Starship Launch Attempts in 2023

[CraigLieb]

A launch attempt counts if the vehicle departs the orbital launch platform after a count down that was not aborted. This includes blowing up on the pad at or after T0 in pieces!
The local time of T0 will apply to launches on December 31 at midnight. Launch attempts from either coast count but the mission plan needs to get to orbital speed (not hop testing).
 Blowing up during fueling, or before T0 doesn’t count for the purpose of this poll.
It’s understood that More than 5 launches from Boca Chica per year would have to require modified permitting.

[DanClemmensen]

I voted for 3, but I consider this to be very optimistic. It would be unprecedented in modern LV history to launch a new LV the third time within 10 months of the first, and I don't think they will launch the first this month.

[DeimosDream]

It’s understood that More than 5 launches from Boca Chica per year would have to require modified permitting.

Reminder: It is plausible SpaceX could begin launching from Cape 39A in addition to Boca Chica to achieve more than 5 total launches without modifying the Boca Chica permitting. (I don't think it likely, just wanted to point out the possibility.)

[FishInferno]

It’s understood that More than 5 launches from Boca Chica per year would have to require modified permitting.

Reminder: It is plausible SpaceX could begin launching from Cape 39A in addition to Boca Chica to achieve more than 5 total launches without modifying the Boca Chica permitting. (I don't think it likely, just wanted to point out the possibility.)

From my understanding, Starship can't launch from 39A until after the new crew access tower/arm is completed at LC-40. NASA doesn't want to risk a Starship failure damaging crewed capability.

[DistantTemple]

7
Was a bit hasty!
Once BC launch is successful, SX will apply to increase >5. Grounds: Less noise and impact that previously feared. And Launch is safer.

LC40 dragon tower and HSF arm will be expedited but no idea of anticipated completion. However with the speed of SX construction, a tower that is only a support for the arm, and a lift (and emergency escape) should be quick! No rocket plumbing!  And of course the new tower, chopsticks, launch stand and cryo farm all have to be functioning at 39A. Possible.

So probably limited to 5 by neither of these being completed during the year.

[eriblo]

Because of how skeptical I am about Starship/Super Heavy, I voted for more than ten launch attempts.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I'm thinking about a number of reasons for each scrub. Bad weather, more prelaunch checkouts needed by T-2 hours (reference to some recent F9 scrubs), fouled Range, launch abort right at T0.

Ten sounds pretty optimistic to me

In case someone reads this but not the opening post:
The wording of the poll topic might be open to interpretation but the rules clearly state that it is about the number of launches attempted and not the number of attempts at a launch...

[daedalus1]

2. April and November.

[kevinof]

3 - March(ish), July, Nov.

Gives them time between each to review and adjust.

[AmigaClone]

I would say three to five, with the chances of three launch attempts being much greater than five launches. All launches would likely be from Boca Chica.

[Orbiter]

I'm going with 3, at most. 2 seems the most likely to me.

[laszlo]

...Once BC launch is successful, SX will apply to increase >5. Grounds: Less noise and impact that previously feared. And Launch is safer.

And this is based on what?

[DeimosDream]

I imagine SpaceX has an aggressive timeline to make full use of all 5 permitted launches, but that one launch slips to 2024 so 4. Honorable mention to 3.

[deltaV]

I guess the poll options have probability roughly 20, 28, 17, 10, 7, 5, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, and 5 percent respectively of occurring. I voted 2 launch attempts, which is the median of this distribution.

[Alvian@IDN]

It’s understood that More than 5 launches from Boca Chica per year would have to require modified permitting.

Reminder: It is plausible SpaceX could begin launching from Cape 39A in addition to Boca Chica to achieve more than 5 total launches without modifying the Boca Chica permitting. (I don't think it likely, just wanted to point out the possibility.)

From my understanding, Starship can't launch from 39A until after the new crew access tower/arm is completed at LC-40. NASA doesn't want to risk a Starship failure damaging crewed capability.

It's 3 launches from Boca before the first 39A started. Nothing explicit about crew access arm

[mikelepage]

I voted 5, with the caveat that I'm optimistically assuming they won't blow up stage 0 (the pad). They have a permit for 5 launches, and last I checked they have 5x full stacks worth of Starship and Superheavy at various stages of construction. I don't expect instant success, instead I'm basically predicting this next year to give us the sequel to this video:

[Zed_Noir]

I voted 5, with the caveat that I'm optimistically assuming they won't blow up stage 0 (the pad). They have a permit for 5 launches, and last I checked they have 5x full stacks worth of Starship and Superheavy at various stages of construction. I don't expect instant success, instead I'm basically predicting this next year to give us the sequel to this video:

Will point out that if the Starbase test flights is successful. We could see at least a few Starship stacks launch from the LC-39A complex. If the orbital launch mount at LC-39A is ready by about the end of the year. Flight hardware availability don't appears to be an impediment, IMO.

