When will the first Starship reach orbit? (2021/2022)

[philw1776]

This thread has been understandably moribund but today 15 November the FAA announced that its rulings would be published by 31 December 2021. That means that the vast majority of predictions made in the poll are kaput. ~75% forecast successful launch in 2021 which will not happen. 
Should we do a new poll for 2022/23 for successfully reaching orbit? First launch does not necessarily mean LEO reached.

[Lar]

This thread has been understandably moribund but today 15 November the FAA announced that its rulings would be published by 31 December 2021. That means that the vast majority of predictions made in the poll are kaput. ~75% forecast successful launch in 2021 which will not happen. 
Should we do a new poll for 2022/23 for successfully reaching orbit? First launch does not necessarily mean LEO reached.

Someone could. (note to self: I probably need to start working on all my end of the year polls)

Not that anyone cares but I predicted October of this year. THAT didn't happen. 
Not that many care, but no one predicted "never" 

[DistantTemple]

Prediction: 4/5 (ish) orbit to Hawaii splashdown... February 2022.

[dglow]

This thread has been understandably moribund but today 15 November the FAA announced that its rulings would be published by 31 December 2021. That means that the vast majority of predictions made in the poll are kaput. ~75% forecast successful launch in 2021 which will not happen. 
Should we do a new poll for 2022/23 for successfully reaching orbit? First launch does not necessarily mean LEO reached.

Done: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55220.0

[eeergo]

SpaceX's own internal plans in Dec 2020, before many subsequent delays (including legal) and understandable improvements/slowdowns of prototype cadence in the subsequent few months, called for a first "orbital" launch attempt in Q2 FY22 (i.e. around February next year). The WB-57 tracking flight notices further cemented a NET March attempt months ago already. Public marketing statements were that: publicity. They did not appear to be strongly based on realistic options.

Just as some of us kept pointing out, as signs were clear to read, against the (overwhelming) tide. This poll is very illustrative of the disconnect, which is not just caused by fans' eagerness.

[Alvian@IDN]

SpaceX's own internal plans in Dec 2020, before many subsequent delays (including legal) and understandable improvements/slowdowns of prototype cadence in the subsequent few months, called for a first "orbital" launch attempt in Q2 FY22 (i.e. around February next year). The WB-57 tracking flight notices further cemented a NET March attempt months ago already. Public marketing statements were that: publicity. They did not appear to be strongly based on realistic options.

Just as some of us kept pointing out, as signs were clear to read, against the (overwhelming) tide. This poll is very illustrative of the disconnect, which is not just caused by fans' eagerness.

Even though it's mentioned in HLS milestone, orbital test applied to a Starship in general so it shouldn't have been affected that much by HLS issue

https://twitter.com/Alejandro_DebH/status/1460297532752416774?t=tSZtp-3kE5tqclO_wM6fSw&s=19

Q2 FY22 started in January 2022

NASA tracking schedule does NOT implied a NET launch date, otherwise you can safely say that SN8 cannot fly without WB-57 being ready

[eeergo]

Musk spoke about "accelerating Starship development" both in the summer of 2019 and 2020, periods for which public tweets and publicized internal communications exist.

Not in early 2021, when things actually visibly slowed down, in spite of the (bitter) rush in the lead-up to the HLS award. Stating that 2021 was an acceleration isn't based on anything other than opinion from that poster, a 24-year-old student whose profile warns to "expect shitposting (sic)". Using that as backing for an argument is weak to say the least.

Even though it's mentioned in HLS milestone, orbital test applied to a Starship in general so it shouldn't have been affected that much by HLS issue.
[...]
NASA tracking schedule does NOT implied a NET launch date

The OIG report states explicitly that it was before the delays due to "bid protests and stay of performance". They presumably don't specify those factors randomly.

It was not a NASA tracking schedule being reflected in the OIG report, it was "SpaceX's HLS schedule". It's admittedly not the same as the WB-57 flight schedule (which I assume you mean as being performed by BN4/SN20 or subsequent, obviously not SN8), but when it's white and in a bottle... Unless you can safely say it was NOT a NET date, against all available information except openly inaccurate publicity statements.

[su27k]

SpaceX's own internal plans in Dec 2020, before many subsequent delays (including legal) and understandable improvements/slowdowns of prototype cadence in the subsequent few months, called for a first "orbital" launch attempt in Q2 FY22 (i.e. around February next year).

