2022 Poll: Which SHLV Will Successfully Fly First?

[TomH]

This is my third annual, and hopefully last, poll of which SHLV will first successfully fly as intended.

2020 poll results: SLS-33.5%, SS-66.5%%
2021 poll results: SLS-21.3%, SS-76.9%

To qualify successfully fly as intended, for SLS, that is nominal launch and place Orion on correct trajectory for a semi-free return (with minor course adjustments) around Luna. Successful Orion performance is not necessary.

For Starship, that is nominal Super Heavy launch, flight, and simulated landing at designated coordinates, and nominal Starship/US trajectory and simulated landing at designated coordinates. Successful dispensation of Starlinks (or facsimiles) is not necessary.

Neither LV needs to complete one full Earth orbit if that is not part of the flight plan.

SLS is now at the pad for WDR. SS has a mitigated FONSI, but not a final permit yet. Which will be the first to successfully achieve a nominal flight according to flight plan?

Poll will run for 30 days.

[dglow]

Feeling that Starship is somewhat more likely to launch first, though it’s far more probable that SLS will satisfy the specified flight requirements when it does.

Requiring a successful, controlled reentry from Starship (US) while not requiring similar from Orion is uneven and stacks the deck in SLS’s favor IMO.

[TomH]

Requiring a successful, controlled reentry from Starship (US) while not requiring similar from Orion is uneven and stacks the deck in SLS’s favor IMO.

I do get where you're coming from.

The possibility does exist for SLS to fly with some payload other than Orion. Why anyone would want to put something else on top of it is another matter entirely. The LV and the payload are built by differing companies. The Starship system is only designed to fly as a fully integrated upper stage and payload/spacecraft. You can't fly it (sans major redesign) without the nose section. Even if Orion fails, Boeing can say, That's on Lockheed; our rocket performed just fine.
 
Granted, the criterion may seem different for each LV.; they are, because the purposes differ. SLS is going to have to send its payload around the moon. SS likely won't even have to reach LEO, just a trajectory almost reaching LEO. One is designed for full reuse of all components, and that includes successful landings. The LV portion of the other is disposable. Since the two LVs have differing purposes, it seemed reasonable to pose the question as, Which program will be the first to be able to say, On this initial flight, we did what we set out to do?

[DanClemmensen]

Requiring a successful, controlled reentry from Starship (US) while not requiring similar from Orion is uneven and stacks the deck in SLS’s favor IMO.

I do get where you're coming from.

The possibility does exist for SLS to fly with some payload other than Orion. Why anyone would want to put something else on top of it is another matter entirely. The LV and the payload are built by differing companies. The Starship system is only designed to fly as a fully integrated upper stage and payload/spacecraft. You can't fly it without the nose section. Even if Orion fails, Boeing can say, That's on Lockheed; our rocket performed just fine.
 
Granted, the criterion may seem different for each LV.; they are, because the purposes differ. SLS is going to have to send its payload around the moon. SS likely won't even have to reach LEO, just a trajectory almost reaching LEO. One is designed for full reuse of all components, and that includes successful landings. The LV portion of the other is disposable. Since the two LVs have differing purposes, it seemed reasonable to pose the question as, Which program will be the first to be able to say, We did what we set out to do?

You criteria are are fine with me: you have to draw the line somewhere. Some time last year, Elon said the first Starship launch would be a success if SH/SS cleared the tower, and that's consistent with the "try, fail, try again" approach.

I do note that Artemis 1 is not supposed to be a free-return mission, so your wording may need some refinement. I think for an SLS block 1, the SLS mission succeeds when the SLS proper (Core, boosters, ICPS) have completed their burns and placed the payload on the planned trajectory and the payload has separated properly.

I also think that if the SH boosts the SS past the Kármán line before SLS launches, then SLS can never claim to be "the most powerful rocket ever!", but that's separate from your criteria for this poll.

[TomH]

I also think that if the SH boosts the SS past the Kármán line before SLS launches, then SLS can never claim to be "the most powerful rocket ever!", but that's separate from your criteria for this poll.

Yea, I thought about the "most powerful rocket ever" aspect. While SLS will have more thrust than Saturn V, it will have lower payload capacity, so the claim would be open to debate. Those high density solids are mostly lifting their own weight and transferring much less thrust to the upper thrust beam of the core than liquid boosters would do. Also, Starship's eventual design for repropping  on orbit will give it a phenomenal deep space injection capacity. With all these dissimilar design aspects, I decided to just keep the question simple.

