Talk:List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters

Probability of Booster to be used on Polaris Dawn Mission.
B1085 will probably used for the upcoming Polaris Dawn Mission And new booster will be used for upcoming Axiom-4 & Crew-9. Abdullah1099 (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey Abdullah, not sure what the point of this is, to inform us of your opinions perhaps?
 * If so, I believe personally that B1083 is being reserved for Polaris Dawn (It has been skipped over other boosters set to launch, it was moved to SLC-40 a month ago and hasn't flown since, etc, etc) though obviously no confirmation yet.
 * I am inclined to believe that B1085 will fly Crew-9 for its first launch as the time of testing aligns, NASA prefers new boosters to fly missions like these, they would have to get a ~month refurbishment if B1083 flew it (which it seems to be the only other booster that could if we're following the >5 flight rumour, etc.
 * For Axiom-4, I personally believe that B1088 will fly it. Would explain the reason that B1090 is testing at McGregor earlier, to give time for B1088 test and be ready before October (ax-4 NET date), plus its always a benefit to fly new boosters on crew missions as i stated earlier.
 * Must note once again none of this above is confirmed, do not add it to the wiki. Avialuh (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you will add that Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, did you not read? I explicitly said at the end that these are NOT official and they are not to be added to wiki. Avialuh (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Notable Boosters section too long
The Notable Boosters section is getting too long as people keep adding irrelevant things into it. A good percentage of all boosters have an entry in the notable boosters section. It's kind of losing the meaning of what boosters are notable. Ergzay (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see a good case for Grasshopper, 1019 (first FT, first landing), 1021 (first reflight), maybe 1023 and 1025 (first FH), maybe 1046 (first B5, first to fly more than twice), 1058 (first crew). Everything else I don't see as very notable. "Reuse and recovery records" could be cleaned up as well. Do we really care which booster was the first to do 8 flights? --mfb (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I could see adding at least B1055 - First FH core booster to land - even though it failed to survive the trip back to port. The only others I would consider adding in the 'notable' list would be B1052 and B1053 which were part of the first operational (B5) FH launch.
 * As for "Reuse and recovery records", I would only highlight the first booster to fly twice and after that the first booster to reach the next multiple of 5. There might be an argument in favor of mentioning the time between the first two launches of a booster compared to the current record. AmigaClone (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't add F9-xxx as a wiki link
Several people have done this, most recently by @Avialuh but others have done this as well (are people copy pasting from some shared location?), please do not add in links like F9-xxx which creates a broken link like: F9-xxx If you want to add in F9-xxx link it to the Future launches section, like as follows with F9-xxx which creates a link like this: F9-xxx. This will help people who click it. Alternatively, don't link it at all. It makes no sense to wikilink it. Ergzay (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

B1061 in Galileo Mission
@Abdullah1099 Official sources that B1061 will be expendable in the next Galileo mission? Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Age of the booster
As we know SpaceX Expend the booster with more age. I will provide the source. Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Speculation and Lack of Sources
Recently, theres been an uprise in adding speculation to which boosters fly which missions, this is being mainly done by @Abdullah1099 however some others have done this aswell, so im just going to try and make this clear: Boosters upcoming flights should only be updated once they are officially confirmed. An example of a proper source would be credible people (such as spacex, people with insider info, crew aboard an upcoming launch confirming it), basing it off your own ideas, tweets from not credible people (in the case of B1085 and crew 9, Lucas was not credible), and assuming they will just expend the current oldest booster on a mission MONTHS from now is not correct and shouldn't be done. This info can be misleading, while some of these are indeed likely to happen, we do not update until they are confirmed.

