Starship first fully-operational launch

[Lee Jay]

When do you think Starship will:
1)  Launch.
2)  Successfully complete the defined mission.
3)  Both booster and ship return safely to land at some point after the launch.

Note that the returned vehicles don't have to re-launch, just return safely.
The date you pick is the date of the launch, not of the return.

[RobW]

I've put my stake down on 2H 2025. Could it be earlier? Absolutely and I really hope it is. But I'm an optimist by inclination and this is me trying to recognise that there's a lot that has to go right, and practise makes perfect, and sometimes you just need a little longer to practise some more.

Once it *does* get to the point of full-up flight, recovery, (and then refurbishment, and re-flight): Watch those Starlinks soar! There's going to be more of those satellites in the air than confetti at a wedding


Then Starship really gets to prove out the re-use and reliability things.

[Lee Jay]

I've put my stake down on 2H 2025.

I also said 2H 2025, but I'm often over-optimistic on SpaceX time lines.  For example, I voted for 4 in the poll on number of SS launches in 2023.  I don't see that happening!

[mike robel]

2H 2025.  Don't know why.  My history of prediction is not good.

1973-4.  Roommate said I should take computer classes.  I said B.S.  I'm gonna be a tanker and you use the computer by pushing/pulling a handle.

1978:  Not a prediction.  Got the book Numbers, Prediction and War (also am a wargamer).  Started working through it with my slide rule (I started out as an Engineer in college, but switched to history) and a four function credit card calculator, graphpaper, and index cards.

1979:  Regimental Commander told us all we needed to learn about computers.  We thought he was just an old dude.  We were armored cavalrymen and didn't need no stinking computers.

1980:  Got back home from Germany.  Saw a TV with a keyboard in front of it.  Asked salesman what it was.  A computer called the TRS-80.  Riiggght.

1980:  Got to my parents house.  He had a TRS-80 on the dining room table.  What's that Dad?  A computer, Mike.  Riggghttt.  Make it do something computery.  Hmmmm.  Started teaching myself to make it work.  See 1978.  Later got a TRS-80.

1989:  Was teach ROTC in California and discussing US vs USSR military power.  One of my students asked me if I thought Germany would every be united.  Not a chance, kid, says I.  Walk back to my office.  Phone ringing.  Me:  Major Robel, CSU-SB ROTC.  May I help you?  Wife:  Mike!  Mike!  They are coming across the wall!  Me:  Shit, I have to get into the fight.  Wife:  NO!  You don't understand?  The WALL IS DOWN!  (See 1977-1980.  We patrolled the East-West Germany Border which had fences, mines, machine gun bunkers, etc.).

Next Week:  Major Robel (Same Kid).  Now do you think they will reunite?  Thought for about 3 minutes.  (Actually had been thinking about it all week.)  Nope.  I don't think the British, French, or Russians would ever allow it.

1992.  After playing some war games, participating in Command Post Exercises, etc. I thought Desert Storm would take 6 weeks to defeat the Iraqis.  (About the same as the German's defeating France.  It did take about 6 weeks, but five of them were the air campaign and the ground part took 100 hours or so.  We also thought our assault battalions (We had two punch a hole through the Iraqi Line.  The 1st Infantry Division (The Big Red One) had nine battalions:  6 tank, 3 infantry, and the cavalry squadron.  We thought we needed more infantry and tried to get a battalion from the 1st ID (Forward) serving as stevedores to flesh us out, but no dice.  During our attack, we lost 4 or 5 guys and some wounded.  Miraculous (unless you were one of them).  The 2nd Brigade had no killed.

So, most things take longer and are more expensive than you think they will be.

SpaceX has pretty much surprised me everytime.  I think he'll accomplish what he wants, but his predictions seem to be mostly too optimistic.

[deltaV]

I voted 2H 2024.

Edit: I accidentally hit "post" prematurely. I'm surprised that my vote was on the more optimistic end compared to many voters.

[Vahe231991]

The Superbird-9 satellite is scheduled to launch NET 2024 aboard Starship, so it will constitute the first fully operational payload earmarked for launch from the Starship.

[Lee Jay]

The Superbird-9 satellite is scheduled to launch NET 2024 aboard Starship, so it will constitute the first fully operational payload earmarked for launch from the Starship.

Maybe.  But the criteria doesn't specify the payload, just that the mission is successful and both vehicles return safely to land.  Maybe the first payload will be Starlinks or something else, we don't know for sure but it may be a while after the first successful mission that they meet all the criteria, including both vehicles safely returning.

