This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • SpaceX launch vehicles Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:SpaceX launch vehicles Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
I am highly suspicious of (the motives of the person who initially wrote) this article. It appears to me that it was an attempt at advertising. This for several reasons:
I first had a mind to submitting this for deletion outright: There are literally hundreds of "hopeful" projects at various stages of completion out there. If we were to include them all under the said launch vehicle category, that category would be swamped with vapourware. There is a reason why, say, the Kistler K1 isn't included either. To paraphrase John Kerry: Saying something is a launch vehicle doesn't make it so. (It needs to be completed and flown first.)
However, upon further consideration I acknowledge that it is useful to include information about unfinished endeavours like this in the Wikipedia: They may soon be finished. This doesn't however justify the categorization Space Launch vehicle until the thing has flown in some form. It isn't done till it's done. And putting pricing info in the Wikipaedia is of course wholly unacceptable. Ropers 23:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In answer to your questions and comments:
(1) I am at least two degrees removed from any benefit from SpaceX. Even there, the connection is rather tenuous, since I haven't been in the industry for a decade and haven't kept up my connections.
(2) It is convention to give list pricing/costing numbers in space references (see, e.g., Astronautix), so that researchers can do cost per pound to Low Earth Orbit calculations. I guess that's because the industry is so heavily government influenced. In any event, DARPA purchased the first Falcon I flight for $6 million, so it's a matter of public record for that rocket at least.
(3) The engines for these rockets have already been built and tested and at least the Falcon I has been fully assembled. It is true that neither have been launched yet, but the rockets exist as identifiable articles, and, as such, fully warrant present tense treatment. Please note that in my additions to the
reusable launch vehicle article, I did add reference to the Kistler K-1 and the X-Prize vehicles, in anticipation of somebody adding information on those vehicles. Also, I did include cost information on the Armadillo Aerospace's Black Armadillo, so I think the NPOV has been preserved.
Because of all of these things, I am going to revert the articles for now. Dschmelzer 20:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Further comments re. this issue are at Talk:Falcon I. Ropers 14:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Axe the launch site details, pricing information, payload capabilities and vehicle details. Merge content with Falcon I. Do those things and, with a little copy editing, this could shape up to be a pretty good article. – Floorsheim 05:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Someone should write something about it [1]. -- Bricktop 00:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Per the payload user guide, the second stage is not reusable. I've pulled an edit that suggested it was. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 21:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Being that SpaceX refers to this rocket as the "Falcon 5", should this article still be named "Falcon V"? The same can be said about the Falcon 1. Finally, just to avoid any ambiguity later, perhaps the model articles should be prefaced with "SpaceX" so that this article would be named "SpaceX Falcon 5". -- StuffOfInterest 13:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The table lists the 2nd stage as having "2 * Kestrel engine (or 1 * Merlin engine)" but on the SpaceX website [3] it says a single merlin engine will be used, and there is no mention of the possiblity of 2 Kestrel engines being used--perhaps this should be changed? -- subzero788 4:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
This page appears to be very outdated. As far as I know, Falcon 5 won't be human rated (that's the Falcon 9), and there is no launch planned for late 2006. Plus the picture doesn't look like the right vehicle, and they changed the design a bit so maybe that's the old design? Fifteen10e56 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
How does the Falcon 5 re-use all over again? Do they use parachutes to retrieve it and return it back to launch site? Big top 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The lead paragraph reads:
The Falcon 5 is a two stage to orbit partially reusable launch vehicle designed and manufactured by SpaceX. The first stage includes five Merlin engines and the upper stage includes one Merlin engine. Both burn kerosene/liquid oxygen. Along with the Falcon 9, it will be the world's first fully reusable launcher.
I have highlighted the sections that contradict. Which is correct? --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 12:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Should this rocked have an article? It has been canceled and was never launched. I'm inclined to redirect to Falcon 9. -- Duk 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The last SpaceX press release which mentions the Falcon 5 was in December 2005. Are there any references to when SpaceX officially halted development and marketing? A past edit indicated Falcon 5 was removed from the SpaceX website in January 2007. -- IanOsgood ( talk) 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The lead sentence to a section entitled "Related launch vehicle plans" says: "Although Falcon 5 was never built, in December 2011 Stratolaunch Systems announced that they will use a Falcon-derivative two-stage liquid-fueled air-launched launch vehicle to be developed by SpaceX." I think that is a correct summary of the source article.
