Operational will mean that a launch has happened from the tower (full stack or just booster or ship by itself), or a catch (of either booster or ship) has been attempted. "Attempted" will mean that it was announced as the plan for the flight and the flight launched, even if the flight was not successful or the catch was aborted.
All dates are "on or before".
Current plans are that this launch tower will also be at Starbase, however that is not required. An operational tower at Cape Canaveral or elsewhere would also count.
Related question with different criteria:
/Blomfilter/will-starbase-mount-a-starship-on-a
Update 2025-09-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - A second tower must be a new, distinct tower; a rebuild or repair of the first tower does not count.
The first tower may be non-operational when the second tower becomes operational.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ960 | |
| 2 | Ṁ519 | |
| 3 | Ṁ471 | |
| 4 | Ṁ457 | |
| 5 | Ṁ454 |
People are also trading
@Eliza Might launch tomorrow but more likely a day or a few more days delay. Launch presumably needed before resolving yes
@ChristopherRandles So they built a whole second tower? How far from the 1st one is it, do they have equal capabilities or will the 1st tower be obsolete?
@Eliza Well the tower toped out ~Aug 2024 but launch mount and completing fitting it out has taken some time. Launch mount at pad 2 has only been used for static fires so far.
Pad 1 & 2 ~300 meters apart.
Third one is roughly about 6 months behind in Florida at KSC LC-39A
There is 2 more pads with one beginning work at CCSFB SLC-37
Speculation they will have a pad VSFB California and recently large land purchases in Louisiana might be for more.
Very different launch mounts, pad 2 designed for v3 more traditional and much more robust (they hope) than quick temporary fix style of pad1.
Pad 1 is not just obsolete, the launch mount is already completely demolished and tower stripped of main working parts like quick disconnects, chopsticks shortened, cabling system to move chopsticks removed. Groundworks for the new launch mount at pad 1 to be same as pad 2 have commenced. It will take a while before it is ready probably further behind pad 39A than pad 39A is behind pad 2.
SpaceX is not short on confidence that they will need a few pads; this seems remarkably understated.
@Eliza as best I can tell this question will resolve yes with high certainly exactly on launch 12. There are no more interesting questions to ask on this market, they're all just launch 12 questions so they belong on markets about that.
@EvanDaniel It sounds like the comment section absolutely nailed this on literally the first day with @percentage asking about a "what if the 1st tower disappears" situation. Good job.
@EvanDaniel Do you know, when will be the first time that TWO of this 'Starship' thing launch up to space within 24 hours of each other? My understanding is this has already been done for the "Falcon" and represents a maturation of the technology?
@A16ab I suppose I could resolve early if they've officially missed the date, but a quick search suggests the latest update is a March target date for next flight, which is presumably on the new tower?
@EvanDaniel forgive me, but if “all dates are on or before” then it’s not resolving early, you would be resolving late?
@EvanDaniel >"I suppose I could resolve early if they've officially missed the date"
It was about 4 weeks on 7 March
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2030202126282973682
They are also going to miss that: still not static fired booster 19 with 33 engine or ship 39 and there is no real chance of doing that by end of 31 March, let alone also inspections post static fire and final preps, load semi-dumb starlinks, test out pad's ship quick disconnect systems, add FTS and launch .
Unless they decide to overhaul the first tower before finishing the second, I believe the second tower is effectively a blocker for flight 12. I think this is undervalued.
@Eliza https://manifold.markets/EvanDaniel/by-when-will-a-second-starship-supe#xz8pgnbzrbi
Not a rebuild or repair of the first tower. First tower is allowed to be non-operational. Hopefully that answers the question?
@EvanDaniel Okay, so if the 2nd tower is on a new physical location, even if they moved 99% of the components of the 1st tower to the new location, that counts as a new tower? Sounds good.
@Eliza Plans look like they will keep pad 1 tower, demolish launch mount and build flame trench and new launch mount. That seems like same "launch tower" to me even if launch mount is different and in a slightly different place and tower requires different chopsticks and quick disconnects etc. I expect all this to take a year or more.
(I suppose catches could be done by tower 1 during this time, but it makes no difference to this question.)
Pad 2 highly likely to be used for launches during that year+ rebuild time.
There are potentially at least a couple of possibilities where flight 12 on this question does not resolve yes: One would be an explosion at pad 2 but it would have to be major to cause pad 1 to be ready before pad 2 and pad 1 to be used before the Florida launch site. Another possibility would be some long delay to pad 2 or booster 18 such that they decide to launch ship 39 a v3 ship on booster 17 a v2 booster. A specially made HSR might allow them to fix them together.