Talk:Falcon 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox rocket[edit]

why is this info box so wide? --Duk 06:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't look too wide to me. What screen resolution are you using? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just comparing it to template:Infobox rocket. Something seems to be stretching it out here on the article page and I couldn't figure out why. --Duk 16:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the image. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, that was it. I'm blind - didn't see the imsize parameter. thanks. --Duk

first privately funded launch vehicle[edit]

I think the Falcon 1 is the first privately funded launch vehicle. The only other launcher that come close is the pegasus, but that's not a complete launcher as it requires a large jet aircraft for its first stage. --Duk 07:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would still argue that Pegasus was the first. Either way, there is still Taurus to consider. I would argue it is better to list it as the first privately funded liquid-propelled rocket to reach orbit. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would Taurus really count as privately developed? The first stage is derived from the Peacekeeper ICBM. I agree that Pegasus would count as privately developed launch vehicle though. Blackeagle (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, let's see. In order to make the Pegasus into a space launch vehicle, you have to add an extra stage, which is exactly what the Taurus is. I don't think either qualify as a privately developed space launch vehicle. They are either a partial launch system (Pegasus) or they use military hardware (Taurus) --Duk 16:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Pegasus is a 'partial launch system'. The aircraft is just another part of the system, same as a launch pad is for any other launch vehicle. Blackeagle (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the aricraft is the first stage. Without it, the Pegasus needs another stage, which is exactly what the Taurus is; a Pegasus mounted on top of an ICBM booster. --Duk 20:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Why should using an aircraft for the first stage disqualify it as the first private launch vehicle? Whichever definition you choose (launch pad or reusable first stage) the Pegasus is still a complete launch system. Blackeagle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I remember when the EELVs were under development, the companies went out of their way to talk about how much of the hardware was already flight proven on earlier rockets. There is a reason for that; new hardware is difficult and expensive to de-bug. It's not splitting hairs to disqualify Pegasus on this point; after all, it's missing the entire first stage! That's a hell of a lot of hardware to prove-out. Just to put this into perspective, SpaceX has developed a new vehicle from scratch, including it's two liquid propellent engines for under $100 million. Meanwhile, Pratt and Whitney is being paid $1.2 billion just to upgrade the J-2 for Project Constellation. With that perspective, I think it's obvious that the Falcon 1 is the only complete launch vehicle developed without government funding to make orbit. --Duk 20:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said the aircraft was the first stage, so under that definition, Pegasus isn't 'missing' anything. Orbital Sciences just went out and bought one off the shelf. Blackeagle (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buying a jet doesn't make one a rocket engineer ;) --Duk 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does buying a bolt, or a a piece of aircraft aluminum, or anything else that goes into these launch vehicles. It's how one uses them that matters, and what Orbital does with it's jet is definitely rocket engineering. Blackeagle (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point - where do you draw the line? Bolts or entire first stages. --Duk 21:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC) judgement.[reply]
Why do we need to draw a line? Blackeagle (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have a breakdown of the "private investment" sources? Mwahcysl (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I think you'll find that the L-1011 was privately funded and developed anyway, regardless of whether it is a first stage or launch platform. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, a NASA-owned B-52 Stratofortress served as the carrier aircraft.[1] --Duk 21:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, but they replaced it with the L-1011 long before the Falcon 1 flew, so I don't think it has any relevance for which was the first privately funded launch vehicle. Blackeagle (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, in addition to saying the Pegasus is a complete launcher (it isn't), you're saying that its development funding was completely private? --Duk 21:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"world's first privately-developed space launch vehicle" [2] Blackeagle (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Pegasus rocket with its first stage - a B-52
To bad it can't make it to orbit without a little help.  ;) --Duk 01:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the first privately developed (and also liquid-fuel driven) rocket was the OTRAG Rocket. After being chased from Libya they managed one last successful launch for ESA from Kiruna, Norway, in 1983, with scientific experiments aboard. 87.164.230.64 (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be correct from what I can find. However, no orbital version was ever completed more or less launched. I have edited the article to include orbital in the increasing number of adjectives making the statement entirely accurate. I think this hardly a small distinction given the tremendous difference in energy between a suborbital and orbital vehicle, so even with the orbital designation I think it is a remarkable milestone. aremisasling (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RazakSAT[edit]