Later in the paragraph, an editor has added back in much stronger claims that this is, in fact, the specific "Falcon 5" vehicle—once cancelled and now back—now carried "in between the hulls". This may be true, but I've been reading all the sources, and have not seen that strong claim supported in any source I've read. As of now, the links to the reputed sources are not working. Could you please provide an in-context quotation, and a working link, to the article that claims this is a repurposed "Falcon 5", rather than merely a derivative of Falcon rocket technology? Thanks. N2e ( talk) 02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Falcon 5. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • SpaceX launch vehicles Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:SpaceX launch vehicles Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
I am highly suspicious of (the motives of the person who initially wrote) this article. It appears to me that it was an attempt at advertising. This for several reasons:
I first had a mind to submitting this for deletion outright: There are literally hundreds of "hopeful" projects at various stages of completion out there. If we were to include them all under the said launch vehicle category, that category would be swamped with vapourware. There is a reason why, say, the Kistler K1 isn't included either. To paraphrase John Kerry: Saying something is a launch vehicle doesn't make it so. (It needs to be completed and flown first.)
However, upon further consideration I acknowledge that it is useful to include information about unfinished endeavours like this in the Wikipedia: They may soon be finished. This doesn't however justify the categorization Space Launch vehicle until the thing has flown in some form. It isn't done till it's done. And putting pricing info in the Wikipaedia is of course wholly unacceptable. Ropers 23:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In answer to your questions and comments:
(1) I am at least two degrees removed from any benefit from SpaceX. Even there, the connection is rather tenuous, since I haven't been in the industry for a decade and haven't kept up my connections.
(2) It is convention to give list pricing/costing numbers in space references (see, e.g., Astronautix), so that researchers can do cost per pound to Low Earth Orbit calculations. I guess that's because the industry is so heavily government influenced. In any event, DARPA purchased the first Falcon I flight for $6 million, so it's a matter of public record for that rocket at least.
(3) The engines for these rockets have already been built and tested and at least the Falcon I has been fully assembled. It is true that neither have been launched yet, but the rockets exist as identifiable articles, and, as such, fully warrant present tense treatment. Please note that in my additions to the
reusable launch vehicle article, I did add reference to the Kistler K-1 and the X-Prize vehicles, in anticipation of somebody adding information on those vehicles. Also, I did include cost information on the Armadillo Aerospace's Black Armadillo, so I think the NPOV has been preserved.
Because of all of these things, I am going to revert the articles for now. Dschmelzer 20:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Further comments re. this issue are at Talk:Falcon I. Ropers 14:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Axe the launch site details, pricing information, payload capabilities and vehicle details. Merge content with Falcon I. Do those things and, with a little copy editing, this could shape up to be a pretty good article. – Floorsheim 05:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Someone should write something about it [1]. -- Bricktop 00:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Per the payload user guide, the second stage is not reusable. I've pulled an edit that suggested it was. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 21:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Being that SpaceX refers to this rocket as the "Falcon 5", should this article still be named "Falcon V"? The same can be said about the Falcon 1. Finally, just to avoid any ambiguity later, perhaps the model articles should be prefaced with "SpaceX" so that this article would be named "SpaceX Falcon 5". -- StuffOfInterest 13:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The table lists the 2nd stage as having "2 * Kestrel engine (or 1 * Merlin engine)" but on the SpaceX website [3] it says a single merlin engine will be used, and there is no mention of the possiblity of 2 Kestrel engines being used--perhaps this should be changed? -- subzero788 4:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
This page appears to be very outdated. As far as I know, Falcon 5 won't be human rated (that's the Falcon 9), and there is no launch planned for late 2006. Plus the picture doesn't look like the right vehicle, and they changed the design a bit so maybe that's the old design? Fifteen10e56 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
How does the Falcon 5 re-use all over again? Do they use parachutes to retrieve it and return it back to launch site? Big top 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The lead paragraph reads:
The Falcon 5 is a two stage to orbit partially reusable launch vehicle designed and manufactured by SpaceX. The first stage includes five Merlin engines and the upper stage includes one Merlin engine. Both burn kerosene/liquid oxygen. Along with the Falcon 9, it will be the world's first fully reusable launcher.
I have highlighted the sections that contradict. Which is correct? --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 12:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Should this rocked have an article? It has been canceled and was never launched. I'm inclined to redirect to Falcon 9. -- Duk 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The last SpaceX press release which mentions the Falcon 5 was in December 2005. Are there any references to when SpaceX officially halted development and marketing? A past edit indicated Falcon 5 was removed from the SpaceX website in January 2007. -- IanOsgood ( talk) 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The lead sentence to a section entitled "Related launch vehicle plans" says: "Although Falcon 5 was never built, in December 2011 Stratolaunch Systems announced that they will use a Falcon-derivative two-stage liquid-fueled air-launched launch vehicle to be developed by SpaceX." I think that is a correct summary of the source article.
Later in the paragraph, an editor has added back in much stronger claims that this is, in fact, the specific "Falcon 5" vehicle—once cancelled and now back—now carried "in between the hulls". This may be true, but I've been reading all the sources, and have not seen that strong claim supported in any source I've read. As of now, the links to the reputed sources are not working. Could you please provide an in-context quotation, and a working link, to the article that claims this is a repurposed "Falcon 5", rather than merely a derivative of Falcon rocket technology? Thanks. N2e ( talk) 02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Falcon 5. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)