Given the below correspondence with the FAA and discussion around it, it does seem to me that SpaceX could have done multiple launches with their June-issued license, without a license modification.

In practice it's not worth it because the launch was a good success and so they want to plough ahead and make changes sufficient for a license modification to be needed. But you can easily imagine IFT-4 failing re-entry (which would not have required a mishap investigation), and them flying a very similar flight again. So I think the letter and the spirit of the market are fairly in agreement, even though in practice SpaceX is unlikely to make use of the license allowing multiple launches.

Resolved YES

I think this should resolve YES because the license for the June launch already authorized multiple launches, even if SpaceX didn't make use of this.

"SpaceX's current license authorizing the Starship Flight 4 launch also allows for multiple flights of the same vehicle configuration and mission profile. SpaceX chose to modify both for its proposed Starship Flight 5 launch, which triggered a more in-depth review," agency officials wrote.

(https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-five-late-november)

@dp9000 Hm, I'm a bit confused.

The text of the license itself says:

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:

a. Pre-flight ground operations:

i. Using the Starship-Super Heavy vehicle.

ii. At SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Complex, Boca Chica, Texas.

b. Flights:

i. Using a Ship 29-Booster 11 Starship-Super Heavy vehicle configuration, unless this license is modified to remove this term.

ii. From SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Complex, Boca Chica, Texas.

iii. To Gulf of Mexico and Indian Ocean locations specified in its application.

iv. For the mission profile represented for Flight 4.

They always have this "applies only to blah unless modified to remove this term". Is "a Ship 29-Booster 11 Starship-Super Heavy vehicle configuration" supposed to be generic, like it's not about ship 29 and booster 11 specifically but any other ship and booster in the same "configuration"?

Anyway there are certainly a bunch of quotes going around, such as the one you linked, saying the license applied to multiple flights. I'll look more into it and see what I can confirm, and if we can resolve this market.

@chrisjbillington The way I see it this isn't a multi-launch authorization the way this market would describe it, and FAA is just coping. A "ship 29-booster 11 configuration" is so highly specific that it's absolutely meaningless to call it multi-launch authorization, and on top of that it's always been obvious to everyone (including the FAA) that yes, Starships iterate between flights. That's SpaceX' whole shtick.

Context:

https://spacenews.com/spacex-planning-rapid-turnaround-for-next-starship-flight/

The FAA has updated SpaceX’s Starship launch license after every flight to date to reflect changes in the mission, such as the different suborbital trajectory used on the most recent flight. However, Coleman said the agency wants to move to a process where the license is valid for “portfolio of launches” rather than individual ones. That is particularly important, he added, because SpaceX is planning six to nine more Starship launches this year.

That is part of a broader effort to streamline the launch licensing process to address criticism from industry and Congress that the FAA is moving too slowly on approving launch licenses under a new set of regulations known as Part 450.