Which will launch first, SLS or Starship?

[AmigaClone]

when i see these types of questions i always think the more interesting poll is how many times will Starship successfully make it to Orbit in between Artemis 1 and Artemis 2?  less than 5?  6-15?  16-30?  more than 30?  (I'd probably pick 16-30 in that poll)

"a Starship" or "the same Starship"?

That could mean several polls would be needed to cover the subject.

1) How many orbital Starship launches will successfully reach Orbit between Artemis 1 and Artemis 2?

2) How many times will the the flight leader Starship successfully reach Orbit between Artemis 1 and Artemis 2?

3) How many times will the flight leading Super Heavy Booster fly between Artemis 1 and Artemis 2?

[edzieba]

when i see these types of questions i always think the more interesting poll is how many times will Starship successfully make it to Orbit in between Artemis 1 and Artemis 2?  less than 5?  6-15?  16-30?  more than 30?  (I'd probably pick 16-30 in that poll)

"a Starship" or "the same Starship"?

I'd bet on "a Starship" for quite some time. As we saw with the hop-testing, by the time a given vehicle has gotten all the way through the design-build-test-fly flow, it's already been obsoleted and will be scrapped (or parked down a back alley) whilst a vehicle incorporating fixes and upgrades gets its reflight slot instead. Doubly so as the data gathered for every first-flight is the same data informing the changes that obsolete that same vehicle.

[DanClemmensen]

when i see these types of questions i always think the more interesting poll is how many times will Starship successfully make it to Orbit in between Artemis 1 and Artemis 2?  less than 5?  6-15?  16-30?  more than 30?  (I'd probably pick 16-30 in that poll)

"a Starship" or "the same Starship"?

I'd bet on "a Starship" for quite some time. As we saw with the hop-testing, by the time a given vehicle has gotten all the way through the design-build-test-fly flow, it's already been obsoleted and will be scrapped (or parked down a back alley) whilst a vehicle incorporating fixes and upgrades gets its reflight slot instead. Doubly so as the data gathered for every first-flight is the same data informing the changes that obsolete that same vehicle.

If they had unlimited launch opportunities, they might refly after a successful catch if a new one is not yet available. However, they are constrained to 5 launches/yr, so they will wait and fly a new one.

[JohnsterSpaceProgram]

With the launch of the Artemis I mission scheduled for no earlier than November 14, 2022 and with the Starship orbital test flight also possibly launching no earlier than November or more likely December, which one do you think will be the first to launch and reach orbit? In my opinion, I think Starship has a chance to beat the Space Launch System (SLS) to orbit if the Artemis I launch ends up getting delayed again. But even if Starship doesn't beat SLS to orbit, I think it's going to be a close race. And maybe NASASpaceflight should make an updated version of their SLS vs Starship video (link to it below) with everything that has happened since it was published. But, I would like to know what you think. Starship or SLS?

[FishInferno]

This has been discussed many times here. A year ago I would've said Starship but now I think SLS will be first. Starship has been in perpetual "imminent orbital flight" mode for the last two years. I don't think that's a negative sign of progress but I don't think an accurate prediction can be made. It'll happen when it happens. Probably not this year.

FWIW, I don't think SLS will fly in November either, but I still think it'll be first to orbit.

The real thing to consider, IMO, is if Starship reaches any operational capacity before Artemis II.

[Asteroza]

If people do hair splitting and say the first few Starship flights are suborbital, then the crown goes to SLS, by default if it doesn't go pop.

[spacenut]

The FAA held up the first Starship(s) and/or Superheavy launches.  Otherwise they could have launched with the Raptor 1's installed.  So, while waiting for the FAA and the Environmental approvals, they proceeded with Raptor 2 thrust increase and simplification, which are only now being tested and installed.  They also stretched the booster and I think the Starship some for the increased thrust and more fuel needed. 

They are not sitting still.  They did the same thing with Falcon 9.  Increased the thrust of the Merlin engine and stretched the F9 booster to the limit of road transportation.  They also were able to launch without delay at Cape Kennedy, unlike Boca Chica, while improving F9.  So SpaceX has also used this time to build a second factory in Florida and a launch tower at Pad 39A.  Once SpaceX has a successful launch, things will start rolling.  I'm not too worried about the booster, but landing the Starship is all new. 

[edzieba]

Existing thread is here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57287.msg2415822

The FAA held up the first Starship(s) and/or Superheavy launches.

Not true, no matter how often people repeat it.

[Robotbeat]

Existing thread is here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57287.msg2415822

The FAA held up the first Starship(s) and/or Superheavy launches.

Not true, no matter how often people repeat it.

The question is unknowable because SpaceX chose to use the FAA’s delay time to upgrade Starship/SH and Raptor. It’s like NASA going right to SLS Block IB or 2 because of delays. The reason I say it’s unknowable is Raptor 1 wasn’t very reliable, so we don’t know for a fact that it would’ve been ready or not.

We DO know that the FAA’s delays were significant and way longer than they should have been.

No matter how many times it’s repeated, you cannot claim that Starship would’ve been unready for launch if the FAA hadn’t delayed.

[Robotbeat]

Existing thread is here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57287.msg2415822

The FAA held up the first Starship(s) and/or Superheavy launches.

Not true, no matter how often people repeat it.

It is as true as your implicit claim that it wasn’t delayed by the FAA that you keep repeating.

[edzieba]

the FAA’s delays

Again, not true. The 'delay' was the NEPA process, which involves production of the EIS (or an EA), which is an action conducted by SpaceX, not by the FAA. SpaceX started that process in May 2021, so any 'delay' was due to a) SpaceX waiting to even get started, and b) SpaceX underestimating the time needed to prepare the EIS. Which they have no excuse for, as they have not only prepared plenty in the past for their Falcon pads, but was prepared in comparable time to their other EISes and EAs.