What happens to RazakSAT now? Does everything else get pushed back by one launch or does RazakSAT get pushed to the end of the que after the ones already schedules? Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It will go on Flight 5 in January 2009. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time/date of fifth launch[edit]

Compare "The launch on Monday, July 13th was successful, placing RazakSAT into its initial parking orbit." and "5 14 July 2009[35] 03:35 Omelek RazakSAT/Malaysia Successful[1] "

Dates and times above probably depends on the observers. Should we change to GMT? What are the Wikipedia guidelines on time/date specification? Supermagle (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Launch was on 14 July in both GMT and at the launch site, so I'd say yes. --GW… 10:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split flight history into a new article[edit]

With five flights listed now, I think it may be time to split the Falcon 1 flight history into a separate article. Let's keep a small paragraph with a thumbnail overview and the table in the main article but move the longer marrative into a separate article. For the title, I'd suggest Falcon 1 flight history. Agree? --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Maybe start by renaming Falcon 1 Flight 4 to List of Falcon 1 launches (which seems to be the naming convention used by other rockets). --IanOsgood (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea. It bothered me before having an entire article for one launch. Unfortunately, I won't likely have time to work on it today, but if anyone else out there wants to start tackling it I'm all for it. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support idea, oppose proposed implementation, whist I agree that it should be split out, we should do the same as we do for all other rockets — launch details should be included in payload articles, with a brief tabular list on either the rocket article, or at list of X launches - there aren't really enough yet to justify a new article just for that. The Flight 4 article exists due to the absence of a functional payload (it could be renamed RatSat if you want). Articles should be created for FaclonSAT-2 and Falcon 1 DemoFlight 2 (the official name for the second flight), and details split to the relevant articles. --GW… 14:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To expand on that, I think that there will either be a loss of content depth, or a ridiculously long article will be produced, if all prose flight histories are integrated into one article (taking into account the possibility of large numbers of future launches). --GW… 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest to start off moving the content into a single launch history article and then migrate anything that can into the individual mission (or craft) articles. This avoids losing content, gives a place to keep content which does have a final destination article, and still pushes us to migrate the content out to other articles as possible. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will support that on the condition that the Flight 4 article is not merged. --GW… 14:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a separate articles for each flight. It would sound OK with manned-spacecraft launches but not for all launchers. I would recommend a merger of Flight-4 with the main article. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not a case of it being on a per-flight basis for the rocket. As I stated above, the flight article exists due to a lack of an equivalent satellite article to cover the launch, and there is de facto consensus that unmanned orbital spaceflights usually warrant their own articles. Its the same principle as Vanguard TV3, where, because the satellite was not named, the rocket's designation was used for the title. We could move it to RatSat if you'd prefer that. --GW… 17:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But, doesn't the Flight-4 article lay excessive importance on the launch rather than the payload ? In the case of Vanguard TV3, the article is concerned more with the payload and the failure of the launcher. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the article is concerned more with the...failure of the launcher" - so other than outcome, what's the difference? --GW… 17:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is obviously consensus that the content in this article should be split out, so I've gone ahead and done that. I am still opposed to merging F4, so I have not done that, and if a merger is pursued, it should go through the established procedures. Finally, I would just like to clarify that my opposition to the F4 merger is because it was an orbital launch, and all orbital launches are generally considered (although there is no de jure policy on it) to be worthy of at least one article. This is usually the name of the satellite, however as none was launched on this flight, the flight number has been used. If the unofficial payload name, RatSat, would be more acceptable, then I have nothing against a move to that location. There is an established precedent for using flight numbers in place of payloads - Ariane 5 Flight 501 and Vanguard TV3 to give two examples (the former in place of multiple payload articles, the latter due to the absence of an agreed name for the payload (as is the case here). --GW… 09:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reusability[edit]

There is nothing to support the reusability of the first stage. Has any of the five first stages which have been launched been retrieved ? Is it still foreseen to retrieve future first stages ? Hektor (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the info as unsourced. Offliner (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Small discounts"[edit]

