-vehicle design that SpaceX felt were not strategic to the direction they were growing the company. These included requested modifications to the launch vehicle to addchines.[64]
Development ceased in the fourth quarter of 2012, as SpaceX and Stratolaunch "amicably agreed to end [their] contractual relationship because the [Stratolaunch] launch vehicle design [had] departed significantly from the Falcon derivative vehicle envisioned by SpaceX and does not fit well with [SpaceX's] long-term strategic business model".[64]
On November 27, 2012, Stratolaunch announced that they would partner withOrbital Sciences Corporation—initially on an air-launched vehicle study contract—instead of SpaceX, effectively ending development of the Falcon 9 Air.[64]
In May 2013, the Falcon 9 Air was eventually replaced in the development plan by theOrbital SciencesPegasus II air-launched rocket.[65]
SpaceX Falcon rockets are being offered to thelaunch industry at highlycompetitiveprices, allowing SpaceX to build a large manifest of over 50 launches by late 2013, with two-thirds of them for commercial customers exclusive ofUS government flights.[66][67]
In the US launch industry, SpaceXprices its product offerings well below its competition. Nevertheless, "somewhat incongruously, its primary US competitor,United Launch Alliance (ULA), still maintained (in early 2013) that it requires a large annualsubsidy, which neither SpaceX norOrbital Sciences receives, in order to remain financially viable, with the reason cited as a lack of market opportunity, a stance which seems to be in conflict with themarket itself.Citation Needed "[68]
SpaceX launched its first satellite togeostationary orbit in December 2013 (SES-8) and followed that a month later with its second,Thaicom 6, beginning to offer competition to the European and Russian launch providers that had been the major players in the commercialcommunications satellite market in recent years.[67]
SpaceX prices undercut its major competitors—theAriane 5 andProton—in this market.[69]
Moreover, SpaceX prices for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are much lower than the projected prices forAriane 6, projected to be available in 2024.[70]
As a result of additional mission requirements forgovernment launches, SpaceX prices US government missions somewhat higher than similar commercial missions, but has noted that even with those added services, Falcon 9 missions contracted to the government are still priced well belowUS$100 million (even with approximatelyUS$9 million in special security charges for some missions) which is a very competitive price compared to ULA prices for government payloads of the same size.[71]
ULA prices to the US government are nearly $400 million for current launches of Falcon 9- and Falcon Heavy-class payloads.[72][needs update]
SpaceX had a rare coincidence of four rockets (all types of operational and under-development rockets) on all four of its orbital launch pads and two Dragon 2s (both types of Dragon 2s) on orbit on January 10, 2023.[73] This was coupled before the end of the year with SpaceX igniting all of their rockets within 24 hours on December 28–29, 2023 (Falcon family rockets launching on their missions and both Starship stages performing static fires).[74][75]
| Falcon 1 | Falcon 1e | Falcon 9 v1.0 | Falcon 9 v1.1 | Falcon 9 Full Thrust | Falcon Heavy | Starship Block 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Booster Stage | − | − | − | − | − | 2 boosters with 9 ×Merlin 1D (with minor upgrades)[76] | − |
| Stage 1 | 1 ×Merlin 1C[A] | 1 × Merlin 1C | 9 × Merlin 1C | 9 × Merlin 1D | 9 × Merlin 1D (with minor upgrades)[76] | 9 × Merlin 1D (with minor upgrades)[77] | 33 × Raptor 2 |
| Stage 2 | 1 ×Kestrel | 1 × Kestrel | 1 ×Merlin Vacuum (1C) | 1 ×Merlin 1D Vacuum | 1 × Merlin 1D Vacuum (with minor upgrades)[76][77] | 1 × Merlin 1D Vacuum (with minor upgrades)[76][77] | 3 × Raptor 2, 3 × Raptor 2 Vacuum |