[Robotbeat]

False, the delays due to the EIS finalization are more certainly on the government as well. Each month they claimed they were going to release the results, and each month there was an additional delay.

YOU put the blame entirely on SpaceX, but that’s just not true.  There are several voices that have been very influential on things like this that have basically been making stuff up nearly from whole cloth and then when proven wrong will refuse to acknowledge it. ESG Hound being one such example. These are not reliable sources.

The government (fronted by the FAA) absolutely bears some responsibility for these delays. The process is somewhat opaque, so you could argue it was one of the many consulting federal agencies and not the FAA themselves, but just pretending there was no delay from the government side is blatantly false. Doesn’t matter how many of the usual people like your post, it’s still false.

It’s also pretty hilarious to link to one of your own long posts as if it were a reliable independent source.

[DigitalMan]

Part of the issue is related to the number of people available at an agency to do some of the work. It wasn't a delay, per se.

[darthguili]

It looks to me that SpaceX is still ironing out some issues with their Stage 0 that's been the long pole of their tent.
So I voted SLS.
Wish I will be wrong because SLS is not the fastest animal around...

[edzieba]

False, the delays due to the EIS finalization are more certainly on the government as well.

FAA != entire govenment. The FAA were not the sole agency involved, and most of the discussion on impacts and mitigations were between SpaceX and the USFWS, NOAA, SHPO/THPO, and the National Parks Service. It's all documented in the PEA appendices.

Each month they claimed they were going to release the results, and each month there was an additional delay.

They can only go by the timeline SpaceX provides, and we are all well aware of how well SpaceX estimates timelines. They often tend to be on the somewhat optimistic side.

YOU put the blame entirely on SpaceX, but that’s just not true.  There are several voices that have been very influential on things like this that have basically been making stuff up nearly from whole cloth and then when proven wrong will refuse to acknowledge it. ESG Hound being one such example. These are not reliable sources.

I have zero interest in the opinions of those fantasists.

The government (fronted by the FAA) absolutely bears some responsibility for these delays. The process is somewhat opaque, so you could argue it was one of the many consulting federal agencies and not the FAA themselves, but just pretending there was no delay from the government side is blatantly false.

The process is public, progress was public, discussions between SpaceX and other agencies are published publicly (albeit with redactions for proprietary information), and the entire goal of NEPA is production of a public document. It's esoteric, but anyone willing to go read up on how the legislation works can understand what is going on.

It’s also pretty hilarious to link to one of your own long posts as if it were a reliable independent source.

I see no reason to retype the same information twice when a link will do.

Part of the issue is related to the number of people available at an agency to do some of the work. It wasn't a delay, per se.

A common misconception: The FAA perform the final sign off (along with SpaceX and all other involved agencies), but they're not the ones doing the legwork.

[DigitalMan]

Part of the issue is related to the number of people available at an agency to do some of the work. It wasn't a delay, per se.

A common misconception: The FAA perform the final sign off (along with SpaceX and all other involved agencies), but they're not the ones doing the legwork.

I wasn't talking about the FAA. Any misconception isn't mine, that information is from a source.

[DanClemmensen]

A common misconception: The FAA perform the final sign off (along with SpaceX and all other involved agencies), but they're not the ones doing the legwork.

The FAA received more than 19,000 separate comments from the public on the PEA. Those comments had to be processed, which involves logging them in, adding them to the database, reading them, and responding in at least a cursory way, even when they were astroturfed. Sadly, this process could not be automated much. I don't know how the FAA did it, but I cannot believe an employee could do more than 100/day, so 190 employee-days. FAA cannot have dozens of employees sitting around waiting to process a PEA cycle. It's easy to see why it  took awhile.

[Jim]

False, the delays due to the EIS finalization are more certainly on the government as well. Each month they claimed they were going to release the results, and each month there was an additional delay.

YOU put the blame entirely on SpaceX, but that’s just not true.  There are several voices that have been very influential on things like this that have basically been making stuff up nearly from whole cloth and then when proven wrong will refuse to acknowledge it. ESG Hound being one such example. These are not reliable sources.

The government (fronted by the FAA) absolutely bears some responsibility for these delays. The process is somewhat opaque, so you could argue it was one of the many consulting federal agencies and not the FAA themselves, but just pretending there was no delay from the government side is blatantly false. Doesn’t matter how many of the usual people like your post, it’s still false.

Wrong on every point as stated by others.

[meekGee]

False, the delays due to the EIS finalization are more certainly on the government as well. Each month they claimed they were going to release the results, and each month there was an additional delay.

YOU put the blame entirely on SpaceX, but that’s just not true.  There are several voices that have been very influential on things like this that have basically been making stuff up nearly from whole cloth and then when proven wrong will refuse to acknowledge it. ESG Hound being one such example. These are not reliable sources.

The government (fronted by the FAA) absolutely bears some responsibility for these delays. The process is somewhat opaque, so you could argue it was one of the many consulting federal agencies and not the FAA themselves, but just pretending there was no delay from the government side is blatantly false. Doesn’t matter how many of the usual people like your post, it’s still false.

Wrong on every point as stated by others.

On EVERY point?  I mean most of what he said is simply factual, I didn't think it was even contested.

The only debatable point is the somewhat nebulous "who's responsible?", because assignment of blame is not a precise science...

[schuttle89]

It looks to me that SpaceX is still ironing out some issues with their Stage 0 that's been the long pole of their tent.
So I voted SLS.
Wish I will be wrong because SLS is not the fastest animal around...

I agree that SLS will probably go first but to be fair, NASA is also ironing out issues with it's ground support haha