Talk:List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Highlighting Boosters that remain in inventory

I have set the Booster Number (column 1) to bold for boosters that last landed successfully meaning that they "may" be in inventory for future use. In addition, some boosters that landed successfully may be retired such as B1019, the first booster to land successfully.

user:mnw2000 01:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The meaning should be explained in the article. There are some more retired boosters. Reddit has a list with references. --mfb (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the article to put the boosters that are still active (Awaiting Launch or In Storage) in bold for clarity. user:mnw2000 14:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Falcon 9 booster B1031

FYI, I have a draft at DRAFT: Falcon 9 booster B1031 which can be merged somewhere, if needed -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

We could add text about individual boosters here. While we have articles about 3 individual boosters (contrary to Narutolovehinata5's comment: they are notable, they have been covered by multiple secondary sources), making an article about every single booster is certainly not a viable long-term concept. --mfb (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, merging to this article is probably the best option. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree that B1019, B1021 and B1029 are independently notable, but B1031 and friends are not. I don't think there is much to merge from the draft (what, pictures?), but if merging anything the target should be here, not Falcon 9. My personal preference would be to keep this list as-is. — JFG ^talk 09:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I wrote the article on B1029 and pushed it to DYK) — JFG ^talk 09:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw SpaceX conducts static fire on Falcon 9 preparing for SES-11 flight and thought B1031 [now] would be notable and have its own article. The source says that pre-used boosters can be given a longer test firing. - Rod57 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Given [1] is the JSAT-14 booster (B1022) not notable ? or what would make it so (at least one more secondary source?) ? (and B1026, now 'retired' after GTO use) - Rod57 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rod57: These sources cover the missions overall in which boosters B1022 and B1031 were used. To affirm WP:GNG, we would need to have sources discussing those boosters specifically, not merely mentioning them as part of coverage of a launch. — JFG ^talk 22:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Similar list at Reddit

Interesting to compare with spacex-cores, has notes on various F9 cores/boosters. - Rod57 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170317055203/http://fborgosano.altervista.org/photos-falcon-9-booster-minus-landing-legs-and-grid-fins-poised-for-launch/ to http://fborgosano.altervista.org/photos-falcon-9-booster-minus-landing-legs-and-grid-fins-poised-for-launch/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Available boosters

What is the difference between "refurbished" and "in-storage" boosters? Also, why aren't all the "refurbished" boosters have their designation in bold to signify that they are still available for re-launch? I can only assume "recovered" refers to recently landed boosters that have yet to undergo refurbishment. Then again, does "in-storage" refer to boosters that have or have not been refurbished?

user:mnw2000 15:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Refurbished" is only used for boosters used for another flight (in the past or the near future) where the refurbishment process has been finished. "In storage" is more general. --mfb (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Refurbished boosters are "ready to go" boosters meaning SpaceX could use them for an upcoming mission. In storage are boosters that have a planned refurbishment but haven't undergone that process and are not currently ready for flight!

B1032 is alive

B1032 survived a high retrothrust landing in the atlantic ocean. Once we have a confirmation that has been succesfully bring back to shore, I think we need to create a new category for it--BugWarp (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It did not explode, but it was still expended and was damaged from salt water and probably the impact as well. It won't fly again. --mfb (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yet, Elon Musk stated that they tried a new landing method (3-engine landing burn) so the splashdown was intentional. Of course, the odds of a second recovery were incredible low, and almost for sure won't be used again. But I think we should categorize it as "retired"--BugWarp (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Only if it actually makes it back to port. As long as it's in the water, we have no idea what will happen to it and the recovery process will likely be difficult. By the way, three engine landing burn is not new. Appable (talk | contributions) 00:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The water landing was successful, but it is still expended - it was made unusable for future flights when landing in the water. Just this time in a single unusable piece instead of many small ones. --mfb (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Booster was eventually destroyed at sea (see citation). — JFG ^talk 15:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

What will happen to Block 3 and Block 4 first stages now that they are moving to Block 5?

Will we still list them as "active"? Will we be using them for parts?

user:mnw2000 01:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

As soon as we get a confirmation that they won't be used anymore they get listed as inactive. SpaceX will need some time to verify that Block 5 is as reusable as they hope, they might fly more B4 until they are confident B5 can fly again within a few days. --mfb (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

depending on SpaceX however now the FUll thrust versions have all been destroyed expended or retire so we can remove them from active fleet. Possibilities for Block 4 is SpaceX could either refurbish them for a third launch or upgrade them to block 5 specifications (unlikely due to NASA freeze policy for there BLOCK 5 to take humans to the ISS)

Why don't we list the flights that the boosters, that flown more than once, were used for in the past?

I see that we list the next flight for boosters that are scheduled to to launch again, but what about listing the previous flights?

user:mnw2000 15:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

All previous flights are listed. No booster has flown more than twice before being retired. This may change with the Block 5 upgrade, and even perhaps we would see a few Block 4s getting refurbished for 3 flights or more... but we currently don't have any WP:reliable sources for such predictions. — JFG ^talk 21:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that any Block 4 core flies more than twice. There are 5 available for a second flight, and two for a first and a second flight, for a total of 9 flights before any Block 4 would have to be used more than twice. The maiden flight of Block 5 is expected for April 5, and SpaceX is interested in flying it as often as possible for human-rating it. --mfb (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Insightful note, thanks. — JFG ^talk 11:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah block 4 wont re fly more than twice as spacex found the some but not all turbopumps =on the Merlin 1D engines were cracking — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSoftBanana (talk • contribs) 22:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Booster status

@2204happy: I understand what you're trying to do here,[2] however it becomes confusing when readers sort the table differently, e.g. by date. The status column represents what happened to the booster after each documented mission, so that for example B1032 must show "Refurbished" after its first mission NROL-76, and "Retired" after the second mission GovSat-1. With your change, it would show "Retired" after the first mission too. — JFG ^talk 07:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches&action=history

I feel as though we could majorly improve the aesthetics of this page! What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSoftBanana (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That is a subject for Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, not here. Be mindful that the launches page has recently gone through a complete review and gained "Featured List" status. Therefore we should tread carefully with any format changes. — JFG ^talk 07:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I understood the comment as "we should improve this article here, and the linked article is an example how." --mfb (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Could be. Let's see what the editor suggests concretely. — JFG ^talk 10:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, I agree. The page is very clunky looking and hard to read. I wouldn't quite use the format of the launch pages, but maybe a hybrid of the two. I just find the layout of this to be off. UnknownM1 (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Any reason not to table out all the boosters?

As listed here? Nergaal (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Well done, thanks. The "recycled" icon and special color are an especially nice touch. I have added some data about test flights of Grasshopper and F9R-Dev1. — JFG ^talk 17:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

F9R Dev2

Unfortunately I yielded to the temptation of writing a long edit summary: bringing this to the talk page for better documentation. A current RfC about edit summaries is this way.

---

Let's keep the mention of "F9R Dev2" gray. We don't even know if that test rig was ever completed. It was last rumored to be reserved for the Dragon 2 in-flight abort test, which has been repeatedly delayed. If/when that happens, we'll be able to list a payload for this booster. — JFG ^talk 08:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

How will we go about listing block 5 in the list

As we all know the new block 5 launch is coming up around the corner! It brings reusability never seen before with rockets! Elon claims 10 launches per booster before any refurbishment and can be used 100 times in its life! Therefore I believe we will need a new way to state the "status" of the booster as it wont be refurbished between launches! This is a long way down the road but also status for the number of refurbishments its undergone! Also, another idea is to have a new table for all block 5 as we can add a column for the number of launches and number of refurbishments! What do you guys think?! user: AkaSoftBanana

SpaceX estimates ~50% reuse rate for 2018, I think we can keep the format for now (maybe say "in storage" -> "reused" instead of "refurbished"). Once we see individual boosters flying 5+ or even 10+ times, one table per booster and one overview table might be a better format. --mfb (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

sounds good a table per booster!! Can't wait! We will see at least 7 flacon 9 block 5 be built this year and 2 falcon heavy cores — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSoftBanana (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX expects 30 launches with 50% reuse quota, that means they need 14 Block 5 boosters (only one Block 4 booster didn't fly yet), including FH center boosters. --mfb (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should remove booster B1051 for now as there is next to no information on it

Any Views on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSoftBanana (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why. It has a source. If there is some particular part of what is in the B1051 row that is not supported by any source, then by all means go ahead and remove that bit. But no reason to remove the entire row.

A more complete list of boosters

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores

188.24.148.21 (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Although we quote this list in the table header, we cannot use it authoritatively. Reddit is not considered a valid source because it includes user-generated content. — JFG ^talk 00:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html FFS. 79.116.237.208 (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Booster 1029 to 1038 are BLOCK 3 and not version 1.2 as proven here https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-9-expendable-boosters-hawthorne/ maybe worth changing — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSoftBanana (talk • contribs) 21:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Block 3 is a variant of 1.2. --mfb (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems we're having the same misinterpretation being discussed at various articles.

Block 1 was v1.0, Block 2 was v1.1, as stated in SpaceX documentation from 2009. Block 3 was the version branded "Full Thrust", which was documented for flight licensing purposes as "v1.2". More recently came Block 4 and Block 5, which were not re-branded; Gwynne Shotwell said "we just call it Falcon 9". Block 4 is considered a minor evolution of v1.2 "Full Thrust", while Block 5 has more changes, especially geared towards rapid reuse and NASA human rating. It is unclear whether Block 4 or Block 5 are called v1.3 or remained licensed as variants of v1.2, so for now we stick with the block numbers. — JFG ^talk 03:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

But 2009 was before any Falcon 9s had flown at all and 4 years before any v1.1s flew. It's possible that their plans changed for what they called Block 2, isn't it? I mean there are at least some significant differences between the original plans for Block 2 and the eventual v1.1 namely Merlin 1D engines ended up being used for the latter. Also their original plan does not indicate that blocks and versions are the same for the Falcon 9 like you might think, since v1.1 wasn't called that until 2012 making it entirely possible that, if they originally planned for a much smaller update then what they ended up with, they changed what they were doing from a new block to a new version.

