NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => Polls Section => Topic started by: Lar on 01/04/2016 08:04 AM

Title: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Lar on 01/04/2016 08:04 AM
This is a companion poll to the number of flights poll: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39071.0
Consult that poll for history, manifest predictions, etc....

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 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. Therefore, so a launch abort test would not count, so would a first stage only launch test... Nor would tests 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 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.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Dante80 on 01/04/2016 08:08 AM
I went with four. A little less than 50% (I think they will launch 9 times this year).
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: NovaSilisko on 01/04/2016 08:09 AM
Hmmmm. I voted for 10 launches in the other poll, so I'm going for 5 successful core returns. I think there are still some bugs that will need to be worked out, especially on ASDS landings. I expect at least a few earth-shattering kabooms this year.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Lar on 01/04/2016 08:11 AM
I voted 12 in the other poll and I think there's a good chance they will try for all and get 2/3 so I voted 8. Not much more scientific than that.

(however it makes me the BIG optimist so far :) )

I figured unlike the other poll I didn't have to go beyond 15 cores... PM me if you think I should have went higher before "or more")
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 01/04/2016 08:16 AM
To make my vote consistent with my 23 prediction for launches I went for 15+
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: QuantumG on 01/04/2016 08:33 AM
Shouldn't you be all for counting attempts? After all, how do you define "intact"? :trollface:
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: mme on 01/04/2016 08:56 AM
I voted 6 but really have no good reason.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: FinalFrontier on 01/04/2016 09:03 AM
Voted 7. Expect 5 however depending on delta V reqs for various flights. Maybe lower even.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/04/2016 10:17 AM
Shouldn't you be all for counting attempts? After all, how do you define "intact"? :trollface:


Geez will you let it go.

How about 'intact' means it still looks like a rocket, so is sat on its own four legs with a superficially intact tankage structure on top, and remains that way long enough for the recovery crews to come and hook the crane up.
Damage to individual components such as engines or grid fins do not make a stage non-intact.

I will eat crow if this definition proves insufficiently detailed.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: vapour_nudge on 01/04/2016 10:34 AM
3 recoveries from 9 launches. Feasible?
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 01/04/2016 11:13 AM
Nine! I want to be right, therefore, I am right.  :D
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/04/2016 11:44 AM
Wait, does a FH count for 3? 

I voted 6, but a fully reuse able FH I think it's 8-9.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Poole Amateur on 01/04/2016 11:46 AM
Stuck my finger in the air and came up with a completely unscientific guess of 12 launches and 6 recoveries.

Would be very happy to find I have been pessimistic...on both numbers!
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: majormajor42 on 01/04/2016 12:58 PM
Wait, does a FH count for 3?  

I voted 6, but a fully reuse able FH I think it's 8-9.

Yes, as many of the three that land.

From the total # of flights thread:
It is ridiculous that we'd count a Falcon Heavy launch with a mass simulator, but at least it'd be an orbital flight.
So it might be 4 points! One for launch and three for landing  :o




I guessed 9.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: cscott on 01/04/2016 01:35 PM
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.

In the launch attempts poll, I've been going with the "50% more than last year" rule, which led me to predict 11 launches.  That rule didn't seem to apply here: surely they will land more than 1.5 cores.  I'm going to be bold and predict 11 landings.  That's "almost 100%" -- you can miss two F9FT launches and make it up by recovering all three cores of the FH.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Mader Levap on 01/04/2016 01:40 PM
Voted six (from nine launches that will happen in 2016 imo). Call me optimist... I don't think they will have many problem with RTLS, assuming successful launch. Maybe some gremlin there and here, and there is still unproven drone ship landing.

About FH: I would count each core separately. It is not launch where whole shebang go up together. Every core from FH returns back on their own. Since I don't think FH will launch in 2016, didn't count them in number above.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: jongoff on 01/04/2016 02:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: tleski on 01/04/2016 03:56 PM
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 like this definition. I think we should count cores which don't topple immediately after landing but that's just me.

