Poll

How many successful landings of F9 first stages (cores) will SpaceX have in 2016?

None, that was a fluke
1 (0.4%)
1
1 (0.4%)
2
2 (0.8%)
3
17 (6.6%)
4
27 (10.4%)
5
44 (17%)
6
48 (18.5%)
7
24 (9.3%)
8
26 (10%)
9
13 (5%)
10
20 (7.7%)
11
4 (1.5%)
12
17 (6.6%)
13
2 (0.8%)
14
1 (0.4%)
15 or more
12 (4.6%)

Total Members Voted: 259

Voting closed: 01/24/2016 08:04 AM


Author Topic: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016  (Read 9228 times)

Offline CraigLieb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
  • Dallas Fort Worth
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 582
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #20 on: 01/04/2016 05:25 PM »
 I voted for 16 launches in 2016 because it sounded nice.
So I doubled down with a wild fandom voted for 15 or more.
Rationale  (who really needs a rationale for this kind of vote?) They will recover every core they attempt to recover from now on. With a Heavy launch in the mix, this seems somewhat conservative  ::)
« Last Edit: 01/04/2016 05:26 PM by CraigLieb »
Applicant for Astronaut Candidate for class of 2017 - Colonize Mars!

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1449
  • Likes Given: 2482
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #21 on: 01/04/2016 06:07 PM »
I said 16 launches, so I'm voting for recovering 11 cores.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline nadreck

I said 6, I voted 18 launches, I didn't specify elsewhere, but I expect probably 10 of those 18 launches will attempt recovery and that 4 fail
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline intrepidpursuit

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 181
  • Likes Given: 136
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #23 on: 01/04/2016 08:47 PM »
I voted for 11 launches because Musk said 12 and he always over promises. The average is near 13. Why is the average here only 5? Once they have found all the bugs landing should be pretty repeatable. It seems like the only problems will be with the ASDS since they have not yet demonstrated it (though it seems like they should nail it) and it is more susceptible to weather. That being said, I said 8 cores here. It doesn't seem to me like landing will stay experimental for long now that they've done it. Reuse is another matter that I suspect will require some design changes, but the cores flowing in will help inform those changes.

Heavy will launch early next year. Every year. So I didn't count it.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7256
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4158
  • Likes Given: 2841
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #24 on: 01/05/2016 01:18 AM »
Ok I guess I wasn't clear enough... A FH counts for up to 3 cores. (not all may be successful... not all may be chosen to be recovered, for example if the center core is expended, then there are only two recovery attempts). I'll modify the header to reflect that.

Intact means what I said, if it's upright long enough to get a picture of it upright and not moving at all, even if it topples before you can hook the crane to it.

QG, stop trolling. Love you man, but geez :)
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2044
  • Canada
  • Liked: 242
  • Likes Given: 358
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #25 on: 01/05/2016 03:31 AM »
Over 15. Since I predicted over 20 flights in the other poll. :)

Reason since SpaceX can fly some cores for multiple boost forward recovery tests with no primary payload other than a mass simulator. Especially with used cores that is already pay for by a customer.

Of course I could have make really poor prediction. :D

QG don't think such flights count as orbital. I disagree since the ejected mass simulator will make orbit barely for a few orbits at a breezy altitude. After all you couldn't land a core with a mass simulator attached.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2016 08:01 PM by Zed_Noir »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5468
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 571
  • Likes Given: 669
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #26 on: 01/05/2016 03:59 AM »
if it stays standing on four feet long enough to hook the crane up

I like this definition.

Concur.
-- sdsds --

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7256
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4158
  • Likes Given: 2841
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #27 on: 01/05/2016 04:29 AM »
if it stays standing on four feet long enough to hook the crane up

I like this definition.

Concur.

It's understood that people ***like*** this definition. However I went with mine and I'm not changing it. Standling long enough to get a picture. (it can't be in the process of toppling over when the picture is taken)

It's probably not a HUGE difference. Except for an ASDS landing. It could be days between when the core lands and when it's in JAX or the port of LA and a crane attaches.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2016 04:31 AM by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5468
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 571
  • Likes Given: 669
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #28 on: 01/05/2016 04:38 AM »
It's probably not a HUGE difference. Except for an ASDS landing. It could be days between when the core lands and when it's in JAX or the port of LA and a crane attaches.

That's what the weldable shoes are for. Agreed the crane thing is wrong; "secured" anyhow should suffice.
-- sdsds --

Offline Jarnis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Liked: 454
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #29 on: 01/05/2016 06:07 AM »
I said 16 launches, so I'm voting for recovering 11 cores.