No, the Q2 FY22 date is the one SpaceX provided to NASA, by definition that is not internal plan.

The WB-57 tracking flight notices further cemented a NET March attempt months ago already. Public marketing statements were that: publicity. They did not appear to be strongly based on realistic options.

There's no indication that the WB-57 tracking opportunity would be for the first orbital attempt.

Just as some of us kept pointing out, as signs were clear to read, against the (overwhelming) tide. This poll is very illustrative of the disconnect, which is not just caused by fans' eagerness.

There is no disconnect in this poll except maybe people underestimated how much time FAA authorization would take. The highest votes in the poll is in Q4 this year, should be clear from the readiness of B4/S20 that an end of year orbital attempt is in the cards if FAA authorization is not an issue and they focus on getting the minimal pad infrastructure ready instead of working on chopstick.

[eeergo]

the Q2 FY22 date is the one SpaceX provided to NASA, by definition that is not internal plan.

What certainly is the definition a non-internal plan is the one which gets publicized in social networks, setting aspirational deadlines anyone actually working in the company should know are impossible to achieve, or even meaningfully strive toward. But please, do keep telling us what a true internal scotschedule is, and how it was just regulations that prevented orbital Boca Chica launches in July, or even before that!

The WB-57 tracking flight notices further cemented a NET March attempt months ago already. Public marketing statements were that: publicity. They did not appear to be strongly based on realistic options.

There's no indication that the WB-57 tracking opportunity would be for the first orbital attempt.

I agree there is no public documentation stating, black on white, that WB-57 tracking can only be for the first launch. There certainly are strong indications for anyone willing to look beyond the shiny  marketing: including the very schedules from last December, and the fact the WB-57 tracking plans were known months later.

Just as some of us kept pointing out, as signs were clear to read, against the (overwhelming) tide. This poll is very illustrative of the disconnect, which is not just caused by fans' eagerness.

There is no disconnect in this poll except maybe people underestimated how much time FAA authorization would take. The highest votes in the poll is in Q4 this year, should be clear from the readiness of B4/S20 that an end of year orbital attempt is in the cards if FAA authorization is not an issue and they focus on getting the minimal pad infrastructure ready instead of working on chopstick.

It's remarkable one of the least regulation-constrained significant endeavors in the world (both by its legal framework, its industrial power and the sheer power of skirting those regulations that happen to be inconvenient, or just ignoring them) is basically only constrained by regulations, in spite of the infrastructure work taking place even as the regulators have not yet given permission to proceed and they're being built "at their own risk"! A true miracle basically anyone else manages to achieve practically anything at all. Flabbergasting that no matter how much those regulations loosen up, they're still the long pole, while testing rate slows down!

But anyway, despite our "interpretation differences", even Technoking himself has (aspirationally) admitted today what you're unwilling to budge on (re. cards for launch). It's quite a thing that you need to rein in your horses because they surpass even his unicorns, which were "definitely" supposed to be landing on the Moon by now, even according to quite recent (2 years old), supposedly much more conservative schedules than Musk's.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

This thread has been understandably moribund but today 15 November the FAA announced that its rulings would be published by 31 December 2021. That means that the vast majority of predictions made in the poll are kaput. ~75% forecast successful launch in 2021 which will not happen. 
Should we do a new poll for 2022/23 for successfully reaching orbit? First launch does not necessarily mean LEO reached.

Someone could. (note to self: I probably need to start working on all my end of the year polls)

Not that anyone cares but I predicted October of this year. THAT didn't happen. 
Not that many care, but no one predicted "never" 

A new one you are probably going to have to have is number of Starship launches in 2022. Musk says 12.

A note about whether or not it is possible. They can definitely build the vehicles fast enough to launch every month and they have B4/S20 ready to go, B5/S21 in final steps of assembly, B6/S22 significantly built up including SS rings even covered with tiles. So not difficult to imagine a B4/S20 in January (2 months away), B5/S21 in February  (3 months away), and B6/S22 in March (4 months away). Gives plenty of time to do all the rest of the tasks to launch once a month. Raptors are stacking up so that is not a long poll. For launches past B6/S22 there is significant questions as to when a B7/S23 would happen but it could be April or May.

For this poll:
The primary impact for reaching orbit B4/S20 chance of reaching orbit 50%, B5/S21 chance of reaching orbit 85%, and B6/S22 chance of reaching orbit >90%.

