Resolves YES on the FAA issuing a launch license, before November 16th, that would authorise SpaceX's planned second integrated flight test of the Starship–Superheavy vehicle, launching from Boca Chica, Texas on a near-orbital flight.
The existing license that authorised the first flight test can be found on the FAA's licenses page:
as license "VOL 23-129".
It is expected that the FAA will modify the existing license in order to extend its applicability to the second flight. The existing license authorises the first flight only using the following language:
4. Authorization: In accordance with the representations in the Space Exploration Technologies, Corp. application as of the date of this license, and any amendments to the license application or waivers approved by the FAA, in writing, Space Exploration Technologies, Corp. is authorized to conduct launch consisting of:
a. Pre-flight ground operations:
i. Using the Starship-Super Heavy vehicle.
ii. At SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Complex, Boca Chica, Texas.
b. Flight Operations:
i. Using the Starship-Super Heavy vehicle.
ii. From SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Complex, Boca Chica, Texas.
iii. To Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean locations specified in its application.
iv. For the first flight only, unless this license is modified to remove this term.It is expected that the final term iv restricting authorisation to the first flight only will be removed. However, any license authorising a second Starship–Superheavy flight launching from Boca Chica to the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean will cause this market to resolve YES.
This market will resolve YES on such a modified license appearing on the FAA's licenses page, or on a new license document appearing there that would authorise the second flight, or on reliable media reports that the FAA has granted such a license, even if they have yet to update their webpage (this happened previously). Such evidence must appear before November 16th, even if we later discover the license was issued in some sense before November 16th, if this is not public information conveyed by reliable sources before November 16th, this market will resolve NO.
Arbitrary restrictions contained within such a license still count for the purposes of this market - such as if a license is granted but does not authorise a flight until next year.
It does not matter whether there are other regulatory requirements SpaceX also need in order to launch, in addition to a launch license from the FAA. This market resolves only on an FAA license, or NO on November 16th if none is issued.
The relevant timezone for "before November 16th" is local time in Texas.
1,000
3.00It's on the official license list now:
https://explore.dot.gov/t/FAA/views/CommercialSpaceTransportation/LaunchLicenses?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y
Direct link to the license:
https://www.faa.gov/media/69476
Resolving YES!
@Panfilo Did you save it? They took it down, it's a 404 now.
I, too am enumerating URLs. There were several gaps in the numbers as they took down and re-uploaded the documents a few hours ago, so that seems normal.
https://www.faa.gov/media/72816 The intermediary step between "you have all the approvals" and actually getting the license has occured.
FWS has finished its reevaluation, which was the only thing still necessary for the launch license.
https://www.faa.gov/media/72766
FAA should grant it soon.
@NGK Davenport is a journalist for the Washington Post and has been completely reliable about info like this - if he tweets that the license has actually been issued, I'll be resolving this market YES immediately.
Only question about this latest tweet is how soon "imminent" is.
@chrisjbillington I thought the resolution criteria is if the FAA updates the license page? Seems premature to do it based on reporting
@NGK He did say media reports. A tweet is questionable but whatever... I'm selling as I still don't think it will happen but some random tweet might.
@parhizj Yea I’ve just reread the criteria and I missed that. I think it’s questionable criteria personally and should just be based on the FAA page but it’s Chris’ market.
@NGK There have been times when the FAA page has not yet been updated even at the point of actual launch, but the media have been informed, and the FAA have put out a press release or something. I definitely didn't want to have the market resolve NO in the case that an authorised launch was taking place just because they didn't update the website. The website is not the official source of truth: what the FAA tells SpaceX is, and we may only get that info via the media (I don't know if a press release is standard practice - we got one last time, but only after reliable media sources were already telling us the license had been issued).
Random tweets don't count, but Davenport does, as he's a reliable journalist in this sphere.
@parhizj Please don't sell! This market is not going to resolve YES unless an actual license has been issued, you have my word.
@chrisjbillington That’s fair. I’d only just say you could leave the question closed from the 16th and then resolve it when the FAA page does update as it should have the correct date of issue on it. But that introduces other issues too
@NGK If I misresolve then we can request re-resolution, I don't want to hold people's mana up if the market is trading at 99% after reliable sources have confirmed it. They'll need that mana to live-bet about how the launch progresses!
(this isn't just selfish interest, I'm against leaving markets open "just in case" - and I think most traders appreciate this, so it's a general principle of mine)