🏅 Top traders

Can resolve No.

@NGK thx resolved

.

@NGK meanwhile, Ship 28 has arrived at the launch site for stacking and wet dress rehearsal.

@chrisjbillington To me it still seems unclear as to where SpaceX are actually in the review process. The previous review was opened on August 21st and was closed on November 14th when FWS finally closed their section. The FAA closed their section of the report on September 8th. If the FAA are still waiting on documents from SpaceX where does that put them in the timeline? Assuming the FAA won’t begin the investigation until SpaceX provides all the documents we’re still in the 2 week waiting period for FAA to write the report.

I don’t think we’re 3 months away from another launch. But I’m unsure of when the mishap report actually closes. Maybe I’m missing something and it’s why I’m mostly unwilling to bet the market down further. Everyone seems pretty confident that it’s launching this month.

@NGK I also saw Davenport saying they expect the launch license by late February. Which puts the flight on a tight schedule assuming no time slips on the review side. Obviously SpaceX seem willing to launch right after FAA approval so if the launch license comes in late February then yea I think this resolves Yes most likely.

But also if Davenports contact is at SpaceX, he's likely being fed the internal timeline and not the FAA one. By Beil's comment above, it seems the FAA's timeline is unclear at best.

@NGK I think the IFT1 mishap investigation opened 20 April the day the launch happened. What makes you think it was August 21st?

Where on the timeline? AIUI the mishap investigation has to be closed before SpaceX can submit its request for a launch licence amendment as otherwise it is inadequate to get an amended licence. By that time everyone is happy with SpaceX's proposed changes to prevent the same problems occurring meaning it can all fall into place quickly as shown by the November 14 close to 18th launch gap being small.

If there are reports SpaceX still has to complete writing and subsequently reviewed then that is probably a bit longer than 4 days. With timelines being bandied about I think it is unlikely the FAA hasn't agreed in principle to all the actions needed, If there is disagreement about adequacy of action that could take a lot longer but to me that seems unlikely now and instead it is likely just paperwork documenting it properly.

But note the mishap investigation is open but the required info is for the licence amendment a different thing so it isn't clear what has to be done to close the mishap investigation just that it isn't closed yet.

@ChristopherRandles Sorry that’s meant to say the mishap report was given by SpaceX on August 21st and issued 2 weeks later by the FAA, not that it opened on August 21st.

@NGK

If the FAA are still waiting on documents from SpaceX where does that put them in the timeline? Assuming the FAA won’t begin the investigation until SpaceX provides all the documents we’re still in the 2 week waiting period for FAA to write the report.

I basically think this is the wrong way to think about things. The license process in practice is not a series of orderly steps taken one after the other with the next step not being started until the previous step is completed. Rather, SpaceX and the FAA are in constant communication with each other, discussing, sharing drafts and clarifying requirements, and what you'll see is all the formal steps happen in a flurry all at the end even though the actual information was shared earlier and all parties knew what to expect and roughly when to expect it.

The FAA statement in the tweet from Beil is about the formal steps, and says nothing about the actual practical progress, which is a different thing.

I think the timing of the license at this point is likely driven by launch readiness, and not the other way around. That was not the case with IFT-2, but likely would have been if not for the environmental review. If the FAA is saying they're expecting to issue a license in mid to late Feb, probably what they means is SpaceX is expected to be ready to launch in mid to late Feb, which is effectively therefore their deadline for issuing the license (and SpaceX's for submitting whatever they need to).

Remember when the FAA closed the IFT-1 mishap investigation and gave SpaceX a list of fifty or whatever mitigations they'd have to put in place for IFT-2? And people were briefly like "wow how long is that going to take", before it quickly became apparent that a) all the items had been completed already and by) SpaceX wrote the list themselves.

The formal process doesn't actually tell you much about what's happening in practice. Better to look at what SpaceX are doing.

seems like they got all the approval they had for the last launch except a 3 day revision -- it's definitely still possible if you define 3 weeks to be the 3rd week from now, also Elon Musk is not exactly the best source of info (the surrounding tweets are a Harambe meme, Vivek Ramaswamy and Tucker Carlson interviewing Putin...)

@RahulShah He's not a reliable source usually in the under estimate of how long until something happens. Not in the over estimate.

Starship launching in Feb, bet against me if you don't think so

1500 No limit order @ 62%

@NGK I wish it was a good bet to take that, but I suspect it's not.

A comment below has left me perplexed, so I will just ask one more time to be completely clear:

If:

1. There is a livestream on SpaceX official
2. The livestream starts streaming, showing a ship ready to launch
3. Before the ship does any launching, and before a countdown timer gets to 0, the launch is canceled and does not resume the same day

That will [resolve | not resolve] this market Yes??

For some context, @Blomfilter seems to have copied the requirement for a live stream from markets that were about launch attempts, where a livestream starting was used as the definition of an attempt (such that a scrub prior to the livestream starting wouldn't count as an attempt). These markets resolves YES if there was an attempt even if it didn't launch.

A market about launch shouldn't need this criterion. @Blomfilter if indeed this market requires a launch, then I'd suggest removing the live stream requirement and adding a definition of "launch" instead, for which I've been using:

"Launch" is defined as the vehicle lifting off the pad, however slightly, under thrust from its engines.

If on the other hand this market is indeed about launch attempts, then you should modify the title to say "launch attempt" instead of just "launch", and clarify that a scrub still counts.

Right now it looks like it's about a launch though, and not just an attempt, so people have probably bet on that basis, and it would likely be better to stick with that.

@chrisjbillington Okay, well, that was false advertising, unsubscribing. I'm only interested in actually launching the ship and the title said it was about launching.

@Eliza Oh, I don't know that yet. I'm just telling the creator what they might consider for their criteria in either case. I would expect it is probably about launching, that's what it looks like.

@chrisjbillington Ok thank you , I will add the clarification on all markets

"Launch" is defined as the vehicle lifting off the pad, however slightly, under thrust from its engines.

So it would need to

1. livestreamed on official spaceX platforms

   PLUS

2. "LAUNCH" off the pad, lifting up just a small amount

So, what's the launch target for 2024? 3 ships? 4? If everything goes well?

@Eliza Don't know if we have a target. We know there are plans for two launches at least, and they're limited to five per year (I think by the environmental part of their license?), so somewhere in that range. I imagine they'd like to do as many as possible,

@chrisjbillington There's also the KSC launch site that has been under construction since early last year.

https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starship-florida-tower

@NGK Ah yes, they can do more there if that becomes operational. Oh, if it was looking like that in Feb 2023, it must be pretty far along now!

@NGK