Launch means hold-down clamps releasing after engine ignition, regardless of subsequent success or failure.
"Launch" is defined as the vehicle lifting off the pad, however slightly, under thrust from its engines.
Only launches planned to be orbital or near-orbital (intended to come within ~5% of orbital velocity) count.
Relevant timezone, for determining which month a launch is in, is local time at the launch site.
Edit Nov 9th: changed the definition of "launch". It turns out that the launch clamps may be released well in advance of ignition, such that they should not be used as part of the defintion of "launch"
1,000
3.00@NGK Wow, maybe Rep Kiley hammering at Whitaker, the incompetent and corrupt FAA administrator, actually and some effect.
@AlQuinn And that's why the US is going to space and Europe is not (well, technically, but you know what I mean). I live near the European space centre in Kiruna, Sweden and the lack of vision and plans measured in (almost) centuries to build a launch system to maybe equal... Falcon 9, are just sad.
@skibidist Everyday Astronaut did a review of some of the more innovative European companies, so can't say there is nothing going on there, but generally I agree. But also, the US has better genes than Europe for business in general; the centuries of immigration from Europe to the US boiled away much of the more entrepreneurial and risk taking people/genes, which is part of the reason Europe is such a laggard that believes it can exert global influence through its "exquisite" red-tape making bureaucracy, which is its go-to geopolitical cudgel these days.
Other factors would be political division in Europe. The propaganda of the "EU" cannot be believed since France and Germany have different visions for which of them is the leading star. I guess, fortunately, Germany no longer has a real military, so at worst, the two will fight it out in a passive-aggressive manner, inflicting paper cuts onto each other.
But also, the US has better genes than Europe for business in general; the centuries of immigration from Europe to the US boiled away much of the more entrepreneurial and risk taking people/genes, which is part of the reason Europe is such a laggard
@AlQuinn I am dubious of the genetic basis for the difference, but would kind of like it to be true. Do you have any data to support it? My view has always been that difference stems from the historical baggage that Europe has in that it evolved from a feudal order and still preserves some of that rigidity in societal structure.
@skibidist Absolutely no data but I suspect it's true to at least some extent; doing a proper evaluation of this idea sounds very hard to me. This sort of thinking might also partially explain why the US is more religious, since the country was in part founded by those seeking "religious freedom" (these sort of people are also probably lower on agreeableness, which is good for entrepreneurial spirit).
Other causes
1) EU is not as socially and economically integrated as the US, so US has much deeper domestic market that supports larger scale businesses
2) as you mention, culture accounts for many differences, which is why I linked the Macaes book, since he takes this difference very seriously in his writing, rather than assuming all "Western" cultures are basically the same
Regarding point #2, I'm continually surprised by people (mostly leftists) who reject the notion that various cultures are meaningfully different from each other. A lack of imagination, or trying to shoehorn their world views into a tight space? In any case, that's how you end up with memes like "Queers for Palestine" or the belief that anyone opposed to immigration on the grounds that an excess of such immigrants would degrade a host country's culture is being "racist".
@Eliza Main thing it depends on is how much they want to change before flying another one, I think. The way IFT4 went they don't need a mishap investigation. Otoh if they want to tower-catch then the license might need more scrutiny.
"The FAA's Kelvin Coleman says at the #payloadspacecapitol event this evening that he didn't see any major issues with last week's Starship launch, but SpaceX still needs to carry out a mishap investigation. SpaceX, he says, is aiming for 6-9 more Starship launches this year."
/ manifold joke /
Chris holds No in every month, looks like there will be zero launches this year
/ end joke /
@Eliza It's not clear if the next launch will be the same planned trajectory as the previous one or not. We can see regulatory filings that imply a different trajectory, including full orbit and a powered landing in the Indian ocean, as opposed to a slightly suborbital trajectory and an unpowered splashdown near Hawaii. Most think this new trajectory will apply to the third flight, but it might apply to the fourth and I don't think we have official confirmation yet.
Other than that, I think just the usual slew of incremental improvements, including lessons learned from the previous launch, as well as the differences that existed already between the vehicles that launched last and will launch next, since they're all different as SpaceX is improving things anyway. The first launch was fairly old hardware that they had already improved on considerably.
I'm not sure about specific improvements though. I think they're still going for the same hot-staging.
There were articles about them potentially demonstrating an internal propellant transfer in orbit:
Which would be practice for something they'll need to do for the upcoming Artemis missions. No confirmation they'll be doing this yet, but you'd imagine it would require full orbit since the vehicle otherwise wouldn't be in space for very long.
Traders, in light of discussion here, I have modified the definition of "launch" that resolution will use. It turns out that the hold-down clamps may release well in advance of engine ignition, making them quite irrelevant to what people are likely betting on. Resolution will instead depend on "actual lift off from the pad".