Talk:List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters/Archive 2

Requested move 19 May 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters → List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy boosters – To maintain consistency with List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (WP:CONSISTENT). I noticed there's been many move discussions on Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, and almost all of them placed heavy emphasis on the individuality of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles. Thus, I'm really surprised to have also found that consensus opinion was given up upon after just one failed attempt on this talk page. Perhaps a simpler qualifier such as "boosters" would be preferable to something specific like "first-stage boosters" or "core-stage boosters"? — Molly Brown (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE - The focus on first stage boosters is because that’s what is reusable. If you change the name to just “boosters”, it invites people to start adding in second stage boosters. Also a big deal has been made by SpaceX of how the Falcon Heavy cores are basically just Falcon 9s. There isn’t a large structural difference. Ng.j (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - same as here and here. --mfb (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose = For the reasons mentioned above. AmigaClone (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Strong Support - That would be great. The name says List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters but the list also has Falcon Heavy boosters.StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The name is long enough as it is. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are similar enough and explained in first sentence of article. Dropping first-stage would invite people to add second stages. I do wonder if the thing that makes this a worthwhile list is the reuseability and if we might be better with this in title eg List of SpaceX reusable boosters. C-randles (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose For basically the same above-listed opposition reasons. Per SpaceX's Falcon User Guide (page 5): "Falcon Heavy’s first-stage is comprised of three Falcon 9 first stages with enhancements provided to strengthen the cores."  DGrundler  talk 15:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Issues with the mission patches
It seems a bunch of people are coming out of the woodwork and brigading edits into this page because of the Inspiration4 logo. Does anyone have any thoughts on how to resolve this? Do we only use mission patches for NASA crewed missions? Or should we add this "fair use rationale" thing that is being mentioned to mission patches for non-NASA crewed missions? Let's discuss this and come up with some way of resolving this. Ergzay (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Inspiration4.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Inspiration4.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-free Inspiration4 logo
The mission patch for Inspiration4 is a copyrighted image, and therefore its use here as a decorative item does not comply with the non-free content criteria. More specifically, the need for the image file's minimal use (WP:NFCC). On a related note, is reaching a consensus that the file does not belong on Commons. — Molly Brown (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The deletion issue isn't really relevant here as it would simply be moved to Wikipedia instead of Commons. As to the other issue, I'm missing how WP:NFCC applies. It is minimally used at a low resolution in this case. Ergzay (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is already used on Inspiration4, and it is not being used here for any true encyclopedic purpose, moreso just a fancy way to click through to the Inspiration4 article. This purpose is already fulfilled by the wikilinked text beside it that leads users to the same place. It's clearly not a necessitated use of non-free content. — Molly Brown (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your reasoning, but it's still minimally used and at a low resolution so #3 still doesn't apply. I think as long as we're being consistent where all human flights on Falcon 9 have the mission patch used, we should use the Inspiration4 one as well. If we decide to remove all patches then I have no problem with not using the Inspiration4 one. JUST removing the Inspiration4 logo is strange. Ergzay (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This way this file is being used clearly fails Wikipedia's non-free content policy and therefore it has been removed. Whether the other logos from Commmons are also removed is irrelvant because they are not subject to the same policy as non-free content use. This file's current use fails WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and well as WP:NFLISTS. The file has no non-free use rationale for this particular article; so, it can simply be removed per WP:NFCCE, and actually would most likely end up being removed in a few days or so by a WP:BOT for that reason alone. If someone thinks that the use of this file is justified in this article and meets all ten non-free content criteria, then the onus falls upon them to add a non-free use rationale explaining why to the file's page. So, if you feel the file should be used in this article, add the required rationale to the file's page. Then, if anyone disagrees they can either tag the file with di-disputed fair use rationale or another similar template, or start a discussion about it at WP:FFD. Just providing a rationale, however, doesn't make a non-free use policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE, and it seems highly unlikely that given the way the file is currently being used that a consensus in favor of said use would be established at WP:FFD.Finally, just for reference, there are two aspects to WP:NFCC: WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. WP:IMAGERES deals more with NFCC#3b, but I believe Molly Brown is referring to NFCC#3a, but not sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:NFCC is not relevant as there is no way to create a free equivalent. WP:NFCC could be argued, but it causes confusion if removed because the article is no longer self-consistent. If it's being removed for this reason a method to make it self consistent should be proposed first. On WP:NFCC I could be wrong but from what I can see the page has such a thing (at least last I checked). Can you more fully explain why you think these are needed with words rather than just reference spam? It appears the image you're talking about was just added by Molly Brown so it's kind of unfair to pounce on this talk page saying it's a justified removal when there's been no time to improve the image itself. If you have issues with the image you should leave a message on the image's newly created talk page. We should also wait to see the resolution of the wikimedia page's nomination for deletion which has been going on for several months now. We don't need to rush to delete things. I've reverted your edit so this conversation is not rushed. Ergzay (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One more note, the image in question has been on this page since mid-April, so apparently this bot found the image fine. Ergzay (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * NFCC#1 is relevant because (as explained in WP:FREER) text or other forms of presentation are considered a "free equivalent" when it comes to non-free content use. A link to the primary article where this patch is used (per item 6 of WP:NFC) basically makes this use of the file "replaceable non-free use". In addition, trying to use a non-free file as a essentially a icon for a link completely fails NfCC#8 (WP:NFC) because there's nothing contextual the use at all. If removing the file creates a "consistency" issue (which is not the case at all since most of that table entries are not using similar images), then that should be addressed some other way. A separate specific non-free use rationale is required for each use of a non-free file. The file does have such a rationale for its use in the primary article about this mission, but it doesn't have one for this use. If you continue to re-add the file with providing the required rationale, not only will it continue to be removed (most likely by a WP:BOT) but eventually an administrator will notice and basically tell you to stop. If you really think this file's use meets all ten WP:NFCCP, then add the required rationale for this use to the file's page. Please look at WP:JUSTONE before doing that though because it's pretty much impossible (at least in my opinion) to write a valid rationale for the current way the file's being used and there's pretty much no chance of establishing a consensus for this type of use at WP:FFD. In fact, this type of non-free use is so clearly non-NFCC compliant that a FFD discussion isn't really needed and an administrator will likely remove the file if the rationale is changed with di-disputed fair use rationale or another similar template. Finally, the reason why the bot didn't flag and remove the file before was because it wasn't the same file then; it was the Commons file and the Commons file isn't licensed as non-free content. There is also another Commons version here. This file is licensed as non-free content and uploaded locally to Wikipedia and the bot I'm referring to only checks non-free files. So, it is essentially a different file even though it looks the same because it's uploaded to a different location and uploaded under a different license. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Okaaay... this is a lot to take in. Let me see if I've got this straight... (I suggest paragraph breaks btw it helps for reading.)
 * So for NFCC#1 we can't use a non-free image at all if we could simply replace it with text? Doesn't that mean that a lot of images on the wiki should be replaced with text? I think I'm following you with the WP:NFC#UUI though... So that means that if image is used that links to a page that has that image on it the image can't be used?
 * I see your point on the decorative thing, so yeah in this case these are mostly decorative (though I would argue not completely as mission patches are very relevant to missions).
 * On the consistency issue, you're not reading the page fully there. Only human spaceflight missions use mission patches. All human space flight missions currently on the page have mission patches.