In theory and very very optimistically a Starship stack could be launch and be recovered multiple times during a period of a week at complex LC-39A.

Likely too optimistic a scenario.

[eeergo]

In spite of all the recent work on it, I personally think it's quite unlikely B7 (and whatever is designed for it) will see an actual launch attempt. Just as prior pathfinder prototypes were just that, rather than vehicles capable of spaceflight, this one can likely serve to prove a representative shakedown of the design's appropriateness in pre-flight conditions. *Can* it be launched? Probably, at least to fulfill the definition of this thread - but they've clearly moved past the "rapid testing and prototyping" phase, for better or worse, and even if it survived all upcoming tests, including the first-ever full static fire, without relevant damage preventing it from flight-like stresses, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think it has little probability of succeeding in an actual flight profile, reducing the potential interest for an actual maiden launch with it.

However, it is also unlikely the first maiden flight (with B9 or whatever) will succeed. Any failure will require a somewhat lengthy pause, given the amount of brand-new stuff they will be testing whenever they proceed with an actual spaceflight attempt, especially now NASA is so involved (both regarding oversight and political prodding). If a failure, even if fixable, occurs already in ground testing of B7 (or later models), that will also require some relevant delays, which already keep happening now even in the face of fully satisfactory partial tests.

So my thinking based on the above is that one "launch attempt" as far as the definition of this poll goes, is likely this year, unless a test goes awfully wrong and destroys a good part of the GSE - but it's also very likely most plausible scenarios will impede a second one, successful or otherwise, until next year.

Even Musk appears to be hinting in that direction saying that "hopefully" a FH-like maiden flight will happen this year:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1622668136834113563

[su27k]

Hilarious that people hang on to Elon's every word when it fits their world view, and completely ignore him when it doesn't.

[eeergo]

No hilarity involved: it can just be considered the baseline for the "most optimistic estimate possible" at any given time; a goodwill attempt to base one's view, however critical, on the information provided by the party with the most vested interest, taken at face value.

Not interested in bickering, but you (and many others, of course, as it's a standard dialectic strategy) do it all the times in other threads right in this forum, by posting sources you diametrically disagree with or just usually ignore, in order to support the arguments that "support your worldview".

[daedalus1]

Try not to make the question more complicated than it is.
It's simply how many and your brief reasoning (optional).
At the end of the year each contributer will either be correct or not correct,  simple.

[Timber Micka]

I voted 2

[mandrewa]

I voted for five launches.  And since I don't think there's any chance of more than five launches that's not an accurate assessment of the odds.  It's more of a hope.

There are two issues that may significantly lower the odds of SpaceX reaching five Starship launches.  There is the chance that there will be an explosion on the launch pad that takes a long time to recover from.  Clearly SpaceX is doing everything it can to avoid such a thing.  And I think the odds of this happening are low.

The bigger issue is political.  I'm hoping for a return to the earlier Starship testing regime where it's just understood that there will be explosions and failures, and that things will not work perfectly.  If that's the case we will see rapid development and there's a very good chance we will see five launches.

But it's possible the regulatory agencies will prevent that.

[Craigles]

5

5 is optimistic. Empirically we expect fewer for a new LV. But 5 is their plan, and they've scaled their production, and they've tested aggressively, and they've got major permits. The biggest visible things that have to come together quickly now are water deluge, pad cladding and closeouts, a full static fire, FAA permits, and some sort of NASA blessing including NASA reentry tracking near Hawaii. I'm counting 0 to 1 RTLS attempts in 2023 and 0 to 1 attempts from pad 39A. Oh, I'm also counting on 0  pad explosions.

[lightleviathan]

I honestly can't see anything over 3. There will be 1 booster RTLS attempt at the end of the year. I think that the attempts will go April - September - December.  That's really all. I just can't see SpaceX ramping up launch cadence that much.

[TrueBlueWitt]

Does aborting on the pad during countdown count as a launch attempt?
"Attempts" doesn't seem well enough defined here.

[eeergo]

Does aborting on the pad during countdown count as a launch attempt?
"Attempts" doesn't seem well enough defined here.