Voted for 5, which is approx. 50% of the 11 successful launches for which I voted in the other poll. As many people here I am hoping I am wrong and it will be many more but as we know anything can happen.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/04/2016 04:14 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: tleski on 01/04/2016 04:52 PM
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.

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.

SpaceX cannot control weather (yet  ;)), so they may expend some stages due to this factor for ASDS bargings. Much less likely for RTLS in my opinion.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: CraigLieb 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  ::)
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/04/2016 06:07 PM
I said 16 launches, so I'm voting for recovering 11 cores.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: nadreck on 01/04/2016 06:14 PM
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
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: intrepidpursuit 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.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Lar 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 :)
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Zed_Noir 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.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: sdsds 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.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Lar 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.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: sdsds 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.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Jarnis 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 )

Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: PerW on 01/05/2016 08:15 AM
I did guess 6, a little bit less than half of 14 successful launches...
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: llanitedave 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.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: gospacex 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)?
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Bubbinski on 01/05/2016 05:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: abaddon 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
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: watermod 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)
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Jcc on 01/05/2016 11:57 PM
Guessing 8 recovered out of 14 flights. Main losses due to poor conditions for ASDS landings.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: deltaV on 01/06/2016 01:48 AM
I voted 6 recovered cores out of 13 flights.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: rcoppola on 01/06/2016 01:55 AM
8 Returns:   6 F9s & 2 boosters from FH.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: wannamoonbase 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
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Lar on 01/06/2016 01:50 PM
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.
I understand that people would like to see different definitions.

But I'm not going to change the definition I chose. And if I did, I'd have to reset the poll, as many people have voted already.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: cscott on 01/06/2016 03:03 PM
For my part, I apologize for my early post +1'ing the intact definition.  We were all superbly trolled by @quantumg, causing us to waste a lot of breath defining "intact" when Lars already had a perfectly serviceable definition in the first post.

@Lars I wouldn't take it personally.  Everyone (including me) re-defining "intact" is actually reaffirming your original definition.  We're just silly enough to respond to posts in the heat of "+1 fever" without rereading the first post and realizing we don't actually need to say anything.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: rcoppola on 01/06/2016 03:31 PM
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 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.
They may very well recover all 3. But I wasn't sure exactly what the first mission would be and thought perhaps the core may wind up needing to complete a return profile that has never been attempted before. I was in a conservative mood.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: hop on 01/06/2016 08:51 PM
Voted 4, out of 11 flights predicted in the other thread. Just a WAG, based on:
1) Don't expect them to attempt recovery on more than ~50% of flights
2) Don't expect every recovery attempt to be successful

Wouldn't be surprised if it was as many as 6 or as few as 3.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: SpacemanInSPACE on 01/06/2016 11:18 PM
I voted 10 flights, so went for a 30% return rate and guessed 3.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: chalz on 01/06/2016 11:53 PM
This poll is like trying to guess how many flights they would make in 2018 from back in 2008. :-\ :-[
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: deadman719 on 01/07/2016 12:14 AM
My random guess for successful landings is 6.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Mader Levap on 01/07/2016 04:34 PM
This poll is like trying to guess how many flights they would make in 2018 from back in 2008. :-\ :-[
Yeah, because we deal here with two layers of uncertainity. First, we do not know for sure how many successful launches will be done. Second layer is, of course, amount of successful returns themself that directly depends on first number.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/07/2016 07:27 PM
I'm guessing 4 cores because landings can be sometimes hard to perform. Especially on a barge.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: DJPledger on 01/07/2016 07:55 PM
I voted 5 returned cores in 2016 as SpaceX are still likely to miss a few landings especially on the barge.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: fthomassy on 01/07/2016 08:23 PM
Voted 15 in launch poll and 6 here.  I'm anticipating a low rate of opportunity and moderate rate of success with a majority of returns being ASDS rather than RTLS.

