2026 Starship Launches Poll

[Tywin]

Ok time to repeat this poll, for this year:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62125.new#new

Also, please provide your logic after your vote, if you're willing to share.

[DanClemmensen]

16-20. A few in Q1, then one every two weeks.  This is my usual very optimistic type of vote. If they encounter a string of setbacks like 2025, they will not make 16.

I'm assuming that most boosters are caught and reused after Q1, few or no Ships are caught, no Ships are reused, and only Pad 2 is used, not Pad 1 or LC-39A.

[Vultur]

So far -
2023: 2
2024: 4
2025: 5

By that pattern, maybe 6 or 7 for 2026?

But if v3 gets going without the issues v2 had, and if they get two pads working during 2026, it could be a lot higher. I think they're unlikely to have more than one launch in Q1, but after that things may accelerate. Their goal is probably going to be very high, something like 25.

In between seems reasonable. Possibly something like:
Q1: 1 launch (maybe late February or March)
Q2: 2 launches (assuming the first V3 doesn't go perfectly so there is a gap)
Q3: 3 launches (including propellant transfer test)
Q4: 4 launches (Starlink launches get going as two pads now available)
Total 10

But some kind of accident introducing at least a small delay, like Ship 36 or Booster 18, seems likely.

So I chose 6-10.

[AmigaClone]

The number will likely depend on the number of minor and major mishaps for Starship V3. It would also depend on the number of pads SpaceX can use for launches. Two or even three pads by the end of 2026 would allow a higher launch cadence than just OLM-2.

If everything from this point goes well, I could see a launch cadence exceeding two launches per month by the end of the year. I can see it launching more than 80% of the launch vehicle families that make a launch attempt in 2026.

[redneck]

Though I'm horrible at prediction, I'm going with 6-10. Unless 3 has more problems ironed out than 2, there will be issues that slow things down a bit. No ships caught seems likely and none reused seems almost certain. Only if testing goes quite smooth do I see it hitting the 2 per month cadence by the middle of the year.

On the other hand, I can see a Mars transfer attempt at the end of the year. Light cargo and one refueling launch could make it happen. Roughly as relevant as the roadster on the FH.

[Eer]

Voted 1-5.

Massey's rebuild will have growing and shakedown pain, affecting flows.

Pad 2 will have growing and shakedown pain, affecting rate.

V3 ship will have new design shakedown pain, affecting rate.

V3 booster will have new design shakedown pain (though perhaps not as much).

V3 Raptors will have new design and GSE integration shakedown pain.

2026 is a reboot of the whole kit-'n-kaboodle, and that means that each component in the system will face iteration to stability (per the established hardware-rich development/test regime).

Sorry to say.  If we make it to flights every two weeks before November 2026 we'll be doing good ...

[envy887]

Q1: 1 launch, late in the quarter
Q2: 2 launches, 6 to 8 weeks apart.
Q3: LC-39A pad comes online and cadence turns a corner. 5 launches, 2 from 39A and 3 from Pad 2 (once a month per pad).
Q4: 6 launches. Starbase Pad 1 comes back online with 1 launch late in the year.

Total 14, but very back-loaded, with 10 after August 1.

6 different boosters fly. 4 refly. All catch attempts succeed, including several ship catches. No ships are reused.

[sstli2]

This is hard to say. In a perfect world, the missions go off without a hitch, additional launch pads and launch sites ramp up to lead to a end-of-2026 cadence of greater than 1 launch a month. I voted for 11-15 with the expectation that v3 should do better than v2 and should be a more reliable vehicle by now.

But the stakes are getting higher - they're going from sub-orbit to orbit, to catching ships, to launching non-trivial payloads, to in-space docking and refueling, all with a new engine and a new vehicle. Much of this is new territory and the possibility of an anomaly remains. And while SpaceX typically recovers from anomalies more quickly than other launch providers, they also encounter them more often, insofar as Starship. One too many of them and 11-15 becomes 6-10.

I don't see a justification for 1-5. We know by now that no matter what happens, SpaceX's response is going to be to continue launching.

[CraigLieb]

Rationale (and my wishlist):
They will shoot for one-a-month and miss the mark by a couple. Hopefully they will orbit and succeed with fuel transfer testing. Ship catches would be a bonus. Also, first launch from cape late 26.
2027 could be the big year where they hit the gas (methane?) pedal.

[sdsds]

In English my answer is, "It's likely going to be either 6 or 12, and not likely to be in between." So I'm guessing 11, based on that being the median in a distribution that's a mixture of two Gaussians. Or so my AI assistant tells me.

[Kaputnik]

Voted 6-10, and if I had to narrow it down I would say maybe 7.
They have a lot of details to work on over these next few launches. They're yet to reach the point where routine things are entirely trouble free.

[Eric Hedman]

I went wit 16 to 20.  I think they will start launching from Florida before the year is over and include StarLink deployment flights.  I think the pace will pick up with version 3 boosters and Starships being reused.  Added in the flights to test refueling and I'm going to be optimistic that the pace will significantly pick up.

[francesco nicoli]

I love your optimism. V3 hasnt even reached the pad and failed already. The bottleneck is not the pad availability but the factory throughput.
I think they wont laumch more than 5 times.i hope I am wrong.

[rcoppola]

6 to 10. More teething issues incoming.

[envy887]

The only reason they didn't beat 5 flights this year was because they stopped building v2 to switch over to v3. And that despite 4 failures, or 5 failures, if we're counting B18.

Since they aren't doing a version switchover next year, 6 flights is a pretty low bar - even assuming multiple failures and RTF campaigns.

