2022 Poll: Which SHLV Will Successfully Fly First?

[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.