Resolution criteria: Resolves to the upcoming flight once the FAA publishes a license that authorises SpaceX to perform multiple full stack launches of Starship.
Context: So far each of the three Starship launches have occurred under launch licenses that only authorised the one launch, and thus SpaceX has had to apply for a new licence (or rather a modification of the existing license) before each flight. This process takes time, potentially delaying SpaceX's timelines, and both SpaceX and the FAA are keen to get to the point where that process isn't required between every flight. The FAA's Kevin Coleman stated recently that "we want to get away from the launch by launch approvals and get more into what Part 450 was really designed for, which is an approval of a portfolio of launches."
Additional clarifications:
As of June 6th, there have been four full stack launches of Starship
SpaceX doesn't need to actually perform multiple launches under the license, nor does it even need to be likely that they will. The only requirement is that it needs to be at least theoretically possible for them to perform multiple launches without needing to receive a new license or a modification of an existing license. (I.e. a license that authorises multiple launches conditional on some objective being met would still resolve the market).
For simplicity and promptness of resolution, the market is resolved to the upcoming flight as soon as a license that meets the criterion is published, even if the upcoming flight isn't planned to or doesn't end up occurring under that license.
I reserve the right to resolve the market N/A if the circumstances around Starship change sufficiently such that the market doesn't make sense (eg if Starship development is stopped entirely or the FAA is replaced by another organisation).
Related markets:
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ73 | |
| 2 | Ṁ69 | |
| 3 | Ṁ35 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1 | |
| 5 | Ṁ1 |
@traders and any other interested space Manifolders, help me interpret this
Today, Adrian Bell tweeted the following:
Seemingly suggesting that there's a scenario in which SpaceX doesn't need to apply for a licence modification for a 5th flight, they could use the license they received for flight 4 (which, if true, would resolve this market to "Flight 4")
And looking it up, I see this reddit post from 5 days ago claiming the same thing
But if you actually read the license itself, specifically 4.b.i, it says the license authorises flights "using a Ship 29-Booster 11 Starship-Super Heavy vehicle configuration, unless this license is
modified to remove this term."
Which makes me think "[The license authorises] multiple flights of the same vehicle configuration" is referring to the fact that it would technically authorise multiple flights of the "Ship 29-Booster 11 Starship-Super Heavy vehicle configuration" stated in the license itself.
Which would kind of be a pointless statement given that Ship 29 is somewhere in the middle of the ocean with no intention of recovery (iirc)... which makes me think that I'm reading all of this wrong?
Idk, at the very least curious about people's thoughts
FWIW, if it's possible for them to conduct a 5th flight using Ship 30 and booster 12 with no modifications to the current license, this obviously resolves "Flight 4" (even if SpaceX chooses to go for a catch or something and that ends up requiring a new license anyway) - as per criteria in description
And of course if all of this is wrong and the license could only ever authorise flight 4 then this doesn't resolve yet
But if it is the case that this license technically authorises multiple flights of specifically ship 29 and booster 11; I'm actually not entirely sure how to resolve this.
The criteria I wrote reads: "The only requirement is that it needs to be at least theoretically possible for them to perform multiple launches without needing to receive a new license or a modification of an existing license" - which like, I guess it theoretically would have been possible for both the ship and the booster to survive intact AND for SpaceX to recover both AND for SpaceX to then refurbish them in spite of the dunking in the ocean and any damage they accrued AND then decided to launch which that exact pairing as the next flight AND decided to use the same flight profile etc etc
Like, I guess it's technically theoretically possible but it just feels like such an absurd scenario that it shouldn't count
Idk, I guess I probably would count it though as I suppose it does fall under the criteria
Curious to hear arguments for or against it counting anyway
I guess the important part is that instead of just replacing "for the Flight 3 mission only" with "for the Flight 4 mission only", the FAA replaced it with "for the mission profile represented for Flight 4". So the license is not just for flight 4, but any flight that is similar (with the same "mission profile") to flight 4.
