Talk:List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters

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.

• 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"

I think it is fairly clear 'not able to land' means it was destroyed when it hit water.

• 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)

In Block 5 booster flight status - Expended could split out Falcon Heavy cores

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)

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)

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)

Query

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)

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#F9-xxx as you did in this edit? These aren't valid links and should instead link to List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#Future launches as was the case in this edit where you removed the link. Ergzay (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)