In the case of B1090, a NextSpaceFlight updater (with info) confirmed it in their discord server, though it has not been updated on the website yet (apologies for not explaining this earlier). If you happen to be in a similar situation, id advise explaining your source in the edit summary . Also with statuses @Abdullah1099, can you please double check before we update a boosters status, as you've listed B1086 and B1083 incorrectly as 'en route' and 'refurbishing' even though both boosters were clearly not in that state at the time. Avialuh (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * OK,I will do this correctly. My case is that B1083 (crew 8 booster) is got tweets by one of the crew member Jared Isaacman and as it is in June. So,it is confirmed to launch it. Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I get your point, however this was not any official confirmation as he never stated he will fly on it, only that, and I paraphrase, he will 'watch its career in great interest'.
 * I myself do believe 1083 will fly Polaris Dawn, however we will wait until its confirmed until updating it. Thanks. Avialuh (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Avialuh It appears that @Abdullah1099 is continuing this kind of thing as B1085 was added but it has no sources and it has no mission assigned to it as far as anyone knows. Boosters without missions shouldn't be added to the page in my opinion. Additionally, there's no source on the page that it is in testing. By wikipedia rules any controversial statement can be removed without discussion if it has no sources. Ergzay (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Abdullah1099 You should read and understand WP:BRD policy. If someone reverts your change with an explanation, you shouldn't just add it back in again without discussion. Ergzay (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But in NSF McGregor live shows that it is undergoing testing. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you only need source then i will add B1085 with source. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, B1085 exists, but it being at Mcgregor has ABSOLUTELY NO LINK to Crew-9, it seems like you just pull it out of nowhere and try and use sources which dont prove anything. Avialuh (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * then add B1085 to the page. Why you have deleted it if it exists. I accept that Crew-9 addition to B1085 is not confirmed. But, i added because this type of incident happen before like Crew-8 time, i added to B1083 and then you have deleted and then you re added it. I will add the tweet that tells that it will fly in Q3 2024. it is also confirmed that it will be launching from east coast and a launch date in Q3 shows that Crew-9 has most probably had very much chance to launch on B1085. The other reason is that launches after Crew-4 under CCP has been done on brand new boosters. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As you can see from my comment below, I was the one who removed B1085, not Avialuh. Ergzay (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll add that tweets from non-official sources are not valid sources (and even official tweets are low quality sources). Ergzay (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats adding from speculation. B1085 has not been confirmed to fly any mission, any coast or any quarter of the year by an official source. Avialuh (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * KEYWORD: OFFICIAL SOURCE, the Q3 is a pure speculation based on how long boosters tend to wait between their testing regime and their first launch. Until we get confirmation from SpaceX that B1085 is flying any mission, it will stay off the list. Avialuh (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Avialuh Just some advice, try to be a little nicer on talk pages. Your tone is a bit much. Commanding people to not put things on wikipedia isn't really allowed. Ergzay (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies Avialuh (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't added B1085 this time. I only updated it, But for unknown reasons you are fully removing B1085 every time even when Alex from NASA SPACEFLIGHT told in his tweet that B1085 is en route to KSC, This directly tell us that it exists and it is a east coast boosters so there is no reason for removing it, you can remove Crew-9 but removing whole B1085 because is it launches Crew-9 or not is not a reasons for removing B1085 and it is wrong. Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Misleading edits
These are not my edits Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Boosters without missions should not be added
If a booster doesn't have a known mission assignment I don't think it should be added to the list of boosters. Without a mission assignment we're relying on eye witness reports and other primary sources which isn't a good thing on wikipedia. And this page is bad with adding sources in general as people have gotten into the bad behavior of never adding sources for their changes. Ergzay (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I would agree on not adding boosters with no known mission assignment that don't have non-primary sources - especially if there are no boosters with a higher number that have been assigned a mission.
 * I'm split on adding boosters with no non-primary sources of their existence or mission assignment if there are boosters that have been assigned mission but have a lower number
 * Case in point, B1088 and B1089 are not in the current list but are presumed to exist since B1090 was assigned as the center core of the Falcon Heavy launching Europa Clipper. Note that it's unknown what configuration those two boosters might have out of Hawthorne, although they both are likely to be Falcon 9s with a first flight sometime in the second half of this year. AmigaClone (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds like there's minimal consensus at least. I'll go ahead and remove B1085. Ergzay (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Worm Logo
I reverted a a removal of the worm logo on B1058 performed by @RickyCourtney. What are people's current thoughts on it? I know we had a discussion on this a long while back and I seem to remember the consensus being that a minimal worm logo was fine versus the alternatives that were being pushed at the time. Ergzay (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * My problem with it is that it’s just eye candy. You could simply add a line of prose or an explanatory footnote. In fact, you had an explanatory footnote to explain the inclusion of the worm logo and why it’s sort of meaningless. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It was notable at the time I think because it was a useful identifying mark for the booster. Now that the booster is lost maybe it has less reason to be there. I still want to hear what other people think. Ergzay (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the NASA worm logo being placed on B1058 was the only time an organization besides SpaceX has their name or logo on a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy booster - especially one planned to be reused.
 * Other missions that had logos or mission decals would see them placed on the second stage. AmigaClone (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those facts can and should be covered in prose in the Notable boosters#Booster 1058 section. It doesn't necessitate a logo in a table. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)