[philw1776]

Elon just said first orbital ATTEMPT will be May 2022, so unless Starship never reaches orbit we may have winners, the May 2022 or later group.

[eeergo]

Some self-reflection would be handy in light of the poll's results. Not shocked to see I was within the right group. I think I voted around Nov 2020.

Evidently it won't be May either, and would be surprising if it was 2022 at all.

[dglow]

Some self-reflection would be handy in light of the poll's results. Not shocked to see I was within the right group. I think I voted around Nov 2020.

Evidently it won't be May either, and would be surprising if it was 2022 at all.

Right. Because once you hit May, dang, the whole year is almost spent.

Congratulations on a prescient choice, but such pessimism is premature. Let’s wait to hear from the FAA before ruling out 2022.

[eeergo]

Some self-reflection would be handy in light of the poll's results. Not shocked to see I was within the right group. I think I voted around Nov 2020.

Evidently it won't be May either, and would be surprising if it was 2022 at all.

Right. Because once you hit May, dang, the whole year is almost spent.

Congratulations on a prescient choice, but such pessimism is premature. Let’s wait to hear from the FAA before ruling out 2022.

Not at all, I'm referring to the same objective facts on the ground that prompted me to vote for that option in the first place.

Up until today, the reason for Starship not reaching orbit hasn't primarily been the FAA or any legal challenges - in that much most followers of the happenings at Boca Chica agree, for reasons such as, but not limited to, GSE.

[dglow]

Some self-reflection would be handy in light of the poll's results. Not shocked to see I was within the right group. I think I voted around Nov 2020.

Evidently it won't be May either, and would be surprising if it was 2022 at all.

Right. Because once you hit May, dang, the whole year is almost spent.

Congratulations on a prescient choice, but such pessimism is premature. Let’s wait to hear from the FAA before ruling out 2022.

Not at all, I'm referring to the same objective facts on the ground that prompted me to vote for that option in the first place.

Up until today, the reason for Starship not reaching orbit hasn't primarily been the FAA or any legal challenges - in that much most followers of the happenings at Boca Chica agree, for reasons such as, but not limited to, GSE.

That’s absolutely fair. In hindsight any hopes/guesses/estimates for a 2021 orbital launch were patently premature. SpaceX clearly wasn’t ready.

But writing off the remainder of this year, mere days before a presumed decision by the FAA? Also premature.

[spacenut]

I think they would have launched existing stack with 29 engines just to test the accuracy of landing, even if it was in water.  Later shot for catching the booster and landing the Starship on land.  This is all if they had acquired the permit earlier.  The reason I thought this was because he had already launched and crashed several incomplete Starships. 

[dglow]

I think they would have launched existing stack with 29 engines just to test the accuracy of landing, even if it was in water.  Later shot for catching the booster and landing the Starship on land.  This is all if they had acquired the permit earlier.  The reason I thought this was because he had already launched and crashed several incomplete Starships.

No. Even if 4/20 could have flown, stage zero wasn't ready. The tower and chopsticks have only recently been exercised and, as @eeergo notes, they're still working on the CH4 situation.

[eeergo]

But writing off the remainder of this year, mere days before a presumed decision by the FAA? Also premature.

Well, it's a poll, it *has* to be premature

Of course maybe I should emphasize I'm just waging an opinion here, informed in the same way as my first vote. Wouldn't bet my house on it, but I'm pretty convinced reaching orbit this year is not very probable, and may not even be in the "internal" cards at all.

[su27k]

I think they would have launched existing stack with 29 engines just to test the accuracy of landing, even if it was in water.  Later shot for catching the booster and landing the Starship on land.  This is all if they had acquired the permit earlier.  The reason I thought this was because he had already launched and crashed several incomplete Starships.

No. Even if 4/20 could have flown, stage zero wasn't ready. The tower and chopsticks have only recently been exercised and, as @eeergo notes, they're still working on the CH4 situation.

They can launch without chopstick, stacking can be done via crane, which was specified in old environmental review.

Also there's indication that the work at Boca Chica has been slowing down, reddit rumor says people are being transferred to Florida to speed up Cape work, so what you're seeing is not their top speed had they been given regulatory approval earlier.

[philw1776]

It's now official.  39 of us were correct (sadly) predicting May 2022 or later.
I had engine issues, booster issues and govt approvals as my reasons when I explained my guess back in end 2020.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52134.msg2174213#msg2174213