And I will modify the free return wording.

[DanClemmensen]

I also think that if the SH boosts the SS past the Kármán line before SLS launches, then SLS can never claim to be "the most powerful rocket ever!", but that's separate from your criteria for this poll.

Yea, I thought about the "most powerful rocket ever" aspect. While SLS will have more thrust than Saturn V, it will have lower payload capacity, so the claim would be open to debate. Also, Starship's eventual design for repropping  on orbit will give it a deep space injection payload of phenomenal capacity. With all these dissimilar design aspects, I decided to just keep the question simple.

And I will modify the free return wording.

At risk of dragging the poll off topic, I think it's fair to use liftoff thrust as the metric for "most powerful rocket", especially since it is nice and simple. As you say, "payload mass" gets complicated.

[deltaV]

It's too close to call but I'll call it anyway. The vehicles are roughly tied for making the first launch attempt but SLS has a better chance of launching successfully on the first try so I voted SLS.

[Hog]

I also think that if the SH boosts the SS past the Kármán line before SLS launches, then SLS can never claim to be "the most powerful rocket ever!", but that's separate from your criteria for this poll.

Yea, I thought about the "most powerful rocket ever" aspect. While SLS will have more thrust than Saturn V, it will have lower payload capacity, so the claim would be open to debate. Those high density solids are mostly lifting their own weight and transferring much less thrust to the upper thrust beam of the core than liquid boosters would do. Also, Starship's eventual design for repropping  on orbit will give it a phenomenal deep space injection capacity. With all these dissimilar design aspects, I decided to just keep the question simple.

And I will modify the free return wording.

Bold emphasis mine
The entire SRM has a decent sized hollow from its top to its bottom(aka combustion chamber), while a LRB does not. When figuring density of the prop., this void actually brings the density down to comparable levels of some LRBs. 
Figure in the lack of turbomachinery and lack of booster MPS as compared to solids helps this case. Hurting it, the SRB segments made from D6AC ultra high strength steel, which averages approx. 1/2 thick.  A liquid booster tankage "merely" needs to keep its props. contained during operation with a few psi of ullage space pressure.  The solid's segments must contain its prop. whilst also containing the entire pressure of combustion produced in its huge sized and ever growing combustion chamber. 

[DanClemmensen]

It's too close to call but I'll call it anyway. The vehicles are roughly tied for making the first launch attempt but SLS has a better chance of launching successfully on the first try so I voted SLS.

Agreed, but I'm an optimist so I voted for Starship. I think SLS is lower risk but it's not zero risk. The SRBs are far past their original stack limit and the system as a whole is new and complex even if some of its subsystems derive from older systems. Starship is completely new and SpaceX uses the "try it, it might work" paradigm, but it is a fundamentally simpler system.

[dglow]

Requiring a successful, controlled reentry from Starship (US) while not requiring similar from Orion is uneven and stacks the deck in SLS’s favor IMO.

I do get where you're coming from.

The possibility does exist for SLS to fly with some payload other than Orion. Why anyone would want to put something else on top of it is another matter entirely. The LV and the payload are built by differing companies. The Starship system is only designed to fly as a fully integrated upper stage and payload/spacecraft. You can't fly it (sans major redesign) without the nose section. Even if Orion fails, Boeing can say, That's on Lockheed; our rocket performed just fine.
 
Granted, the criterion may seem different for each LV.; they are, because the purposes differ. SLS is going to have to send its payload around the moon. SS likely won't even have to reach LEO, just a trajectory almost reaching LEO. One is designed for full reuse of all components, and that includes successful landings. The LV portion of the other is disposable. Since the two LVs have differing purposes, it seemed reasonable to pose the question as, Which program will be the first to be able to say, On this initial flight, we did what we set out to do?

Yes, I hear you. Orion and the Starship are such different animals, as are their inaugural test flights. One difficulty is that Starship’s behavior in the orbital reentry regime is arguably the least-tested element of the stack. If we’re going to exclude a successful reentry and return of Orion (already better tested than Starship), it seems not reasonable to include reentry and return of both Starship’s booster and upper stage. On the other hand, Starship’s US isn’t required to orbit the moon prior to its return. So…

How about this for an common test of success between SLS and Starship: “Does each vehicle’s boost/core stage perform as intended, including all separation, disposal, and return events, and does each vehicle’s upper stage successfully fire, lofting itself or its payload to the intended trajectory.”

