Which will launch first, SLS or Starship?

[StarshipTrooper]

A month ago SpaceX was fixing superheavy exploded bits while was NASA was counting down to launch the SLS. Now both of the superheavy contenders are back in their assembly buildings, and are looking at a likely November flight date. Oh how the worm (logo) turns.

It's a new race! Who will launch first?

Please vote, and provide your reasoning.

[AS_501]

SH has to pass a major milestone:  Successfully firing all 33 Raptors for full duration, and do this several times.  I'm pro-SLS and pro-SH, but give the edge to SLS for the moment.

[neoforce]

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)

[whitelancer64]

Voting SLS.

Looking forward to a 33 engine static fire and a full WDR from the Starship stack. Pending both of those milestones, SLS is still in the lead.

Maybe there will be a Thanksgiving miracle and both will launch in November.

[StarshipTrooper]

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)

That's a good idea, I'd be interested in that. You should create that poll.

[rpapo]

Voting SLS, but I don't expect SLS to hold on to its title very long.

[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)

For me, the number of orbital Starship missions between Artemis 1 and Artemis 2 will depend on the following factors.

1) When Starfactory Florida comes online;
2) When the Crew Access tower on SLC40 is certified for use (needs to be built first);
3) How fast SpaceX is able to start recovering the booster;
4) How fast SpaceX is able to start recovering Starship;
5) Number of months between Artemis 1 and Artemis 2.

I agree that the 16-30 seems a reasonable number of orbital Starship missions. It might be slightly optimistic, but doable is there is no serious delays in those five items.

[DanClemmensen]

I voted for Starship because I'm an eternal optimist. Starship is a fundamentally simpler system, so there are fewer things to go wrong and those things are easier to fix.

But I really want both of these system to succeed and launch soon. The Artemis III lunar landing depends on both.

[high road]

It's getting harder and harder to guess. I can easily see both of them slipping to 2023.

[Asteroza]

Didn't SLS/Artemis 1 burn one of their two remaining rollbacks to escape from hurricane Ian? NASA is going to be very hesitant to roll back out unless they utterly check everything in the VAB again, because hitting another problem at the pad that requires a rollback is going to be painful.

Starship on the other hand is free to roll whenever. There's also the implication that even if SS24/B7 flies and goes explodey too early, Elon could still get SS25/B8 to fly before SLS.

[octavo]

I think you need to be Muskian in your optimism if you think Starship will launch before SLS.  I'm no fan of SLS, but I think SpaceX has a long testing path ahead of them - the tower and chopsticks are valuable infrastructure that they're not going to risk until they're fairly comfortable that all the procedures and GSE is locked down and well characterized.

I'm not sure if I turn out to be wrong, whether I will be pleased at SpX progress or annoyed at SLS delays.

[giulioprisco]

Of course SLS will launch first, Starship won't receive a final launch authorization before the first successful launch of SLS.

[edzieba]

SLS is far ahead in terms of readiness, but it also has a far longer issue resolution loop and constrained launch opportunities. If there are no further bugs found when SLS next rolls out then it will very likely launch first, but it would only take one or two more instances of "huh, that's odd..." for Starship to pull ahead.

[Jim]

Of course SLS will launch first, Starship won't receive a final launch authorization before the first successful launch of SLS.

That is without merit and ill-informed

[DanClemmensen]

Didn't SLS/Artemis 1 burn one of their two remaining rollbacks to escape from hurricane Ian? NASA is going to be very hesitant to roll back out unless they utterly check everything in the VAB again, because hitting another problem at the pad that requires a rollback is going to be painful.

Starship on the other hand is free to roll whenever. There's also the implication that even if SS24/B7 flies and goes explodey too early, Elon could still get SS25/B8 to fly before SLS.

The poll question is "Which will launch first?", not "Which will succeed first?". If "SS24/B7 flies and goes explodey", then it has launched.  Of course, if it just explodes before leaving the pad, then SLS will probably launch first.  Similarly, if SLS launches and then overstressed, overaged SRBs fail and cause a RUD, it will still have launched first.

[Hog]

Quoted from NSF.com member Steven Pietrobon, though I, for some of our North American brethren, have included the converted pounds/force thrust figures.

"Two more days to liftoff! Wow. What a journey this has been. Through Ares V, "We've been there before", Direct and finally through all the controversy to SLS.
Hopefully, we can add it to this list as the second most powerful launch vehicle in the world at 38.37 MN/8,625,919 lbs/force.

Vehicle                  Thrust (1st stage)
N-1            41.36 MN/9,298,097 pounds/force
Energia        35.10 MN/7,890,793
Saturn V       33.85 MN/7,609,782
Space Shuttle  30.90 MN/6,946,596
Falcon Heavy   24.68 MN/5,548,284
Atlas V 551    12.27 MN/2,758,405.
GSLV Mk.III    11.66 MN/2,621,272
Ariane 5       11.40 MN/2,562,821
CZ-5           10.64 MN/2,391,967
H-IIB           9.98 MN/2,243,593
Proton-M        9.94 MN/2,234,600
Angara A5       9.61 MN/2,160,413
Delta IV Heavy  9.41 MN/2,115,452 "

SLS will have the most powerful 1st stage of any rocket the US has ever launched. N-1 had the most powerful 1st stage to "ever launch".

I voted for SLS, even though it's at a major disadvantage due to its launch constraints.  SS/SH can launch whenever the vehicle is ready, SLS must wait for the planets to align and avoid certain eclipses for Orion. Heavy rests the crown for a launch vehicle at the end of it's development period.

