60 second static fire today, with the rvacs cutting out a few seconds before the end. That may have been an intentional shutdown procedure though, we don't know for sure.

notmars moved to NET 21st

Static fire 4th and again on 12th = 8 days
Launch date moved 13th to 21st is also 8 days so that seems to fit.

Last 3 static fire to launch were I believe 60 days, 30 days and 25 days. Clearly coming down and their minimum possible estimate this time seems to be 9 days. Minimum possible and actual can easily be different. But will it be 12 days or less or 13 or more or 20 or more?

Static fire scrub

NET 20

ICYMI
https://x.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1919787203774869817
"Starship Flight 9: Ship 35 is expected to head back to SpaceX Masseys for another Static Fire test this week. Should all go well this time, Flight 9 is NET May 19. You may see a flash again during this, but that happens. The latest Starbase Update explains."

5 days of delays can easily happen (over 50% chance?) even without another static fire problem.

@Mqrius How come the dates in the Indian ocean are earlier than near Boca Chica? Are there plans for another spacecraft reentering from the same orbit?

@OlegEterevsky Not sure, my leading theory is that the Indian Ocean notices have a longer bureaucracy lead time, so they had to get filed at an earlier date. At that earlier date SpaceX didn't yet know that they couldn't fly before the 13th.

Btw a new update just dropped that removes the first few dates, possibly an update because of the static fire incident.

@Mqrius 4 day delay due to static fire issue seems low to me, that might be due to a delay in expected static fire date? Anyway we now seem to have confirmation another static fire is fairly imminent and a NET date of 19th from NSF. 13th to 19th still seems a surprisingly short delay for a static fire incident leading to another static fire being necessary.

@ChristopherRandles It depends entirely on what exactly went wrong during the static fire. We've gotten basically no information on that, so hard to say. On priors I would agree with you though.