[mandrewa]

For Starship, that is nominal Super Heavy launch, flight, and simulated landing at designated coordinates, and nominal Starship/US trajectory and simulated landing at designated coordinates. Successful dispensation of Starlinks (or facsimiles) is not necessary.

I was debating with myself which is more likely until I saw the definition of Starship 'success' given by the poll's author.

If it is just a question of who reaches orbit first, which is how I would guess most people are interpreting this poll, then I think it's almost a coin toss with the SLS slightly more likely to launch first.

But if 'success' means the Starship doing a successful simulated landing in the ocean north of Hawaii, then I think that puts the odds significantly in favor of SLS/Orion.

[crandles57]

For Starship, that is nominal Super Heavy launch, flight, and simulated landing at designated coordinates, and nominal Starship/US trajectory and simulated landing at designated coordinates. Successful dispensation of Starlinks (or facsimiles) is not necessary.

How do we tell if there is a nominal simulated landing?

If it belly flops into water obviously it wasn't nominal. If it appears to simulate vertical landing but is 10m displaced from where intended presumably that wouldn't allow a catch and we won't know this unless SpaceX decides to tells us. Can we expect SpaceX to say if something like that has happened? Will we even get video to see if it stabilises in a vertical position prior to splashdown?

Is 'stabilising in a vertical position prior to splashdown' sufficient or does it have to be in almost exactly the place intended as well?

[jongoff]

It's a coin-toss IMO.

~Jon

[Vahe231991]

It's a foregone conclusion that the SLS (which now seems extremely likely to carry out its maiden launch in late August/early September after competing its final WDR) will certainly fly first successfully because it is derived from existing technology, but it remains to be seen if the first stage of the Starship rocket will be stable enough during the Starship's first launch for the rocket to avoid veering off course.

[DanClemmensen]

It's a foregone conclusion that the SLS (which now seems extremely likely to carry out its maiden launch in late August/early September after competing its final WDR) will certainly fly first successfully because it is derived from existing technology, but it remains to be seen if the first stage of the Starship rocket will be stable enough during the Starship's first launch for the rocket to avoid veering off course.

A foregone conclusion? That's impressive. Would you bet $1000 of your own money on success against $1 of my money that it will fail?

I also think it will succeed, but there are a great many reasons it might fail. The most obvious is that the SRBs will have been stacked for more than 20 months, although they were originally specified to remain stacked for not more than 12 months.

[laszlo]

Again, just as in the previous polls, this poll does not take into account that the lunar flight has specific launch windows determined by the moon's orbit while a long fractional orbital lob only has to wait for the path to be clear of boats, planes, other spacecraft, etc.

[DanClemmensen]

Again, just as in the previous polls, this poll does not take into account that the lunar flight has specific launch windows determined by the moon's orbit while a long fractional orbital lob only has to wait for the path to be clear of boats, planes, other spacecraft, etc.

Fine, feel free to count it as a tie if SLS launches within the first two days of the first launch window after the first successful Starship launch. Since nobody is keeping score, you can make your own rules for yourself. Meanwhile some Starship fans are convinced that Starship would have launched by now if only the FONSI had not been delayed so long, so I guess they can make their own rules also and count it as a tie if both LVs launch in 2022. Who cares?

[whitelancer64]

I voted Starship in the earlier polls, it would just seem wrong to not vote Starship again....


*edit to add*
Apparently I missed the 2021 poll.

But oh, how optimistic I was in 2019 and 2020 lol

I almost voted for New Glenn, but went with BFR / Starship instead. I think that Blue Origin will be very hot on SpaceX's heels. Probably within single digit months.

It's going to be fairly close. My personal hope is that Starship, Vulcan, New Glenn, and SLS all launch to orbit within six months of each other.

[laszlo]

...Since nobody is keeping score...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[su27k]

Again, just as in the previous polls, this poll does not take into account that the lunar flight has specific launch windows determined by the moon's orbit while a long fractional orbital lob only has to wait for the path to be clear of boats, planes, other spacecraft, etc.

