Total Members Voted: 75
Voting closed: 05/31/2023 04:15 am
How many Falcon 9 boosters count under this definition? My guess would be the same as whatever that is.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/10/2023 04:17 amHow many Falcon 9 boosters count under this definition? My guess would be the same as whatever that is.I'm not sure of how many they have currently that would fit this definition (flown at least once, still in flyable condition), but it's probably in the 5-20 range. I don't spend much time in the SpaceX threads, but wouldn't be surprised if someone had the number somewhere.~Jon
Is this poll asking about first stages (super heavies) or second stages (starships) or pairs of one of each? This is ambiguous since "Starship" can refer to the second stage and also to the whole launch system including both stages.
Quote from: deltaV on 05/10/2023 05:51 amIs this poll asking about first stages (super heavies) or second stages (starships) or pairs of one of each? This is ambiguous since "Starship" can refer to the second stage and also to the whole launch system including both stages.It's gotta be both stages. I don't think the 2nd stage can get to orbit by itself.
Quote from: jongoff on 05/10/2023 04:20 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 05/10/2023 04:17 amHow many Falcon 9 boosters count under this definition? My guess would be the same as whatever that is.I'm not sure of how many they have currently that would fit this definition (flown at least once, still in flyable condition), but it's probably in the 5-20 range. I don't spend much time in the SpaceX threads, but wouldn't be surprised if someone had the number somewhere.~JonAccording to this excellent Wikipedia article, there are 20. So I voted 10-25. I feel pretty comfortable with that range. It could be more, as some of the “retired” F9 boosters could be flyable-ish and there may be more F9 boosters that are built than are shown here. But… 10-25 seems very reasonable.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters
💯By 2030. Including tankers, passenger ships, and cargo ships in my count.Or else the production line and concept got something seriously wrong.100 is low for an operational ballistic missile system. Yes, yes, that's not what starship is intended for; but I can't help but think of the original Minuteman system and what a paradigm shift it was, what with all of the infrastructure involved to get it operational so quickly.100 is a solid win for a spacecraft fleet aspring to airline-like operations.100 operational by 2030 is ridiculously high for a fully and rapidly reusable spaceship, viewed through the lens of where they are now.100 is the future I want to see.
The poll is for 7 years from now. 7 years ago there were no operational starships whereas today, by the conditions of this poll there are exactly - no operational starships (there are also no operational launch sites). So if this was a linear function then 7 years from now would also be 0.I think that the biggest impediment will be the launch infrastructure, followed by the arrival of a customer base, especially if SpaceX follows capitalist principles and charges what the market will bear.I don't see the Minuteman example as applicable because there the US government had very deep pockets and a politically urgent need to defend against the "missile gap" and a "nuclear Pearl Harbor" (the conventional one having been only about 20 years before). Today you basically have Starlink, a proposed Mars landing and a moonshot that is politically meaningless to the vast majority of Americans who do not hang out on this forum. The urgency and money is just not there.Same for the F9 numbers. Those are for a fully-developed system skewed by Starlink launches.Recognizing that starship is in its early years at the front end of a steep learning curve and that progress will someday be exponential, I picked 1-3 will meet the conditions of this poll.
By this polls rules there are 13. Five of the twenty haven't yet flown and two have reached the 15-flight certified limit and currently have no plans to fly again.
Do Starships used by NASA to send cargo to the moon or those permanently on the moon that are still in use for possible living quarters count? Are they considered operational?
None: Project will be abandoned for smaller, more-manageable, less over-sized version.
I was having a discussion with someone today, and he was arguing that artificial gravity research facilities were probably not worth doing, because at the current Raptor production rate, SpaceX would likely have 1000 Starships operational by the early 2030s, and have performed dozens if not hundreds of landings on the Moon by then. I'm not sure what to say about that other than that I admire his optimism. What do you think? How many Starship tail numbers will SpaceX have operating at the same time on Dec 31st 2030? For sake of this poll:1- If a Starship has been used expendably, it doesn't count. 2- Any Starships that have retired or crashed before 2030 don't count either.3- Only Starships that have flown at least once, and are still in flying condition, with plans to fly again, count for purposes of this poll. Thoughts?~Jon
Another take on the thread question. What type of "Operational Service" will Space X be able to offer a customer by the end of 2030. That term implies quite a lot.President Reagan gave the STS Orbiter Vehicles the Operational Service" stamp of approval following STS-4. Four STS test flights, all on the same vehicle OV-102 Columbia. They disabled the seats, dropped the pressure suits for a "shirt sleeve" environment, all following a crewed first powered flight test that was STS-1. Imagine a crew of 2 on the IFT we saw fly out of Texas?Also, being your OWN customer helps. But you still have to satisfy safety, environmental, government. Governmental vs. modern industry.andSTS being partially reusable whilst SS/SH's entire stack is designed for reuse. STS-1 launched April 1981 STS-4, the fourth test flight launched June 1982. STS-5 launched a satellite Nov 1982 and proved her operational reusability during the STS-6 mission. OV-099 Challenger launched and proved her operational reusability during STS-7 June 1983 again deploying satellites. Columbia next flew November 1983 for STS-9 with a largest to date, 6 man crew including John Young's last spaceflight. thus proving operational reusability So thats 2 OVs proving reusability or "Operational Service" during that timeframe. The question is, how much does that apply to SS/SH? SS isnt saddled to crew like STS was. Though both enjoy a robust Booster stage. lol I don't think there will be a huge amount of operational Starships, but they should exist by then surely. HLS is an operational Starship isn't it? My guess, less than 10.