POLL: First to deploy a payload into orbit, New Glenn or Starship?

[Yggdrasill]

With these sorts of polls being popular, and on the back of the launch of the first New Glenn and Starship Flight 7 yesterday, which one of these do we think will deploy a payload into orbit first?

The first New Glenn launch reached orbit, but it was flying with a test payload that stayed attached to the second stage. Starship Flight 7 intended to deploy 10 Starlink mass dummies, but into a suborbital trajectory.

As it looks like right now, assuming no additional failures, New Glenn will perform the first payload deployment on the second flight, and Starship needs to repeat flight 7 before launching real Starlink satellites on flight 9, at the earliest.

Some conditions: Payload must detach from the second stage and make a minimum of one full orbit or proceed to a moon or heliocentric orbit. A failure of the of the payload does not invalidate the success of the launch vehicle.

[Yggdrasill]

I thought I could add a poll, but it doesn't seem like I can. Could I get some help? 

[deltaV]

I thought I could add a poll, but it doesn't seem like I can. Could I get some help? 

I added a poll.

[Yggdrasill]

Thank you, deltaV!

I was thinking about this question yesterday, immediately after New Glenns successful flight, and I thought that Starship would beat New Glenn to the punch. But after yesterdays Starship failure, I think it's a lot more uncertain. Personally, I'm now thinking that New Glenn might beat Starship by potentially as little as days.

Both Blue Origin and SpaceX have to do mishap investigations. SpaceX needs to get an orbital launch license. SpaceX needs to do at least two successful flights. Blue Origin needs to do one successful flight. It will be interesting to see how things go.

[sdsds]

It's a trick question, right? Because it doesn't specify if the payload delivery orbit can have a negative perigee altitude. Was the intent to ask which will be first to deploy a payload that completes at least one orbit?

[Yggdrasill]

I did say the payload has to make a minimum of one full orbit (or leave Earth, like Escapade and Blue Moon might). If the perigee is negative it will not complete one full orbit.

[SimonFD]

It's pretty clear New Glenn will deploy to orbit first as that's it's primary goal.
Starship has a wider use case with payload deployment being only a part (although I'm sure Starlink v2 is a priority).

[Yggdrasill]

It's pretty clear New Glenn will deploy to orbit first as that's it's primary goal.

I don't think that's clear. I think Blue Origin will likely do a longer mishap investigation than SpaceX, and will take more time implementing changes after the first flight. This opens up the possibility for SpaceX to swoop in and do the first orbital payload deployment.

But there's not a lot of Starship optimism here. 90% New Glenn right now. 

[trimeta]

Both Blue Origin and SpaceX have to do mishap investigations. SpaceX needs to get an orbital launch license. SpaceX needs to do at least two successful flights. Blue Origin needs to do one successful flight. It will be interesting to see how things go.

This is ultimately the question, as I see it: will Starship launch twice before New Glenn launches once? I think it will, so that's how I voted.

[DanClemmensen]

I voted for Starship, but lots of things must succeed for this to happen: Flight 8 must be a successful suborbital flight first, and then flight 9 must reach orbit and successfully deploy one or more satellties, probably actual Starlink V3, and all of this must happen prior to New Glenn's next flight. A big question is whether or not the preparations for a Ship catch attempt will delay flight 9: It would be perfectly reasonable for FAA ti need extra time to grant a license for a flight that has a Ship catch attempt. Will SpaceX back off and do an initial orbital flight without a catch attempt, or will they insist on a flight 9 catch attempt?

[Greg Hullender]

The big unknown is how fast Blue Origin can move. Based on their performance to date, a second launch might not happen before 2026--or 2027. But if they've finally got their act together, they could launch a few times this year. At which point the question would be "when will Starship catch up to New Glenn?" in terms of tons of payload in (or beyond) LEO.

[rfdesigner]

I went for starship.

Clearly BlueOrigin ought to be able to deploy on their next flight.

SpaceX are at least one flight behind, needing to nail another suborbital before they can try for orbit.

But SpaceX are demonstrating a flight every couple of months, so satellites by May isn't asking that much, even if it's just a very low deployment of half a dozen units, I'm assuming the FAA grants a license based on more leak checks, fire suppression and a bigger hole to vent, none of that is likely to add much time to the schedule.