 * On adding rationales, it didn't have one for over a month because it was using the image on wikimedia page. Molly Brown added it to this page without first adding it a fair use rationale. So that's a bit unfair to force others to do it when it was using the one on wikimedia page.
 * I'll review the WP:NFCCP, but it sounds like it's probably not going to fit all 10, even if it fits most of them. I created a new talk section to see what should be done. For the time being I guess I'll remove the image. Ergzay (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not every non-free image can be necessarily be replaced with text as explained in WP:ANYIMAGE, but this one can. You're using it as an icon for a link to the article Inspiration 4 when there's already a link to that article in that very same entry. Basically, what was being done was, and there's no way to justify that particular type of non-free use. As for the consistency issue, I understand what was being done, but "consistency" between non-free file usage and freely-licensed/public domain file usage is irrelevant when it comes to non-free use because freely-licensed/public domain files aren't subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If the file that was uploaded to Commons is kept, then the non-free one would no longer be needed and it can be deleted. The Commons file could then be used not only in the Inspiration 4 article, but also in this article since complying with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy would no longer be required. Molly Brown uploaded the non-free file on May 28 so it couldn't have not had a non-free use rationale for over a month. The file Molly Brown upload isn't the same file that was being previously used in the article. That file was first c:File:Inspiration4.png and then c:File:Inspiration4_Patch_Art.png. Molly Brown uploaded a non-free file for use in Inspiration 4 and she provided a non-free use rationale for that particular use; whomever then added the file to this article forgot to provide the rationale for its use. That's not Molly Brown's responsibility, but rather the responsibility of the person who wants to use the file in this article. Things are a bit confusing because there are three files: File:Inspiration4.png, c:File:Inspiration4.png and File:Inspiration4 Patch Art.png. The first one is the one Molly Brown uploaded as non-free content and the second and third ones were files uploaded by other people to Commons. One of the Commons files has already been deleted, and the other one is being discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inspiration4 Patch Art.png and is likely going to also end up being deleted. Molly Brown probably saw that and just uploaded a local non-free version to use in the "Inspiration 4" article. She did nothing wrong by doing that and you didn't really do anything seriously wrong by adding the non-free file to this article other than forgetting to provide the required rationale for its use. That's quite a common mistake because many editors just assumed that all images are basically the same and are not aware that non-free image use is subject to more restrictions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made inquiries at both The Teahouse and media copyright questions, and it seems there's even more issues with the use of the Inspiration4 insignia on this page. Marchjuly has the insignia from the page, but I might as well explain it here for closure.  WP:NFCC as not been met here because the non-free image does not significantly aid the reader's understanding of B1067's missions; simply stating "Inspiration4" in that particular cell should be good enough to get the point across that Inspiration4 will be flown with B1067, thus per WP:DECORATIVE, the use of the non-free image is inappropriate. The argument that the non-free image should be kept because free-use images are being used in this list in a similar way is also explicitly struck out by WP:OTHERIMAGE. It is also stated in WP:NFCCE that the burden of proof is on the editor seeking to retain non-free content to argue for its inclusion, and no clear argument has been made here as to why the Inspiration4 insignia's use here would be compliant with WP:NFCC, WP:NFLISTS, or WP:NFC. — Molly Brown (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't brigade the article by recruiting people from elsewhere to come and edit the page for you. Ergzay (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's just a baseless accusation. Where did I ever ask anybody to come edit the page for me? Inquiring about an issue ≠ brigading. came here on their own volition, and I never expected them to. — Molly Brown (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether it was intentional or not you've caused a bunch of issues. You keep making changes that change things that have no reason to be changed, and then you change the link to the image to a page you yourself created that doesn't have this "fair use rationale" thing and then get people to comment that "oh yes it does indeed not have fair use rationale" when you were the one who created in the first place. It's like you're trying to cause trouble and it's getting really frustrating. Please, just, stop, moving, so, fast. Let's figure things out rather than rushing all over causing so much confusion. If there's an actual problem I have no problem in working with you to fix it but I'm getting rushed so fast here it's getting me all annoyed. You seem to be much more used to this kind of thing than I am. I wasn't even the one who added the image in the first place. Ergzay (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to entertain the idea that I did anything wrong when I transplanted the image from Commons as a result of the deletion discussion that reached a foregone conclusion after a very long three months; that the image was released under a Creative Commons license (BY-NC-ND) that is not one of those accepted by Wikimedia Commons. Therefore, I uploaded the file locally to save its usage on the Inspiration4 article, because its use there qualifies under WP:NFCC. I wish you'd just assume good faith (WP:AGF) and not presume that people who disagree with you are up to no good. — Molly Brown (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Formatting issues
You mentioned in your that my attempt to remove deprecated pixel image sizes and breaks (MOS:IMGSIZE and MOS:NOBREAKS) had caused some kind of error in the page's formatting, but you didn't elaborate what it was. I just wanted to inquire what exactly broke on your end, so I can try and rectify the mistake. — Molly Brown (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should have explained more fully. It broke the formatting where mission patches are shown below the name of the mission and instead sometimes became split up such that one patch was on one line and the other was on the next line. As it is currently each patch is on it's own line if there's two images. If you look at your diff versus the current diff, it becomes quite obvious the visual difference. Ergzay (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll see if slapping a nowrap onto the mission cells does the trick. — Molly Brown (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted again, that change made a whole bunch of issues. The ♺ started wrapping on several of the Flight No entries, the Payload section suddenly got much wider which caused the table to squash all the other fields. The Payload entries should be wrapping still. I'm looking into what your original edit is and seeing if I can see what went wrong with it. Ergzay (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So on your original issue, what appears (at least on my screen, which is 1280x800 and I'm on Firefox on a Mac) happened is that the mission patches got several pixels smaller which caused some of them to start wrapping and I misinterpreted that as a formatting issue. If we keep the patches the same size they were that should resolve that issue. The other issue that occurred is that on the B1058 entry, the "B1058" text became left-justified and the NASA logo got bigger and also became left-justified. Do you know a way of resolving these two issues? Ergzay (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The images will change size depending on what your image thumbnail setting is in your preferences. You can find it under Appearance > Files. The whole point of upright image scaling, after all, is to allow users' preferences for image sizes to be respected, which pixel image scaling does not (MOS:IMGSIZE). I'm currently working with the default 220px thumbnail size that displays for most users, which means "upright=1" will be 220px wide for me, users with the same setting, and all logged-out and non-account users. If your preference is set to a 250px thumbnail size for example, your "upright=1" will be 250px wide. Ultimately though, working at scales as small as "upright=0.1", like we're doing here, will differ wildly between users, which tends to happen when you put images in places and scales they're typically not meant to be used in... such as tiny mission insignia in a wikitable cell next to text. — Molly Brown (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't changed it, so it's still 220px, so the preferences aren't relevant here. I'm not sure why we need to change formats to this other type of representing images. I think they should be fixed size regardless of people's settings so that they properly fit inside the table. Ergzay (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're on the same preferences that I'm on, then theoretically we should be seeing the same image sizes, and therefore this really isn't an issue. I'm going to put back the upright image scaling, but with more specific tweaks to the sizes to make them as similar to the original pixel widths as possible to satisfy your concerns. For the timebeing, I'll leave the breaks in until I can figure out a way to resolve the issue of the B1058 cell becoming left-justified. — Molly Brown (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems upright image scaling only works in increments of five percent. Therefore, I simply have to use "upright=0.15" for the worm logo and "upright=0.1" for the mission insignia, and they'll both be slightly smaller than what they used to be. I honestly don't see how this would be an issue, though. — Molly Brown (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