Nobody forced NASA to launch an operational payload to BLEO in the first launch, they could have done a test launch first like Starship and most other new LVs in the world. The fact that they can't do this is a problem with SLS itself, and should very much count against them.

In any case, this new poll gives SLS unreasonable favor by requiring Starship to complete successful EDL, which is very hard to do in the first try and pretty much guarantees Starship will lose, so I'm not sure why you're complaining in the first place.

[laszlo]

I'm not bothered by whether one or the other has an advantage, I'm bothered by the apples and oranges comparison of 2 flights with very different goals. The poll question is poorly put. That's what bothers me.

[Surfdaddy]

Perhaps a better poll would be "Five years from now, which SHLV will have put more tonnage into space?
Probably would be a much more skewed answer.

[Nemzoj Otikeun]

I went with SLS because of the position of the goal posts. There is still a race here, balancing the difficulty of 'landing' a Starship against the 'delay fever' Boeing+NASA will accept rather than risk a RUD with a $4x10⁹ + two year delay.

There are plenty of places to put the goal posts and the current position is no worse than many others. An interesting place to put them for Starship is when Starship-Starlink launches are more cost effective than the equivalent number of Falcon-Starlink launches. Each launch will deliver a similar number of satellites but the V2 satellites delivered by Starship have about 10x the bandwidth. SpaceX's internal cost for 10 Falcon launches is probably more than the cost of crashing a Starship but I am not sure if 10 Falcon launches are cheaper than a Superheavy crash. On the other hand if you count crashing a Superheavy as part of R&D then the date depends on the ratio of orbit to RUD for Starship-Starlinks. A launch tower crash would really muddle the calculation. Good luck trying to find an orange rocket equivalent to this apple without a cat/pigeon fight in the comments.

The next obvious SLS milestone is when an Orion takes humans around the Moon and safely back to Earth. There is a reasonable equivalent for Starship: Dear Moon. After that, will Starship HLS 2 be ready and waiting for Artemis 3 or will Artemis 3 be waiting for Starship HLS 2?

[Zed_Noir]

.....
The next obvious SLS milestone is when an Orion takes humans around the Moon and safely back to Earth. There is a reasonable equivalent for Starship: Dear Moon.
.....

AIUI, Jared Issacman and his Polaris-3 mission with a Starship will be doing a test run for the #dearMoon Lunar flyby first. If I understand it correctly, Jared is paying to be the command pilot of the first crewed Starship.

[AmigaClone]

I personally put SLS for two reasons. Number 1 - If Congress decided to fund a shuttle derived rocket with comparable stats (mass to LEO, mass to TMI, mass in lunar orbit) as the SLS. it would have been possible one could have launched as ear;y as the late 1970s/early 1980s - possibly even before the space shuttle.

The second reason is that the FAA has not yet issued a launch license for SS/SH.

On the other hand - which launch vehicle will have more successful missions within two years of the first of those two to launch would likely be SS/SH. In fact, that combination likely will launch more often than Falcon Heavy in that same period of time.

[rcoppola]

I originally put SLS primarily because I didn't think Starbase TX's infrastructure would be ready in time. I'm still on the fence but goodness this could be close.

On the other hand. it doesn't really matter who goes first. We're talking about one system that will launch once a year. (If they're lucky. I suspect very 1.5 years.) And the other which will launch every few months, then monthly, then weekly.

[dchenevert]

, Which program will be the first to be able to say, On this initial flight, we did what we set out to do?

I have been thinking that the Booster/Ship risk journey has about 5 stages. I would be thrilled if it survived one stage on the first flight, two stages on the second flight, etc:

stage 1. Boom after clearing tower
stage 2. Boom after passing max-Q
stage 3. Boom or other fatal hiccup (maybe silent) after MECO and Starship starts accelerating
stage 4. Boom on landing(s)
stage 5. Successful landings

Sort of like SN's 8, 9, 10, 11, and 15

if the spirit of this poll is "stage #1 has nominal good results" then I vote Starship, but it's about a 51%/49% tie

if the spirit of this poll is "survive stage #5" I think it's more than 95% that SLS will clear its own tower before Booster and Ship splash down softly, but (sadly) only 85% likely it will succeed to the point that NASA will continue with Artemis II as planned.

