Falcon 9 cannot survive re-entry. The first stage doesn’t reach orbit and the second is expended. The Dragon capsule can survive re-entry but that’s not unique among spacecraft.

The Falcon 9 second stage doesn't survive reentry and the booster only needs to get through a partial reentry at much slower velocity.

It is not fully reusable. But partial reentry is reentry, something no other rocket had been able to do.

You can’t re-enter if you never leave. If Falcon 9 “survives re-entry” then so do minivans.

Falcon 9 is an impressive and revolutionary vehicle. We don’t need to overstate the capabilities.

The Falcon 9 first stage goes past the Karman line and does a reentry burn. It’s not reentering from orbit, but it is from space.

So does New Shepard. If crossing the Karman line is your definition of re-entry then the Falcon 9 isn’t unique.

What Starship is doing is completely different from what Falcon 9 is doing. Falcon 9 is not the only other sub-orbital booster to propulsively land. Starship isn’t the only other spacecraft to survive hypersonic re-entry. It’s not even unique in being reusable.

Starship and Falcon 9 are incredible achievements. It’s simply not necessary to lie about their capabilities.

I guess the Space Shuttle did have main engines (and orbital maneuvering engines) but it's notable that they weren't expected to relight afterwards.

Why is that one implementation detail notable? Is it also notable that Starship's main engines are unused at launch?

I realize re-lighitng main engines is novel but it isn't unique and even if it was that doesn't make the up-thread claims any less inaccurate.

Shuttle was a reusable orbital vehicle with multi-day endurance capable of hypersonic reentry. Falcon 9 is not that.

I guess it implies that all major systems are still fully operational after re-entry. The engines still work etc. So in theory you could just refuel and send it back up.