Good luck SpaceX!
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: philw1776 on 01/08/2016 05:14 PM
Predicted 13 successful launches again this year. Forecasting 7 successfully returned cores.  I'll likely be too pessimistic if FH really launches in 2016 as annually forecast by SX.  Not all are returned because of launch dynamics and bad weather for drone recovery plus maybe one more lesson or so about core recovery learned the RUD way.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: majormajor42 on 01/08/2016 07:13 PM
Poll is open till the 24th. The smart money will wait to see if they can nail it on the barge on the (NET) 17th.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: John Alan on 01/08/2016 10:45 PM
14 intact cores...  :o
But I guessed 17 launches... So this seems like a logical number...  ::)
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: WizZifnab on 01/09/2016 02:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: SweetWater on 01/09/2016 03:04 AM
I voted 14 launches this year, so am voting for 7 cores returned intact. Personally, I'm not holding my breath on Falcon Heavy launching this year, but it would be very, very cool to see 2 (essentially) simultaneous landings.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: AndrewM on 01/09/2016 05:17 AM
I voted 12 launches and 5 intact landings. It will come down to how Jason-3 goes. If it lands safely on the ASDS then I think I'm being pessimistic. I also think weather will come into play for ASDS landings and some won't be able to be recovered.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: johnstone on 01/10/2016 07:15 AM

6 points I think so
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/11/2016 01:25 AM
I voted 15 or more because I believe it will be 15 cores but then I believe that there will be 16 flights that also include at least 2 FH flights. 16 flights that includes 2 FH flights is 20 cores launched so for SpaceX to recover only 15 of those 20 5 cores will be unrecoverable for either they crashed or the weather was not conducive to an ASDS landing and the customer did not want to wait just so SpaceX could increase chances of stage recovery. Else probably every stage launched could be recovered.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Paul451 on 01/11/2016 09:53 AM
Seriously, what is it with you guys and odd numbers?
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Rebel44 on 01/11/2016 10:45 AM
14 launches and 6 recovered cores
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 01/13/2016 09:26 PM
voted 10 launches, and 13 recoveries just cause I'm being contrarian  :o
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Lar on 01/14/2016 07:26 AM
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.
Can someone work the numbers for me, for a typical FH flight profile, without crossfeed, would the side cores land first (given they have to boost back) or would the center core land first (longer flight time before a reentry burn but no flight back)

I think WITH crossfeed, the side cores land first... but without?
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: kch on 01/14/2016 07:48 AM
voted 10 launches, and 13 recoveries just cause I'm being contrarian  :o

Nothing inconsistent there -- eight F9s, two FHs, one core not recovered.  Makes sense to me.  :)
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: sdsds on 01/18/2016 05:38 AM
So would someone who understands the definition used for this poll explain whether Jason-3 counts as an intact core returned in 2016?
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Lar on 01/18/2016 08:19 AM
So would someone who understands the definition used for this poll explain whether Jason-3 counts as an intact core returned in 2016?
Does not count. (since I wrote the definition, hopefully I understand it :) )

It was not stationary long enough to get a picture, since it started falling over as soon as the legs were on deck.  if the leg had held for a few seconds and then collapsed for some other reason (not a lock failure) it would have been. But it wasn't stationary... here's the key phrase "There has to be a picture of the stage standing erect and at rest." .. it wasn't at rest, it was very gradually falling over from the second it touched down...

OF COURSE the very first landing in 2016 is one that is a perfect edge case for the definition! (shakes fist in general direction of Hawthorne)
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/18/2016 08:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Paul451 on 01/18/2016 10:36 AM
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.

If he wrote that, then the dock crane would have fallen on it.

[Sorry Lar, you're a jinx.]
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 01/18/2016 04:29 PM
I, too, disagree with the moderator. Down with Lar!

...Please don't hurt my L2, Sir...
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Lar on 01/18/2016 04:35 PM
Whoa! I thought I was everyone's favorite mod[1]. 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,  but can't unless we reset.... Nor is it entirely practical 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.

We may need an expose article on the main page... "shocking moderator malfeasance" is my working headline...

