POLL: Successful landings of F9 first stages (cores) by SpaceX in 2018?

[Lar]

This is a companion poll to the number of flights poll for 2018: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43942.0
Consult that poll for history, manifest predictions, etc....

Here as well are prior year versions of THIS poll
  2016:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39219.0
  2017 : http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41825.0

Forward link to 2019:
  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46972.0

For the purposes of this poll an "intact core returned" or "successfully landed first stage" means that the stage returned from boost and executed a landing in which it did not topple over, blow up, strike on impact, or disintegrate. There has to be a picture of the stage standing erect and at rest. If it immediately topples after that, or is damaged in handling it still counts.  If SpaceX reuses a stage and lands it again, each successful landing of the stage counts as a returned core.

The landing can be RTLS or on an ASDS or some as yet unspecified thing (I'll modify this if that happens)

Note that a Falcon Heavy has 3 cores. It's possible that 0, 1, 2, or 3 could be returned successfully. it's possible that some do a RTLS and some land on an ASDS. Each core that landed successfully (regardless of where) counts as one core. Each core expended, whether by choice, or by accident, or that fails to remain upright and stationary long enough to get a picture, counts as zero.

Just as with the number of flights poll, suborbital tests do not count. That is the following things don't count: a launch abort test, a first stage only launch test, a test at Spaceport America if that comes to pass...  the stage has to be one that participated in a mission intended to be orbital.  Whether the mission itself is a success doesn't matter. The second stage can blow up one second after MECO (or even before, although surviving that and returning might be a bit harder) and as long as the first stage gets home, it counts. (For FH if the center core blows up on separation, but the side cores return, that's 2 cores returned)

Hopefully that makes things clear. You may not agree with my definitions, or wish they were different but these are the ones being used, so take that into account. These are the same definitions as in prior years.

[Lar]

As with the main poll, a bit behind... opening it so people can vote, will modify a bit as we go. (adding the refernce to the recovered cores list is high on my wishlist)

Voted 25 to allow for a few expendables, mishaps, etc.

[hopalong]

Went with 30 on the basis that the returning heavies will offset the expended cores (voted 30 launches for 2018) and any landing kaabooms. I would expect one landing failure on 2018 just on the basis of sod's law.

[Rebel44]

IMO:
26x Falcon 9
2x Falcon Heavy
100% 1st stage landing success

[Lar]

IMO:
26x Falcon 9
2x Falcon Heavy
100% 1st stage landing success

So you're thinking we're done with expendables completely? Inteesting!

[ZachS09]

I made sure this time not to underestimate myself and choose the number of successful landings that will add up to 100% for 2018.

[Rebel44]

IMO:
26x Falcon 9
2x Falcon Heavy
100% 1st stage landing success

So you're thinking we're done with expendables completely? Inteesting!

I am hopeful that Block 5 will be able to launch Hispasat 30W-6 and still land on a barge - but it could obviously be an expendable launch (maybe with reused Block 3/4 core - IMO SpaceX would like to avoid launching Block 5 1st stage on expendable flight).

[Billium]

I voted 9 last year, and was obviously very low, I didn't think they would get it so good so fast.

This year I voted 21 and I am already regretting my vote as too low. But, there are a lot of GTO launches, some farther than GTO, I'm not sure about those MEO launches, I don't know if the heavy will work on its first try, Elon says not likely, how many heavies we'll get next year, if the block 5 will be delayed, if it will be the magic rocket as advertised, etc. So those are some reasons, but yep 21 is probably too low.

[ejb749]

I wouldn't be surprised if they start using recovered cores as intentionally expendable.  So I'm going with 25.

[space_dreamer]

I'm saying 20 I really hope they manage more but...

[Johnnyhinbos]

My vote - 29. Per my 2018 predictions, I said that of the 35 cores launched (29 F9s launched, two FH), 29 will be recovered - three failures and three expendable Block 3/4

EDIT: I voted 30 but meant to vote 29. So I am expecting 29 landings, despite of my vote!

[AncientU]

33

Voted for 32 launches.  Two are scheduled for FH, which could bring up to 6 cores back.
Last few intentionally expendable flights on pre-Block 5 cores (previously-flown core used as expendable).
32 launches --> 36 cores -->3 expended intentionally = 33 cores landed.
Bonus launch is in-flight abort, which may land core to make up for one overboard... or not.

[Craftyatom]

Given their 100% success rate this year (assuming I don't jinx Iridium-4), I'd say 100% landing success in 2018 is well within the realm of possibility.  That leaves it up to us to guess at how many launches will occur (as per the other poll) and how many will be expendable or heavies.

I guessed 32 launches, 2 being heavy, for a total of 36 cores going up.  My guess is that only Hispasat and the two Telstars go expendable, since everything else to GTO is under F9's demonstrated capability with Titanium fins, and F9 is just so good at lower orbits (due to its kerolox upper stage gimping it a bit to higher ones) that I can't imagine they'd expend one going any lower than GTO.

So 36-3 is 33.  Sorry for copying your answers, AncientU.

[envy887]

Given their 100% success rate this year (assuming I don't jinx Iridium-4), I'd say 100% landing success in 2018 is well within the realm of possibility.  That leaves it up to us to guess at how many launches will occur (as per the other poll) and how many will be expendable or heavies.

I guessed 32 launches, 2 being heavy, for a total of 36 cores going up.  My guess is that only Hispasat and the two Telstars go expendable, since everything else to GTO is under F9's demonstrated capability with Titanium fins, and F9 is just so good at lower orbits (due to its kerolox upper stage gimping it a bit to higher ones) that I can't imagine they'd expend one going any lower than GTO.

So 36-3 is 33.  Sorry for copying your answers, AncientU.

Iridium 4 isn't landing, so no jinx. It's flying expendable.

[Mader Levap]

Voted 23.

Assumptions: no launch failures and 25 launches, including 2 FH. I can see SpaceX attempting to recover all cores of those FH launches (6 in total). What about 23 other launches? Well, some of them will be expendable, other will deliberately forgo recovery a la last Iridium and some small fraction will be mishaps (at this stage unlikely). Checked crystal ball and it said 17. So there we go.

[Pete]

Voting 28
Rough estimate of 2 FH launches, with 5 recoveries. (first launch they miscalc the reentry on center core and perform a flawless landing 30 miles from the deck)
Loss of first stage on in-flight abort test, if it happens.
23 of 30 F9 launches with attempted recovery, 100% success.

*_{as all these numbers are plucked from my nether orifice, they are to be taken with a grain of salt.}

[meberbs]

Looks like the final answer was 12. Only 2 cores were unsuccessfully recovered, but only 14 attempts were made out of 23 cores flown (assuming GPS gets off the pad). Looks like the voting was on the right track for success rate, but the discarding of Block 4s on their second flights was not accounted for, and the overall launch rate was overestimated.

[Lar]

I think discarding all the 4s caught many of us by surprise... that certainly depressed the numbers.

The 2019 poll is up: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46972.0

I voted for a pretty high success rate but my flight estimate is also quite high. (I expect significant starlink traffic beyond the manifested flights)