Talk:Falcon 9 booster B1021

Vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gyrbKto5IQ from USLaunchReport has a compilation of videos of B1021 -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Booster vs first stage
I have undone your changes because it's clearer to say this is a first-stage booster than just a first stage (or worse, a first-stage first stage). Please note the definition of rocket booster per Wikipedia is A booster rocket (or engine) is either the first stage of a multistage launch vehicle, or else a shorter-burning rocket used in parallel… So "booster" is absolutely a correct word to use, and we give context by saying it's a first-stage booster. Hope you will agree. — JFG talk 03:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Extent of refurbishment, and current state
What is known about the state after first and second recoveries, and the extent of refurbishment ? eg what parts got replaced ? turbopumps ? engines ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Move?
I have proposed a move to another booster from spacex too, I think we should call it Falcon 9 core B1021 because Ive heard spacex refer to them as cores — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriGagrin12 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SpaceX does not necessarily decide the encyclopedic name, even if "core" were an official name (which does not seem to be the case). See the article title policy for details, and open a move request if you can show that most sources call it a "core". Will revert to the previous title until a discussion shows consensus to move. Same reasoning for other boosters in this series. — JFG talk 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)