This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Yes, M-V does seem to be the correct name, used in all the sources I've looked at (including the "parent" Mu (rocket) article, and the Japanese/German versions of this article). I would support a name "move", unless someone can source a good reason to keep "M-5" the primary name. Earlier rockets in the series were called "Mu-1" and "Mu-3", perhaps explaining the confusion. -- Rwendland11:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
M-5 launcher has been terminated. I think "National Security" section is no longer appropriate. We should remove the section. It is a very strange section anyway. I guess Japan hater wrote it. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.139.200 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 24 September 2006
When you say terminated, do you mean that it has been retired, and will not be launched again. Do you have a cite for this? I was under the impression that it is still active, and infact, I have a cite that one is scheduled to launch in 2008, with the PLANET-C Venus orbiter. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk11:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. If you can read Japanese, there are tons of news source for that. Otherwise PLANET-C is one. M-5 is infamous for its launching cost and incapablity for quick launching even though it is a solid fuel rocket. No way to make it a missile. They have a plan to develop a smaller rocket to reduce launching cost.
Why does the main picture of this launch vehicle need to be of a failure? With most launches being successful, I found this to be inappropriate and demeaning to JAXA.ModernGeek (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current image illustrates the rocket well. The image does not show anything abnormal or related to the failure, so it is still representative, and I see no reason to censor it for the protection of JAXA. If we limit information on that flight, it would be difficult to maintain a neutral point of view. So I would oppose any change of image, unless I feel the replacement is a better image than the current one. --GW…10:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on M-V. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 3 external links on M-V. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Resolved
