POLL: Successful landings of F9/FH first stages in 2025

[Lar]

Let's try something different... the poll is on the *difference* between launches and landings. I think this makes for a more interesting poll.   Stipulation, cannot go "below zero", that is, can't land more cores than were launched.

Edits: Yes there is a loophole but it's highly unlikely so ignore it. Also, this is all cores not landed, whether intentionally expended, or not. Note that the landing definition that's been in use for years applies, a core that exploded on impact didn't land, but one that fell over after it landed still counts as a landing.

Here's the launch poll for this year (2025)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62076.0

Here's last year's (more conventional) poll
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60094.0

[deltaV]

It looks like the answer for 2023 was 8 and the answer for 2024 to date was 7. There's only 1 Falcon Heavy launch scheduled for 2025 and it may recover all three cores (https://x.com/edwards345/status/1682504951275356161) so I'm voting 4.

[redneck]

It could go below zero. Launch at 11:59 on 31 Dec 1024 and land on 1 Jan 2025 at 12:07.     

[DanClemmensen]

Eight.  2024 was six, and 2025 will have 3 FH instead of 2 and I am speculating that there will be at least two more expended.

Note: I also assume that by "launch" we mean "booster launch" and that an FH launch is three booster launches.

[spacenut]

I said 10 due to FH expending cores or even expending side boosters.  Then they may expend one or two at their end of life due to metal fatigue.  Otherwise they will probably launch 150 or more total launches next year. 

[Lar]

It could go below zero. Launch at 11:59 on 31 Dec 1024 and land on 1 Jan 2025 at 12:07.     

I think you meant 2024. Even Elon has not perfected millenial time travel...  But you are right, this is a loophole.

[Lar]

Note: I also assume that by "launch" we mean "booster launch" and that an FH launch is three booster launches.

Correct. I can clarify that if needed?

[Paul451]

[I suggested this in the previous poll, not realising the new one had gone up already.]

Is there a reason for counting intentionally expended cores? I would think the interest in the poll is estimating the failure rate of intended landings.

[DanClemmensen]

[I suggested this in the previous poll, not realising the new one had gone up already.]

Is there a reason for counting intentionally expended cores? I would think the interest in the poll is estimating the failure rate of intended landings.

Depends on your interest. I want to know how many need to be manufactured, so "expended" count for me.

[Lar]

[I suggested this in the previous poll, not realising the new one had gone up already.]

Is there a reason for counting intentionally expended cores? I would think the interest in the poll is estimating the failure rate of intended landings.

Depends on your interest. I want to know how many need to be manufactured, so "expended" count for me.

I agree and that's what this poll is measuring.

Paul there's still time to start that other one, it's an interesting, but different, question.

[DistantTemple]

9
Maybe an additional FH late booking - since SX has the capability to be very responsive.
Also as the cadence ramps up, inclement landing weather times may be squeezed, leading to a failed landing, or a last minute decision to expend.
The cadence, and lack of drone ships may lead to choosing to expend an occasional end of life booster.