[Robotbeat]

Falcon 9 didn’t become fully operational until 2015-2016 by this measure, and most rockets never became operational.

[DreamyPickle]

Do we even know where and how they plan to recover the second stage? It definitely won't be Hawaii.

[Lee Jay]

Falcon 9 didn’t become fully operational until 2015-2016 by this measure, and most rockets never became operational.

Right, but this system was designed literally from the ground up for this so it seems reasonable to ask when you think it will first achieve what it has been designed to do.

[Steve G]

It will be a lot easier to submit an answer after the next launch.

[Robotbeat]

Falcon 9 didn’t become fully operational until 2015-2016 by this measure, and most rockets never became operational.

Right, but this system was designed literally from the ground up for this so it seems reasonable to ask when you think it will first achieve what it has been designed to do.

Falcon 9 was also designed from the very beginning for recovery, first by parachute (which never worked, in spite of trying several times including with—but not limited to—Falcon 1) and then by vertical landing with v1.1.

[Lee Jay]

Falcon 9 didn’t become fully operational until 2015-2016 by this measure, and most rockets never became operational.

Right, but this system was designed literally from the ground up for this so it seems reasonable to ask when you think it will first achieve what it has been designed to do.

Falcon 9 was also designed from the very beginning for recovery, first by parachute (which never worked, in spite of trying several times including with—but not limited to—Falcon 1) and then by vertical landing with v1.1.

Sort of.  It was more of an aspirational thing rather than a design.  They were planning to try things and ultimately figured it out many years later after quite a few iterations and fundamental changes (including abandoning recovering the second stage).  But this isn't the case with Starship.  This was designed from the very beginning to be fully reusable and with the experience of Falcon 9.  And note that I didn't ask when it would be first reused, just safely recovered.

[Lee Jay]

It will be a lot easier to submit an answer after the next launch.

I'm confident that the next launch will take place after this poll closes.

[ulm_atms]

I would of added whenever the Florida pad is ready.  I don't see any operational missions out of BC for some time as BC is for all the development stuff currently and the launch corridor is limited too.

[DanClemmensen]

I voted for H2 2024, but this is very aggressive. The poll's criteria require a sucessful re-entry, which means the TPS must work. The catch system must also work, twice. Among other things, this means some sort of safe re-entry path for the SS, approved by the FAA, that ends at a working chopsticks.

[Robotbeat]

It will be a lot easier to submit an answer after the next launch.

I'm confident that the next launch will take place after this poll closes.

Nevertheless, it behoves us to wait until right before it closes to vote.

[jongoff]

Dang, I didn't read the post before voting. I voted 2H2024, but if I had seen the part about booster and ship returning safely, I would've slid it out to some time in 2025.

~Jon

[lightleviathan]

I voted 2H 2024, but VERY late in that. SpaceX will have flown Starship at least 5 times, and this flight will be successful from LC-39A.

[RobW]

I voted 2H 2024, but VERY late in that. SpaceX will have flown Starship at least 5 times, and this flight will be successful from LC-39A.

I'd be really surprised if this first operational flight launches from and lands at LC-39A. Remember, the by definition the 'first fully operational launch' will be the first successful tower catch of the booster, the ship, or both together. I don't think NASA would be happy allowing tower catch attempts at LC-39A before they are successfully demonstrated elsewhere, most likely at Starbase.

I could see them allowing launches, either with expendable boosters or with booster tower catch after that's been demonstrated elsewhere a few times, But I don't see them allowing a ship tower catch at LC-39A if that hasn't already been demonstrated, at which point that demonstration would fit our definition of a fully operational launch.

Unless the booster and ship catches were demonstrated on different flights, and the LC-39A flight was the first to feature both at the same time.

Another possibility is that, between now and that first operational launch, the ship might get landing legs again. In which case I think NASA would be more comfortable with a landing attempt at LZ-1.

[Hog]

Is not requiring a relaunch really an "fully operational launch"? 

No difference between the "operational" tag and the flight test we just witnessed.

[Lee Jay]

Is not requiring a relaunch really an "fully operational launch"? 

No difference between the "operational" tag and the flight test we just witnessed.

It just means they may, or may not choose to refurbish and re-launch, or not, depending on condition, version upgrades and so on.

And, yes, "operational" is quite different than what we just witnessed, in every single way (successful mission delivery to orbit, safe return of both vehicles).

[Robotbeat]

I think you’re using a higher bar for “operational” than other vehicles. Which is fine, as SpaceX kind of set that bar pretty high.