| Max. height (m) | 21.3 | 26.83 | 54.9[21] | 68.4[78] | 70[77][79] | 70[77][79] | 121.3[80] |
| Diameter (m) | 1.7 | 1.7 | 3.6[21] | 3.7[78][81] | 3.7[78][81] | 3.7 × 11.6[82] | 9[83][unreliable source] |
| Initial thrust (kN) | 318 | 454 | 4,900[21] | 5,885[78] | 22,819[82] | 69,900[80] | |
| Takeoff mass (tonnes) | 27.2 | 38.56 | 333[21] | 506[78] | 549[79] | 1,421[82] | 5,000 |
| Inner fairing diameter (m) | 1.5 | 1.71 | 3.7 or 5.2[21] | 5.2[78][81] | 5.2 | 5.2[82] | 9[80] |
| LEO payload (kg) | 570 | 1,010 | 10,450[21] | 13,150[78] | 22,800 (expendable, from Cape Canaveral)[86] | 63,800 (expendable)[82] | 100,000 (reusable)[87] |
| GTO payload (kg) | − | − | 4,540[21] | 4,850[78][81] | 26,700 (expendable)[82] | 21,000 (reusable)[90] | |
| Price history (mil.USD) | 2006: 6.7[91] 2007: 6.9[92] 2008: 7.9[91] | 2007: 8.5[91] 2008: 9.1[91] 2010: 10.9[91] | 2005: 27(3.6 m fairing to LEO) 35(5.2 m fairing to LEO)[93] 2011: 54 to 59.5[21] | 2013: 54[94] – 56.5[32] | 2014: 61.2[79] | 2011: 80 to 124[95] 2012: 83 to 128[96] 2013: 77.1(≤6,400 kg to GTO)[32] 135(>6,400 kg to GTO)[32] | <90[97] |
| Current price (mil.USD) | − | − | − | — | 67(≤5,500 kg to GTO)[98] | 90(≤8,000 kg to GTO)[98] | <90[97] |
| Success ratio (successful/total) | 2/5 | − | 5/5[99] | 14/15 (CRS-7 lost in flight) | 544/545 (not including loss ofAMOS-6) | 11/11 | 6/11 |
A For Falcon 1 Flights 3 through 5.Merlin 1A was used for Falcon 1 Flights 1 and 2.[100]
WATCH: Grasshopper flies to its highest height to date - 744 m (2441 ft) into the Texas sky. http://youtu.be/9ZDkItO-0a4 This was the last scheduled test for the Grasshopper rig; next up will be low altitude tests of the Falcon 9 Reusable (F9R) development vehicle in Texas followed by high altitude testing in New Mexico.
The Falcon 1e was to provide approximately 1,000 kilograms for $11 million, but the company withdrew the vehicle from the market, citing limited demand.
We had the Falcon 1 offered for a lengthy period of time and could not securely manifest a sustainable amount to keep the product line going. ... We have promised to reevaluate that at the end of this year, and if we decide the market is viable, we will come back in and reintroduce the Falcon 1e.
... integrate the SpaceX Falcon 9 Air with the Scaled Composites mothership
The first test flight of the carrier aircraft is planned in 2015 from Scaled Composites' home in Mojave, Calif.[permanent dead link]
The Falcon 4 will be powered by 4 SpaceX Merlin IB engines.
It is more expensive to do these missions; the Air Force asks for more stuff. The missions that we do for NASA under the NLS contract are also more expensive, because NASA asks to do more analysis, they have us provide more data to them, they have folks who reside here at SpaceX, and we need to provide engineering resources to them to respond to their questions. ... the NASA extra stuff is about $10 million; Air Force stuff is about an extra $20 million, and then if there is high security requirements that can add another 8–10 million. But all in, Falcon 9 prices are still well below $100 million, even with all the stuff, which is really quite a competitive price compared to what ULA is offering.
The aforementioned Second Stage will be tasked with a busy role during this mission, lofting the 5,300kg SES-9 spacecraft to its Geostationary Transfer Orbit.
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.
| Launch vehicles |
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spacecraft |
| ||||||||
| Test vehicles |
| ||||||||
| Rocket engines | |||||||||
| Lists of missions | |||||||||
| Launch facilities | |||||||||
| Landing sites |
| ||||||||
| Other facilities | |||||||||
| Support |
| ||||||||
| Contracts | |||||||||
| R&D programs | |||||||||
| Key people |
| ||||||||
| Related | |||||||||
* denotes unflown vehicles or engines, and future missions or sites. † denotes failed missions, destroyed vehicles, and abandoned sites. | |||||||||