So far I've mainly written conjecture so instead here are two sources (one primary and one secondary) that indicate that Blocks 1-5 are all part of v1.2. The first is obviously not verified as it's just a user on Reddit, but the second one is certainly a trust-worthy source. Eucalyptine (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I found a source that puts this beyond doubt. Here is Elon Musk himself saying Block 5 is more like 2.5 of the Falcon 9 right at the end of the post launch presser for SES-10 with transcript. I would consider this beyond question now, but I'm open for debate obviously :) Eucalyptine (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Truth is spacex tweek each booster that leaves the factory so we will never know what all the versions are however I think the blocks we havbe now are a good itteration of it as elon said only block 5 would have titanium grid fins however wer saw booster B1044 with a shiny new pair — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSoftBanana (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Relevant quote:

"The Full Thrust variant of the Falcon 9 also has had a few “block” improvements since it was first introduced in late 2015. It has 5 known blocks, and so far, 4 have flown. Blocks 1-4 were slowly implemented in 2016 and 2017, and a Block 2 (B1021) was the first to be reused."

The reddit link implies 1.0 and 1.1 also had block variants though, so both of them can't be 100% accurate. It is also entirely possible that the 1.2.5 namecall of block 5 to be some sort of "block 5 isn't reallt FT anymore, but it is not differently enough to be called 1.3, so let s call it something in between. Nergaal (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

References

How much sourcing is needed?

I might be able to contribute with some sources, but I'd like to ask to what degree you think we'd like to source this article? Is this too much as an ultimate goal?

• A source for every core number in the Core No. column, stating which missions the core has been used for
• A source for every date in the Launch Date column, stating the date of the launch
• A source for every status in the Launch column, stating the success or failure of the launch
• A source for every status in the Landing column, stating the success or failure of the landing
• A source for every status in the Status column, stating the current state of the booster

I've been keeping my own overview of boosters here, User:The true iMAniaC/Falcon 9 Spotting, but on this page, I've gone slightly overboard with the sourcing, more so than is meaningful for a proper Wikipedia article, I think. So I'd like to ask before I potentially spend a great deal of time adding stuff that might be reverted.

(And of course, if someone else wants to copy stuff from that page, feel free. This is Wikipedia, after all :) )

On a related note:

• What would the source in the Payload column indicate? Does the purpose of a source in this column overlap with the purpose of a source in the Core No. column? Maybe we should choose one or the other to default to when adding a source for the connection between a booster and its mission(s)?The true iMAniaC (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

A source linking the core to a flight is very useful, a source for the current status is great as well. I would see the others as optional. Past launch dates are not disputed, the landing outcome is clear if we know the current status, and the launch outcome is not an important part of this article (and typically not disputed either). If something odd happens (unclear if a mission is a success or something like that), it should be discussed/sourced better. --mfb (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Great, I'll keep adding those every now and then, then! The true iMAniaC (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@The true iMAniaC: I would second mfb's sourcing criteria: focus on sources discussing specifically the booster IDs and their fate. No need to source the launch dates and mission outcomes. — JFG ^talk 19:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I've started a new section below to discuss some sourcing issues relative to Wiki policy. At the time I did that, I had not even seen this old article section from five months ago, as it was over 15 Talk page discussions ago. Probably better to discuss in the new section where current readers of the Talk page will notice it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Current location of boosters is TMI

AkaSoftBanana has added current locations and planned launch pads for boosters involved in upcoming launches.[3]. I think that's too much detail for this short list, and it hinders readability of the "Status" column. Readers can click either on the flight number or on the payload article to find out such details, and much more. Because I already reverted once, I'd like to gather opinions from other editors: should we trim or keep this information here? — JFG ^talk 12:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the current location is too much. In addition, it changes frequently and we rarely get reliable sources for it. Random sightings on streets seem to be the primary sources here (unless a booster is confirmed to be on a launch pad). --mfb (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it gives good information for people who want to know about each boosters life, these are amazing rockets and we should show what there status is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSoftBanana (talk • contribs) 18:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I have now removed the launch pads from "awaiting launch" boosters, but I kept the detailed "being tested" entry, with a link to SpaceX McGregor test facility. I trust this is more informative to readers. — JFG ^talk 11:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

What the problem with the launch site showing??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSoftBanana (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Too much information. This is a compact table. Details are readily accessible by links. — JFG ^talk 07:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with mfb and JFG that the "current location" is too much information. One of the challenges of overloading a table is that then, the claims both need to be verifiable and also info in the article needs to be kept consistent. So best not to overdo it. As it is, the article lede prose right now is out-of-date wrt to the many edits that many diverse editors have added to the table down below. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Source citations for article statements

There been some questions in recent edit comments about the need for citations.

"List of..." articles are not an exception to Wikipedia policy on verifiability. If a list article contains only a link to another Wikipedia article on a line, and no further statements or claim about that item or event, then it need have no citation for that link. If, however, additional statements are made in a list article, for example like "Success" or "Failure", then those claims ought to be sourced by valid citations.

Thus, a row in the "List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters" table that says the Foobar launch was a success, when the only source on that row is from before the launch date, and says that the launch is planned for some date, is not a valid source for the success of the launch. It would then be perfectly acceptable for an editor to challenge the statement, and ask for a citation to be added. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There IS such a thing as too many citations. Currently there is in the table "Launch date (UTC)[3]" where [3] is a log of all the launches that trivially verifies trivially-verifiable information such as launch success. If you choose to be anal retentive about citations, you might want to start with the landing column, which is not as trivially-verifiable (i.e. a launch is clear if it is a success with the naked eye, but a landing ocean being a success is unclear when not even video proof is available). If you want to have sensible discussion, bring forth sensible examples where you think the success tag is debatable (such as the case for Zuma). Don't leave poorly-formatted tags in rows where there is a success landing tag right near it and complain about with tags. Nergaal (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we just focused on improving the article, and avoid attacks and discussion of editors; things like "anal retentive". Keeping focus on the article improvement is what I'm doing. I observed some things that weren't quite right, and noted them so that I, or someone, might get back later on and improve the article. And, yeah, since it seemed it might be a bit of a pattern, rather than just a missed citation on one statement, I thought it good to initiate a discussion here on the Talk page as well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think your citation needed tags (one of them visible in the article due to broken formatting - added twice) or this discussion here help to improve the article. --mfb (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to focus on improving the article, and not on the behavior of other editors, unless there's some issue that violates policy on Wikipedia editor behavior. Should you see such on my part, I'd suggest you take that to the only place that can deal with it, WP:ANI. But I think you'll find I rather assiduously maintain the assumption of good faith on the part of other editors. Other editors can demonstrate bad faith; but I'll not assume that as a start.

As for the article, it appears that bits of it may, sometimes, not be sourced. WP:V is quite clear on sources being provided to demonstrate verifiability when a statement is challenged. WP:CIRCULAR makes clear that other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. I've found a few instances here in this article where editors apparently think unsourced statements ought not to be discussed, and worse, want to get into fallacious ad hominum rather than address the topic at hand: improving the article. Not surprisingly, this makes me think there may be more statements that are unsourced here, rather than fewer, and that as I get the time, perhaps I should take a bit more time with this article. Perhaps this is a boomerang that was not what was intended by those turning the Talk page conversation into one about other editors.

My point was simple. A source with an old date, used to "source" and provide a citation for a successful launch claim will not do. I noticed a few of those; tagged a few. Wikipedia articles are, quite simply, improved when such things are fixed. Simple, really. See you all around. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@N2e: Please do not replace "sources with an old date" with newer ones, just for the sake of supporting a flight's successful outcome. In this table, the sources displayed next to each payload have been carefully chosen to support the assignment of a particular booster to each mission. To address your legitimate concern about unsourced launch outcomes, I would suggest simply linking the column header to one of the many launch log compendiums. Leave individual sourcing to potentially unclear or disputed assertions, i.e. the Zuma case. — JFG ^talk 06:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree completely JFG. Only a very specific source can source the claim of the particular booster number. I've not removed any, and generally do no often remove sources in any article. The goal here is to make this article better, which is why some of the unsourced statements that are not supported by any part of the booster-number-identification source might also require citations to make this article better. N2e (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Why the box color difference?

Why is flight "F9-050" (Block 4, launched in February, not recovered) shown in an unshaded box,
and "F9-051" (Block 4, launched in March, not recovered) shown in the article in a light blue shaded box with the "recycle" logo? N2e (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

050 used a new booster, 051 did not. The whole table uses this pattern, why did you ask about these two? --mfb (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks mfb. I appreciate that.

I think I asked just cause I had reordered the table by booster number, and I saw those two adjacent to each other and could not intuit why the difference when both met the same fate. I looked around the table for a Legend or something to explain the blue color, and could not find anything. N2e (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, it seems that the article would be improved for the general reader if there was some sort of legend of all the many colors and whatnot shown in that List of ... table. I know WP:COLOR has some guidelines on use of color but I can't find the standards just now for best practices for how to communicate complicated table info to global readers. But I know such exists, as there have been many such discussions over the years. N2e (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

For reflights we have this in the table header. --mfb (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of citation needed requests

A couple of the rows in the table, both rows that are completely unsourced, were challenged with {citation needed} tags.

Recently, those {citation needed} tags were removed.

I have reverted the removal, and left the following edit comment:

a citation for the statements on that row of the table was requested; no citation was provided; unless some Talk page consensus says this article is not subject to WP:V core policy, then actually, a cite should be added before the citation needed tag is removed; per WP:CIRCULAR, other WP articles are not citations; discuss on Talk

If someone believes "List of ..." articles are not subject to the Wikipedia Core Policy of Verifiability, then we should definitely discuss that here, and especially, what rationale might exist for this article being different than all other Wikipedia articles. N2e (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi N2e, I'm the one who removed the tags. I thought you were requesting citations for the booster status of those two flights, and those are already cited globally to the Reddit list (admittedly not a great source but better than nothing) at the top of the column. Now I understand you are rather requesting a citation for the whole row. I suppose that would be a source that confirms the assignment of those two boosters to the listed missions. Do I read your request correctly now? — JFG ^talk 04:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, that's is what I meant to surface. The entire row is unsourced, and it is not clear on the table where best to leave a cn tag to flag that that should be on our list of items to work on.

In my view, good articles and good lists, are articles which are going to look encyclopedic when the article is viewed in 10 or 100 years. For this to be true, all the statements/claims made in each row must be sourced. Else, the statement should not be made. If the "statement" is already made in the list, then it seems the best thing to do is to tag it with a {cn} tag and give it some time to see if anyone steps up to improve the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Be the change you want to see in this world! Currently you are creating additional work for a goal where you seem to be the only one who thinks it is important. --mfb (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Which booster for in-flight abort test?

@Mfb: cited the GAO report for the assertion that the Dragon 2 in-flight abort test will use a Block 5 booster instead of B1042 as reported elsewhere. However I don't see this clearly expressed in the report. The cited pages 13–14 state that the program and SpaceX agreed to demonstrate the loading process five times from the launch site in the final crew configuration prior to the crewed flight test. The five events include the uncrewed flight test and the in-flight abort test. The late-loading procedure is the same for Block 4 and Block 5, so that an in-flight abort test with Block 4 is still compatible with this quote from the report. Other mentions of the abort test in this document do not specify which booster version would be used. Accordingly, we should not use this citation here, and revert to the B1042.2 hypothesis. Further input welcome. — JFG ^talk 08:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how "final crew configuration" could be anything else than Block 5. The same phrase is also used for the 7 flights qualification, e.g. here and here. If it is really just the loading procedure they could get that done much faster with just loading and unloading an existing booster 5 times. Anyway: We can change "retired" to "in storage" or something like that. That leaves a future use as option. I think assigning the abort test to it is too much against the GAO report. --mfb (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You may have a point with "final crew configuration", however it's not clear enough that we can draw a conclusion one way or another. I'd be fine with listing B1042 status as "In storage", although it seems to me that some sources have indeed assigned it to this test flight. If those sources are older than the GAO report, we can disregard them. One source was the Teslarati article by Eric Ralph on 5 June, stating that after CRS-15, just one flightworthy Block 4 rocket will remain in SpaceX’s fleet, and that Falcon 9 booster is understood to be undergoing refurbishment for its final reflight. That mission, however, is a suborbital demonstration designed to prove that SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft can wrest its human passengers out of harm’s way in the event of a launch vehicle failure during flight. The GAO report is dated July 2018. Neither source makes the B1042 status clear enough. Hopefully some official information will emerge soon. — JFG ^talk 10:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Turnaround time statistics

is a good idea to add this statistic?--Dwalin (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

What's your point? The information is already there; do you mean to remove it? — JFG ^talk 09:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

no, an istogram to show the decrease of time for refurbishing. --Dwalin (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

What would be the axes? Scatterplot with x=time of first or second launch, y=refurbishment time? --mfb (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

X for the flight of reused booster. X1 would be F9-032, X2 F9-036, etc. the Y would be refurbishing time (in istogram). all with 2 colours, one for reused after landing on land, other for landing on sea. if you land on sea you need several days only to reach nearest port, so 10 days over land are not the same as 10 days over sea. could be interesting?--Dwalin (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Something like this? — JFG ^talk 17:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

5

10

15

20

B1021

23

25

29

B1031

32

35

36

38

39

B1040

41

43

45

46

47

48

•   Falcon 9 Full Thrust
•   Block 4
•   Block 5
•   Falcon Heavy

I have used the same color codes as on List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters, not separated by land or sea recovery because that's not a significant factor yet. Will make sense when turnaround is down to a couple weeks. Later, we would need to add entries such as "46.2" to indicate turnaround time between B1046's second and third flights. — JFG ^talk 17:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I would classify the boosters of the FH flight as FT for this graph - that's how they flew before they got refurbished. This graph will become very crowded soon. --mfb (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

uhm.....all good, maybe not use yellow for FH as saied Mfb. are there possible to use 2 colours for the BF5? half/stripped blue:Teal (ocean) and brown:Teal for land?--Dwalin (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

B1023 and B1025 indeed flew as FT but the reason their turnaround took so long is that they were refurbished into FH side boosters, while the inaugural Heavy mission kept being delayed. Basically, they are a one-off case, because future FH sides are supposed to be standard Block 5 boosters with just caps and attachment points fitted. I would keep the gold color for FH core boosters, which are structurally different. Perhaps the B1023 and B1025 should use a different shade of blue and be listed as "FT converted for Heavy demo". — JFG ^talk 06:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, we can't do stripes in those graphs, and that would make it harder to understand for readers anyway. I don't see a need to overload the Land/Sea information on top of this graph. At least not yet. We can address this in prose when the distinction becomes significant, probably not before end of next year. Reason: the current flight manifest until 2020 can be accommodated with less than 2 flights a month, and any satellites that need to be launched by 2020 are already at manufacturing stage: we know them all. SpaceX may catch a couple extra missions from failing competitors (think Proton) but that's crumbs by now, there is essentially no remaining market for new launch contracts until 2021 (Gwynne Shotwell said that recently). Therefore it's unlikely we will see next-day turnaround of an F9 booster except as a show of force by Elon. If/when they start launching Starlink birds with F9, that would be a possibility, but those sats have not entered manufacturing yet, so we're still 2 years away. — JFG ^talk 06:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Updated proposal

Pretending that we are some time in the future when B1047 to 1051 have been recycled, and B1050 is a Heavy core, so we can see the proposed color. — JFG ^talk 07:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

5

10

15

20

B1021

23

25

29

B1031

32

35

36

38

39

B1040

41

43

45

46

47

48

49

B1050

51

•   Falcon 9 Full Thrust
•   FT–Heavy sides
•   Block 4
•   Block 5
•   Falcon Heavy core

There was not much conversion for the FH flight, the core booster had the large changes. Anyway, looks good. Maybe a more distinct color for the FT->FH boosters.--mfb (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

approved--Dwalin (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 08:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

wait, i found now a thing...when a booster will flight 3 times, how we will display? i whrote that in X-axes might be flight-number, not booster-number. --Dwalin (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Best solution is to stack successive flights of each booster in its column. That will give a compelling overview of booster use over its lifetime, and it will avoid excess horizontal clutter of the graph. Example below. — JFG ^talk 14:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

5

10

15

20

B1021

23

25

29

B1031

32

35

36

38

39

B1040

41

43

45

46

47

48

49

B1050

51

•   Falcon 9 Full Thrust
•   FT–Heavy sides
•   Block 4
•   Block 5 flight 2
•   Block 5 flight 3
•   Block 5 flight 4
•   Falcon Heavy core

yes, but we assume that flight 3 of booster 49 will take longer that flight 2. and if it will be the opposit? i think that the only solution is to make a "flight chart" instead of "booster chart".--Dwalin (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dwalin: There is no such assumption. Turnaround times between flights just add up on the stack, for example B1046 has 2.5 months until its second flight, then 1.8 months until the third flight, and finally 2.9 months until the fourth one. Total height of a booster's stack is equal to its total lifetime since first launch. — JFG ^talk 15:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

ah, read whrong. but are you sure that all will understand it quickly? and putting all together we lose the utility of this chart. we want to know the progression of quick refurbishing, if we put all together (2° 3rd 4th) we lose this info. --Dwalin (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Information is not lost, it's just displayed differently. Let's hear what other editors think. — JFG ^talk 16:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

we lose the info of good performance of reburbishing if we stack all them. --Dwalin (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We do not. As reflight intervals get smaller, so will the visual area taken up by each reflight "Lego brick" diminish. Besides, time between reflights is not a very good indicator of refurb time, because as discussed above, re-use of boosters will mostly be governed by booster logistics constraints and, most importantly over the foreseeable future, availability of payloads to launch. — JFG ^talk 16:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I gave 1051 two very short reuse times as example. I like the stacked graph, although we have to change something if the reuse times get so short that you miss them on the scale of 0 to 20 months. --mfb (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, if turnaround times drop under a month, we would split the graph to show only Block 5 recycling. However, given the manifest, that is unlikely to happen over the next two years (see my reasoning above). — JFG ^talk 21:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

B1049

@Mfb: Let's talk here instead of arguing via edit summaries. You are correct that the current whereabouts of B1049 are unclear. I'm not even convinced it was shipped to the East Coast and assigned to Telstar 18V. B1049 could very well be the second West Coast booster, getting ready for Iridium-8 (Desch said a few months ago that the last two Iridium flights would ride new boosters), while B1050 would go to the East Coast for a debut with GPS IIIA-01. Meanwhile, Telstar 18V would reuse B1047 one month after Telstar 19V. In this scenario, SpaceX would have three boosters on the East Coast (B1046, B1047 and B1050) and two on the West Coast (B1048 + B1049), that would be sufficient to handle the company's commercial manifest until year end. B1051 would be dedicated to human-rated missions, and B1052 to B1054 would be the all-new Heavy center + sides set. I really hope we get some official news soon; speculation is fun but not satisfactory for the purposes of maintaining the list reasonably up-to-date without falling into WP:OR. — JFG ^talk 21:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

With the launch in 2.5 weeks we'll know more soon. A one month turnaround that early would be surprising, and it would mean Gunter is wrong. B5 cores can be used as FH side cores, they don't have to be all new. --mfb (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Not sure whether SpaceX stated that the next Heavy would use all-new cores or just a new center with two used sides. Given the remaining manifest to launch by year end, and the regular slippage of Heavy missions 2 and 3, my money is on new boosters. We'll find out soon enough anyway. — JFG ^talk 07:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The estimate earlier this year was 30 flights, half of them on new boosters. They must have a lot of boosters in preparation. --mfb (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Assignment of B1049 to Telstar 18V has been confirmed from recent photographs at the Cape. B1050 will probably go to the West Coast then. GPS mission was delayed to December; unclear if it requires a new booster or may be authorized to fly one of the three refurbished cores landed in Florida. B1046 is supposed to fly a third time by year end. — JFG ^talk 12:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Dragon capsules?

Not about this article but here we have the right users seeing it. SpaceX reused a couple of capsules and (if my counting is correct) has to use at least one Dragon 1 capsule a third time. Do we know if Dragon 2 capsules will be reused? If yes it could be interesting to make a list similar to this articles for capsules. --mfb (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I would simply create a table in the section "Reuse of previously-flown capsules" of the SpaceX Dragon article. There's not enough reuse activity to justify a separate list article. — JFG ^talk 07:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

That has SpaceX Dragon#List of missions. I guess until we get more reuse (if we ever get that) another table would be largely redundant. --mfb (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Relevant piece of information that appeared: No reuse of capsules for NASA crew missions - but potentially reuse of the capsules for cargo missions or other missions. Anyway, can be put in the Dragon articles. --mfb (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

block 5.1

no reference of this upgrade. is it correct?--Dwalin (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess this refers to the new COPV but I didn't see it called Block 5.1 anywhere. --mfb (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

so, why in "version boosters" newest ones are called 5.1?--Dwalin (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Because an IP put it in and so far no one removed it. Feel free to do so. --mfb (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ok, didn't know if it was a real upgrade or not. --Dwalin (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sort Sequence

I note that sorting this list into ascending order of Launch Date results in the December 18th launch of B1054 being placed above the January 8th launch of B1051. This anomaly has been present for some time. Can anyone shed light on why this is so. Or maybe fix it? I cannot see why and so cannot myself resolve the issue.

AncientBrit (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it. The date for B1054 was missing the {{dts}} template that sets up an invisible sort key. — JFG ^talk 13:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

B1042 is a Block 4 that is listed "in storage"

I see that there was a recent note that all Block 3 and 4 boosters are now retired (expended, destroyed, etc.) Should B1042's status be updated? Does "in storage" mean retired?

user:mnw2000 02:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

There was some speculation that it might be used for the in-flight abort test. I expect that it will be done with a Block 5 booster but didn't see a proper confirmation. --mfb (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Settled now that B1048 was designated for the abort test. I switched B1042 to "Retired" status. — JFG ^talk 23:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

More reuses coming up

It has been speculated that Radarsat might be the fourth flight of B1046. Waiting for a reliable source. --mfb (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There's only B1046 and B1047 which could reasonably be refurbished in time for Radarsat. I read this mission was planned for B1050, before that one botched its landing. We'll see. — JFG ^talk 23:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Launch Scheduled or Planned?

Scheduled seems firmer than planned, but what makes the difference. At present, we have 2 Mar 2019 and March 2019 as scheduled and two instances of April 2019 as planned (one of these is Musk tweet saying April and admitting big error bars but NASA saying June). Should it be a specific date is needed to be scheduled and just a month means planned? Or is there some time threshold eg if the NET month starts within the next two weeks then this is short term enough to be considered scheduled? Maintaining either seems a bit weird. Maybe stick to planned in all cases is easier? Landings appear to always be planned never scheduled which I think is sensible. Is it really worth making launches different? crandles (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Usually, any flight that has a firm launch window is considered scheduled, even if the exact launch date can still move. Anything with vague announcements of launching in a given quarter or even a month is just planned. On the abort test, I'd believe NASA over Elon, especially because April would beat the current refurbish record (perhaps SpaceX decided to not refurbish it fully, so they gain some time? But I doubt NASA would accept a not-fully-to-standard-spec booster. Shall we push it to June already? — JFG ^talk 23:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Launch list has stuck with NASA's June so if we want consistency one or other should change and not believing Musk's tweeted April seems the more sensible option. crandles (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The launch abort test doesn't have an engine in the second stage, among other modifications. If smaller reuse-related details are missing this is probably not a big obstacle. --mfb (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Booster turnaround time and future launches

I don't think we should put planned booster turnaround times there. We don't have a way to mark them as planned in the graph and they are likely to change. Even the assignment of boosters to missions is always preliminary. Other opinions? --mfb (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fine to include planned launches when reliable information is available. Dates do not change that often. We could use a different color for planned launches, though. — JFG ^talk 16:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I've tried the color tweak. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 16:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that works. Now we just have to hope that we don't get two planned refurbishments for the same booster. --mfb (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

We wouldn't list them until the first refurb had flown and landed. — JFG ^talk 05:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Table changes and booster classification

@Giolibreak: I don't think your changes improved the article:

• The classification is odd. SpaceX highlighted multiple times that the FH side boosters are just like the Falcon 9 boosters and can easily be used as such (or vice versa). Meanwhile the Falcon Heavy center boosters were a major redesign to make them stronger. That makes two categories. "F9/FH side" and "FH center".
• Why did you remove the previous information about reuse?
• The table now has many rows that are very tall. That disturbs the overall layout. It is also in conflict with the type information, see my first bullet point.

--mfb (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I would drop "FH side" marks, since FH side booster could easily be converted to regular F9 booster, and when this happens we'll have to deal with this somehow. As for "FH core", I see some sense in these marks, but if they are really needed, I'd put them into the second column (booster's version) Igor Krein (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree - horrible. Please change it back. AncientBrit (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 Reverted. All sources make it clear that Falcon Heavy side boosters are just regular Block 5 versions of the Falcon 9 first stage, with nose cones. — JFG ^talk 08:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Consider a rename of the article?

Current name of this article is "List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters". Should we rename it in light of the Falcon Heavy?
SpaceX says "Falcon Heavy builds on the proven, highly reliable design of Falcon 9. Falcon Heavy first-stage is comprised of three Falcon 9 first stages with enhancements provided to strengthen the cores." page 9 (page 5)
So, this quote makes the Falcon Heavy seem different from Falcon 9. But at the same time the Falcon Heavy is closely related to the Falcon 9 according to this quote.
So here's some options that are possible

• (A) Leave it just like it is now (just come up with a consensus why)
• (B) Change the name of the article
• (C) Leave the article title as it is, just indicate how the Falcon Heavy it derived from the Falcon 9 boosters (it already kinda is clear)
• (D) Call Cookie Monster

So I guess my real question is this: Can the Falcon Heavy's boosters (including the center core) a "Falcon 9 first-stage booster"? Just nice to have a discussion in case this subject comes up in the future.

I choose option option C. SpaceX says they are "three Falcon 9 first stages", my worry is that reader might not know this fact. 173.52.238.41 (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

C - they are similar enough. --mfb (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Center core lost

center core is lost. How do we summarize it?--Dwalin (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep the landing success, but call the status "destroyed" with a footnote with details? --mfb (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The details we might be able to add: "Although the center core made a successful landing, SpaceX was not able to successfully secure the booster to the drone-ship. As a result the booster was "unable to remain upright"." (we might need to wait for more details to come out, i.e. some sources [4] idincate "The “Octagrabber” / robot designed to secure stages isn’t (yet) compatible with FH cores")

Oh sorry, just read this discussion I already put "Success, lost during recovery", will revert it until we come up with a solution. :) 173.52.238.41 (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Octograbber is not FH-compatible yet, tweet from Musk. --mfb (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

one status per booster

listing the status of boosters per mission doesnt make sense to me. particularly with boosters taking more flights. We should change it to one status per booster. B1043 is not currently refurbished-expended. its just expended. Nicoli nicolivich (talk) 27 June 2019 (UTC)

An alternative might be to change refurbished to reused when the booster is used again. Reused and expended seems more accurate than 'refurbished-expended' and possibly usefully differenciates expended on first flight from expended on second or later flight though an empty space and other lines for the booster might be considered to adequately do that. crandles (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right, obviously (why it wasn't obvious to me before, I wonder?). Igor Krein (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Nicoli nicolivich: it's clearer and sufficient to just show the current status once for each booster. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree, looking at the new format its much more clearer. Thanks! OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 07:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

How about a "List of Dragon spacecrafts" article similar to this one?

There are five or six available Dragon (or Dragon 2) spacecrafts now. There will be many more. Should we create an article like we did with the first starge boosters to list them?

user:mnw2000 17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggested that a while ago, as there are not so many capsules and flights SpaceX Dragon#List of missions should be sufficient. --mfb (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of the word "refurbished"

For the Booster with the serial number "B1048" I switched "refurbished" to "Landed" as the rest of the active boosters, with no known next flight uses the term "Landed". (see dif). Also, did this as there are no references that indicate B1048 has been refurbished. Was this alright to do? OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 22:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

We used "landed" directly after the flights, sometimes that was just kept for longer, but we could call it "recovered" once the booster arrives at the port (or directly for ground pad landings). We rarely have sources that follow the refurbishment process, we only learn about it (by implication) once a new flight comes up. --mfb (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

split list boosters

can be usefull to split the list of boosters? put 0-50 in first group, and than in groups of 25 (bor the bigger re-use of them)--Dwalin (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No: that would mess with the sorting facilities. — JFG ^talk 17:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I could see a split between FT and non-FT. Not much demand for sorting that would mix these. In particular, none of the pre-FT boosters managed to land. Maybe Block 5 vs. other variants in the future. The table is quite long and will only get longer. --mfb (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if we split, that would be the logical groups: up to v1.1, then v1.2 (Full Thrust that was not so full after all) blocks 3 and 4, and finally block 5. Feel free to try, and let's see how it feels. — JFG ^talk 05:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you think about repeated headers (added)? Splits the table optically but still preserves the sorting option if someone wants to use that. --mfb (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't bring much clarity. Try a full three-way split, with subsection names (as on the list of flights). — JFG ^talk 05:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Things like sorting all by reuse time doesn't work any more with this option. --mfb (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Right, I was initially worried about that, but seeing the outcome it's no big deal. The separation of booster generations looks actually more informative to me. Thanks Dwalin for the suggestion. — JFG ^talk 08:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

i like it! --Dwalin (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not opposed to this but, personally speaking, I would like to see the sort order reversed - or at least reversible. So: latest Block 5 at the top. Thoughts?AncientBrit (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I tried that and I like it; let's see what editors think. — JFG ^talk 18:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

don't see any way it will be better than other. you have in any case to scroll down. --Dwalin (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think 1051 should have a article

It was the one that took demo 1 to orbit HurricaneMichael2018 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

That could simply be mentioned in the SpX-DM1 article. What else is there to say? I haven't seen any sources reporting specifically on this particular booster, so we should not create notability that does not exist. — JFG ^talk 23:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"See also" in individual booster articles

Discussed here because it is the logical point: @Igor Krein and JFG: Do we really need a full list of boosters with articles in every booster article (example)? This list is just going to grow more over time. People can use the existing list in the SpaceX navigation box, come to this page or go to the category if they are interested in more similar articles. I don't think we need a fourth way. --mfb (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, while updating today seven or so individual booster's articles with the link to another one, I was thinking that there should be another solution. Not sure though a navigation box would be enough. Maybe a category? Igor Krein (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The category is there already: Category:Individual Falcon 9 boosters. --mfb (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Missed it. I am with you then. Igor Krein (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

...One more thought. As for me, the category link is not the thing that could be easily spotted. Maybe there is a sense to add an additional link to the category page in "See also"? Currently, this is the case with the List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters page, by the way. Formally, a duplicate, but convenient, I think. Igor Krein (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Just removed all these lists from all the individual boosters articles (replaced them with one additional category link). Igor Krein (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

B1060

@Spaceman20290: Do you have any reference for that booster? AFSPC-52 is a flight in early 2021, I doubt that they build a booster for that flight already. It isn't even the next Falcon Heavy flight. Unless there is a reference with enough details (at least the booster number) I suggest to remove that entry. --mfb (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mfb: Yes I do, check this article on Teslarati: https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-next-falcon-heavy-launch-late-2020/ Also it was hinted that the booster was already under construction, which I assume is happening because it can take a while to get those boosters constructed. (User talk:Spaceman20290)

Too early to tell which number it is, SpaceX could have other boosters in preparation, and you got the wrong launch. Fixed it in the article. --mfb (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Teslarati is not good source at all. It is based on speculation and the knowledge that boosters take a few months to build. the artcle is saying that it probably should be under construction based on a need for a launch date NET 2020. However, B1060 is much more likely to be the booster for USC V-1, however there is no evidence and thus should not be added. --AndrewRG10 (talk 01:50, 10 october 2019 (UTC)

Possibly Scrapped Section

Usually when a booster is mothballed we would be able to see it be happening at the Cape. However, B1050 and B1055 we have no idea where they are. We probably should remove the possibly scrapped. B1055 should be listed as destroyed and B1050 should just be listed as recovered. --AndrewRG10 (talk 01:46, 10 october 2019 (UTC)

I agree, "scrapped" does not seem to be the right word in both cases. Scrapped sort of sounds like a successful landing, but then SpaceX "scrapped" it. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 04:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

B1050 landing

B1050 did not have a true failed landing because it was not destroyed. I think we should change it to "partial failure" instead of "failure (recovered)" because the booster was recovered mostly intact and it continued to transmit data after splashdown until power ran out. Don't forget that there is still a very low chance of it flying again still, even though it probably won't.(talk) 18:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion here Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Archive 6#CRS 16. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 14:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Two new boosters seen at Mcgregor in recent pictures

See: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1193953111213105153/photo/1 The picture at McGregor shows two Falcon 9 Block 5's in a recently taken picture. B1059 has already left meaning these two boosters are B1059 and B1060. I have added them to list. Don't add this because there is no official source, but, word on the street is B1056.3 is going to be used for JCSat-18 instead of CRS-19 with CRS-19 possibly taking B1059 which should be shipped in the next couple days. But anyway, B1059 and B1060 should be added as they've now been seen at McGregor. - AndrewRG10 (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Due to new information, those two boosters were quite possibly B1060 and B1061. Will leave it unchanged till better source. And the previous edit I put on here, looks like is true rather than just rumour. - AndrewRG10 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

agreed. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 01:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Awaiting for Mission vs. Awaiting for Launch

1046 is "awaiting mission" even though the mission has been assigned (Abort Test) and is scheduled to launch on January 11th 2020. 1049 is "awaiting launch" with an assigned mission (Starlink) and scheduled for January 4th (recently moved to January 7th).

Shouldn't the status for any booster that completed its "refurbishment for relight" and has a assigned mission with a scheduled flight date be moved to "awaiting for launch"?

user:mnw2000 17:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

So far "awaiting launch" seems to be used when there is a known mission assignment (fixed it for 1046), before that the status is inconsistent. Typically "Landed" for a few days, then people change it to something about refurbishment, later "awaiting mission", but we rarely know when refurbishment ended. --mfb (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Aren't we just creating our own nomenclature here? The terms used by SpaceX and the industry in general (with references of course) are what should be used. This shouldn't be a debate.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2020

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 (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

---

List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters → List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy core-stage boosters – The list not only include the Falcon 9 first-stage boosters, but also include the Falcon Heavy core-stage boosters. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Support "List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy core-stage boosters" seem like a long name, but per nom. makes sense. There might be an argument that the center-cores and Falcon 9s are similar enough. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 20:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment/Alternative shorter title 'core-stage' is potentially misleading suggesting the side cores are not included when they are. 'List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy boosters' is a little shorter. Perhaps there is a risk that boosters is seen as only the side cores and not the central core, but I am tending to think this shorter version is better. BTW Is a second stage a 'core-stage'? If so, we should avoid that term. 'first-stage' also has this issue as perhaps the side boosters only can be viewed as the first stage (of 2.5). Just 'boosters' seems the more generic general term that is more appropriate to use to me. No major opinion on whether it should be 'List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy boosters' or shortened to just 'List of Falcon 9 boosters' not mentioning the Falcon Heavy as it uses similar cores. crandles (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  I like both 'List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy boosters' and 'List of Falcon 9 boosters', with preference for the latter because it is shorter. F9 is dominating the flights, so it's justified to say that FH uses F9 boosters (with some modifications). --mfb (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - proposed title is quite long, maybe something like List of reusable Falcon boosters? List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy boosters mentioned in other comment seems also fine.--Staberinde (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  We also list the non-reusable boosters here (v1.0 and v1.1). --mfb (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - core stage seems like it excludes side boosters. Yes the current name is not the best but I would have to see a better name to support. - AndrewRG10 (talk) 1:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is little functional or technical difference in the boosters used in single or multi-core (heavy) launches. The proposed name adds unnecessary complexity.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

individual booster articles

The individual articles for boosters B1019, B1021, B1023, B1029, B1046, B1047, B1048, B1049, B1050, B1051, and B1056 have each been redirected here following an AFD discussion. The history remains in each of those articles and editors are encouraged to improve this article as appropriate. Though the similarity fo those articles makes it appear that they may have been created through automation and the most important information is already here and more.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It would have been nice to post a notice at the nomination time - at least in the individual articles, ideally here as well. Anyway, we can see if give them individual coverage here. At least the first to land and the first to refly got clear media attention. --mfb (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@MadeYourReadThis: Would have been a lot nicer and mature to notify the editors and creators of those page and the Falcon 9 editors before doing that. These pages are important for giving information not suitable for this page or List of Falcon 9/Heavy launches. I will be working to re-instate those articles due to the significance surrounding those boosters. Not a single person who edits Falcon 9 wiki pages was notified or voted on those. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2020

I would also prefer to be notified about such a radical action beforehand. On the other hand, I have to agree that there were too many individual boosters' articles, so this was (and maybe still is) to be changed somehow. As a compromise solution, I'd consider to create either a section on the List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters page or a separate article covering some notable F9 boosters. Additionally, as other authors have mentioned, there are a couple of F9 boosters that could deserve individual articles. --Igor Krein (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I have re-instated B1048 because of its significance in reuse records. B1056 is also a pioneer in reusable milestones and especially with the accident it is worthy of an article. I'm going to re-instate B1046 once I get some photos and add more info and also B1049 needs to be re-instated as it's a pioneer as well. I think we do need to set rules about how many flights a booster must do before it gets an article. Preferably 5 or 6 unless it shows other significance. So I think B1047 and B1050 can stay gone and B1051 can stay gone till it gets more flights. --AndrewRG10 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Too many references have been removed/orphaned with this consolidation. Also many of the links to landings, notes, and launch photos, etc are no longer accessible. I agree with Andrew this should have been discussed. Its nice to keep things DRY (Do not Repeat Yourself), but a fair amount of good information has been orphaned. All that said, I'm glad for all the folks that spend time to maintain these pages and work hard to keep them up to date. So with that, I'll ask what would be the criteria to Not give a booster its own page? --Zygerth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Good news. B1046 has been re-instated with an IFA photo. Page will be expanded soon with new pictures from its development and more in-depth info with sources. This is the last Booster page I'm working to re-instate, I will not push the limit with other boosters till they get more flights and can get more info. --AndrewRG10 (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

B1060 for GPS III launch

Needs a reliable source, but it looks like this booster is currently at McGregor and made its full-duration static fire. 1, 2. --mfb (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Problem is there is another booster not B1058 which hasn't been flown. The only source is a video and it requires working out. This means B1060 is at the cape already and B1061 at McGregor is the GPS booster. We need sources though, should get them from NSF in the coming weeks. --AndrewRG10 (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Michale Baylor is reporting B1060 so we can add that now. --AndrewRG10 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Flight count graph?

Only counting FT here as previous versions were never reflown. I didn't count boosters that never flew (like B1027). What do you think? Might make sense to distinguish between active and inactive boosters but we don't always know that status for sure. --mfb (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

5

10

15

20

1 flight

2 flights

3 flights

4 flights

5 flights

•   FT Block 1-3
•   FT Block 4
•   FT Block 5

Everyone happy with it, or no one interested in it? --mfb (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks OK. Can't think of any improvements right now. Igor Krein (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

i would leave off the 1 flight column. make it a chart of reflown boosters only.Nicoli nicolivich (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

That would miss how often these boosters fly again, and how a single expendable flight became rare. --mfb (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I added it to the article. I made separate groups for B1-3 and B4. --mfb (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Colors in turnaround time

We still don't have a confirmed booster for the next flight but SpaceX wanted it to make the fifth flight, and 1048 and maybe 1049 should be available. I suggest to use a color with a big contrast (yellow? green?) for number 5, and from then on use a repeating pattern (#6 needs a new color, but #7 can again use the color of #2 and so on). That way we don't need tons of new colors and we have every fifth flight with a strong separation. That should work well into ~20 flights if we ever get to that point. --mfb (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that if (when) the boosters fly more than 5 times, the current approach to stack the turnaround columns on top of each other should be changed somehow, because the chart would grow too high otherwise. Maybe there is a sense to stop on each booster's fifth flight and build a new stack starting from its sixth flight right next to the first stack. If this approach is to be taken, the colors of neighbor stacks should differ from each other significantly. Igor Krein (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Height is going by months, booster that are used for a long time will just compress the vertical scale a bit, that should be fine for a while. It will take over one year to exceed the current y-range. Making two columns for the same booster looks odd to me. --mfb (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

name change?

Hey I was wondering if we could rename this article from "list of Falcon 9 boosters" to just "list of Falcon boosters" because Falcon Heavy is in this list which means we have both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy here, not just Falcon 9. I think we should add a list of Falcon 1 boosters that way we have all 3 Falcon vehicles in here. Spaceman20290 (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

No. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

They are used for FH but F9 is the main use. And no Falcon 1 please. Completely different rocket. --mfb (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Block 5 sort option for number of flights

I wanted to sort the Block 5 table by number of flights but I couldn't find a way to do so. Adding another column labeled something like "Number of flights" would allow that sort option. Thoughts? Theflyer (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Currently reading though Help:Sorting, that might have options so we don't have to do that. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Without a separate column there is no place for an intuitive sorting option. It's technically possible to use a different column but how would users know where to click? --mfb (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what the black dot is for. Anyway, I added the column and then reverted the edit because it turns out that the sort doesn't retain the rowspan formatting so when you do sort on the column, it looks terrible even though it technically sorts correctly. I guess the charts at the bottom of the page will have to do. Theflyer (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Visual timeline of booster launches

Would a visual timeline of all Falcon 9 booster launches be a good addition? I made an example which contains all information from the Booster turnaround time chart but adds timeline information which is improving clarity. It could replace the turnaround chart. In this case it would probably better to remove the boosters which flew only once. Instead I would suggest to add it as a new section. --Mullerlp0 (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the chart helps show how long it takes for SpaceX to turn around boosters, see how after every reflight time takes longer. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 01:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I added it to the article as new section at the bottom. --Mullerlp0 (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

is it usefull to add a bar, ending to "today" (so increases every day) in a colour that shows that it is "active" but not yet planned? colour grey?--Dwalin (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it would be confusing. I added those bars here at the talk page on the right. Also no idea how to display boosters 1061 and 1062. --Mullerlp0(talk) 15:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't find a way to update the "waiting" bars to the current date automatically. --Mullerlp0 (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

they are planned, put 1st august

because there are only B5, we can split in 2 parts. one part all others, one only B5. so the graph can be a little bigger, and with less 3 colours. --Dwalin (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually like to have a full view of all reflights to see the acceleration. In any case I would not change colors as they match the other sections of this page. --Mullerlp0 (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Booster turnaround time merge

they are the same graph with only time of first flight shifting. merge & split (see above) seems to be a good idea. --Dwalin (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about a merge. The booster turnabound time provided a more condensed view which is nice too. Also I don't know how to discuss and decied about such things. --Mullerlp0 (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

another option

or split in ACTIVE and RETIRED booster?--Dwalin (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That would dissent the timeline idea in my opinion. --Mullerlp0 (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bold text for active fleet

Should active boosters be in bold despite the fact that we have the "Status" col? Only issue is that "Refurbishing", "Landed", "Testing phase", and "Destroyed" etc do not outright indicate whether or not a booster is in the active fleet, it might be helpful for unfamiliar readers to see boosters in bold so that they know its an active member of the fleet. @Spaceman20290: and 89.107.6.24 (will notify them on their talk page). Courtesy notification to @Mnw2000: who originally added the bold (Talk:List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters/Archive 1#Highlighting Boosters that remain in inventory) OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to show the boosters that are part of tue active fleet to be in bold, as you said it would helpful to readers to know what are active. Spaceman20290 (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please make it bold again. It definitely was helpful, I just missed it already. --93.104.168.60 (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

B1021 article

There should be a separate article for this booster since it was the first reused first stage, first reused space hardware by a private company. Probably same for B1019 since it was the first successful propulsive landing in history from an orbital launch. 2601:602:9200:1310:75E4:D069:FCCD:B6AC (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There were, but was deleted. See the saved versions here [5] and [6]. See the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon 9 booster B1019. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Fairing catches, fairing water-recoveries, and fairing reuse: a multi-year project that is just now becoming more robust

Background

The recovery and reuse of payload fairings has been something SpaceX has been working on since 2015. Musk said that the fairings cost US$3 million each to manufacture, so US$6 million cost per flight for the two fairing halves, and attempting to develop the technology to get them through the atmosphere and recovered for potential reuse was something he decided SpaceX ought to try to learn how to recover. Notably, this is about 20% of the cost figure we have for manufacturing a new first stage booster (~US#30 million), so the fairing recovery is not a small part of the total efforts SpaceX is expending to get launch vehicle reuse, bit by bit.

Despite a challenging start to the venture, and having quite a bit of difficulty reliably catching the fairings in 2016 through mid-2020, SpaceX has stuck with it, and continued to iterate their engineering and operational processes. SpaceX is now routinely dispatching two recovery ships on most Falcon 9 flights now, recovering the soft-landed fairings from the water if they miss the net, and has "caught in the net" 50% of the fairings from the last three Falcon 9 launches (2/2 caught on 20 July; 0/2 caught on 7 August; 1/2 caught on 18 August). Some of the successes are being regularly captured in the article comments now in the List of Falcon 9 launches article; but seems editors are not tracking the misses.

Question

Would it be appropriate to consider adding one more column for a "fairing recovery" box in the row for each launch?

Perhaps have a couple of numbers and a source, like this: (other ways to present the information are welcome)

x/y[source ref]  

where x = no. of fairings on this launch "caught in a net"
      y = no. of fairings on this launch  fished from the water
ANDIF there is no attempt to do either: "no attempt"  (e.g., the stormy seas that brought the recovery ships back to port for safety around the recent Atlantic hurricane heading toward Florida)

This would improve Wikipedia, in my view. What do you think? N2e (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, there's already a discussion over at Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#Chart to track fairing recovery and Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#Add fairing recovery results to each launch listing that would be related to this discussion. The only problem is that (at least when I was looking though the past missions) its not easy to find the actual status of the fairing unless SpaceX actually caught the fairings. Also I remember seeing on Twitter (I think) that even if they do fish it out of the water, they may not be intact (but I guess thats still fishing out of water).

For Dragon missions should we note "No Attempt" or "No fairings"? OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

But at the same time this page is about the Falcon 9 boosters and may make more sense to only list them on the Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches page. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This is relevant for the launches but not for the booster list. --mfb (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"As of 6 November 2020, Block 5 made 41 flights with 12 boosters (3.4 flights per booster) with Falcon 9."

Resolved

Hi, this page is really great, must have been a lot of work! I just wanted to add that this line, in the section "Full Thrust booster flight counts" is not updating correctly. I tried to look up where the data is coming from, but I don't really get it, and don't want to mess it up. As of 7-11-2020 there have been 52 Block 5 booster launches (including those used for falcon heavy, otherwise (-8) it is 44.) And I counted 13 boosters right now (so I guess side-boosters do count?). I did add those boosters to the graph (4) for 2x flown, in case that is wrong. Best! - Dg21dg21, 7-11-2020 00:18 CET — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dg21dg21 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It's coming from Template:Falcon rocket launches. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 - - 54 - 56 - 58, 59, 60, 62 are 12 B5 boosters used for Falcon 9. FH uses are not included. They made a total of 4+3+5+6+1+6+1+4+3+4+3+1=41 launches, again FH launches are not included. The graph below includes FH uses. That's a bit confusing but counting is complicated with F9 and FH. --mfb (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Aha, thanks! Dg21dg21 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Heavy side and Heavy core

Resolved

Duplicate denomination ? --Robertiki (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Huh? FH launches with (side)(core)(side) as seen from the top, i.e. two side boosters on both sides of one core booster. --mfb (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

What differs between Heavy side and Heavy core ?--Robertiki (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The core is much stronger while the side boosters are Falcon 9 boosters with relatively minor modifications. Falcon Heavy#Design --mfb (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Should that be that B1052 is a Falcon 9 modified to fly alone or as a booster ? And B1055 is a reinforced Falcon 9 to fly alone or as a the middle unit in a triple configuration ? --Robertiki (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

1052 and 1053 are quite similar to Falcon 9 boosters. In principle they should be able to fly as part of Falcon 9. That didn't happen - we don't know if they are reserved for future FH flights or retired. B1055 is a strengthened version that would only be used as center of Falcon Heavy. --mfb (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Booster turnaround time IN DAYS rather than Months + Days - and make column sort correctly

I think it would be easier to compare booster turnaround times if we use days (i.e. 45d) rather than months + days (1m 15d) as the turnaround times become shorter.

user:mnw2000 13:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

For now months are the more natural timescale I think. Shorter booster turnarounds will be in days automatically, and it's clear that something with 1 month x days is shorter than something with 2 months y days. --mfb (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

True, as long as it can be sorted. user:mnw2000 12:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem is the month/day format does not sort now - and months are not all the same length. 2 months can be shorter than 1 month 31 days. - Rod57 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Huh? It sorts correctly for me. The only exception is SAOCOM 1B because it doesn't have a clear turnaround time yet. A 1 day difference is negligible. If you think it's relevant then get consensus for adding hours to the time. --mfb (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Days are clear, months are ambiguous, are they calendar months or lunar months? I genuinely did not know as it's not stated on the page. The difference can be as much as 3 days in a calender month, it's not negligible. Hours aren't necessary as it would be rounded to the nearest day.109.156.139.57 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Why would anyone use lunar months? What's next, using sols? --mfb (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Months are far too ambiguous, they are not a set amount of time. A booster with a turnaround time of "2 months and 1 day" (60 days) could actually have been turned around faster than a booster with "1 month and 30 days" (61 days) for example. Martin Le Roy (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

If we want to be that exact, we'd probably also want to worry about the difference between days and work days. You can get a couple days of error that way, depending on whether the launch was on a Monday or a Saturday. And we don't know if they worked more than one shift per day on some of those turn-arounds but not on others. One day uncertainties in the stated turn-around time don't bother me too much. But if using months and days really does cause sorting problems, then I could see that as a reason to just use days. Fcrary (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorting problems can always be solved by manually giving a sortkey. But currently everything sorts correctly. I still think it's irrelevant if 2 months was 24 hours shorter than 1 month 30 days or not. --mfb (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

+1 for using days instead of months + days. As for "I still think it's irrelevant if 2 months was 24 hours shorter than 1 month 30 days or not.": then why even mentioned timespans if you don't care about the accuracy? -- 19:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Since there haven't been any opposing opinions for a while, I would suggest the original user (or whoever has the time) to make the change to days effective, so we can mark this thread done. A tip for whoever does it: remember that months are different length. Launch dates can help calculate the exact amount of days (giving detail that can't obtained by just translating the current data). Giovanni Canè (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I did ! (I chose to make the change only for block 5, and keep previous boosters turnaround unchanged. That made me learn how to use TimeInterval parameter with show=d. I kept the parameter sortable=on so we can sort the table by turnaround's duration. I'm happy, I hope you'll like it. Now, ready to see turnarounds within a month! François Narolles (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding Launch and Landing Site to Outcome Columns

I attempted to add the launch pad and landing site information (from the article on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy Launches) to this article to provide more information. However, my work was removed and the article was reverted back. I thought having the same information in this article as in the other would be informative as it would show how a single booster was launch from different launch sites and landed on different landing sites.

Don't you think having this additional information, would be useful?

Success (LC-39A)

Success (drone ship)

User:mnw2000 11:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I had a similar edit recently, seen here[7], but the person who reverted brought up valid points about visual accessibility. What do we think is the best way to incorporate this very relevant information into the article? Add two new columns? Include the launch and landing pads in the same box as "success/failure"?

User:BM6 02:07 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion above with two lines would work but it would make the long (and growing) table significantly longer. I don't think it's that relevant. Maybe distinguish between ground pad and drone ship: Success (G), Success (D) with footnote? Forgot my signature Nov 29. --mfb (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I like what BM6 has done. Is is more informative and allows for each entry to be one line. Below are the two options. Any other comments, pro and con?