IMHO BO won't launch before May becasuse they don't seem to be that rapid, that's what this really comes down to.

[jongoff]

The big unknown is how fast Blue Origin can move. Based on their performance to date, a second launch might not happen before 2026--or 2027. But if they've finally got their act together, they could launch a few times this year. At which point the question would be "when will Starship catch up to New Glenn?" in terms of tons of payload in (or beyond) LEO.

That would be a hilarious change of affairs. That said, my guess would be "pretty quickly".

~Jon

[Yggdrasill]

Given the failure of flight 9 on May 27th, it's looking more likely that New Glenn will be able to beat Starship to the first payload deployment. But it's still not a given. The second flight of New Glenn seems to be slipping, and Starship flight 9 was a meaningful improvement over flight 8.

We could see a successful flight 10 in June and the first payload deployment on flight 11 in July, though I personally think it will take more time than that. Flight 2 of New Glenn seems to be NET August, though it isn't completely clear.

It still seems to be a close race.

[Vultur]

Yeah, I think that New Glenn now has the better chance, but it's far from guaranteed.

[lightleviathan]

From what the FAA has said so far seems like they'll require an investigation into the ship's failure. I'd be shocked if they flew again before mid-July.

[thespacecow]

I don't think FAA will be a hurdle any longer, like it or not Elon has seen to that.

Even if investigation is required (not a given, since certain mishaps are exempt from FAA investigation), it doesn't need to finish before FAA can approve the next launch, since FAA can use public safety determination to approve it, which they did for Flight 9.

[DanClemmensen]

I don't think FAA will be a hurdle any longer, like it or not Elon has seen to that.

Even if investigation is required (not a given, since certain mishaps are exempt from FAA investigation), it doesn't need to finish before FAA can approve the next launch, since FAA can use public safety determination to approve it, which they did for Flight 9.

The mishap investigation is performed by SpaceX, not the FAA. FAA reviews and approves it. Alternatively (or in parallel) SpaceX may provide documentation to support an FAA public safety determination. In any case the actual investigation is being done by SpaceX. It is a fundamental part of the development process and would be done even if there were no submittal to the FAA. I have seen no evidence that FAA has ever delayed a Starship launch for any of these reviews. That appears to be because SpaceX has a good working relationship with FAA and proactively keeps them informed. So yes, "Elon has seen to that", but not by putting pressure on FAA.

By contrast we have seen major delays in the EIS, PEA, and FONSI processes, which are also attributed (incorrectly) to the FAA. These can take many months and by law require public meetings and input from other government organizations.

[thespacecow]

The mishap investigation is performed by SpaceX, not the FAA. FAA reviews and approves it. Alternatively (or in parallel) SpaceX may provide documentation to support an FAA public safety determination. In any case the actual investigation is being done by SpaceX. It is a fundamental part of the development process and would be done even if there were no submittal to the FAA. I have seen no evidence that FAA has ever delayed a Starship launch for any of these reviews. That appears to be because SpaceX has a good working relationship with FAA and proactively keeps them informed. So yes, "Elon has seen to that", but not by putting pressure on FAA.

I don't have time to go over history right now, but I'm pretty sure there was some back and forth between Elon and FAA over IFT-1's corrective actions. Putting all that aside, my comment is by no means implying Elon is putting pressure on FAA, I simply meant Elon made sure FAA is now run under an administration and an administrator who is not unfriendly to SpaceX, that is all.

Turns out all you need is an agency that actually follows their legal mandate which is "Encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries by the private sector". If you want a visual aid for this change, just look at the FAA thread in Starship section, people no longer fighting over there constantly like they did for the last few years.

By contrast we have seen major delays in the EIS, PEA, and FONSI processes, which are also attributed (incorrectly) to the FAA. These can take many months and by law require public meetings and input from other government organizations.

Actually FAA has considerable freedom in these as well, as shown by their - belatedly - expediting environmental consultation for Flight 5.

[Yggdrasill]

With the explosion of Ship 36, in order for Starship to win this poll, it's looking more like the second launch of New Glenn would need to be a failure, or fly a payload that doesn't detach from the second stage. I believe second flight of New Glenn is still NET August, and I don't expect the first payload deployment of Starship earlier than October.