Talk:List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters

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

Content Filtering / Separate Lists[edit]

Is it possible to suppress display of categories of data?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think these are enough to put them in a different list. Perhaps it should be titled 'Expended, retired or destroyed' rather than just 'inactive' or 'Retired'? Perhaps we don't know if boosters that have apparently landed successful are retired rather going to be reused until they are assigned but it doesn't seem to have frequently happened yet. Perhaps it becomes a problem once boosters reach some level perhaps as soon as 15 launches. However I don't really see a problem with keeping them in the active list until we have ref to move them elsewhere. Perhaps that means we might need to consider titling list 'Presumed active' rather than just 'Active'. Anyway seems to me that we have enough references to justify making this change. C-randles (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could move all boosters with a clear confirmation of destruction/retirement and all boosters with no flight for one year and no planned flight to a separate list. With the current fleet use I don't think a booster is really "active" if it didn't fly for over a year. Only three Block 5 boosters ever did that (with one more planned). This means boosters can move from the "inactive/retired" list to the "active" list, but I don't think that is a problem. --mfb (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this works great. Enterpriset (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy for someone to move just the retired/destroyed to a separate list. In essence if it's blue it stays if it's white it goes. AncientBrit (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. Please let me know if anything looks wrong. It was a bit of a pain to do the split. I also fixed it so the notes about the NASA logo and mission patches show up as a note. Enterpriset (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! AncientBrit (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was messaged by one site user asking to revert it. Not all are sold. I think we should hold course for now. Enterpriset (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vertical axis graduations every 2.5 on Block 5 booster flight status histogram[edit]

Now that the 1 flight count has gone to 11, the vertical scale has changed to 6 divisions of 2.5 (up to 15), which looks a bit silly. When the total was 10 it had 10 in steps of 1. There's plenty of room now to mark every 2, (and could end at 12 not 15). Is there any option to specify the vertical scale divisions so we can force to 1 or 2 ? It's using {{ #invoke:Chart | bar chart }} - Rod57 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Module:Chart - and we need to set : y tick marks , from 11-15 have to set to 15 (or 5), if it goes below 11 may need to set to 10. Comments added to article page. - Rod57 (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As we know new boosters would be add and new boosters would be added in the fleet contains B1085 to B1090 and 5 boosters would be of Falcon Heavy. All links were added. Thank you[edit]

Good Job but not make it so serious that almost we all know about that new fh boosters will be introduced. Abdullah1099 (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probability of Booster to be used on Polaris Dawn Mission.[edit]

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

Notable Boosters section too long[edit]

The Notable Boosters section is getting too long as people keep adding irrelevant things into it. A good percentage of all boosters have an entry in the notable boosters section. It's kind of losing the meaning of what boosters are notable. Ergzay (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a good case for Grasshopper, 1019 (first FT, first landing), 1021 (first reflight), maybe 1023 and 1025 (first FH), maybe 1046 (first B5, first to fly more than twice), 1058 (first crew). Everything else I don't see as very notable. "Reuse and recovery records" could be cleaned up as well. Do we really care which booster was the first to do 8 flights? --mfb (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could see adding at least B1055 - First FH core booster to land - even though it failed to survive the trip back to port. The only others I would consider adding in the 'notable' list would be B1052 and B1053 which were part of the first operational (B5) FH launch.
As for "Reuse and recovery records", I would only highlight the first booster to fly twice and after that the first booster to reach the next multiple of 5. There might be an argument in favor of mentioning the time between the first two launches of a booster compared to the current record. AmigaClone (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add F9-xxx as a wiki link[edit]

Several people have done this, most recently by @Avialuh but others have done this as well (are people copy pasting from some shared location?), please do not add in links like [[List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#F9-xxx|F9-xxx]] which creates a broken link like: F9-xxx If you want to add in F9-xxx link it to the Future launches section, like as follows with [[List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#Future launches|F9-xxx]] which creates a link like this: F9-xxx. This will help people who click it. Alternatively, don't link it at all. It makes no sense to wikilink it. Ergzay (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters&oldid=1218774750"