Talk:Falcon 5

message: 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:
* The article included pricing information (which I have now removed).
* This article refers to a launch vehicle under development, which has never flown. Nevertheless, it was included in the Space Launch Vehicles category, a category which by all appearances seems to be reserved for actual existing and functional or historical (previously existing) hardware that (success or failure) was actually flown. 
* It was not prominently indicatedin the article that the rocket in question has never flown. (I have added a boilerplate type warning to that extent.)
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)
thread_title: Advertising?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Falcon Rockets 

message: Someone should write something about it . --Bricktop 00:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falcon 9 and change of Falcon 5 configuration 

message: 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)
replies: text: You are confusing the Falcon I with the Falcon 5. SpaceX says both stages of the Falcon 5 are designed to be reusable, see.--Duk 23:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How does the stage return from orbit without breaking up though? --GW_Simulations 13:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-usability of [[Falcon V]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Numerals sound good, but i'd disagree with the SpaceX prefix. --Duk 15:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Falcon V or Falcon 5?

message: The table lists the 2nd stage as having "2 * Kestrel engine (or 1 * Merlin engine)" but on the SpaceX website 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)
replies: text: done:--Duk 20:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd Stage Engine(s)?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Outdated 

message: How does the Falcon 5 re-use all over again? Do they use parachutes to retrieve it and return it back to launch site? Bigtop 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some Falcon 1 info snuck in.  The Falcon 1 is a partially reusable rocket (stage 1 reused, stage 2 burns up), but the Falcon 5 and 9 are (or were for the 5 now) supposed to be fully reusable (both stages come home).  If time permits, I'll try to dig through the SpaceX website for more information. --StuffOfInterest 13:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: added ref and removed the  tag. --Duk 07:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reusability 

message: 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_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some Falcon 1 info snuck in.  The Falcon 1 is a partially reusable rocket (stage 1 reused, stage 2 burns up), but the Falcon 5 and 9 are (or were for the 5 now) supposed to be fully reusable (both stages come home).  If time permits, I'll try to dig through the SpaceX website for more information. --StuffOfInterest 13:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: added ref and removed the  tag. --Duk 07:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: 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)
replies: text: A really excellent source was added to the article on 2010-07-17T07:20:20 by User:GW Simulations, that would seem to indicate the F5 was dropped in 2007.  However, still looking for a source to indicate SpaceX explicitly dropped the rocket program.  So I think the When is clear; still need to find verifiable info on SpaceX cancellation or not. N2e (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  When canceled? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/63cIE9NJo?url=http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/falcon5.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/falcon5.htm
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5sjTGFSmg?url=http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php to http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/63btGA0Bq?url=http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927041918/http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/stratolaunch-rutan-designed-air-launched-system-falcon-rockets/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.space.com/13915-paul-allen-giant-plane-stratolaunch-systems-private-space.html
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) 10:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified