Jump to content

Talk:List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 122.187.144.98 (talk) at 03:09, 26 December 2023 (→‎A page for B1058: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree AncientBrit (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I say we go for it. Enterpriset (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I think this works great. Enterpriset (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you! AncientBrit (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

& 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Thanks. I've added "Expended FH core", for now. Others can decide on FH Sides. - Rod57 (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters&oldid=1191834130"