NASA Worm Logo
Should the NASA Worm Logo be moved from the booster number column to flight number column since it applies to the launches that are part of theCommercial Crew Program?

to

user:mnw2000 17:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the NASA logo still painted on the side of these booster? I'm not against the change but it mostly becomes a marker for a manned launch if this style is adopted. Perhaps a different marker is more approriate? Scottd521 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * it is still over the booster. it is hardly seeing, but it is still there. --Dwalin (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * How about both logos?


 * I do like that, it seems more robust, as manned flights occur on the same boosters its easy to identify them. Would it be appropriate to use the commercial crew logo on flights that use the dragon, a commercial crew vehicle, but are strictly private ventures such as the upcoming Inspiration mission?  I think it would be, but I'll just leave that question out there in case anyone has an alternate opinion.  Scottd521 (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * dunnow, but in any case it is too big. must be smaller and in the same line of the text. --Dwalin (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * what about the patch? there will be either other manned launches, inspiration4 and axiom, that are not NASA related. --Dwalin (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this is sufficient? Scottd521 (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * purrrrrrrrrrrrrfect!--Dwalin (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is all just decorative clutter in my opinion. Do we really need these images in the wikitable? I feel like it also puts undue weight towards the crewed boosters and missions too, when this is theoretically meant to be an impartial list of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy boosters. — Molly Brown (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I found the logos confusing during review. They are not explained anywhere and require previous knowledge to make sense of. If they are going to be used anywhere, they should be explained. 206.116.244.240 (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Concur with Molly Brown and 206.116.244.240. Such logos are generally confusing to the reader and add clutter; we should not use them.  I'll add that the addition of such logo graphics, over time by many editors in many places in this article, would also tend toward being unsourced with few editors likely to look after the long-term Wikipedia quality question until, one day, many would simply be removed as unsourced statements about a launch or a booster.  N2e (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

KEEP - I agree with keeping the logos. Clicking on it brings you to the CCP page, and it’s an easy way to see what boosters have launched people. The list has been here for a long time, and we haven’t seen vast hordes of people adding graphics. Ng.j (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have consistency? NASA worm on both 1058 and 1061 (perhaps also 1067 or maybe that isn't earned yet) or on neither? If worm logo is just for CCP flights then why do we need two such indicators? Isn't just the CCP logo the one we want for that? Perhaps the NASA worm logo should go in payload column for CRS-xx launches and any other NASA payloads but not be shown in S/N column? Think the logos should be explained in a footnote as well as being clickable link. C-randles (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd be in favor of completely removing the worm logos at least. Displaying them potentially introduces numerous misconceptions. B1058 and B1061 could be seen as boosters owned and/or operated by NASA, or as boosters exclusively used for NASA missions, or as having the worm logo painted on them. All of which untrue; the boosters are owned and operated by SpaceX, and can be used for any mission it flies, and the NASA worm logo was never painted on B1061 (view of one side, and the other side). Putting it on B1067 would also be incredibly misleading, as NASA has no operational involvement in that mission whatsoever. — Molly Brown (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * B1061 doesn't even have the worm logo on it I don't believe, so I see no reason to keep it on that one at the very least. I don't have super strong opinions on the B1058 case, but I'd prefer to keep it personally, but I don't have a good reason as to why. Ergzay (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One further thought on B1058, the vehicle causes similar confusion when people see the NASA logo on the vehicle, so we are indeed properly re-creating the confusion people see when seeing the NASA logo on 1058. I suspect that's why SpaceX chose to move the logo to the upper stage for the later missions. Ergzay (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So the NASA worm logo simply means the booster has that logo on it. Didn't realise that til seeing explanations above, which goes to show footnotes explaining meaning of logos is needed. I have added footnote explanations. C-randles (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't just removing the worm logo altogether be easier than trying to justify its continued usage by tacking a disclaimer onto it? Completely avoiding confusion is better than keeping something confusing and hoping readers scroll down to see the footnote that'll make it less confusing, in my opinion. It's just one booster, after all. — Molly Brown (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, prefer Remove but that is a decision for this discussion. It seems to me it is either removal or keep with footnote explanation. Can't remove it without reaching a decision here and there are a few people wanting to keep it. Hoped to move this discussion along a bit. Seems like trivia that we have too much of to me. C-randles (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

B1067 for Inspiration4
The original statement from Issacman: “Lots of boosters in the SpaceX inventory, and things can change, but as of now B1067 is the favorite.”

That is clearly speculative and subject to change. NASA has already confirmed that B1067 is launching Crew-3, per |this link.

That leaves a 38 day turnaround, and seems unlikely that NASA will allow that risk to a crewed mission. It would also require additional certification per this |tweet: “ Was able to confirm with NASA that SpaceX now, essentially, chooses which rockets it will use from its fleet to launch astronauts. SpaceX can propose a new booster, or a first stage that has flown once. Further certification is needed for boosters used more than once.” Ng.j (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to note Isaacman's specific wording in his tweet. "B1067 is the favorite", implying the decision has not yet been made, and that B1067 is merely a frontrunner in that selection. Thus, it clearly is not an appropriate source to verify that B1067 was actually selected for the mission. — Molly Brown (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Someone removed Inspiration4, should be fine now. --mfb (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Polar Starlink launches
There is the possibility that B1051 is being shipped to VSFB as well. I suggest waiting before adding any of those launches to a particular booster. There is already coverage on the list of launches. Ng.j (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is clear there is going to be a series of launches from Vandenberg for Polar Starlink launches. We don't know how they are going to be numbered/referenced yet. It is possible that the first dedicated polar launch will use some other booster but then there is always the chance of things being shuffled around. Seems odd to ship B1049 to Vandenberg unless it is going to be used. But, don't we normally go by what the references say? I admit NextSpaceflight can get a bit enthusiastic (e.g. starlink-38 in September), but there other refs suggesting NET July for polar starlink launches. Being unsure of the numbering or reference seems an odd reason not to add next planned launch per refs we have. If there is a good chance of SARah-1 being next launch from Vandenberg and it could use B1049 then maybe we should wait for better ref otherwise what is wrong with reporting what the refs say? C-randles (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

B1049 has been removed as the booster for the first launch on Next Spaceflight. I agree it is likely, but still speculative and unconfirmed at this point. Launch is NET July, but most likely August. Ng.j (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * still seems to list B1049 for me. C-randles (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

B1068 status
The current source is a tweet, but is actually based on an article written on 23 May.

"B1066 wrapped up testing at SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas development facilities in March and likely shipped to Florida a few weeks later." "That second new center core – likely B1068 or B1069 – has yet to ship from SpaceX’s Hawthorne, California factory to Texas."

The author of the article also questioned the source: "That would make a lot of sense, is that something you've heard or just your read on things? Once we heard it was B1069, my assumption was that B1068 is USSF-52's Falcon Heavy center core and other F9 boosters were prioritized after all the payload-side delays."

All of these assumptions based on assumptions makes for a very dubious source. Ng.j (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Why are we even listing B1068 if we can't conclude what type of booster it is and the status of it? Pkaleader (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with Pkaleader and Ng.j. If there is not verifiable source to back up the statements, the row should not be in the article.  N2e (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Total Mass Lifted by any one booster.
I would love to see a running total. How they compares to Saturn 5 or each of the space shuttles. Scottprovost (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We could add the payloads if we have reliable numbers for each flight, but I think we shouldn't add it to the article. Some boosters will have "+unknown", and the sum would miss the LEO/GTO difference. The two fleet leaders launched 110 tonnes of Starlink each, B1051 launched ~23 tonnes in the other three flights so it should lead at ~133 tonnes. --mfb (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

NASA Worm Logo
Why does Booster 1058 have the NASA Worm Logo and Booster 1061 does not? Both were used to transport NASA crew members to the ISS.

user:mnw2000 21:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Because Booster 1061 does not have it on the booster. Only 1058 had that logo on it. If you're asking why SpaceX didn't put it on it, that's anyone's guess. Ergzay (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ergzay's answer that booster has the logo is explained in a note below the table. I suspect/speculate/vaguely recall that because of the use of first stage for other missions, the logo on first stage causes confusion and consequently such mission specific labelling has subsequently been placed on second stages which are only used once. Suggests someone didn't think this through until after some confusion caused. Whether we should bother with such trivia or delete logo from table has been discussed but few commented and no consensus was reached. C-randles (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

