POLL: Successful landings of F9/FH first stages (cores) by SpaceX in 2019?

[Lar]

This is a companion poll to the number of flights poll for 2019: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46973.0
Consult that poll for history, links to other polls, manifest predictions, etc....

Here as well are prior year versions of THIS poll
  2018 : http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44407.0
  2017 : http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41825.0
  2016:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39219.0

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.

NOTE: CRS-16 does not count as a successful landing, since the plan was to RTLS and the IIP was deliberately not moved to LZ-1 since the stage was having control issues. However it may count as a reused core in some other poll, since it was recovered from the sea.

The landing can be RTLS or on an ASDS or even a water landing IF that landing was planned (CRS-16 wasn't) AND the stage was recovered successfully, 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.  The first FH had 2 successful RTLS and one failed ASDS for a count of 2 (of 3 attempts) successful returns.

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. (planned water landings with recovery, if ever (so far never planned to recover), will be handled on a case by case basis)

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) (Note that the actual FH mission saw 2 cores RTLS successfully, and one that failed to land on the ASDS)

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 but with a couple more examples

[Lar]

I think I have everything set up right, but if you spot issues please let me know via PM (don't clutter the thread with posts, please)

My vote rationale:
   I took my number of launches guess, and assumed 90% returns. (only a few cores expended deliberately)

[tyrred]

Voted 17.  81% successful landings of my predicted launch count.  There will be unexpected expendables.

[ZachS09]

Out of the 20 launches I predicted, I'm guessing they'll stick 18 landings with one expendable mission and one drone ship landing failure.

[Barrie]

21.

I guessed 22 launches, 2 of which will be FH, so 26 cores.  Intuited that they will lose one more FH centre, and they might expend some early Block 5s on the heftier GTO payloads, and any from non-nominal landings on StarLink or some such.

TL;DR: I guessed

[Lar]

OK some joker took option 42. No one did last year (as of this writing). I LOLed but really?

[ZachS09]

OK some joker took option 42. No one did last year (as of this writing). I LOLed but really?

Maybe it's some conspiracy theorist who believes that SpaceX landings are just as fake as the Apollo lunar landings.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

OK some joker took option 42. No one did last year (as of this writing). I LOLed but really?

Maybe it's some conspiracy theorist who believes that SpaceX landings are just as fake as the Apollo lunar landings.

Maybe they ha e an inside on number of Starlink launches.

Now to my prediction. 21 launches of which 2 are FH so 25 S1 stages. Success re o very rate estimated at 95% also estimated that 4 will be expendable. That gives a value of 20 recoveries.

[deruch]

Title of the poll should be changed to indicate that FH cores are also included.

Edit/Lar: Title and poll question both changed. Everyone knew what was meant... but yeah, my inner pedant had to change it once you spotted it. Well spotted.

[TripD]

Sweet 16

[DreamyPickle]

I voted 20 and 20: nice and round.

If both Falcon Heavy flights are fully recovered this still allows for 4 expendable missions.

[John Alan]

15 and 17... numbers for launches and cores landings on the two polls... 

Now again...IF Starlink ramps by 4Q... I will be so wrong... The great unknown... 

[Stefan.Christoff.19]

Voted 18. Voted for 17 launches w/ two FHs that's 21 cores. JCSAT-18 seems like an expendable mission, Air Force could ask to expand STP-2 center core, 1 failure.

[Tomness]

I voted 21 Orbital attempts in 2019. I agree there will be couple of cores sacrificed for mission requirements. So 25 Successful Landings.

[Lar]

We'll be summarizing and starting a new poll soon.

[intelati]

14.5 landings.

Darned Arabsat. haha