[DanClemmensen]

I voted for SLS, even though it's at a major disadvantage due to its launch constraints.  SS/SH can launch whenever the vehicle is ready, SLS must wait for the planets to align and avoid certain eclipses for Orion. Heavy rests the crown for a launch vehicle at the end of it's development period.

If SLS is ready, it can launch in October, so it's not a "major disadvantage." NASA chose not to launch in the October window, but that's not because of the window, it's because SLS needs lots of gentleness and loving care.
If it makes you feel better, then if Starship launches in the "Artemis I cannot launch" period (Nov 1-11) and SLS launches on one of the first two available days of the window (Nov 12 or 14) , you can count it as a tie as far as I care. I want to see both of them launch.

[ZachS09]

I think you need to be Muskian in your optimism if you think Starship will launch before SLS.  I'm no fan of SLS, but I think SpaceX has a long testing path ahead of them - the tower and chopsticks are valuable infrastructure that they're not going to risk until they're fairly comfortable that all the procedures and GSE is locked down and well characterized.

I'm not sure if I turn out to be wrong, whether I will be pleased at SpX progress or annoyed at SLS delays.

Didn’t I hear a rumor that SpaceX was thinking about doing a booster catch attempt on the first orbital test flight?

My point is to further on octavo’s statement of the tower and chopsticks being valuable infrastructure. And in the event of the potential catch attempt failing, it can cause a setback of who knows how long.

[AmigaClone]

I think you need to be Muskian in your optimism if you think Starship will launch before SLS.  I'm no fan of SLS, but I think SpaceX has a long testing path ahead of them - the tower and chopsticks are valuable infrastructure that they're not going to risk until they're fairly comfortable that all the procedures and GSE is locked down and well characterized.

I'm not sure if I turn out to be wrong, whether I will be pleased at SpX progress or annoyed at SLS delays.

Didn’t I hear a rumor that SpaceX was thinking about doing a booster catch attempt on the first orbital test flight?

My point is to further on octavo’s statement of the tower and chopsticks being valuable infrastructure. And in the event of the potential catch attempt failing, it can cause a setback of who knows how long.

One thing I learned in the aftermath of CRS-16 (the only time a return to launch site landing attempt failed) is that the reentry burn for the Falcon 9 initially either targets a site just a bit offshore, or to one side of the drone ships. It's only during the landing burn that the first stage booster moves above it's targeted landing location.

My understanding of the FCC documents where SpaceX proposed to make a catch attempt is that SpaceX wants to have the ability to decide to make the catch attempt depending on how much control they have over the Super Heavy booster..

[laszlo]

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"?

[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

[zubenelgenubi]

Moderator: I merged duplicate threads.

[edzieba]

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.

Have you looked at the comment response document (Appendix I)? It's 37 pages, and covers 21 questions. The vast majority of which are basically restatements and references to the PEA or to the relevant legalisation under which the PEA was conducted.
There was no individual response to every comment.

[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.

Have you looked at the comment response document (Appendix I)? It's 37 pages, and covers 21 questions. The vast majority of which are basically restatements and references to the PEA or to the relevant legalisation under which the PEA was conducted.
There was no individual response to every comment.

I got an e-mail response to my input: that is an individual response, albeit trivial. I suspect it was mostly automated. However, my input was dutifully added to the database. I know this because the entire database, all 19,000 comments with their attachments, was online. The simple act of creating the database entry and adding my input as an attachment had to be done by a human. If you were sitting at a desk in the FAA office, how many of these could you do in a day? That is the work I was referring to, not some sort of careful, thoughtful individual response. I suspect that the workers doing this work probably only forwarded less than 1000 of the comments up to someone for further analysis and attention, because a large number of comments were cookie-cutter astroturf generated by NRDC(?) on behalf of its membership, but every one of them was in the database.

[StarshipTrooper]

Many of you have been stating that the SLS is far ahead. However, now the complete Booster 7/Starship 24 prototype is stacked on the launch mount, while SLS is still in the VAB. At what point would you say that the Starship has actually pulled ahead of the SLS?

If the Starship completes a complete wet dress rehearsal, something that SLS has not yet completed, would you agree the Starship has pulled ahead?

[Robotbeat]

Not just a WDR but a full static fire and FAA license.

[Bob Shaw]

Many of you have been stating that the SLS is far ahead. However, now the complete Booster 7/Starship 24 prototype is stacked on the launch mount, while SLS is still in the VAB. At what point would you say that the Starship has actually pulled ahead of the SLS?

If the Starship completes a complete wet dress rehearsal, something that SLS has not yet completed, would you agree the Starship has pulled ahead?

First successful flight is probably the only test that counts at this stage, no matter how much spin/excuses/selective facts supporters of either side come out with.

A lot of things have to go well for both rockets to get to that stage and the trials of SLS (with supposedly well-understood technology) are in many ways matched by Starship (with new, poorly understood technology).

A much more interesting question would be: 'how many successful Starship flights will there be by the time of the second successful SLS flight?'.

[DanClemmensen]

First successful flight is probably the only test that counts at this stage, no matter how much spin/excuses/selective facts supporters of either side come out with.

Yep, Now all we have to argue about (and spin, excuse, and/or select) is the definition of "success". 

[laszlo]

Question answered, time to lock and archive the thread.

[JohnFornaro]

First successful flight is probably the only test that counts at this stage, no matter how much spin/excuses/selective facts supporters of either side come out with.

Yep, Now all we have to argue about (and spin, excuse, and/or select) is the definition of "success". 

No RUD's seems obvious.

[Vahe231991]

Question answered, time to lock and archive the thread.

It's about time, because the SLS just had its first launch today. It'd be interesting to see if the Starship will be launched next month or next year.