One-upping you. Said 16 launches too, but saying 12 cores recovered (partially because I think they'll catch at least two out of the Falcon Heavy :D )

« Last Edit: 01/05/2016 06:07 AM by Jarnis »

Online PerW

  • Member
  • Posts: 88
  • Gothenburg, Sweden
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 188
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #30 on: 01/05/2016 08:15 AM »
I did guess 6, a little bit less than half of 14 successful launches...

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1231
  • Likes Given: 1399
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #31 on: 01/05/2016 04:19 PM »
I voted a pessimistic 4.  I hope I'm wrong.  I'm assuming a few purposely expended stages due to payload mass, a couple of aborts due to weather or ASDS problems, and a couple of glitches simply because it's not an art that's been mastered yet.  But I hope we can at least double my prediction.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2732
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 410
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #32 on: 01/05/2016 05:02 PM »
Who voted 0?
Must be a spacex hater enough to willfully wanting them to fail miserably.
Why even participate in a spaceflight forum if you are in it only for your company and salary (i.e. not for general advancement in the field)?

Offline Bubbinski

I went conservative and voted 3 though I'm hoping for a lot more than that. (I also voted for 10 launches).

Things like high sea states could derail barge landings, and there could be payloads that require all the performance and therefore made expendable.  Also it's possible there could be more failures as landing rocket stages is still not yet routine, they may need to shake more bugs out.  I do expect they'll get it down pat and I sense that 2017 is when the real action will happen with routine landings, though I could be wrong.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Liked: 690
  • Likes Given: 546
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #34 on: 01/05/2016 06:41 PM »
I voted for 14 orbital flights in '16 and (more relevant for this thread) 8 recovered cores.  Reasoning, in no particular order:
- I think they'll nail their next ASDS landing (weather permitting an attempt)
- ...but I do think ASDS landings will be less successful and less frequently attempted (weather)
- I think RTLS landings will approach 100% success
- ...but I expect only a few RTLS attempts, with most of them being ASDS
- I think there will be one FH (demo) with the two boosters RTLS successfully
- Some ASDS landings (SES-9 & 10) are really on the margins and have a lower probability of success in my mind

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #35 on: 01/05/2016 07:04 PM »
I voted 15 or more based on my previous prediction of 18 flights including 3 FH.

That's 9 FH cores plus 15 FT cores times .70  yielding 16 and rounding down for expendables

If they make a 5 FH flights they will have a really good shot at 15.

Quote
May - Demo Flight - Falcon Heavy - Kennedy LC-39A
October - STP-02: DSX, COSMIC-2A (equatorial): FORMOSAT 7A/7B/7C/7D/7E/7F, GPIM, OTB, FalconSat 6, NPSat 1, Oculus-ASR, Prox 1, LightSail B, Cubesats, Ballast - Falcon Heavy - Kennedy LC-39A (or 2017)
4th quarter - ViaSat-2 - Falcon Heavy - Kennedy LC-39A (or Ariane 5)
late - Inmarsat 5 F4 - Falcon Heavy - Kennedy LC-39A
late - Europasat/HellasSat-3 - Falcon Heavy - Kennedy LC-39A (or NLT 1st quarter 2017)

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #36 on: 01/05/2016 11:57 PM »
Guessing 8 recovered out of 14 flights. Main losses due to poor conditions for ASDS landings.

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1535
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 451
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #37 on: 01/06/2016 01:48 AM »
I voted 6 recovered cores out of 13 flights.

Offline rcoppola

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1934
  • USA
  • Liked: 1172
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #38 on: 01/06/2016 01:55 AM »
8 Returns:   6 F9s & 2 boosters from FH.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
www.linkedin.com/in/rvcoppola/

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2469
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 714
Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
« Reply #39 on: 01/06/2016 10:52 AM »
8 Returns:   6 F9s & 2 boosters from FH.

I think, if the FH demo flight launches in 16, they'll likely recover all 3 cores via RTLS.

Why wouldn't they keep the simulated payload mass low enough for that mission profile?

Regarding the above reference to 5 FH launches, I think they will be successful to get 1 FH off the ground in 16, 2 would be massively successful.  Since it would likely require reuse of the 3 cores from the demo flight.

Edit: Spelling
« Last Edit: 01/06/2016 06:58 PM by wannamoonbase »
I know they don't need it, but Crossfeed would be super cool.

Tags: