Total Members Voted: 259
Voting closed: 01/24/2016 08:04 am
Shouldn't you be all for counting attempts? After all, how do you define "intact"? :trollface:
Wait, does a FH count for 3? I voted 6, but a fully reuse able FH I think it's 8-9.
It is ridiculous that we'd count a Falcon Heavy launch with a mass simulator, but at least it'd be an orbital flight.
I agree with @kaputnik's definition of "intact". Basically, if it stays standing on four feet long enough to hook the crane up, it's intact.
I voted 4, but only voted for 10 launches this year, so I'm probably on the optimistic side in this poll. I think they'll continue having some issues with ASDS landings, but wouldn't be surprised (and would be very happy) if they got at least one successful ASDS landing before the end of the year.
Quote from: jongoff on 01/04/2016 02:33 pmI voted 4, but only voted for 10 launches this year, so I'm probably on the optimistic side in this poll. I think they'll continue having some issues with ASDS landings, but wouldn't be surprised (and would be very happy) if they got at least one successful ASDS landing before the end of the year.What is harder -- RTLS or ASDS landing and why? SpaceX has shown that they hit very close to center of the LZ if everything works well.
Quote from: cscott on 01/04/2016 01:35 pmif it stays standing on four feet long enough to hook the crane upI like this definition.
if it stays standing on four feet long enough to hook the crane up
Quote from: tleski on 01/04/2016 03:56 pmQuote from: cscott on 01/04/2016 01:35 pmif it stays standing on four feet long enough to hook the crane upI like this definition.Concur.
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.
I said 16 launches, so I'm voting for recovering 11 cores.
May - Demo Flight - Falcon Heavy - Kennedy LC-39AOctober - 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-39Alate - Europasat/HellasSat-3 - Falcon Heavy - Kennedy LC-39A (or NLT 1st quarter 2017)
8 Returns: 6 F9s & 2 boosters from FH.
Quote from: Lar on 01/05/2016 04:29 amIt'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.
Quote from: rcoppola on 01/06/2016 01:55 am8 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 missin 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.
This poll is like trying to guess how many flights they would make in 2018 from back in 2008.
I voted 9. Based on ~13 launches.I think weather or launch profile will probably keep a few cores from being recovered, but otherwise I'm optimistic. The wildcard could be FH, esp. if they press to get that into service for customers.I started imagining if they pulled a hat trick on their FH demo. That would be something. As excited as everyone was with the recent landing, seeing a successful FH launch and watching 2 cores landing live at the cape, then getting images shortly thereafter of the 3rd sitting all happy on the barge. Wouldn't that make a statement.
voted 10 launches, and 13 recoveries just cause I'm being contrarian
So would someone who understands the definition used for this poll explain whether Jason-3 counts as an intact core returned in 2016?
Lar- why do you prefer that definition? Seems to have potential for ambiguity. My suggestion was that the stage ought to be secured, e.g. crane hooked on or chains bolting it to the deck (or whatever turns out to be the case)- it's a bit more black and white then.
Whoa! I thought I was everyone's favorite mod. Shocking denouement!My thinking on polls is that once you post a definition, you're pretty much stuck with it. Hence my reluctance to change the number of launches definition either, other than to tighten up any very minor loose edges. (how's that for a split metaphor?)Maybe we should have discussed it first and reached a consensus... but there wasn't time, and people voted based on this definition already. if we change it now, that's not fair to them, I don't think, as it might mean they wanted to change their vote. Nor is it entirelypractical to reset the poll after changing the definition, it might disenfranchise people who already voted and don't have time to vote again.Is there anyone here who thinks Jason3 should have been counted a success? This definition (barely) excludes it.1 - except for Chris, but he doesn't count, he's not just a mod...
Does Jason 3 count as at least half of a successful stage landing?
Quote from: Krevsin on 01/18/2016 04:40 pmDoes Jason 3 count as at least half of a successful stage landing? (in deep, echoey voice) No. I have spoken. Be on about your business, mortals, and pray that I don't start another poll.
Stand by my post elsewhere this was a successful landing followed by a very rough taxi.
Elon votes for 70% success rate (he must be looking at a different poll, I didn't see that option).
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