Talk:Falcon 1/Archive 1

Falcon Rockets — Advertising?

Added notes: This discussion also covers my near-identical concerns regarding the Falcon V article.

Also, I have — possibly sort of related — concerns as regards a certain revert on the SpaceX article — see Talk:SpaceX#Paragraph_on_other_ventures. Ropers 14:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

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 23:27, 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 20:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have -zero- affiliation with SpaceX, and think these articles are very useful. Falcon I and Falcon V are discussed very often in space advocacy groups. As far as the pricing goes, that's often the first info someone looks for, to determine how much of an impact the rocket might have. --NeuronExMachina 20:44, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(the following 6 entries copied from Ropers' user talk page)

While I maybe could have been more polite in my rebukes attendant to my edits, I still think that I was right as regards the issues. I don't think it's acceptable to have prices in Wikipedia articles, etc. I am currently seeking comments and advice from the wider community on this issue. Ropers 01:15, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where are these comments being offered? I would like to see what they have to say. Dschmelzer 02:25, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've so far asked about the issue on the the WikiEN-l mailing list. While I appreciate the desire for an open discussion, I am not however going to replicate every question or log my every move here.

IF most people out there share my strong concerns, THEN they'll enter into a discussion (including yourself/Dschmelzer) soon enough. Ropers 02:36, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we move this discussion over to the Talk:Falcon I page? Dschmelzer 04:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We can certainly do that once there is something to discuss. At the moment, I've made my point of view clear and made attendant article changes, and you've made your point of view clear and reverted those changes. I see no need (and actually think it could be harmful) to discuss this issue further unless and until either side can present further evidence and/or either view is carried by the wider public. Yea, sure, we could tell each other all kinds of things and start an edit war, but there's really no need for any escalation of any sort. Both of us claim that our views are in sync with the standards of the wider Wikipedia community. Now I'm not going to do anything further on this (and possibly won't even comment any further) until I have actually received some active, current feedback from other Wikipedians on what their views actually are on the issue, which should tell me whether my views are in sync with the said common standards or not. You're not losing anything if/while I don't get back to you, because yours is the current version. Ropers 11:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Suit yourself, I guess. Dschmelzer 16:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so I've now copied things to this page as Dschmelzer has suggested. I'm also seeking comments on RfC. Ropers 14:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discussion continued
Just to collate everything, here's the note that Ropers made on my personal talk page, which is the prime mover in my response given above. The tone is slightly different. Dschmelzer 17:14, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would like to ask you if you are/were at any time working for Space X corporation (in any capacity, whether directly or indirectly).

Regardless whether or not that be the case, I would like to ask you to re-familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, especially as regards the NPOV. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium and the Falcon I and V rocket articles, among other things through their inclusion of pricing and present tense recounting of future events, clearly qualified as advertising. Please consider this a friendly reminder -- a less well meaning person would have submitted the articles for deletion outright, because of the said flagrant Wikipedia policy violations. Sincerely,

Ropers 23:37, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia launch vehicle articles that discuss cost/price for launch vehicles: Titan IV, Space Shuttle program (discussion of lessons learned with regard to cost), Saturn I (with regard to relative cost to Titan III), Titan III (includes a cost stub), and Reusable launch system (which I edited, but not to add cost information), SpaceShip One Tier One program, and Armadillo Aerospace (which I edited to update the cost information already provided). The Russian and Chinese rockets don't tend to have cost/price information probably because the information is not a matter of public record. Please also see Astronautix's Falcon I article, which lists price figures and refers to the rocket in the past tense. Dschmelzer 17:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

With respect to my comment from the 31st of July, I agree that I could have (and probably should have) been more polite. (I have already acknowledged that above, see my comment from the 5th of August.) The reason I reacted with such scruffiness was that I honestly felt that this issue was a gross violation of the "Wikipedia is not an advertising medium" rules. While Dschmelzers references to other articles might put things in perspective somewhat, I would still ask the wider Wikipedia public to decide on this. These were the Falcon articles before I had edited them: Falcon I, Falcon V and these were the respective versions I after my editing: Falcon I, Falcon V. Dschmelzer then reverted my changes, so the older version is roughly what the articles presently say. I still think my version is more neutral and more fitting for the Wikipedia.

However, I would like to announce that should I be proven wrong (and should my suspicions be universally accepted as baseless), then I will accept the majority opinion and apologize to Dschmelzer for my sharp rebukes. Ropers 18:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From RfC

Pricing info should be removed. Sentence 1, paragraph 2 should be condensed; we don't need all those details about the launch sites. Payload Capabilities and Vehicle Details should be provided in an external link. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a second internet. –Floorsheim 04:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just took a look at Falcon V. Content remaining after the changes listed above should be merged with that article. –Floorsheim 05:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with part of this. Launch costs and payload capacities are usually the most important pieces of information for somebody using this article as a reference. --NeuronExMachina 08:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... It doesn't seem encyclopedia-worthy to me. What's wrong with putting it in an external link? –Floorsheim 09:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at the rocket articles referenced above (e.g., Titan IV; Saturn I). It is convention to include all of these items in space references, including Wikipedia, because it's all useful. Dschmelzer 16:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It appears you're right. Looks like I've spoken out of turn. My apologies. –Floorsheim 16:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that I welcome NeuronExMachinas recent changes (tense and pricing wording change) as I believe them to be steps in the right direction. They do make things more palatable IMHO. I would however still invite more input from others before we might move on to considering this issue closed. Ropers 14:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to accept NeuronExMachina's change. Dschmelzer 18:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can see why the concerns on advertising were raised. Also I can see that information on the cost of a launch is useful. However, counter examples are that Vostok rocket, Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne and Da Vinci Project don't give launch costs. I would argue that cost information is useful, but it should be substantiated. Perhaps rephrased to;

• As of 2004 SpaceX quote estimated launch costs to be US$6 million plus range fees.

The suggestions to conform to a launch systems info box are also good. -- Solipsist 17:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Vostok rocket, it is an old Soviet rocket, so cost information is unavailable. Regarding SpaceShipOne, it is part of the Tier One program. Cost information is given in the Tier One Wikipedia article. Regarding the launch prices for Falcon I, the first launch of the rocket is a US government purchase, so the price is a matter of public record. However, I agree that the price for the Falcon V article correctly could contain that language. Dschmelzer 18:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That sound fine, in which case: Based on the US government purchase of 2004, the launch costs are.... (preferably better phrased) -- Solipsist 18:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article Content and Structure

Should this article mention how the rocket was publically unveiled some months ago in Washington, DC? I think that got a considerable amount of press attention. --NeuronExMachina 03:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article might benefit by following the structure used by articles like Titan IV and Saturn V. I'll try this later if I have time, but someone else is welcome to have a shot at it beforehand. -- NeuronExMachina 04:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the structure for those two articles is solid and should be propogated. Dschmelzer 18:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised there isn't already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Launch Vehicles. It'd fit nicely into Wikipedia:WikiProject Space. --NeuronExMachina 04:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would support this project. Many of the launch systems articles could use some work. Dschmelzer

Dang! I started creating a Wikipedia:WikiProject Launch Vehicles and got a fair bit along, and then I found out that there's already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Rockets. --NeuronExMachina 06:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is way off-topic here, but I have made Wikipedia:WikiProject Launch vehicles the main article and Wikipedia:WikiProject Launch Vehicles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rockets redirects. I somewhat feel this might be better. Feel free to change if it doesn't suit. Ropers 21:04, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hm... I thought it was a semi-convention to capitalize the first letter of each word in a project name. I could be wrong, though. --NeuronExMachina 03:12, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to issue a apology to Dschmelzer for my tone and the way I reacted with regards to this issue.

I still stick to my points and concerns and I still think the articles Falcon I, Falcon V and SpaceX could use further improvement. But my confrontationalist approach was really without merit, no matter how strong my concerns.

If people agree, then I am ready archive this off the RfC page (please let me know). Ropers 22:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. On the plus side, the article has come along nicely. -- Solipsist 00:12, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I accept this apology. Dschmelzer 02:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)