Talk:Falcon 1

Infobox rocket

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

• It doesn't look too wide to me. What screen resolution are you using? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 10:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Probably the image. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yah, that was it. I'm blind - didn't see the imsize parameter. thanks. --Duk

first privately funded launch vehicle

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)

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_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 10:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Buying a jet doesn't make one a rocket engineer ;) --Duk 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Exactly my point - where do you draw the line? Bolts or entire first stages. --Duk 21:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC) judgement.

Why do we need to draw a line? Blackeagle (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a breakdown of the "private investment" sources? Mwahcysl (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Initially, a NASA-owned B-52 Stratofortress served as the carrier aircraft.[1] --Duk 21:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

"world's first privately-developed space launch vehicle" [2] Blackeagle (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

RazakSAT

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)

• It will go on Flight 5 in January 2009. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 10:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Time/date of fifth launch

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)