LC-39A

JRTI

Success

Success

user:mnw2000 16:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The upper one isn't accessible to blind and colorblind people and it will confuse some others, too. --mfb (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I see you point. Too bad the two line solution is not acceptable. (Most entries are two lines on my display so the two lines in these two columns did not seem to me to really make the chart longer.) However, I do enjoy the article, even without the additional information.

user:mnw2000 06:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Success (39A)

Success (D)

Please check out that the additional information of the launch site (39A, 40, 4E) to the success column of the launch and the success column landing location (D, LZ-1, LZ-2, LZ-4). This adds useful information to the article with sacrificing the look and feel of the chart. If you agree, we can update the rest of the chart accordingly.

Any other comments are welcomed.

user:mnw2000 14:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

How many readers will understand what these things stand for? --mfb (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we write a note explaining what each mean? OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Reorganisation of the "Version" column

 Done

Sometime ago, as old readers have noticed, the main table of this article was split into several, each displaying only boosters in its own version category.

Previously, the "Version" column was used to differentiate between versions (FT, Block 4, 5, etc.). When the first FH launch was added, to differentiate FH booster cores, the version was substituted with "FH Side" or "FH Core" (a / was used to keep both the version and the FH codes for converted boosters). This solution didn't take into consideration that also FH boosters are part of a category (we have had FT and Block 5 FH boosters). This ultimately led to the table being split, a decision I support.

While I would keep the "Version" column untouched in the "v1.0 and v1.1" table (since versions are relevant), I would propose these changes for the other tables:

"Full Thrust up to Block 4" table:

• Keep the "Version" column and the "Block 4" and "Full thrust" texts inside them;
• For FH only boosters (B1027 and B1033), I would add "FH test" and "FH core" in parentheses after the "Full Thrust" indication. This way, they can be differentiated by still taking into account the fact that they are part of a version (which is fundamental in the "version" column);
• For F9 cores converted into FH side boosters I would keep the version "Full Thrust", but would move the "FH side" to the parentheses, something like "Full Thrust (F9, converted to FH side)". This makes more sense, since the booster was always a Full Thrust, even after it was converted.

I think these minor modifications should be enough, since no new boosters will be added in this category.

"Block 5" table:

Since all boosters in this table are Block 5, as is clearly stated at the top, I believe indicating the version once agin is not a benefit. The only real benefit of this column is the differentiation of F9 and FH boosters. I think this could be done more efficiently, by renaming the "Version" column to "Type" (in THIS TABLE ONLY), and indicating either "F9", "FH side" or "FH core". This is the benefit of having separated the tables.

If we can reach a consensus, I can make these changes, I just didn't want them immediately overturned with no consideration.

Giolibreak (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Full Thrust" could be converted to "Block 1-3". We don't have good sources which booster is which one of these three. All the boosters in the FT table are FT so a FT label is redundant. Block 4 is FT, too. No objection concerning the other changes. --mfb (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Certainly. We could just write Block 1-3 and Block 4. In someway, since we have the information, I would like to keep the Block 4 info, but, as I said, there are many ways to do it and I am open to better suggestions. Giovanni Canè (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Since we seem to agree on this and there have been no objections (I presume interested editors have notifications turned on), I would proceed to the change in a couple hours if there is no other comment. Once I do the change, if any editor has suggestions or doesn’t like something, please write here instead of undoing the entire change. By the way, this continues to be an awesome community! Giovanni Canè (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I have completed the change. If there is any issue, please let me know before undoing the whole thing. Reopen the thread to reply. Giovanni Canè (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I am thinking of adding another "status" column so that we can separate active boosters - any thoughts? AncientBrit (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree - we already have the active boosters noted as bold. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

B1002

B1002 is mentioned only in a table; I think that it deserves something in the text. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It has a link to its own description, I don't think we need to discuss it individually here. It would be redundant to the existing description. --mfb (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Standarizing Booster Status

We have many different status types for boosters that have been "destroyed". It makes it difficult to sort by this field.

• Lost At Sea
• Destroyed during landing failure
• Scrapped
• Expended

I suggest we standardize the status as follows:

• Destroyed: During landing or recovery
• Destroyed: Expended, as planned
• Destroyed: After recovery (i.e. scrapped)

Personally, the first three could all be merged in "Destroyed: During landing or recovery" user:mnw2000 13:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Launch Time

Any thoughts on if a UTC Launch Time should be added with the Launch Date to have an easier way to see what time something will launch instead of having to use other resources to find out? Also might be needed in the future to get time between flights down to a matter of days and hours instead of just days. The fastest time between flights has been 27 days and two boosters have done that. They came down to hours to compare which one was faster.

I don't think the launch time is that relevant here. This is about booster reuse and management where time isn't important at the moment. If reuse gets down to a week this might get more interesting. --mfb (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Mission patches for cargo missions

I don't see a discussion for their inclusion. I think they are unnecessary clutter and I propose to remove them again. --mfb (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. Patches are related to F9/FH missions list (other wikipedia article), not to booster lists. There even are some specific boosters wiki article. I think we should keep the data table as clean as possible, and remove all missions patches. --François Narolles (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It gives crewed mission a nice distinction I think. These are different. But there are other ways to achieve that, too. --mfb (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

then we should at least remove CRS patches … why not put all missions patches then? But again, I think it is the list of Falcon missions article job, not the list of falcon boosters job. --François Narolles (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

crewed mission are important. CRS an optional. at least CCP patch might be included --Dwalin (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed patches for uncrewed missions. --mfb (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Reorganization of notable boosters

I just did a big reorganization of the notable booster section. I redid all the table anchors so that they properly anchor to the table entry. When you look up say List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters#B1049 it will take you directly to that table entry even though it has a notable booster section as well. Clicking the link in the table will take you to the notable booster section at the bottom (for most of them anyway). For the future, when adding new booster entries to the table please add `|- id="BXXXX"` as the first line in the new table entry. I also fixed some html errors from some places where people had inserted raw html tags like <small> incorrectly. Ergzay (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Citations

While verification is important, I would like to point out WP:OVERCITE can be a problem if misused.

However, in most cases, references for almost all information on this page can be easily found with a Google search or on Twitter. No need to get upset or assert ownership if someone places a citation needed tag. Takes a little bit of extra work but easily solved.

Thanks to everyone who contributes. Ng.j (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Inspiration4 booster

Jared Isaacman has twitted that the current favorite for Inspiration4 is B1067. 2A01:CB0C:65A:2200:9096:E45A:FA9:C748 (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Speculative and a bit doubtful, but it is a valid reference until more concrete info emerges. Ng.j (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It counts as plan I think. But we don't know if it will be the second flight of that booster (even if that plan holds), so the refurbishment time is unclear. --mfb (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

How do we make this article a good and useful article in the long term?

How do we make this article a good and useful article in the long term? What I mean here is, say, ten years after SpaceX is done flying Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, and few global Wikipedia readers drop in on this article, how do we ensure that all this work that is done to record a bunch of information on each booster and each launch stays in the article? Long term.

I would suggest that, in order for the many many statements and claims to withstand the test of time, all statements will need to be verifiable by reliable sources where following citations can get one to those sources.

I drop by from time to time to look in on this article. I find it an ambitious project, with a massive amount of detail added to Wikipedia on each of these SpaceX first stage booster flights, and seemingly, quite a bit of arcane detail on what movements occur with each booster after each flight. But I have also found it to be one where, in many cases, editors have added information that is unsourced. I have, over recent years, occasionally identified some small part of this for clean up. Generally, with inline tags to make it super clear what is missing and would need cleanup to stand the test of time. Many times, sources have been added to sourced info, and unsourced original research has been removed. Today, a few simple cleanup tags, on a few unsourced claims, have been reverted; twice; by the same editor. I won't edit war with a new editor. That problem of editor behavior will resolve itself over time. But I will definitely endeavor to find a bit more time to work to improve this article. So am quite interested in engaging with those editors who want this "work" of encyclopedic history to last, and therefore, will want to improve it.

Serious question. How do we all work to make this a useful article over the very long term? N2e (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of people who contribute to this list, some more than others. We all want to make this better.

However, angering some of the people who contribute the most is not the way to do that. Coming in and throwing a bunch of CN tags comes off as bullying with a sense of superiority. That’s not the way to build a community and support. It drives people away.

The following are some guidelines from WP:WHYCITE:

“Sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article. Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphrasing a source. However, the citing of sources is not limited to those situations – editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information contained in an article.”

There isn’t very much that’s likely to be challenged here. Sure, more citations can be useful, but just throwing a bunch of CN tags isn’t seen as contributing.

If you want to really help, then put in some citations. That would be really useful, and less lazy than just tagging all over the place. Ng.j (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ng.j: you are casting aspersions that I was just "throwing a bunch of CN tags" into the article. That is incorrect. I added a very small number of {citation needed} tags to targeted areas in need of improvement, specifically challenging a few specific unsourced statements or unsourced table rows. But I will just note here that:

• your actions are not compliant with wiki policy on verification. An editor is allowed to challenge some specific statement, and suggest it would be improved with a source. That is all I had done. And I did that on only a small number of the many things in this article that need cleanup.
• turning my good faith attempt to improve the article into a personal attack by you on this Talk page does not comport well with our Talk page guidelines to "comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." It appears you are a fairly new editor, so perhaps you are unaware of that when you alleged I was just lazily "tagging all over the place." So I'll just mention it here and leave it at that.

So that is all I'll say here about editor behavior, since you brought that topic up. This Talk page section is intended to be about an entirely more serious topic of improving this list article so it might have a long-term presence as good encyclopedic content in the Wikipedia. But I will of course be happy to discuss it further on your Talk page, or mine, should you want to continue the discussion you started on editor behavior. I'm also happy to take any one of the specific maintenance tags I added, that you have now twice reverted, and discuss why it was added and what needs sourced.

But that is not what this section of the Talk page is about; so ping me elsewhere should you care to discuss it further. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m trying to explain to you why everyone here is disagreeing with your disruptive edits.

Imagine there is a house that a bunch of people are renovating. It’s not perfect, but they are trying their best to improve it.

Now someone comes along and starts spray painting all of the mistakes that they think should be improved. People get annoyed and they leave.

Contrast this with the person seeing those mistakes instead starts fixing those mistakes and makes improvements. Others see how they are leading by example and chip in.