In fact, you could arguably insist it’s not truly operational until it both has fully recovery (and reuse) AND a mission to deliver a payload that requires refueling (not Artemis but arguably like a direct to GSO type mission like with Viasat-3).

[Lee Jay]

I think you’re using a higher bar for “operational” than other vehicles. Which is fine, as SpaceX kind of set that bar pretty high.

In fact, you could arguably insist it’s not truly operational until it both has fully recovery (and reuse) AND a mission to deliver a payload that requires refueling (not Artemis but arguably like a direct to GSO type mission like with Viasat-3).

I just thought it would be unfair to set it that high.  So I just made what to me is a reasonable choice for this design.

[Robotbeat]

I think you’re using a higher bar for “operational” than other vehicles. Which is fine, as SpaceX kind of set that bar pretty high.

In fact, you could arguably insist it’s not truly operational until it both has fully recovery (and reuse) AND a mission to deliver a payload that requires refueling (not Artemis but arguably like a direct to GSO type mission like with Viasat-3).

I just thought it would be unfair to set it that high.  So I just made what to me is a reasonable choice for this design.

I’m not sure it’ll make much time difference as they might actually demonstrate refueling for Artemis before they have recovered both stages successfully.

[mikelepage]

It seems I was thinking much more minimally "operational" than most people on this thread. That's the only reason I went 1H 2024 (which could still be over a year away).

1) by successfully conducting an operational mission I took to mean the already-proposed mission where there is transfer of propellant between tanks on the same Starship.
2) Returning Starship to land I took to mean that an earlier mission would have successfully landed Starship on an ASDS in the Gulf of Mexico with SN12-style legs, and returning to port as with the F9 boosters. Doing this would validate the landing accuracy needed to attempt a tower catch with superheavy, and another ASDS landing of Starship would meet the requirement here.
3) Can't really tell if there's room for an ASDS to dock on the south side of the Brownsville shipping channel, but returning Starship from an ASDS to Starbase via Boca Chica Boulevard seems within the realms of possibility.

Really does depend on how the next launch goes.

[RobW]

I just rediscovered this poll from the misty depths of time in April 2023.  My vote for a first successful and fully-recovered Starship flight was 2H 2025.

Here we are at the beginning of 2025 and, surprisingly (to me at least - I'm usually terrible at these), I'd still vote the same.

Anyone interested in re-doing this poll with the same conditions / definitions, but maybe some more granular time periods?

[BN]

I just rediscovered this poll from the misty depths of time in April 2023.  My vote for a first successful and fully-recovered Starship flight was 2H 2025.

Here we are at the beginning of 2025 and, surprisingly (to me at least - I'm usually terrible at these), I'd still vote the same.

Anyone interested in re-doing this poll with the same conditions / definitions, but maybe some more granular time periods?

sure. it seems opinions are just as divided on the viability and schedule of Starship. I imagine the recent ship explosions have made some feel less optimistic.


edit: I expect the first fully operational launch early 2026. this would mean successfully deploying a large stack of starlinks and then booster and ship being caught by the chopsticks and restacked. later this year seems almost as likely.

[lightleviathan]

I voted 2H 2024, but VERY late in that. SpaceX will have flown Starship at least 5 times, and this flight will be successful from LC-39A.

I said H2 2024 haha. Not sure how I came to this conclusion, we did this poll like right after IFT-1; I suppose I just really underestimated how many flights it would take to get operational (and of course I wasn't aware of all of the weight issues that precluded payload deploy, and then V2 happened which I don't think anyone saw coming). I actually underpredicted the amount of flights by that time, which is pretty surprising. LC-39A's pad still hasn't happened, and probably won't until H1 '26. If I were to do this again today, I'd probably say H2 '26.

Hindsight is 20/20..

[AmigaClone]

If this poll were to be redone, I would say Starship's first operational launch would likely be NET H2 2025, depending on the results of flights 9 and 10 at the very least. At this point, I don't see an operational flight before flight 11.

In fact, it's possible the first operational launch would be a V3 vehicle.

[Lee Jay]

When do you think Starship will:
1)  Launch.
2)  Successfully complete the defined mission.
3)  Both booster and ship return safely to land at some point after the launch.

Note that the returned vehicles don't have to re-launch, just return safely.
The date you pick is the date of the launch, not of the return.

FYI, my recorded vote was 2H 2025.

[Robotbeat]

Won’t be fully operational before 100,000 flights. In other words, the poll is poorly defined.

[Lee Jay]

Won’t be fully operational before 100,000 flights. In other words, the poll is poorly defined.

You said that before, and I answered above.  I defined "operational" in the first post.