1 - except for Chris, but he doesn't count, he's not just a mod...
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: nadreck on 01/18/2016 04:38 PM
Whoa! I thought I was everyone's favorite mod[1]. 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...

Lar as someone who creates polls here, I believe it is the person who creates the poll that sets the rules and then arbitrates the boundary cases. You do a good job and are fair. Personally I don't think it should count as a successful recovery either by your definition or generically, but since it is your poll it is your interpretation that caries the most weight with me.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Krevsin on 01/18/2016 04:40 PM
Does Jason 3 count as at least half of a successful stage landing?  ;D
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Lar on 01/18/2016 04:44 PM
Does Jason 3 count as at least half of a successful stage landing?  ;D

(in deep, echoey voice) No.  I have spoken. Be on about your business, mortals, and pray that I don't start another poll.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: woods170 on 01/18/2016 05:35 PM
Does Jason 3 count as at least half of a successful stage landing?  ;D

(in deep, echoey voice) No.  I have spoken. Be on about your business, mortals, and pray that I don't start another poll.
Heaven forbid!  :)
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: pippin on 01/18/2016 05:51 PM
3.
Looks like it's harder than anticipated and I don't see FH fly this year.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: cscott on 01/19/2016 12:56 AM
Does Jason 3 count as at least half of a successful stage landing?  ;D
It would be 3/4 of a successful landing, since three of the four legs locked.

/me runs
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: CraigLieb on 01/19/2016 01:48 AM
Stand by my post elsewhere this was a successful landing followed by a very rough taxi.
😉
*running now to join cScott wherever one must hide from benevolent overlords who's wrath has been stirred.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/19/2016 01:58 AM
Stand by my post elsewhere this was a successful landing followed by a very rough taxi.

If you don't get to use the craft again, it's not a good landing.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: cscott on 01/19/2016 06:00 AM
If you don't get to use the craft again, it was a terrible taxi!
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/19/2016 08:04 AM
Elon votes for 70% success rate (he must be looking at a different poll, I didn't see that option).
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: shm6666 on 01/19/2016 03:25 PM
I did vote 8. Two miss but a complet heavy.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Zed_Noir on 01/19/2016 04:12 PM
Elon votes for 70% success rate (he must be looking at a different poll, I didn't see that option).

Nah. Just take 70% from the current number of manifested cores for this year accounting to the NSF US launch thread. Which is 31 cores by my count. So 31 * 0.7 = 21.7, therefore rounding it to 21 intact core if all the manifested cores takes flight.

More realistic, according to Shotwell in an interview that she expect 14 flights for this year. So 13 F9 plus the FH demo give us 16 manifested cores for 2016. So 16 * 0.7 = 11.2, therefore rounding it to 11 intact cores.

So end my speculation.  :)
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: nadreck on 01/19/2016 05:14 PM
Elon votes for 70% success rate (he must be looking at a different poll, I didn't see that option).

I saw that option and voted 60%:

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
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: rickl on 01/20/2016 05:32 AM
I picked 4, which is probably on the pessimistic side.  There will be some bugs that still need to be worked out, and I figure there will be some launches where they will need maximum performance and can't attempt a landing.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 01/20/2016 09:02 AM
I voted an optimistic 15+

First, they have a few FH in the manifest. Their payload should be light enough to allow 3x RTLS, or at least 2x RTLS + 1 barge.

And then, they have to start beating launches out of one stage, test it until it breaks. Either with working US and a not yet manifested payload (dragonlab? spamming LEO with cubesats?) or with US mass simulators. Each testflight (at least those with real US) would count as a returned core.

Launches that require an expendable F9FT will get reassigned to FH.
Title: Re: POLL: Number of SpaceX intact cores returned in 2016
Post by: Lar on 12/12/2016 06:23 PM
Looks like the final answer was 5 per http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40231.0

Of those 4 were to OCISLY and one was RTLS... 

JRTI hasn't had a winner yet and was 0 for 1 for the year
OCISLY was 4 for 6
RTLS was 1 for 1