Literally the first sentence in the OP:

"A launch attempt counts if the vehicle departs the orbital launch platform after a count down that was not aborted. "

[sdsds]

I'm projecting 3 SS/SH flights in 2023. (And 12 in 2024.)

A more interesting projection would be, "How many stages (SS or SH) flown in 2024 will be reflights of previously flown stages?"

[oiorionsbelt]

I went with 5 after reading Qwynne Shotwell's prediction of 100 in 2025
 However it likely depends on success rate. Successful flights will have a quicker turn around than failures.

[DanClemmensen]

I went with 5 after reading Qwynne Shotwell's prediction of 100 in 2025
 However it likely depends on success rate. Successful flights will have a quicker turn around than failures.

SS+SH+Stage 0 could do it from one site of it were permitted, but 100 in 2025 is a fantasy. They must launch from somewhere. BC will not expand much beyond 5/yr. The eastern range that supports KSC+CCSFS cannot support more than about 90/yr total of Starships plus all other launches. They need to develop another site, onshore or offshore, and that takes more than 2 years when you include the paperwork.

[oiorionsbelt]

I went with 5 after reading Qwynne Shotwell's prediction of 100 in 2025
 However it likely depends on success rate. Successful flights will have a quicker turn around than failures.

SS+SH+Stage 0 could do it from one site of it were permitted, but 100 in 2025 is a fantasy. They must launch from somewhere. BC will not expand much beyond 5/yr. The eastern range that supports KSC+CCSFS cannot support more than about 90/yr total of Starships plus all other launches. They need to develop another site, onshore or offshore, and that takes more than 2 years when you include the paperwork.

So you're not arguing against 5 starship this year
I wonder about your assertion that the eastern range can only support 90 launches in total considering F9 is expecting 100 flights this year. Any source for that?
 If Qwynne Shotwell says she thinks Starship could do 100 flights in 2025 I wouldn't classify it as fantasy. Not arguing against the need for another launch site but perhaps BC is capable of more than 5 IF, big IF allowed. It's only the EPA after all.

[tyrred]

2
Boca Chica only.

April 1st
B9 Ship25
Failure to achieve "orbit"; catastrophic Superheavy Booster failure, due to a corroded nut, narrowly evades completely destroying stage 0; the blast is terrifying, spectators can't wait to get closer next time

August 2nd
B13 Ship31
Successful launch and staging; Ship disintegrates during late phase of EDL, returns enough data to convince the TPS team the tiles aren't a lost cause, just going to be an ongoing nightmare because the flap hinge seals are a real skink

Lengthy repairs and "upgrades" to stage 0 after each attempt.

39A sees no StarShip launch attempt this year; historic 39A keeps F9 operations as priority, meanwhile a new tank farm needs to be built for StarShip due to some other rookie mistake similar to Boca Chica

I really wish I felt different about my "predictions", but the lustrous hype has eroded to a thin veneer, and the kids just won't stay off my lawn

[DanClemmensen]

I went with 5 after reading Qwynne Shotwell's prediction of 100 in 2025
 However it likely depends on success rate. Successful flights will have a quicker turn around than failures.

SS+SH+Stage 0 could do it from one site of it were permitted, but 100 in 2025 is a fantasy. They must launch from somewhere. BC will not expand much beyond 5/yr. The eastern range that supports KSC+CCSFS cannot support more than about 90/yr total of Starships plus all other launches. They need to develop another site, onshore or offshore, and that takes more than 2 years when you include the paperwork.

So you're not arguing against 5 starship this year
I wonder about your assertion that the eastern range can only support 90 launches in total considering F9 is expecting 100 flights this year. Any source for that?
 If Qwynne Shotwell says she thinks Starship could do 100 flights in 2025 I wouldn't classify it as fantasy. Not arguing against the need for another launch site but perhaps BC is capable of more than 5 IF, big IF allowed. It's only the EPA after all.

This is a personal opinion, not information from anyone else. the 2023 "100 flights" includes Vandenberg and BC. An officer (PAO?) at the range stated that they could support 87 launches in 2023, after doing considerable improvement to processes and procedures. In general, you get diminishing returns from such exercises, so they won't get an equivalent improvement for 2024 or 2025, and I randomly picked 90. Separately, I know that each launch requires maritime and airspace keep-outs that are disruptive, and I think that there will be objections and pushback from airlines and especially from the cruise industry against operations that occur more than twice a week.