I think the "small discounts available" info isn't notable or encyclopedic enough. WP is not the correct place for advertisement material. Offliner (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discount scheme may be advertising but many people are interested in the price of the rocket - they use it when planning/dreaming about space projects.
Andrew Swallow (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Well, I agree with both of you. People who dream about space may care about "actual prices" rather than manufacturers' published prices, as Andrew asserts; but I suspect that is true in any industry about any product. And Offliner is correct that Wikipedia is not the place for manufacturers' price info to be published.
Seems to me that the best solution is to eliminate all refs to pricing info that come from primary source materials from the manufacturer. Then, and only if interested editors can find published material about SpaceX's pricing (or perhaps, their lower relative pricing than other aerospace companies), an encyclopedic summary of that info could be added to the article. This, it seems, would meet the objections of both Andrew and Offliner. N2e (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Launch site[edit]

Why does the infobox list Vandenberg under launch history? RadioBroadcast (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the thrust difference between Falcon1 and Falcon1e with the same Merlin 1C engine?[edit]

The article states (as of 9 Dec 2010) that the thrust of Falcon 1 and Falcon 1e, with the same Merlin 1C engine, is 343 kN and 454 kN, respectively (Initial Thrust claim, from the table in the Variants section of the article). Why the difference if they both use the exact same Merlin 1C engine? I don't get it, and am not sure how to fix the article. N2e (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, the Merlin 1C is not run at full power on a Falcon 1. If it was at full power the acceleration would be too high. The Falcon 1e is designed around the improved performance of the Merlin 1C engine vs. the Merlin 1A. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

price update 22/jan/2011[edit]

price of launch of e1 is 10.9 M http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.209.102 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between SpaceX values and those given here[edit]

For example, SpaceX states the lift-off thrust of the Falcon 1 as 347kN (https://spacex.com/falcon1.php), whereas here the first stage thrust is given as 454kN. These values might be correct for the (never flown) Falcon 1e, however on the Falcon 1e site, it is claimed that the thrust is 569kN. Also, the mass values appear to vary wildly (according to SpaceX takeoff weight is 27670kg). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.128.195.44 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. If you have sources for the data, and can add full citations (that include the date of the source material, and the date you accessed the source), please just be bold and fix the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging launch history[edit]

This rocket only flew 5 times and has been retired for several years. It would be more convenient to read the list of launches on the same page. Besides, contents will likely not grow much. — JFG talk 21:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • SUPPORT—seems reasonable, based on no likely future growth in launches (with the LV retired) and a merged (and copyedited) result would all fit well within the not-too-large article guideline. N2e (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose dut to WP:SIZE violation. 109.108.250.225 (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT-And suggest we should set up a standard for splitted rocket launch list. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — JFG talk 04:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Falcon 1. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Falcon 1. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Falcon 1[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Falcon 1's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "JSR 601":

  • From Ratsat: McDowell, Jonathan (2008-09-26). "Issue 601". Jonathan's Space Report. Retrieved 2008-09-29.
  • From 2008 in spaceflight: McDowell, Dr. Jonathan (12 October 2008). "Issue 601". Jonathan's Space Report. Retrieved 22 October 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Falcon 1. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Falcon 1. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Launch 2[edit]

The manifest table about launch 2 has some text I suggest deleting.

"Failed to recover first stage." Falcon-1 was not expected to recover the first stage; I'm not sure why this is here.

"Though it did not reach orbit, the vehicle gathered enough data for operational flights". Apparently it did not, since the next flight was not operational. This sounds like the usual public-relations "positive spin" on a failure: it didn't make orbit, but it gathered data. 86.43.78.214 (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do not change the primary thrust unit[edit]

What we do here must be collectively useful for ever one to understand.

Below are examples from CEO/CTO Elon himself, I hope you accept the primary unit accordingly.

Time and again Elon Musk posted unit of thrust in tonne-force (tf) rather than Newton.

Reason is, As you could take this below tweet as example,

With 1.5 Thrust/Weight ratio, you need like 150 tf of thrust to lift 100 t rocket, Just simple as that.

Even simpler example is 1N = 100 gram of force which not practical unit, thats why kgF & tF are used by Elon.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1300700639786340353 Chandraprakash (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon 1[edit]

Slovakia 85.237.227.37 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Мир[edit]

Мир 91.193.178.248 (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falcon_1&oldid=1201903780"