B1050 and 1056 Notable
Are boosters B1050 and 1056 notable? I suggest deletion from the notable booster section of at least B1050 perhaps also B1056. Falcon 9 B1050 flew one CRS mission and had grid fin hydraulic pump issue so not used again. 1056 flew 2 CRS missions, a JCSat-18 and a Starlink (L4). Only possible notable thing seems to be "First flight proven booster to fail landing" a claim for which B1056 article lacks a ref. If the failures are interesting, perhaps we should have a list/table of causes of failures rather than these two in the notable boosters section? C-randles (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * B1050 is the only booster to fail during a ground landing attempt so far. There is an argument to make that boosters with their own articles should be more notable than boosters without - if not, then we should make different articles. I won't miss these two, however. Neither would I miss B1049. Seventh flight isn't an important milestone and "currently oldest active booster" is not lasting notability. --mfb (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The only milestone I can see for Booster 1049 at this time that might last a while is 'first booster to launch from the three falcon 9 launch sites at least two times.' AmigaClone (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's getting really obscure. It's the first booster that has been used for over 3 years (10 Sep 2018 -> 14 Sep 2021). --mfb (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Falcon 9 FT booster timeline
Why are there two different colors for FT Heavy sides in the chart in this section? If there is something to distinguish these, shouldn't there be some sort of explanation? If nothing distinguishes them, shouldn't they be the same color? --76.14.39.120 (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For the test Falcon Heavy (the one that launched Elon Musk's car to a heliocentric orbit) the two side boosters had previously launched as single stick FT boosters. There is an explanation in the 'Booster turnaround time' section which also distinguishes the two. AmigaClone (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks! --76.14.39.120 (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Booster 1056
Why is Booster 1056 in the list of notable boosters? Even reading the article about this booster doesn't seem to imply it's anything special --76.14.39.120 (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That entry was added when the table was rearranged such that every in-line link in the table links to the section on the booster in the article. Because that booster had it's own article, a minimal section was created with the assumption that someone would fill in the details in that section on why it's important for the booster to have it's own article. If Booster 1056 isn't notable, it should have it's page deleted. Ergzay (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I re-read the B1056 article and don't see why it's anything special, but I'm not part of the decision making on the notability of the various boosters, so I'll leave it. --76.14.39.120 (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The only notable things I see for Booster 1056 is that it was the first 'flight-proven' booster to fail an attempted landing, and at the time of its last flight it had the record for fastest turnaround. Since then two other 'flight-proven' boosters have failed on landing and the record turnaround time has been cut in half. I'd not sure if either of those items are notable enough to justify an article. AmigaClone (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Flight Patches
We include flight patches for flights that are part of the Commercial Crew Program, why not for the flights that are part of the Commercial Resupply Services?

user:mnw2000 11:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * good question i think Ergzay knows this. from my side they must be included Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Using flight patches for human flights is already of questionable value (I have mixed feelings personally). Going further and adding patches for every mission (all missions have patches) would be going too far. The point was to signify the importance of human spaceflight missions, not just commercial crew program missions. Inspiration4 also had patches but they were stripped out as the only images of the patch were non-free images so couldn't be used. I assume Axiom-1 will have patches as well, if there are free images. I personally suspect as more private launches happen with non-free patches, we will eventually strip out all patches. Ergzay (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I came here to see if there was discussion of these new flight patches in the big table. I agree that these are of limited value and really just a distraction.  The pages that those graphics link to are already linked right there. 107.215.62.245 (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

New way of booster notes
So, , and , is it good to write vertical or horizontal on banks of port Canaveral as I see it's a new tradition after recovery of B1067.3 to put the booster on spacex facilities at port Canaveral for making it ready before taking it for refurbishment through shippment on a transporter, if it is a droneship landing. Should I use a different wording for this or is it better to write refurbishing there and there after removal from the deck of droneship. Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Chinakpradhan In general we don't need to keep updating with every single minor change. There's really only 3 main "active" states. Awaiting launch once assigned, returning to shore if out at ocean, and refurbishing. Ergzay (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In know that . But in cases like B1069.1 it almost spent a week on the banks of port Canaveral  not on jrti. So that a bit problem if in future  it again happens  Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chinakpradhan Once it reaches the shore it's already "refurbishing". Ergzay (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * From my side we can merge even more states. Wikipedia is not a booster-tracking site, our focus is on the generation of long-lasting content. "Awaiting launch" before the first launch, "active" while it's in one of the states between launches, and "destroyed/retired" once it's out of service. --mfb (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My list of statuses would be as follows:
 * 1) Construction/testing - for those boosters either spotted at McGregor or mentioned as being under construction in a communication from SpaceX.
 * 2) Awaiting Assignment - Boosters without a known payload, no matter if they have launched before or not.
 * 3) Awaiting Launch - Boosters with a known payload, even if the launch date is unknown.
 * 4) Destroyed/ Retired - out of service. Since this status is permanent, I could also see "expended/retired" - intentionally taken out of service, "destroyed" - out of service due to an accident, "display" - booster placed in the rocket garden or donated to a museum.
 * 5) Unknown - flown boosters that have not been spotted or mentioned by SpaceX for more than 2 years. AmigaClone (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Psyche booster
Hello, I've been wondering whether or not to include the possible Psyche mission for B1072,73, and 74. With the announcement of B1074 being a FH core and testing, Next Spaceflight stated the boosters used would be this set however when GigaShip reviewed the citation, they found the page had been reverted back to "Unknown vehicle" so Next Spaceflight changed their mind. Should we leave the Psyche mission on here bearing in mind nextspaceflight.com said these were the boosters for about 12 hours, or remove them as there is no longer a source? Thanks :) Inertiabikes (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"Record values highlighted"
This was added without discussion. I think it's really ugly and far too prominent. There are just two relevant records, booster reuse and shortest reuse time, both are already discussed in the article. I propose to revert this addition. --mfb (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. The highlighting is really ugly and distracting for data that isn't all that relevant (especially longest turnaround) Denvercoder9 (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't see any reason to especially highlight these in the data- You won't see highlights in List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs for the longest/shortest reign. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed. --mfb (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Too many planned launches being added before information is known
There are WAY too many future launches getting added, completely unsourced including some that seem highly implausible (like the Viasat-3 booster usage). This needs to stop.