Given the original wording, I pick SLS over Starship by about 85%/15%

[eeergo]

And there we have it. No close race either, no matter what the same overoptimistic crowd as those who were aiming fot a 2019 launch say - and despite the asymmetric pandemic response, or the much more inclement weather, and the much more stringent standards for a full-up baptism of fire.

Go SLS!

[whitelancer64]

But oh, how optimistic I was in 2019 and 2020 lol

I almost voted for New Glenn, but went with BFR / Starship instead. I think that Blue Origin will be very hot on SpaceX's heels. Probably within single digit months.

It's going to be fairly close. My personal hope is that Starship, Vulcan, New Glenn, and SLS all launch to orbit within six months of each other.

Start a six-month clock... Starship and Vulcan should be easy, but at this point I doubt that New Glenn will join them any time soon.

[eeergo]

But oh, how optimistic I was in 2019 and 2020 lol

I almost voted for New Glenn, but went with BFR / Starship instead. I think that Blue Origin will be very hot on SpaceX's heels. Probably within single digit months.

It's going to be fairly close. My personal hope is that Starship, Vulcan, New Glenn, and SLS all launch to orbit within six months of each other.

Start a six-month clock... Starship and Vulcan should be easy, but at this point I doubt that New Glenn will join them any time soon.

I disagree about SS and expect tons of problems on that front (also wrt Artemis III/IV s currently foreseen) but we'll see...

[su27k]

And there we have it. No close race either, no matter what the same overoptimistic crowd as those who were aiming fot a 2019 launch say - and despite the asymmetric pandemic response, or the much more inclement weather, and the much more stringent standards for a full-up baptism of fire.

Yeah it's not a close race because SLS had a 10 year head start and wasted $20B from taxpayers. Originally it was supposed to race with Falcon Heavy...

[Star One]

And there we have it. No close race either, no matter what the same overoptimistic crowd as those who were aiming fot a 2019 launch say - and despite the asymmetric pandemic response, or the much more inclement weather, and the much more stringent standards for a full-up baptism of fire.

Yeah it's not a close race because SLS had a 10 year head start and wasted $20B from taxpayers. Originally it was supposed to race with Falcon Heavy...

Depressing that rather than being positive about the fact that SLS has finally got off the ground that instead we have to engage in snipping about it. But being as we saw this with JWST as well I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

[eeergo]

And there we have it. No close race either, no matter what the same overoptimistic crowd as those who were aiming fot a 2019 launch say - and despite the asymmetric pandemic response, or the much more inclement weather, and the much more stringent standards for a full-up baptism of fire.

Yeah it's not a close race because SLS had a 10 year head start and wasted $20B from taxpayers. Originally it was supposed to race with Falcon Heavy...

Aha, but this was the point of the poll! Anyway, SS was supposed to be doing orbital tests in 2019, about a year after starting full-scale testing in Boca Chica, when some saw it as so detached from SLS's technical difficulties and management woes that it wasn't even a question SS would be better, faster and cheaper in no time.

Yet almost four years after that (400% delay wrt public target maiden orbital launch vs somewhat like 100% for SLS), and with vastly different mission scopes (Earth orbit with luck vs all-up testing in lunar orbit), now there was no race to be the most powerful operational rocket, neither to achieve operational super-heavy lift capability, nor to reach BEO trajectories for HSF. Right.

[su27k]

And there we have it. No close race either, no matter what the same overoptimistic crowd as those who were aiming fot a 2019 launch say - and despite the asymmetric pandemic response, or the much more inclement weather, and the much more stringent standards for a full-up baptism of fire.

Yeah it's not a close race because SLS had a 10 year head start and wasted $20B from taxpayers. Originally it was supposed to race with Falcon Heavy...

Aha, but this was the point of the poll! Anyway, SS was supposed to be doing orbital tests in 2019, about a year after starting full-scale testing in Boca Chica, when some saw it as so detached from SLS's technical difficulties and management woes that it wasn't even a question SS would be better, faster and cheaper in no time.

Starship is better, faster and cheaper, as I said SLS has a huge head start, the fact that it launched first for a few months does not at all means it's faster by any means, in fact it means it is a whole lot slower. And we also know for a fact that Starship is cheaper in terms of both development cost and launch cost, based on publicly available information.

As for 2019, that is an aspirational date anyway, the fact that SpaceX didn't meet their super ambitious aspirational date means literally nothing.