There are lot of editors trying to bump up their count with CN tags. It doesn’t really help much. If you really want to improve articles, do the work and put in references yourself. Ng.j (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed N2e's ridiculous cn inserts. Rockets that fail to land are destroyed, by definition. Unless he's claiming he wants a source that rockets falling from 100km altitude are destroyed. Ergzay (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If any editors want to seriously and constructively engage on the topic of the post that started this section a day ago, then I would love to collaborate on the problem with others. If not, that is fine too. WP:There is no deadline, and I can assure you that I am even more interested in seeing the article improved now than I was 24 hours ago. N2e (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Veiled threats aren't useful for a constructive dialogue. If you want to improve the article by finding sources feel free to do so. Inserting citation needed notices everywhere isn't "improving" anything however. They just clutter up the table. Looking forward to your useful contributions. Ergzay (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Editors are generally allowed to challenge statements, but if you do this excessively and for uncontroversial statements other users will wonder if this is done in good faith. As an extreme example, imagine someone adding CN after literally every sentence without inline citation. Do you think this is a constructive edit? Do you expect that edit to stay? If you think something needs an additional reference your first action should be to search for such a reference and add it. Add CN tags if you cannot find one. --mfb (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

mfb, of course "adding CN after literally every sentence without inline citation" would be inaapropriate. That would be unproductive. I only ever identified a few specific instances of {citation needed} by particular instances where I saw something that had no source. Many editors desire a large amount of detail to be kept in this article on each launch of each booster and the whereabouts of each booster at various stages of processing thereafter. While I might choose to have a rather simpler list, I have no problem with the high detail that other editors prefer, as long as such information is sourced. But WP:V is clear that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

Currently, my attempts to identify a very few such areas in this list with specific inline cleanup tags have been removed by two editors; and although you assert that "Editors are generally allowed to challenge statements", you have not returned those older challenges to the article—the ones removed on 15 May and 16 May by Go Atlas and Ergzay—and I won't 'cause I refuse to edit war with them. Ergzay went farther, and removed a number of maintenance tags that had been in the article for more than a year. So that leaves us with what is likely to be a longer term problem: just how ought such deficiencies in sourcing be identified and fixed to improve the article? N2e (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Four users have commented in this section and one more has written their position in an edit comment. Four of these five users think that your CN tags are sometimes excessive. So maybe my example was more relevant than you think. If you are the only one who thinks the existing references are not sufficient then maybe you should add extra references instead of tags. --mfb (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

From reading the comments of the three who have commented here in this talk page section, it is not clear anyone has actually looked at them carefully. Moreover, several have just asserted that cn tags are not appropriate for this article in a very broad and general way. As a serious and long-term editor mfb, I asked you to look at them and you haven't. Nor did you restore the ~3 maintenance tags that Erzgay removed from the article that had dates from more than a year ago; tags s/he removed in a bit of overenthusiasm while also removing a small number I had recently added. So anyone looking at this Talk page right now would have trouble believing that the de facto working consensus for this article allows any cn tags whatsoever.

So, I'll go away for a couple of days or so, and give any interested editor a chance to examine those, think about it, and then possibly either restore ANY of those tags; or, alternatively, to merely constructively engage, WP:AGF, and perhaps take one or two of those specific tags they find objectionable and ask me what I was thinking in placing the cn tag where I did. I can assure you, in good faith, that there was a good and article-improving rationale for each one of them. I think this would be the most constructive path forward, as engaging with fellow editors in good faith almost always is. But I leave the actual choice to any other editors to do that small bit of effort, or not. Article improvement can take many paths. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't look at every single CN tag that was added or removed recently individually, but I did so with some of your edits in the past and found the same pattern. In many cases a citation was already provided, just not replicated for every single sentence/cell. I didn't change CN tags in any direction following the approach to discuss first. I don't see anyone saying that all CN tags must be wrong. Let me ask explicitly: Did you consider adding citations yourself? --mfb (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't say anything else than i highly agree with what mfb said. Yes i think some sources miss e.g. for every launch there should be at least one source. Nextspaceflight gives nearly every information so that would be a good addition for the launches that miss one. But i don't think thats this page is a huge mess like N2e is saying. In my opinion that doesn't justify the anger N2e triggers in everyone working on this page. --SimonMittag98 (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Full Thrust booster failures

In the section titled Full Thrust booster failures - shouldn't the title of the section be Full Thrust booster landing failures since except for Amos-6 the primary mission using a FT Booster have been a success up to 29 April, 2021. There have been 8 attempts to land a FT booster that has failed.

On the other hand, why not expand it to Full Thrust Booster Status.

The status for FT Block 1-3 could be Landing failure, Retired, Precluded, and Expended. FT Block 4 could include retired and expended, Block 5 would include Landing Failure, Expended, and Active. AmigaClone (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by that section in general. Half of the boosters listed there didn't fail. And what does the graph tell us in general? --mfb (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense. I think it's supposed to show the current state of boosters (active/not active) so you can see the current 'inventory' but it doesn't work at all. Needs a clear description of what the section means.

I removed it for now. We can think of adding more groups to the existing flight count graph to distinguish active/retired/destroyed. --mfb (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

A simple table with just the Block 5 (current) version might be best. With counts per number of flights and colour for status. Either just status = active|inactive or, more detailed status = active|expended|failed flight|failed landing|failed recovery|retired? That would give a very good overview of what has happened to all the current variant of boosters?

Someone added a separate graph again. I think we can merge these two. B1-3, B4, B5 (active), B5 (inactive). Don't distinguish between retired and destroyed, it's not important enough and in some cases retirement might have happened because of damage and we don't know. Don't distinguish between F9 and FH boosters as the side boosters can be mixed and adding separate FH categories for everything would make things messy. --mfb (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

On the 'Number of Launches' graph could a column be added for boosters that are awaiting their first launch, and have at least their first payload already assigned (like the three boosters to be used for the next Falcon Heavy along with B1067)? I would suggest making note of the two flown as of today Block 5 side boosters with unknown status. AmigaClone (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a volunteer gig

mfb asked above "Did you consider adding citations yourself?" The answer is yes, absolutely. And I add many tens of citations to many articles every month, many of them in the spaceflight area of the encyclopedia. And I have added a few sources to this article over the years. However, the Wikipedia core policy of WP:Verification is quite clear that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." So as a Wikipedia volunteer, we all choose to spend our time as we choose, and I haven't yet chosen to spend full time researching the intertubz to add citations for all of the many many edits in Wikipedia where editors have added material without a source. I simply have never added very much information to this article over the years; but if I do, I understand the responsibility to have it well-sourced.

The general principle for improving sourcing in many articles is this:

"solving problems on Wikipedia often involves multiple steps: first, the problem needs to be identified, then a solution agreed upon, then that solution implemented. Sometimes, an editor will have the technical knowhow, emotional capacity, or simple desire to participate in only one of these stages. That is perfectly okay—this project is a collaborative effort in which editors can choose to volunteer as much or as little as they wish."

I've endeavored to squarely answer mfb's question. But the answer does have a way of making explicit, from WP core policy, where the responsibility lies for demonstrating verifiability of statements made in this important List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters list article. N2e (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Nobody here is against adding more citations. What everyone here has a problem with is the way you’re demanding it. You accuse others of being uncivil, but the consensus here is that you are disruptive and rude. People can see from above that I tried to support adding more refs, but when I tried to explain to you why people are rejecting your edits, the response was very defensive and accusatory. From your history I can see that you have a long history of disruptive behaviour. Please consider that if everyone is saying the same thing, maybe they have a point. Ng.j (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I never said I was against adding more citations, in fact I encourage it. Secondly, "Wikipedia is a volunteer gig" I agree, which is why I ask why you think you have the right to force others to provide citations for information that is already in the article, especially information that is self-evident or similar? If you feel something is not cited, feel free to add additional sources (though please check nearby sources as they likely already have the information). Your user page says you contribute to a project called the "WikiProject Citation cleanup", so feel free to follow that project and improve the citation quality as you seem passionate about it. Ergzay (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You are making a lot of unsupported allegations. If you want to argue that somehow I'm acting in some way not in compliance with Wikipedia editor behavior guidelines, have at it. There is a whole notice board where such things are discussed; only on that noticeboard, you kind of actually need to have evidence of disruptive behavior, and present that case. Adding a few cn tags to an article, having those reverted, suggesting on the Talk page that a conversation be started about how to improve the article, does not come close. Having a few a few editors get agitated about my recent request for a bit better sourcing (without actually looking at the specific unsourced rows I had flagged), is simply not wiki standard for addressing editor behavior.

But otherwise, my asking for unsourced material to, over time, be improved, is specifically not inappropriate behavior per wikipedia core policy. Nor have I been uncivil to other editors on this Talk page, despite other editors turning article improvement discussions into personal attacks alleging any number of things without presenting evidence. We can both improve the articles on Wikipedia, and be civil, without personal attacks. I suggest now would be an excellent time to start doing so. N2e (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It's usually a good idea to stay logged in when making these additions as it gets confusion who you are and it is difficult to verify. That being said, it seems that you are missing the point of the comments. It's not the adding of the CN tags that is at issue, it is the demanding of others to conform to your style. I have no dog in this fight, as we haven't really countered in anything. As someone watching this unfold, from my perspective (and again, this is my perspective), you might want to ease up a little. I think we can all agree that an article with no support is bad. I think we can also a agree that an article where every single word cited is obnoxious and bad. Where we disagree is where the ideal point is. Yes, there could be a few more cites or areas where this can be cleaned up. In general, this article is cited extremely well in the sense that people are directed to information sources that verify and support the article. Sure, it might not be on that line, but you can find the source on anything fairly easily. At this point, its probably a good idea to just insert the cites you think are appropriate and forgo the CN tag.  DGrundler  talk  18:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

N2e you seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder here and I'm puzzled why. Firstly in my post I didn't make any allegations, let alone unsupported ones, other than the one your entire post was about, namely getting others to add more citations. Perhaps you were responding to both me and Ng.j at the same time, but it's important to clarify that kind of thing. Secondly, no one has been making "personal attacks" toward you and your repeated claims otherwise that people have been, do not help your case, as it makes you appear as someone someone unhinged from reality (now that was a personal attack, but nothing like that has been said thus far). I agree we should calmly resolve any issues we have. Ergzay (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit by Pyrodojo to add Block numbers 1 through 4

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters&diff=1023126052&oldid=1023113134

I've never heard of any of this information and it was added completely uncited. I'm reverting this change for now unless anyone can attest to some kind of source for this info. As far as I'm aware this information is not known and the user gave no info in their edit comment. Ergzay (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a list circulating somewhere (reddit or NSF forum I think) but I didn't see a reliable source for it. We'll need to keep it open without one. --mfb (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I added it based on data from http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html, https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/cores and https://www.elonx.cz/prehled-raketovych-stupnu/ Pyrodojo (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

spacelaunchreport calls it "estimated ranges". elonx.cz probably copied from reddit. And who knows where they got that from. --mfb (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)