I'm going to go through the page and any future launch that isn't source I will now remove from the page. If people care, re-add the launch back in with a good source specifying the booster usage. And no, nextspaceflight does not give their sources so they are not a valid source. Ergzay (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We even had Pshcye assigned to two boosters simultaneously and a falcon heavy side booster was labeled as a core booster. Please, stop adding information that is poor or completely unsourced. Ergzay (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One note I will add here, it is completely possible to know the date a booster will be launching on with a high degree of uncertainty but have no idea which booster it will be using. In that case don't add that information on that flight to this page until that's known. Nextspaceflight isn't a valid source as they give no info on how they get their source or if their source is reliable or not. Ergzay (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree with most of what you're saying here I have a bit of an issue with the justification you use to claim "nextspaceflight" is not a valid source. The media industry of all types will keep sources confidential, if that alone is enough to make a source invalid then ArsTech, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. are all invalid sources.  I'm not particularly familiar with nextspaceflight but if you have other issues with their information, such as a pattern of inaccuracy, then I would suggest focusing on that as the basis for it's exclusion. Scottd521 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ergzay is there a way to clear up the problem of B1064 and 65 on this page and List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. its seems first mission for the mission is USSF-52 and USSF-44 whereas it is reserved for USSF-44 as it seemed till now should we reverse the booster assignments?? (till news arrives that USSF-52 is also delayed). its seems distracting to one that a booster has first flight in december 2022 and 2nd mission in october 2022!! Chinakpradhan (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * even this page shows something like that only Chinakpradhan (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Shorten statistics section
These graphs were started when reuse was rare and many flights contributed something new to the graph. Now it's just routine, no one sees the impact of the most recent flight, and the graphs get more and more crowded. Booster turnaround time and Falcon 9 FT booster timeline are largely the same information, with the latter having the introduction time as additional information - with the downside of being harder to maintain. I think we can remove one of the two. I seem to be the only one still updating these anyway. "Full Thrust flight counts" and "Block 5 flight counts" have a large overlap as well. I think we can reduce this to one graph. Blocks 1-3, 4, 5 active, 5 inactive. --mfb (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with getting rid of either the Booster Turnaround time graph or the Falcon 9 FT booster timeline graph, although I am neutral on which one to remove. I also agree on a single graph replacing "Full Thrust flight counts" and "Block 5 flight counts" although I might consider replacing the Block 5 inactive with Block 5 expended, Block 5 destroyed, with Block 5 retired being eventually added. AmigaClone (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Launch codes
There is a code after the launch status (40, 4E etc). What are these, and should there be a footnote to the tables explaining the codes? 76.14.122.5 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The code you mention indicates the launch site:
 * 4e is Vandenberg Space Force Base Space Launch Complex 4E.
 * 39A is Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A.
 * 40 is Cape Canaveral Space Force Station Space Launch Complex 40.
 * As a side note, on the landing status the codes indicate where the booster was intended to land (if not expended).
 * JRTI  Just Read The Instructions autonomous drone ship.
 * OCISLY Of Course I Still Love You autonomous drone ship.
 * ASOG  A Shortfall of Gravity autonomous drone ship.
 * LZ-1  Landing Zone 1 - Located at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.
 * LZ-2  Landing Zone 2 - Located at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station near LZ-1.
 * LZ-4  Landing Zone 4 - Located at Vandenberg Space Force Base Space at the site of former Space Launch Complex 4W.
 * Not sure if there should be a footnote or not. AmigaClone (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I would define those somewhere in the article or at least link to some article where they are defined. They are pretty opaque to the uninitiated (like me). As an aside, is there an LZ-3? 76.14.122.5 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably easiest thing might be to link to the sections in the various articles. At the very bottom of the article (below the external links) there is a hidden information box. click show to see the links to those articles (and additional information about SpaceX.
 * There is no official LZ-3, although that name might have been reserved for a proposed third landing pad near LZ-1 and LZ-2 at Cape Canaveral. AmigaClone (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

New nomenclature protocol
I can see no discussion of the use of the terms "Vertical at..." and "Horizontal at...". Now you-all might be so au-fait with spaceflight jargon that you distain any accommodations for casual visitors but this is a WIKI.

Will the editor(s) responsible PLEASE explain the rationale and usage of this new nomenclature. AncientBrit (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * So - given that "verticle at" might mean "ready to fly" or "landed and just hanging around", and given that the references quoted do not refer to current status, I think I'll just change them both to "unknown". AncientBrit (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It lands vertically and is moved to a port, where it's rotated and put on a transporter horizontally. I don't think we need that level of detail (something like being processed would be fine I think), but some editors like to update it. --mfb (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Vertical and Horizontal do seem over the top. Just the port name for its location would seem adequate and seem to imply that it is on a journey not ready to fly. If we remove the vertical and horizontal, perhaps editors won't see vertical being wrong and change it to horizontal and so on. However, perhaps it would be better if this discussion reaches a conclusion on the terms to be used and are to be limited to the following unless something exceptional happens:

In the usual rotation: Awaiting Assignment, Awaiting Launch, Landed on/at X, Port X, Refurbishing. Then there are also Retired, Expended, Destroyed, Damaged in/on X, Undergoing Repairs. [edit to add:] At McGregor testing facility

Are any other terms needed? Do we need any definitions like it isn't Port X until unloaded or is it Port X as soon as droneship enters the Port? C-randles (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I would use Port X between the time the autonomous spaceport drone ship docks and the booster has left the port. I would also add ''At McGregor for