Yet almost four years after that (400% delay wrt public target maiden orbital launch vs somewhat like 100% for SLS), and with vastly different mission scopes (Earth orbit with luck vs all-up testing in lunar orbit), now there was no race to be the most powerful operational rocket, neither to achieve operational super-heavy lift capability, nor to reach BEO trajectories for HSF. Right.

The delay factor you used is ridiculous and has no meaning, but you're right that there is no race to be the most powerful operational rocket, because once Starship is operational it will easily takes this title away from SLS, so feel free to cheer for a rocket so outdated even the Chinese doesn't deem it worth copying for just a few more months.

[eeergo]

Yawn.

[russianhalo117]

Yawn.

You might as well go ahead and lock thread.

[eeergo]

Yawn.

You might as well go ahead and lock thread.

Not in my power to do that. Not trying to either, just done arguing with some characters.

[Vahe231991]

This topic is also covered at this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57287.0

Best to merge those two threads, considering that the SLS beat the Starship to the punch in reaching orbit first.

[Alvian@IDN]

And there we have it. No close race either, no matter what the same overoptimistic crowd as those who were aiming fot a 2019 launch say - and despite the asymmetric pandemic response, or the much more inclement weather, and the much more stringent standards for a full-up baptism of fire.

Yeah it's not a close race because SLS had a 10 year head start and wasted $20B from taxpayers. Originally it was supposed to race with Falcon Heavy...

Aha, but this was the point of the poll! Anyway, SS was supposed to be doing orbital tests in 2019, about a year after starting full-scale testing in Boca Chica, when some saw it as so detached from SLS's technical difficulties and management woes that it wasn't even a question SS would be better, faster and cheaper in no time.

Yet almost four years after that (400% delay wrt public target maiden orbital launch vs somewhat like 100% for SLS), and with vastly different mission scopes (Earth orbit with luck vs all-up testing in lunar orbit), now there was no race to be the most powerful operational rocket, neither to achieve operational super-heavy lift capability, nor to reach BEO trajectories for HSF. Right.

When ITS was announced with Q1 2020 first orbital flight date, SLS (CDR completed) was still slated for late 2018 launch date

Go ahead & complain to SpaceX when 16 months after Artemis 1, Starship still hasn't done its first OFT. Otherwise it's a white noise

[eeergo]

And there we have it. No close race either, no matter what the same overoptimistic crowd as those who were aiming fot a 2019 launch say - and despite the asymmetric pandemic response, or the much more inclement weather, and the much more stringent standards for a full-up baptism of fire.

Yeah it's not a close race because SLS had a 10 year head start and wasted $20B from taxpayers. Originally it was supposed to race with Falcon Heavy...

Aha, but this was the point of the poll! Anyway, SS was supposed to be doing orbital tests in 2019, about a year after starting full-scale testing in Boca Chica, when some saw it as so detached from SLS's technical difficulties and management woes that it wasn't even a question SS would be better, faster and cheaper in no time.

Yet almost four years after that (400% delay wrt public target maiden orbital launch vs somewhat like 100% for SLS), and with vastly different mission scopes (Earth orbit with luck vs all-up testing in lunar orbit), now there was no race to be the most powerful operational rocket, neither to achieve operational super-heavy lift capability, nor to reach BEO trajectories for HSF. Right.

When ITS was announced with Q1 2020 first orbital flight date, SLS (CDR completed) was still slated for late 2018 launch date

Go ahead & complain to SpaceX when 16 months after Artemis 1, Starship still hasn't done its first OFT. Otherwise it's a white noise

WRONG (but you probably know it): ITS was announced in September 2016, although it was a completely different beast that would have necessitated much more development, as Musk himself was quick to point out, also because it was a much larger vehicle at 2x the gross liftoff mass.

In September 2015, a year before carbon-fiber ITS was first unveiled (projecting a first OFT mission NLT 2019, and a first uncrewed launch to Mars in 2022), SLS completed its CDR and arrived at KDP-C. First crewed launch EM-2 was set for NLT 1H 2023 (70% c.l.) at that point. As of today it is 1H 2024, or one year late with respect to the low confidence date from 2015, or 1/8 = 13% of schedule stretch.
In early 2018, with a "BFR" still nominally based on carbon fiber, dearMoon would have launched a crew around the Moon in 2023 as well, or five years from then. OFTs were expected NLT 2020.