[ZachS09]

2
Boca Chica only.

April 1st
B9 Ship25
Failure to achieve "orbit"; catastrophic Superheavy Booster failure, due to a corroded nut, narrowly evades completely destroying stage 0; the blast is terrifying, spectators can't wait to get closer next time

August 2nd
B13 Ship31
Successful launch and staging; Ship disintegrates during late phase of EDL, returns enough data to convince the TPS team the tiles aren't a lost cause, just going to be an ongoing nightmare because the flap hinge seals are a real skink

Lengthy repairs and "upgrades" to stage 0 after each attempt.

39A sees no StarShip launch attempt this year; historic 39A keeps F9 operations as priority, meanwhile a new tank farm needs to be built for StarShip due to some other rookie mistake similar to Boca Chica

I really wish I felt different about my "predictions", but the lustrous hype has eroded to a thin veneer, and the kids just won't stay off my lawn

“Can’t wait to get closer next time” in your Launch #1 prediction; are you insinuating said spectators want to see another RUD, let alone watch at a closer distance?

[darkenfast]

I voted six. SpaceX will probably launch 7/24 off the pad in March (success past that, unknown!). They are building new Booster/Ship combos fast and will try for their five launches from Boca Chica in 2023. At the end of the year, they will attempt the first launch from the just-finished 39A Stage 0, using a Booster/Ship built at Starbase. Once they know what works at BC, things will move fast in Florida.

All from my crystal ball!

[Robotbeat]

It’s understood that More than 5 launches from Boca Chica per year would have to require modified permitting.

Reminder: It is plausible SpaceX could begin launching from Cape 39A in addition to Boca Chica to achieve more than 5 total launches without modifying the Boca Chica permitting. (I don't think it likely, just wanted to point out the possibility.)

From my understanding, Starship can't launch from 39A until after the new crew access tower/arm is completed at LC-40. NASA doesn't want to risk a Starship failure damaging crewed capability.

But they’re only a few months away from that. I don’t think that will be the limiting factor on launch rate.

[Robotbeat]

I went with 5 after reading Qwynne Shotwell's prediction of 100 in 2025
 However it likely depends on success rate. Successful flights will have a quicker turn around than failures.

SS+SH+Stage 0 could do it from one site of it were permitted, but 100 in 2025 is a fantasy. They must launch from somewhere. BC will not expand much beyond 5/yr. The eastern range that supports KSC+CCSFS cannot support more than about 90/yr total of Starships plus all other launches. They need to develop another site, onshore or offshore, and that takes more than 2 years when you include the paperwork.

So you're not arguing against 5 starship this year
I wonder about your assertion that the eastern range can only support 90 launches in total considering F9 is expecting 100 flights this year. Any source for that?
 If Qwynne Shotwell says she thinks Starship could do 100 flights in 2025 I wouldn't classify it as fantasy. Not arguing against the need for another launch site but perhaps BC is capable of more than 5 IF, big IF allowed. It's only the EPA after all.

This is a personal opinion, not information from anyone else. the 2023 "100 flights" includes Vandenberg and BC. An officer (PAO?) at the range stated that they could support 87 launches in 2023, after doing considerable improvement to processes and procedures. In general, you get diminishing returns from such exercises, so they won't get an equivalent improvement for 2024 or 2025, and I randomly picked 90. Separately, I know that each launch requires maritime and airspace keep-outs that are disruptive, and I think that there will be objections and pushback from airlines and especially from the cruise industry against operations that occur more than twice a week.

There’s no fundamental limit to the range in number of launches that can’t be removed through better processes and procedures

[CraigLieb]

Poll closing today

[Vahe231991]

My guess is that if the first Starship launch is successful, then there could be one or two additional Starship flights this year.

[sdsds]

I'm projecting 3 SS/SH flights in 2023. (And 12 in 2024.)

I reiterate the projection of 3 flights in 2023, noting this is also the mode of the poll responses.
Regarding 2024, my base case remains 12 flights, with an inter-quartile range spanning from 6 to 28 flights. FWIW.

[Vahe231991]

The first Starship launch took place today, and Elon Musk is now eyeing a second Starship launch in a few months because he feels bullish about SpaceX having gained enough data from the performance of the first stage of the Starship during the maiden launch of the Starship:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649050306943266819

[deltaV]

I guess the poll options have probability roughly 20, 28, 17, 10, 7, 5, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, and 5 percent respectively of occurring. I voted 2 launch attempts, which is the median of this distribution.

Looks like "2" won this poll.

[daedalus1]

I nailed it.
#6

[thespacecow]

They could have done 3 flights last year if not for FAA delays.