testing'' for boosters spotted there. AmigaClone (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes missed out testing. A problem with the current 'Awaiting testing' is we rarely know if/when they are finished testing so perhaps 'At McGregor testing facility' is better than 'Awaiting testing' or 'At McGregor for testing'. Also noticed that 'Port X' perhaps is a location rather than a status, maybe it should be 'At Port X' or even 'In transit at Port X'? C-randles (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with "In transit" from the time of a successful landing to arrival at a testing/refurbishment facility. --mfb (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If that is majority view then that is fine and I would accept the simplification. However, personally I think 'Landed on/at X' is an important status to show successful landing and that this should stay until docked at Port/ removed from landing pad. Your version wouldn't show this or maybe it could for a short period, neither of which seem ideal to me. C-randles (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are cameras streaming 24/7 of the McGregor test facility. It is very easy to tell when and what booster is testing Pkaleader (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Should 'Awaiting Assignment' be 'Awaiting public assignment' given that SpaceX may well have assigned the booster but not made this public? Also booster 1052 currently says awaiting launch which might be taken to imply that its next mission is as Viasat side core and conversion is complete. I am not aware that we know this, it could be used for example for Oneweb flight then converted. Is this a special case where we need to admit we just don't know and therefore have to say something like 'Awaiting public assignment or awaiting conversion or undergoing conversion or awaiting launch'? Hmm., I'll boldly make that edit to bring attention to this comment. C-randles (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I personally would put B1052 on "Unknown" right now, with a abbr tag like this: Unknown. Whether to change "Awaiting Assignment" to "Awaiting Public Assignment", I'm not sure. The list is getting quite lengthy, so it might be worth it to try to keep everything as short as possible. But that is a whole other discussion... GigaShip (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Source for booster assignments
1058 1061 and 1062 are listed as having planned launches for 5-15, 6-15, 6-5. Do we have a reference to back these up? C-randles (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Block 5 booster flight status out of sync with booster list details - Done for B1077.7 and B1063.13
B1077 flew recently (Sep 01) on its 7th flight (noted in List of Boosters/Block 5) but the histogram in Block 5 booster flight status is blank for 7 flights. - Rod57 (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * & Sep 02 tracking tranche on B1063.13 not reflected in the status histogram. I had assumed that they used to be updated in sync - presumably by the same person - I can't tell from history who has been doing the multiple per launch updates.  Could the histogram be generated automatically from the List ? - I'll try to update the histogram to reflect the booster list. - Rod57 (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. done the 12->13 for FT and B5-status histograms - Next to repeat for the last but one 6->7. - Rod57 (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

In Block 5 booster flight status - Expended could split out Falcon Heavy cores - Done
In Block 5 booster flight status histogram - Dark blue "Expended" could split out Falcon Heavy cores (normally expended on first use). So the dark blue column of 6 boosters expended after one flight could have a new colour to indicate how many were Falcon Heavy cores (5 of the current 6). What new colour, something close to dark blue ("Expended - other"), maybe purple ("Expended FH core") ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * So far there have been 8 Falcon Heavy flights, with all but the first one using block 5 boosters.
 * Of the seven Falcon Heavy Block 5 missions, SpaceX tried to recover the center cores twice. While one core landed, it was destroyed prior to being returned to port. The other five cores were expended. SpaceX has not lost a side booster yet, but has expended one pair so far. AmigaClone (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that is a good idea. 5 out of 6 single-flight expended B5 boosters are FH cores, the graph doesn't represent that. We can remove the unused "Converted Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy Side active" and maybe merge "Falcon Heavy Side active" with "Falcon 9 active" as they can move between these two categories. --mfb (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added "Expended FH core", for now.✅ Others can decide on FH Sides. - Rod57 (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Intra-page links to #F9-xxx
Hi @Lazaro Fernandes, is it possible that when you're making edits with whatever automation you use that you don't link to List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches as you did in this edit? These aren't valid links and should instead link to List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches as was the case in this edit where you removed the link. Ergzay (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry for the mistake. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

A page for B1058
@Rod57 @AmigaClone @Ergzay @Lazaro Fernandes @Mfb should we tribute a page for veteran B1058. It has achieved much in its lifespan and we have ample sources. Anyone of you or me should take the initiative. 122.187.144.98 (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Anyone can create a page on Wikipedia. If you want to create a page you're welcome to. I'm personally not very interested in it as I don't think it's newsworthy enough to get much articles written about it. Ergzay (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok 122.187.144.98 (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see any need for another page for B1058. We already have a section for it here, and its 19 launches are listed in the main table(s). If the B1058 section does grow a lot, then it could be split out, leaving the current content as a summary. - Rod57 (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Payload mass and customer sector graphs in statistics
Payload mass and customer sector graphs in statistics: These two new graphs have appeared, in this article, and transcluded into the List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches. They make more sense in the later and don't need to be in this article (except for ease of maintenance?).
 * The payload mass is interesting, but it would also be interesting to see a similar one by launches rather than payload mass.
 * The payload mass graph could have a note saying what is done for the launches where mass is "Classified" or "Unknown".
 * - Rod57 (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Rod57 I've removed the graphs as they used largely unsourced information in the first place. Ergzay (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ergzay Removal, sourcing, or improvement could have been discussed here, and with the originating editor, first. - Rod57 (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement on Wikipedia to discuss unsourced material before removing it. The tables were unverifiable, and further, several details were factually incorrect as there is no source for some of it and no way to get a source. Ergzay (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Block 5 booster flight status graphs only partly updated eg for Falcon heavy sides not core - Semi-protect ?
Block 5 booster flight status graph and Full thrust booster flight counts graph were updated for the USSF-52 side boosters, but not for the expended core, so I've done it. Looks like the side core counts were updated by a not-logged-in ip address 47.222.137.99 who didn't provide any edit descriptions. Would it be worth semi-protecting this page so only logged in users can make these edits ? - Rod57 (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep both booster count graphs
There was a proposal, now in archive 2, to remove one of these graphs. With no objections at that time, I do object. I'd like to keep both graphs, much as they are now, I find both useful and it's easy to maintain both together. - Rod57 (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Query on revert re legs and logos
Just i needed to know the reason of the two reverts @Ergzay

1) landing legs upgrade info is like new interstage just above it.

2) 2 logos are good for a booster that only housed it something like a commercial crew logo and mission logo of long duration SpaceX crew Dragon mission logos. I you can merge them its ok. 122.187.144.98 (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This page is a list of Falcon 9 first stage boosters. It's not a page about everything that's changed between the Falcon 9 models. That type of content needs to go on the Falcon 9 page, and I encourage you to add it there as it's definitely encyclopedic content, but it's just on the wrong page.
 * As to the logos, we previously had long discussions and arguments on this talk page about logos on this page and basically everything got removed in favor of a consensus of just keeping the NASA worm logo on the booster. The worm logo on this wiki page is not a list of logos on the vehicle. It's an indicator on the wiki page that the booster had NASA logos on it. BTW, are you Chinakpradhan? You talk like him. Ergzay (talk) 09:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the explanation @Ergzay. 122.187.144.98 (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw who is Chinakpradhan? 122.187.144.98 (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're not him, you should create an account. Using an IP address to communicate is annoying. Ergzay (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * account created RIP B1058 (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ergzay Falcon 9 B1058 is ready if you need it ever like for linking, use it. RIP B1058 (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Vertical axis graduations every 2.5 on Block 5 booster flight status histogram
Now that the 1 flight count has gone to 11, the vertical scale has changed to 6 divisions of 2.5 (up to 15), which looks a bit silly. When the total was 10 it had 10 in steps of 1. There's plenty of room now to mark every 2, (and could end at 12 not 15). Is there any option to specify the vertical scale divisions so we can force to 1 or 2 ? It's using - Rod57 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like Module:Chart - and we need to set : y tick marks, from 11-15 have to set to 15 (or 5), if it goes below 11 may need to set to 10. Comments added to article page. - Rod57 (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

