Starship first fully-operational launch

[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.

[Lee Jay]

There's a reasonable chance at this point that the answer ends up being 2H 2026, for which no one voted.  That would be ironic.

[sdsds]

For context, this poll closed in 2023, between the first two full-stack Starship flight tests. I didn't 'vote' in the poll but at that time I almost certainly would have chosen sometime before 2026.

There's a reasonable chance at this point that the answer ends of being 2H 2026, for which no one voted.  That would be ironic.

The dataset contains hints of an underlying multi-modal distribution. So yes there's some irony to the zero value for 2H 2026, and yet for a distribution with multiple modes the mean ('expected value') commonly falls in a valley between two modal peaks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

At this point the apparently anonymous 1H 2027 voter deserves some applause.

[Lee Jay]

For context, this poll closed in 2023, between the first two full-stack Starship flight tests. I didn't 'vote' in the poll but at that time I almost certainly would have chosen sometime before 2026.

There's a reasonable chance at this point that the answer ends of being 2H 2026, for which no one voted.  That would be ironic.

The dataset contains hints of an underlying multi-modal distribution. So yes there's some irony to the zero value for 2H 2026, and yet for a distribution with multiple modes the mean ('expected value') commonly falls in a valley between two modal peaks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

At this point the apparently anonymous 1H 2027 voter deserves some applause.

Looks more "Weibull" to me.

[Steph Murray]

props to that one guy who voted closest to reality miraculously, unless 1H 2026 somehow happens, though that would basically be flight 12 (test) --> flight 13 (full catch test) --> flight 14 fully operational, which... naw mate