[Eric Hedman]

I love your optimism. V3 hasnt even reached the pad and failed already. The bottleneck is not the pad availability but the factory throughput.
I think they wont laumch more than 5 times.i hope I am wrong.

I just found this article in Aviation Week about how NASA and the Space Force want to start Starship launches from Florida in early to mid 2026:

https://aviationweek.com/space/launch-vehicles-propulsion/nasa-space-force-eyeing-starship-flights-florida-26?elq2=ee5bdebab0b64a0c820c2c430b29a594&sp_eh=c3a722ffc48fd833e872d3a46535740a1f685a05b621dfdfdd37855ebf42d5fd&elq2=ee5bdebab0b64a0c820c2c430b29a594&sp_eh=c3a722ffc48fd833e872d3a46535740a1f685a05b621dfdfdd37855ebf42d5fd&utm_emailname=AW_News_AerospaceDigest_NL_11242025&utm_rid=CPEN1000002507287

Maybe I was too pessimistic.

[Tywin]

With Starship send form Starlab to KSC?

[SimonFD]

I voted 6-10 as I don't think V3 will go smoothly causing redesigns and rework

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Six to ten.  Assuming one anomaly in 2026, which would be an improvement.

[saturnsky]

Expecting maybe 6 max,,,and 2 orbital sucesses,,,but no attempts to refuel Starship, and loss of lander contract.........

[JH]

There were five this year and it was not smooth sailing. Do you really think they will only manage one additional flight next year?

[redneck]

There were five this year and it was not smooth sailing. Do you really think they will only manage one additional flight next year?

Depends heavily on how the V3 shakes out. I voted 6-10 as I expect a few more but not the cascade some expect. To me, SpaceX is still in development, aggressive development, but still.

[leeloodallasmultipass]

10-15. This is final iteration. No need to wait for the next thing. They will launch a lot.

[envy887]

10-15. This is final iteration. No need to wait for the next thing. They will launch a lot.

SpaceX doesn't do final iterations. It should launch a lot anyway, though.

[saturnsky]

Six,,,,perhaps 4 successful,,,2 failures,,,,1 reaches orbit,,,,no attempes to refuel,,,and probable loss of lunar lander role in Artemis 3,,,,,,

[mordroberon]

6-10

It's a general rule of rocket design that a new design will have issues. I expect it will take a couple tries to have a flight without mishap. Block 3 is a bigger change than Block 2 was, at least externally. New engine version, hot staging will be different, catching the booster will be different. Weight distribution and cross section are very different for the new second stage.

So long as they stay with Block 3 instead of moving to an even bigger Block 4 they should be able to work through everything this year and start launching reliably with a cadence of at least once a month by the end of the year.

[Yggdrasill]

I'm thinking 12. This year they are going from one to at least two launch pads. The factory is much more capable, with more space, more employees and better tooling. They've mostly sorted out booster reuse and refurbishment.

Doing one launch per month doesn't seem unreasonable. They are a little behind going into the year, because of the finishing touches on pad 2, and unfortunate accidents with two vehicles at Masseys, but they should be able to ramp up towards the end of the year.

[jongoff]

I'm thinking 12. This year they are going from one to at least two launch pads. The factory is much more capable, with more space, more employees and better tooling. They've mostly sorted out booster reuse and refurbishment.

Doing one launch per month doesn't seem unreasonable. They are a little behind going into the year, because of the finishing touches on pad 2, and unfortunate accidents with two vehicles at Masseys, but they should be able to ramp up towards the end of the year.

It all depends on how smoothly the shift from V2 to V3 goes. If V3 has teething pains like V2, it doesn't matter as much what their launch site and factory capacity is. It takes time to correct problems and fly again, and throwing 9 women at the problem isn't going to get you a baby in 1 month.

That said, if things go relatively smoothly, and they tranisition quickly into regular lather/rinse/repeat operations, factory capacity and site capacity matter more.

tl;dr, I voted 6-10, but don't think 12 is absurd.

~Jon

[Yggdrasill]

Yes, it does matter how fast they get V3 working well. But even if they take 3 flights and 6 months to get V3 working, they would have 6 months left of the year and potentially like 3 Starships lined up ready to fly. With reused boosters they could then do 3 flights in one month and still have 5 months left of the year to fly the last 6 to hit 12. (I'm assuming they can hit production of one Starship per month with relative ease.)

The big question for me is if SpaceX is actually going to commit to V3, or just switch to V4 (or V3.5) if they aren't happy with V3. If they switch to V4 then yeah, more like 6 is realistic.

[DanClemmensen]

Yes, it does matter how fast they get V3 working well. But even if they take 3 flights and 6 months to get V3 working, they would have 6 months left of the year and potentially like 3 Starships lined up ready to fly. With reused boosters they could then do 3 flights in one month and still have 5 months left of the year to fly the last 6 to hit 12. (I'm assuming they can hit production of one Starship per month with relative ease.)

The big question for me is if SpaceX is actually going to commit to V3, or just switch to V4 (or V3.5) if they aren't happy with V3. If they switch to V4 then yeah, more like 6 is realistic.

I'm a wild-eyed optimist and I voted for 16-20, but reality intrudes. It's not just V3 Booster and Ship. It's also V3 stage zero. As of January 2026, SpaceX has zero functional Starship launch pads. If things go perfectly, they may launch in March, so it's not 12 months, it's nine months. If there is a major problem with Stage 0, OR with Booster, OR with Ship, It'll take awhile to get to the one launch per week per pad they will need to keep Artemis III on track.