But steel SS development started in late 2018, precisely because of the need for a clean-slate, cheaper, faster program given setbacks with fiber. Except for Raptor testing, which had been ongoing for 5-7 years by then, this is where the closest thing to CDR happened to present-design SS. Precisely because of this attempt at program acceleration, SS's OFT date remained in 2020, less than 2 years from then. Of course, shortly thereafter and until this day, much more immediate ludicrously optimistic dates for first orbital/crewed launches were floated around (2-3-6 months from any given date in 2019, 2020 and 2021), but I took the most generous one I could find. That's a two-year, >100% schedule stretch for a purely LEO, uncrewed orbital test - crewed launches like EM-2 or BEO tests like EM-1 are not expected any time soon.

Also, Starship development was supposed to be clearly superior, not closely track -or worsen, by some indicators- the record mismanagement, delays and overruns of SLS' schedule.

[spacenut]

Starship also had other delays, such as mountains of paperwork, and lots of hoops to jump through at Boca Chica with the various government agencies.  The first version, had they obtained the permitting, probably could have already launched.  In the meantime while waiting on permitting, they developed Raptor 2 and increased the number of engines on the base of the booster.  They have also started a launch mount at Cape Kennedy, to avoid permitting problems, and are building a factory in Florida. 

SLS required no new factories to be built.  Just a new transporter due to its huge mass. 

I agree, this thread should be locked.  A good long range pole should be, which one will outlast the other. 

[eeergo]

Starship also had other delays, such as mountains of paperwork, and lots of hoops to jump through at Boca Chica with the various government agencies.  The first version, had they obtained the permitting, probably could have already launched.

That's quite surely untrue, as even Starship proponents are ready to admit. However, for the sake of argument, had permitting not even been required, with the issues discovered in the meantime with both Raptor and SH (forgetting about the upper stage SS for a moment), it would most possibly been a failed launch.

In the meantime while waiting on permitting, they developed Raptor 2 and increased the number of engines on the base of the booster.  They have also started a launch mount at Cape Kennedy, to avoid permitting problems, and are building a factory in Florida.  SLS required no new factories to be built.  Just a new transporter due to its huge mass. 

SLS also had lots of bureaucratic and paperwork issues, stop-work orders for a myriad of reasons including governmentally-imposed redesigns, rescopings, logistical delays from not being wonderfully vertically-integrated an relying on a broad industrial base plus international partnerships, employee welfare issues... that Boca Chica didn't experience. Yet its payload is currently approaching the Moon.

I agree, this thread should be locked.  A good long range pole should be, which one will outlast the other. 

Agreed about the thread lock, this poll has shown what it had to show (along with the other 3-4 similar ones with titles that attempted to fine-tune the definition of "first" in this "race that never existed")

I'd suggest a more measurable, more pertinent follow-up thread would be "Which SHLV will fly crews to the Moon first?", for instance.

[Lar]

So it would seem the "wisdom of crowds" isn't always perfect.

Congrats to all the SLS voters!

(Don't make me say "congrats to SLS" ... I just won't do it )

To those making paperwork excuses for Starship ( can we NOT use SS as an abbreviation??? just rubs me the wrong way).... the poll wasn't about who had better excuses for not launching first. SLS won. Deal with it.   (my personal coping strategy involves alcohol but you do you)

[rockets4life97]

I voted for Starship. I thought SLS would be delayed (it was). But I thought a full stack Starship prototype would have flown by now. I would say I underestimated the time it takes to build the pad infrastructure (stage zero).

[Vahe231991]

I voted for Starship. I thought SLS would be delayed (it was). But I thought a full stack Starship prototype would have flown by now. I would say I underestimated the time it takes to build the pad infrastructure (stage zero).

The need for SpaceX to get approval from FAA to operate the Starship rocket from the Starbase meant that the SLS flew first. We'll see if the first orbital Starship flight is successful.

[soyuzu]

I voted for Starship. I thought SLS would be delayed (it was). But I thought a full stack Starship prototype would have flown by now. I would say I underestimated the time it takes to build the pad infrastructure (stage zero).

The need for SpaceX to get approval from FAA to operate the Starship rocket from the Starbase meant that the SLS flew first. We'll see if the first orbital Starship flight is successful.

Conspiracy surely doesn’t help with either schedule or success rate, anyway.