Talk:List of Super Heavy boosters

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 21 December 2024 by reviewer CSMention269 (talk · contribs).

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocketry Mid‑importance

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from SpaceX Super Heavy was copied or moved into Draft:List of Super Heavy boosters. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Comments left by AfC reviewers

Comment: It is qualified for publishing to main-space but YT links is the reason I can't review. Can the submitter define this issue as to whether it is appropriate to add YOUTUBE links as references (see WP:RSPYT). If not in this case, can the submitter provide other/alternate sources that are reliable and can be verified. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced videos are from NASASpaceflight, which is a WP:RS. "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability".Redacted II (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominally "during ascent"

@Redacted II, here I changed a note to remove the "during ascent" part of the note, because B14 performed nominally throughout the entire and it was S33 that had the anomaly. You reverted because B9 had an anomaly during boostback, which is correct, but on the basis that it shared a note with B9. I think you might be mistaken here because B14 doesn't actually share the note with B9, as the note for B9 includes specific explanation with the oxygen dump on S25 and how it caused fires in the engine bay, which is not there in B14, even in the original version. Can you please take another look or clarify? User3749 (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I thought I had added the same note, must have accidentally created a new one. Redacted II (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B13 Landing cell

@Canadien1867 why change the B13 landing status cell from a split abort/controlled to just controlled? Redacted II (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to a "controlled (ocean) (tower abort)", which is the way it has been ever since flight 6, up until a few days ago, when someone changed it. As far as I can tell, the split cell format hasn't been used elsewhere, and thought it would be better to revert it to the way it was. I did not believe there was a need for a split cell as the booster landing was almost identical to the one on flight 4 with the exception of planning to catch it but choosing not to.

Also, I changed it to "Controlled (ocean) (tower abort)" rather than just the "Controlled (ocean)" used on other flights because of the fact that they were intending to catch it. Additionally, I thought a yellow cell indicated a partial failure, and most sources I found didn't claim that a tower abort was a partial failure, so thought changing it would clear up any confusion, especially considering that the tower catch wasn't the primary objective of the mission.

I understand my edit may have been a mistake, and I apologize. You can undo my edit if you wish. Have a great day. Canadien1867 (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Your edit was not a mistake. I am sorry that I did not make that clear)

It is used on List of Starship launches. I don't know of any other articles using that format Redacted II (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I was unfamiliar with the format as it wasn't on either of the List of Super Heavy boosters or List of Starship launches articles until someone added them a few days ago. Should we leave them as they are or change both of them back to the "Controlled (ocean) (tower abort)" that they had been? Canadien1867 (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Failure to Success for boosters with failed upper stages

It makes no sense to have launches listed as "Failure" when the booster behaved as expected until stage separation. Ergzay (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters#Presumed active.

Prior precedent backs keeping B9 and B14 as "Failure". Redacted II (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B16/Flight 9

Should we have B16 with the see also for F9, since its assignment is unconfirmed?

And if B14 ends up flying, do we have its "see also" be for Flight 7 or Flight 9? Redacted II (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The future of rapid reusability is complicated for wikipedians

Two brief questions that you might not be able to answer but worth asking anyways:

I've noticed that B14 and B15 have been updated to B14-1 and B15-1, respectively, in articles such as List of Starship launches, but B12 hasn't? Is that a mistake? Or is it because B12 is retired? Have we established guidelines for scenarios like that? NASASpaceflight has claimed in their recent Raptorside that as soon as a booster is caught, it is considered B(##)-1, because it has been flown once. So, they're wrong? Or do they only get the -1 if they are still active or planned to be reused? Otherwise, if they're right, wouldn't other vehicles that have already flown and been recovered (SN5, SN6, SN15, etc.) be considered SN(##)-1? Or is that a bit of a stretch?

Secondly, I've noticed that @Redacted II has added info for Flight 9 to the big cool chart graph thing of boosters/launches/status/etc on this article, which I believe is incorrect, but feel free to explain if I'm wrong. It has never been used previously before a flight to my knowledge, and seems out of place and doesn't add much information that isn't stated below in the in-depth descriptions of each booster. Additionally, it is not used on List of Starship vehicles, even though we know S35 will be used on Flight 9. So, shouldn't it be removed on List of Super Heavy boosters, at least until the flight actually happens? Or is there another reason to keep it?

Once again, sorrey to bother you if these are stupid questions. Have a good day. Canadien1867 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B12 is retired. I added the -1 and -2 to B14 and B15 because they aren't retired.

For past precedent, see List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2010–2019), launch 20

For the addition of Flight 9, I added it because B14 is confirmed for Flight 9.

For past precedent, see List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters B1088.

S35 is technically not confirmed (technically, its extremely likely that it flies on flight 9) Redacted II (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. But I think if we're going to start doing that, we should add it to S35 in List of Starship vehicles too, as it is very likely it will be used and other sources have claimed it will. Also, has SpaceX officially begun using the -1 numbering system? And why does the Falcon series use a .1 numbering system? Is there a difference? Canadien1867 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]