And "Ship 29-Booster 11 Starship-Super Heavy vehicle configuration" does not mean specifically Ship 29 and Booster 11, but any vehicle that is similar (same "vehicle configuration") to Ship 29 and Booster 11. They replaced "Starship-Super Heavy vehicle" with this "vehicle configuration" wording to prevent SpaceX from flying a vastly different rocket with the same license, even if it is still called "Starship-Super Heavy" . If Ship 30 is too dissimilar from ship 29, it would no longer have the same "vehicle configuration" and a new license would be necessary.
What exactly constitututes the "mission profile" and "vehicle onfiguration" (and how much has to change for it to be a new profile/configuration) is probably defined in SpaceX's license application which we don't have.
I think that DP's interpretation of "a Ship 29-Booster 11 Starship-Super Heavy vehicle configuration" is likely correct.
SpaceX is making a bunch of similar, but not identical vehicles. The FAA needs some way of saying, "of the same design as this one", thus they call out by the build number.
SpaceX isn't going to build another pair exactly like ship 29 & booster 11, but with this wording maybe they just need an official to bless the next pair as similar enough, rather than needing a full license modification?
Or maybe it's a clause that's not actually useful yet, because SpaceX isn't done with making significant changes... but it paves the way for future flights which do use more similar hardware.
https://teslanorth.com/2024/06/04/spacex-set-for-fourth-starship-flight-test-on-june-6/
"The company received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to modify its existing vehicle operator license (VOL 23-129) for the Starship/Super Heavy Launch Vehicle at its Cameron County, Texas site. Following a comprehensive evaluation of all applicable Vehicle Operator License requirements and confirming the sufficiency of existing environmental documentation, the FAA issued the modification on June 4, 2024.
This modification allows SpaceX to conduct multiple flights under the current mission profile and vehicle configuration for the Starship/Super Heavy Launch Vehicle Program in Cameron County."
Might be a fan site.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d8agkl/starship_launch_license_allows_multiple_launches/
From the email: "SpaceX applied to modify its existing vehicle operator license (VOL 23-129) for the Starship/Super Heavy Launch Vehicle from its Cameron County, TX site. After completing an evaluation of all applicable Vehicle Operator License requirements and confirming that existing environmental documentation is sufficient, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a modification to the Vehicle Operator License for SpaceX launches of the Starship/Super Heavy Launch Vehicle Program in Cameron County, TX on June 04, 2024. Under this modification to the license, SpaceX may conduct multiple flights of the current mission profile and vehicle configuration."
suggests above is in an email, but not sure if this is email from FAA or someone else or should be treated as just an unverified claim. Not sure if someone can track this down better than me.
I also see things like "Another aspect to trying a catch on Flight 5: it would require a specific modification to the Launch License"
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61030.0
There seems general agreement on DP interpretation by commentators but I trying to track down something from more official source or space media seems more difficult.
At least the description is clear that
"SpaceX doesn't need to actually perform multiple launches under the license, nor does it even need to be likely that they will."
NasaSpaceflight.com video:
https://youtu.be/Qw7OqE5Dy20?t=2835
44 min to 52 min
Largely taking DP's line with "kinda, sounds like, maybe" caveats. Asking for confirmation but haven't had reply at that time. Specifically did suggest ship 12 would likely be same configuration.
It isn't completely clear, but if there is no evidence to contradict this then I think flight 4 should resolve yes.
@dp9000 Ahhh okay yeah that would make sense (also, sorry for the delayed response)
And thank you all for chiming in with details to help make sense of it!
@ChristopherRandles also the fact that they were asking the FAA for clarification on this point makes me think that maybe the quote in the tweet from my original comment was directly in response to that as well
But yeah this would definitely seem to suggest that one way or another this should resolve 'Flight 4', so unless there are any objections, that is what I will do
@NiklasBergstrom Ahh good point, that was maybe not the best wording. Yeah no my intention was to refer to "in the period before which flight (singular)" as opposed to "before which flights (plural)".
Will update the title and description for clarity
@JDF & @notarealuser if either of you bet under the assumption above, many apologies, message me and I'm happy to refund you your mana