🏅 Top traders

SpaceX has made announcement
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-9
as soon as Tuesday, May 27. The launch window will open at 6:30 p.m. CT.

There are also road closures for flight activity
27th 28th and 29th closure possible

USTFR is also up https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_5_4389

Just need the vehicles at the launch site. Missed last couple but new temporary and intermittent road delays have also been posted, several from 23rd to 28th, https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/spacex/

So it seems we have several new indicators and they seem to suggest 27th May may still be possible.

Perhaps still seems tight with neither booster nor ship at launch site?

(Before 24th seems completely impossible and could resolve now or very soon.)

Yeah seems plausible. I bought No erroneously since I saw a NOTMAR for NET 28, but didn't realize that that was UTC Ship reentry, not launch.

Before 16 can resolve No

NET 26 atm

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?

In 4 days since above 2 posts launch date has moved 2 days right to 23rd May.
At that rate the actual launch date will be twice as far away as the NET date.
now 23rd per https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/?search=SpaceX

Edit: Oops I am looking at BST time/dates. It is still 22nd local time or even UTC (just).

Mishap report submitted so presumably undergoing review unless more recent developments
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/statements/general-statements
seem like they are tightening things up in response to repeated failures late in second stage engines' first burns when they would normally assume low risk?

May 15, 2025

FAA Statement on SpaceX Starship Flight 9 License Approval

The FAA approved license modifications for the SpaceX Starship Flight 9 mission. The approval includes final action allowing SpaceX to increase Starship operations from five up to 25 per year at Boca Chica, Texas.
 
However, SpaceX may not launch until the FAA either closes the Starship Flight 8 mishap investigation or makes a return to flight determination. The FAA is reviewing the mishap report SpaceX submitted on May 13.  Learn about the FAA Mishap Response Program.
 
For the Starship Flight 9 mission, the FAA is expanding the size of aircraft and maritime hazard areas both in the U.S. and other countries. This is a result of the FAA requiring SpaceX to revise the Flight Safety Analysis following the prior launch mishap and because SpaceX intends to reuse a previously launched Super Heavy booster rocket for the first time. Read the new Environmental Assessment for Updates to Airspace Closures to learn 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.