Talk:List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters

Probability of Booster to be used on Polaris Dawn Mission.

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)

Hey Abdullah, not sure what the point of this is, to inform us of your opinions perhaps?

If so, I believe personally that B1083 is being reserved for Polaris Dawn (It has been skipped over other boosters set to launch, it was moved to SLC-40 a month ago and hasn't flown since, etc, etc) though obviously no confirmation yet.

I am inclined to believe that B1085 will fly Crew-9 for its first launch as the time of testing aligns, NASA prefers new boosters to fly missions like these, they would have to get a ~month refurbishment if B1083 flew it (which it seems to be the only other booster that could if we're following the >5 flight rumour, etc.

For Axiom-4, I personally believe that B1088 will fly it. Would explain the reason that B1090 is testing at McGregor earlier, to give time for B1088 test and be ready before October (ax-4 NET date), plus its always a benefit to fly new boosters on crew missions as i stated earlier.

Must note once again none of this above is confirmed, do not add it to the wiki. Avialuh (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Then you will add that Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No, did you not read? I explicitly said at the end that these are NOT official and they are not to be added to wiki. Avialuh (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't add F9-xxx as a wiki link

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)

Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Worm Logo

I reverted a a removal of the worm logo on B1058 performed by @RickyCourtney. What are people's current thoughts on it? I know we had a discussion on this a long while back and I seem to remember the consensus being that a minimal worm logo was fine versus the alternatives that were being pushed at the time. Ergzay (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

My problem with it is that it’s just eye candy. You could simply add a line of prose or an explanatory footnote. In fact, you had an explanatory footnote to explain the inclusion of the worm logo and why it’s sort of meaningless. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It was notable at the time I think because it was a useful identifying mark for the booster. Now that the booster is lost maybe it has less reason to be there. I still want to hear what other people think. Ergzay (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the NASA worm logo being placed on B1058 was the only time an organization besides SpaceX has their name or logo on a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy booster - especially one planned to be reused.

Other missions that had logos or mission decals would see them placed on the second stage. AmigaClone (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Those facts can and should be covered in prose in the Notable boosters#Booster 1058 section. It doesn't necessitate a logo in a table. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't care that much either way. We could remove all the logos. It's more like trivia than something useful for the article. Ergzay (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility

A question was asked on the WP:HELPDESK by RickyCourtney about the accessibility of this article:

A lot of SpaceX related articles (List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters, Vandenberg Space Launch Complex 4, SpaceX Dragon 2) use the "chasing arrows/recycling symbol" (♺) in tables to denote that a piece of hardware has been reused from a previous launch. My question is this... is using the ♺ symbol problematic from an accessibility perspective? Do screen readers properly parse these symbols? Does it matter if they don't?

I commented:

The symbol is used in a data table. Its meaning can only be determined by opening a note in the table's header row. I don't regard that as accessible. If the information is seen to be important then it should be in its own column where it can be represented by a standard {{yes}} template or similar, and marked sortable. I may be WP:BRD and implement that myself to gauge reaction.

Graham87 commented:

I'm here from a pointer at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility where this was brought up. As a screen reader user I agree the solution in the above message be a good idea.

I have been bold as promised and made changes to the tables to make them more accessible. Comments welcome before I also look at Vandenberg Space Launch Complex 4, SpaceX Dragon 2 and others. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 I'm not a fan of the changes and I wish you'd broken them up into multiple reviewable/revertable changes. Adding so many columns to the table makes it difficult to read, especially on smaller screens. The tables already have arguablly too many columns and adding two more that convey little don't help things. The symbols were used in the first place as these are relatively minor points and didn't need their own columns. I'll note that boosters cannot be crewed or uncrewed, missions are so that column that was added was just misleading. I went ahead did a full revert even though that wasn't my first choice. Also @RickyCourtney as you prompted this can you please help clean up this and work with @Bazza 7 as this was apparently rooted in your concerns?

I'll add that it's a pet peeve of mine that "accessibility concerns" end up being used as a mallet to purge asthetically pleasing stylizing from wikipedia articles to convey information that is non-critical. This was done substantially to some astronomy pages. That made it more confusing to understand what is being conveyed versus what was originally in the article. Just as blind people cannot truly understand the meaning of the word "color". Ergzay (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussions like this are the point of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

I do think that accessibility is a valid concern and should be taken into account as we design these tables. A lot of the design decisions made to make these tables more "asthetically pleasing" have been more about, as you said above, adding things that are "more like trivia than something useful."

My inquiry was if "chasing arrows/recycling symbol" (♺) is problematic from an accessibility perspective. It is. That symbol is not correctly parsed by screen reader software.

Personally, I'd like to suggest a simpler solution. We drop the ♺ symbols and colored backgrounds for reused boosters. I think the rows of the table itself do a good job of making the point that a booster is being reused.

For crewed launches, I think we should drop all of the patches and logos, as it's just trivia.

I will make those changes now, but we can continue to discuss further improvements. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney I looked at that discussion and the consensus seemed to be that it is indeed parsed correctly by screen reader software, at least by some of them, but the major thing is that it's not that important of information so it's fine if that information is lost on some screen readers. If the three alternatives are: remove it entirely, add a full-on column that clutters the table, or leave it as is, I think it's clear that the best option is leaving it as it is. As I would be for completely reverting the information if either of the other options if they were selected.

In general I'm up for debate on removing the symbols but I'd be absolutely against dropping colored cells. That was exactly the poor changes that were done to astronomy pages. Colored cells improve readability. Ergzay (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I unfortunately had to roll back the entire page and all intervening changes because too many changes are happening on the page. I wish you had pinged me so we could avoid this. You cannot use accessibility concerns to justify entirely removing something. That's like saying "if disabled people can't have it then no one can". Ergzay (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay It really is very unfortunate that you took nine days to respond. This revert wiped out a lot of other productive edits. But, it's not the end of the world, and all can be repaired.

The mint colored cell backgrounds in my opinion are unnecessary. They do little to improve readability when nearly every cell in a column is colored. But, if you feel so strongly about them, they can stay.

In my opinion, the symbols (♺) need to go. That's the unaccessible part. Ultimately they're unnecessary. The ".2, .3, .4..." number of launches in the table have the same function and are perfectly accessible to everyone.

Lastly, the NASA worm logo image, the CCP logo and the mission patch images are problematic, unnecessary, and by your own admission, just trivia. They need to go.

Please respond as soon as possible. I'd like to make these changes as quickly as possible before the other productive edits are too far in the past. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I've already gone to the trouble of restoring the changes made by other people so you don't need to worry about those, so there is no rush to get the changes in quickly. Let me finish cleaning up and I'll respond more fully. Ergzay (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney I'm fine with removing the ♺ symbol, and actually after glancing at some recent changes you removed on the Falcon 9 launches pages (especially the historical pages where the changes are more obvious), I think inverting the coloring and going with a green background for _new_ boosters is preferable. I'm going to go ahead and revert those changes on the launch pages (manually for the current page as that change cannot be undone unfortunately) as well. It reduces maintenance burden adding the color and recycle symbol for every launch as new boosters are by far more rare while also making those first launches stand out (which was the intention originally when reuse was rare). Arguably for the pre-2020 page we might use two colors as reused boosters were more rare, but that's a side discussion (though if you want to give your opinion on it here, feel free). Do you have any thoughts on the color of the table cell for new boosters/launches? The pale green that was used before I don't think conveys the sense of newness while also carrying the sense of their unreliability.

As for the worm logo and the mission patches I kind of like them, but if you're insistent in your feeling that they must go (and no one else responds within a couple days) then I'm fine with removing them. Ergzay (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I am insistent. They are akin to trivia and we are basically just using them as tiny, unreadable stickers on this page. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I've been convinced, but let's hold off for a bit on the change to see if anyone else has opinions (feel free to ping frequent editors). Ergzay (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay In my opinion, the worm is especially problematic. We are using an organizational logo (which, while covered by public domain, is still use restricted under US law) because of a trivial trivia detail. Frankly, I think we should remove them now. The changes were stable for 8+ days before your rollbacks. There would appear to be no major opposition if you're not opposed. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a wikipedia policy source on why the NASA logo is problematic? As you said it's under public domain which definitionally means it's completely fine to use. That's why random retailers can put it on t-shirts and sell them with no legal issue. Ergzay (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

See the licensing section of File:NASA Worm logo.svg. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney Again you need to be more specific. It says exactly what I said and does not support your point: This file is in the public domain in the United States because it was solely created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". Ergzay (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Right below that you’ll see:

Warning: Use of NASA logos, insignia and emblems is restricted per U.S. law 14 CFR 1221. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay Also I realize you probably meant it as a joke, but to my understanding, NASA does not simply allow random retailers to put its logo on t-shirts and sell them with no legal issue. They have a whole webpage dedicated to explaining their merchandise approval process. Right at the top of that page is this plain-language message: The NASA Insignia, Logotype, identifiers, and imagery are not in the public domain. The use of the Insignia, Logotype and NASA identifiers is protected by law, and imagery is made available for use consistent with Media Usage Guidelines. I’m sure they go after organizations that use their logo without permission under 14 CFR 1221. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That's completely unenforced as far as I'm aware. You can go almost anywhere and get NASA meatball emblazoned shirts. Ergzay (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw that but it doesn't seem consistent with how they're used elsewhere nor on wikipedia. Again, if you know of any wikipedia policy discussions, please bring them up as I'm pretty confident that those rules are ignored on wikipedia in general. There's one person on the comment page of that logo mentioning it back in 2008 and no responses. Ergzay (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure I understand your point. That box is the Wikimedia policy. If you look at the usage of that file, it’s in very limited use. It’s on the pages of Bruce Blackburn (the designer of the worm insignia), the NASA page and the NASA insignia page. All of that is proper fair use. It’s on a few user/talk pages (mostly from User:RIP B1058, probably not fair use). There’s just one outlier… this page. Also, I’m not clear what we’re debating, I thought you said you were okay with getting rid of these logos as icons. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay It’s been about a week with no opposition, can we go ahead and restore my removal of the patches/logos? RickyCourtney (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought we already had agreement on that, but sure, but just to clarify, do you plan to do a full-on revert to the state the page was at? Because there's other changes included in that that are still under discussion. Ergzay (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay Are you also okay with inverting the colors to only highlight new boosters? The recycling symbols also need to go. RickyCourtney (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes I already gave my opinion on that over on the talk page on Falcon 9 launch list page (my comment is currently second to last in that section) and several comments further up in this thread right before your "I am insistent." post. You can re-read that for my opinion. Ergzay (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney Be careful when doing your mass editing. You converted a bunch of Falcon 9 launches into Falcon Heavy launches. See the recent edits that were made to fix your changes. Ergzay (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Starlink satellite version and satellite count

@RickyCourtney Hi, you recently made a change that removed all Starlink satellite counts and satellite versions, it got incidentally removed with my other revert so I'd like to take a moment to discuss those. I saw in your edit description that you said that it's sufficient to just link to the starlink satellite list table entry for satellite counts and I'm not sure I agree. Can you elaborate further? Ergzay (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If you click the link to the Starlink Group, it will take you to a page with far more details on the launch including the type of satellite, the number launched, its orbit, inclination, and how many still work. It's far more specific information than this page previously provided with for example, "V2 x 49" and no specific link. I felt this was a nice trade off considering these tables and this page is already huge. I'm just not sure how much value the prior information provided. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I noticed you made the same change over on the Falcon 9 launches page so I started a discussion there. Let's move discussion there. Ergzay (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Refurbishing vs Awaiting Assignment

Is there any way to tell a booster's status between Refurbishing and Awaiting Assignment? A better question might be 'Why are both descriptions being used'?

Pinging some frequent page editors for their thoughts @C-randles @RIP B1058 @Lazaro Fernandes @Mfb @Ergzay AmigaClone (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Re-ping @Lazaro Fernandes, @C-randles, @RIP B1058, @Ergzay, @Mfb RickyCourtney (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There's been a number of previous discussions of this if you look at the talk page archives. I suggest taking a look at those. The statements about refurbishing I believe originate from when it's actively visibly sitting at the dock. Ergzay (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Refurbishing is when the stage has left the landing zone or port and will undergo renovation, and Awaiting Assignment means that the stage is ready to fly again approximately 25 to 30 days after the last flight. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@AmigaClone So this description is useful to know the situation of both booster Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lazaro Fernandes Is this based on any externally sourceable statement or is this simply something that's just evolved on the wikipedia page? Ergzay (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay The people who put this up and I think it's cool to know the status of the boosters. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't my question if it was cool or not. Ergzay (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lazaro Fernandes @Ergzay If the Refurbishing or Awaiting Assignment statuses can not be tied to an external source, they can't be included here. This feels like original research. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Since you think it's bad, then remove these things from the page as well, just like the crap they do, remove everything and then go back and put it back... Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lazaro Fernandes So you're saying it should be removed? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

My other follow up question would be: if not Refurbishing or Awaiting Assignment, what should the status be? RickyCourtney (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't change anything about the stages, like most of your edits, you change the entire page, it becomes a mess and then you put it back the way it was because most people he said it was bad. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Same as Starlink missions where you removed the satellite numbers from the table and people it was hed bad and you put everything back in. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney Staying on topic here I think because Refurbishing isn't really externally identifiable (as far as I can tell) from Awaiting Assignment, as soon as it disappears from the arrival dock in externally sourced photographs/video, it can move to Awaiting Assignment. That is a self-evident status until sourced information arrives about it being assigned to a mission. Ergzay (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay Not sure why you only pinged me, I feel my comments have been on topic and I did not engage when comments became rather personal against me. Anyways… I like your proposal. My only suggestion, in a nod to the other editors point, would be to add a time interval template to show the number of days that the booster has been awaiting assignment. But it’s just a suggestion and not a “must have” for me. RickyCourtney (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I pinged you because you're the only one that's seemingly on topic, but I digress. Ergzay (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lazaro Fernandes I see you are again putting Refurbishing as a status. Have you identified a reliable source for this, as we discussed was needed? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Do whatever you want then, since you prefer to put Awaiting Assignment after the booster leaves the port ou landing zone... Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to come to a consensus rather than reverting your changes each time. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney ok, then it's better to put Awaiting Assignment instead of Refurbishing. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

With the upcoming launch of Europa Clipper, 2 more Falcon Heavy side boosters will be expended. I propose we split them out of "Expended other" and colour them Orange or Dark orange (Since expended cores are Purple, and Active Sides are Yellow). - Rod57 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done I used brown as orange was too close to the existing yellow/"gold" - Rod57 (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)