As we know new boosters would be add and new boosters would be added in the fleet contains B1085 to B1090 and 5 boosters would be of Falcon Heavy. All links were added. Thank you
Good Job but not make it so serious that almost we all know about that new fh boosters will be introduced. Abdullah1099 (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Content Filtering / Separate Lists
Is it possible to suppress display of categories of data?

By which I mean, can we have an option to display (or suppress) only Active Boosters for example?

I don't know if this is a feature already in use on other pages? If so, I don't know how to do it.

AncientBrit (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I could break the list in two: Active Boosters and Retired Boosters.

Any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AncientBrit (talk • contribs) 23:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge this is not a feature that can be made easily. I agree it's a good idea to just put it into separate lists. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Having them in two lists would be better. Having retired mixed in with active is making more inconvenient Pkaleader (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. I actually came to the talk page to suggest it only to see its already being considered. Enterpriset (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Reviving this topic (with heading change), I agree with a separate list for Active boosters to be displayed first then Retired Boosters. I think retired boosters in order as at present split into v1/v1.1 then Full Thrust to block 4 then block 5; active boosters also in numeric order rather than starting with latest and working back. This seems to become more appropriate as we get more boosters so perhaps we should do it soon? Any Thoughts/Comments/Agree/Disagree? C-randles (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I still think it's a great idea. Unfortunately I am now Ancient Brit with Alzheimers. So I won't be attempting any more coding. AncientBrit (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't know the status of each booster for sure. As long as that only affects bold text it's acceptable I think, but moving them from one list to another should be based on reliable sources which we don't have for every booster. Only SpaceX knows the plans if the booster is not known to be scrapped/destroyed or assigned to a future flight. --mfb (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree AncientBrit (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I say we go for it. Enterpriset (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not having adequate references could be a problem, but is it actually a problem? Shall we see by gathering some references?

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-transition-all-falcon-9-block-5-launches/ "SpaceX’s 13th reuse of a Falcon 9 booster marked the second-to-last orbital mission of older boosters before the rocket’s highly reusable Block 5 upgrade takes over all future commercial launches." That seems adequate for all block 4 and previous.

I think it is fairly clear 'not able to land' means it was destroyed when it hit water.
 * 1046 https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/01/17/falcon-9-crew-dragon-in-flight-abort-test-mission-status-center/ "The Falcon 9 booster exploded as expected after Dragon's safe abort."
 * 1047 https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/08/amos-17-launch-debut-ranges-rapid-support/ "AMOS-17 launched atop an expendable Falcon 9"
 * 1048 https://www.space.com/spacex-launches-starlink-5-satellites-misses-rocket-landing.html "we were not able to land that first stage today"
 * 1050 https://www.wired.com/story/a-spacex-booster-went-for-a-swim-and-came-back-as-scrap-metal/ SpaceX Booster Went for a Swim and Came Back as Scrap Metal
 * 1054 https://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-first-gps-3-satellite/ "SpaceX did not recover the Falcon 9 first stage"
 * 1055 https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/15/18311945/spacex-falcon-heavy-center-core-drone-ship-rough-ocean "accidentally fell into the ocean while in transit" "Will you guys attempt to recover any sections of the core or is it likely going to be a total loss?" Elon https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1118017021612937216 "Engines seem ok, pending inspection"
 * 1056 https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-4-launch-success-misses-rocket-landing.html "first stage failed to land"
 * 1057 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1143686587877691392 "RIP center core, you did your duty well."
 * 1059 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1361544540411355137 "rip booster you will be missed" "Yeah. Active fairing half recovered though."

I think these are enough to put them in a different list. Perhaps it should be titled 'Expended, retired or destroyed' rather than just 'inactive' or 'Retired'? Perhaps we don't know if boosters that have apparently landed successful are retired rather going to be reused until they are assigned but it doesn't seem to have frequently happened yet. Perhaps it becomes a problem once boosters reach some level perhaps as soon as 15 launches. However I don't really see a problem with keeping them in the active list until we have ref to move them elsewhere. Perhaps that means we might need to consider titling list 'Presumed active' rather than just 'Active'. Anyway seems to me that we have enough references to justify making this change. C-randles (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We could move all boosters with a clear confirmation of destruction/retirement and all boosters with no flight for one year and no planned flight to a separate list. With the current fleet use I don't think a booster is really "active" if it didn't fly for over a year. Only three Block 5 boosters ever did that (with one more planned). This means boosters can move from the "inactive/retired" list to the "active" list, but I don't think that is a problem. --mfb (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this works great. Enterpriset (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy for someone to move just the retired/destroyed to a separate list. In essence if it's blue it stays if it's white it goes. AncientBrit (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's done. Please let me know if anything looks wrong. It was a bit of a pain to do the split. I also fixed it so the notes about the NASA logo and mission patches show up as a note. Enterpriset (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! AncientBrit (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was messaged by one site user asking to revert it. Not all are sold. I think we should hold course for now. Enterpriset (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please explain the usage of status "In Hanger". There are occasional references to "Hanger X" in wiki pages but no mention in the SpaceX Facilities page. It would be nice to link the "in hanger" status to an explanation in the other page. Once again I must apologise for not drafting these proposals myself. Advancing Alzheimer's desease has torpedoed my coding skills. However... I am now a local expert on emerging Alzheimer’s treatments...AncientBrit (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)