The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread

[Russell_C]

I know we are only a week removed from flight test 5, but i'm wondering what everyone thinks we will see out of flight test 6.  Full orbital flight?  A starship landing back at starbase?  SN33?  What are your predictions?

[InterestedEngineer]

Skip whatever the next V1 is, and straight to V2 SN33.  Same flight plan, shooting for reliability metrics so IFT-7 can attempt a lading at BC.

[gtae07]

Depends on the marginal cost of flying the last V1 ship, how long V2 will take to be ready, and whether there's more to be gained pulling the engines off the "old flight 6" vehicles.

My guess would be, if the last V1 flies and is capable of doing so...
- engine relight in "orbit" to allow true orbital flight.
- payload door test (if equipped, IDK)
- possibly an evening launch so ship EDL is in daylight?

But past that I don't see anything that wouldn't be testable on V2.

[Russell_C]

Depends on the marginal cost of flying the last V1 ship, how long V2 will take to be ready, and whether there's more to be gained pulling the engines off the "old flight 6" vehicles.

My guess would be, if the last V1 flies and is capable of doing so...
- engine relight in "orbit" to allow true orbital flight.
- payload door test (if equipped, IDK)
- possibly an evening launch so ship EDL is in daylight?

But past that I don't see anything that wouldn't be testable on V2.

I think we've seen our last of V1, it just seems counterintuitive (to me, a layman) to test tech that is known won't be moving forward with the design.

My question is, how far can they deviate from flight 5's profile without triggering an FAA License investigation.  Say they still planed a soft landing in the Indian ocean, but wanted to go orbital first, are we looking at another 3 month wait for the OK?

[JohnsterSpaceProgram]

Hello once again everyone! Now that it's been a few days since Flight 5 launched and made history on October 13th, 2024, with the first successful catch of the Super Heavy booster, and since I didn't end up doing one for Flight 5, I thought I would start a predictions thread for Flight 6.

Like in the previous flight prediction threads, you can either reply here with your predictions, or enter them into the Flight 6 predictions spreadsheet.

Also, you can find my previous flight prediction threads here...
IFT-3: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60003.0
IFT-4: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60549.0

And you can find the predictions sheet I've created for Flight 6 here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qsZh5qyczpJZHCB0j5s4VmNTDoYSv0dmG24vfH2zxSE/edit?usp=sharing.



With those introductions out of the way, I would like to share my predictions for the sixth integrated test flight of Starship.

Vehicles: Booster 13/Ship 31 (B13-S31)

Launch Date: Sometime between late November and early December 2024

Flight Success Chance: 90% Successful

What I Would Consider As A Success: The ship surviving re-entry with less or no burn-through on the forward flaps than was seen on Flight 5's ship, another successful booster catch, but with less damage to the booster, and all primary/major flight objectives completed.

Something new on this predictions sheet, which the previous ones did not include, are the addition of major and minor mission objective predictions.

Here's what I think the major and minor objectives might potentially be for the flight.

Major Flight Objectives: Another successful booster catch, and the ship completing an in-space raptor relight.

Minor Flight Objectives: Additional in-flight tests, perhaps another payload bay door test, or a tank-to-tank transfer like on Flight 3.

Also, don't forget to check out this Flight 6 launch predictions poll (https://forms.gle/Te4dQTVEfAbKUDax5) as well! You can also find it in the "Form Responses" tab on the predictions spreadsheet.

So, what are your predictions for flight 6?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Two flight 6 prediction threads merged.

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

In flight test of a hot gas thruster.

Edit to include my reasoning:

Since the IFT3 loss of control SpaceX have appeared to be very cautious over attitude control. I’m suspecting that their reason for not attempting a raptor re-light is a lack of confidence that the ACS can remain functional through burn pointing/prop-settling and re-entry.

Hot gas thrusters are on the critical path for the fuelling demo. They may also be critical path for re-light and therefore any orbital operations.

[TomH]

They actually could fly 13/31 by mid-November. They've taken Ship 13 out for SF, so it looks like they plan to fly. I don't see too much more they can learn with V.1, however, so I would not be surprised if they decided within a couple of days simply to go straight to V.2. Of course, regulatory approval for that may engender more regulatory delays. Perhaps they have already filed for that approval and may be preparing to fly Ship 13, in case they don't soon get the permit for V.2. But if they do get the approval for V.2, I would expect them to just leapfrog straight to it.

[gin455res]

Maybe delete the forward flaps and do an early test of this configuration.

[gtae07]

I think we've seen our last of V1, it just seems counterintuitive (to me, a layman) to test tech that is known won't be moving forward with the design.

Even an old configuration vehicle can still provide useful test data, depending on what's changed.  We know the forward flaps are changing, but what's changing propulsion-wise?  If V2 is still using Raptor 2 engines and the same basic propellant/propulsion setup, maybe there's value in conducting the in-space relight so that the first V2 flight can go orbital. 

My question is, how far can they deviate from flight 5's profile without triggering an FAA License investigation.  Say they still planed a soft landing in the Indian ocean, but wanted to go orbital first, are we looking at another 3 month wait for the OK?

That's the big question.  I don't think the FAA will approve an actual orbital flight without an in-space relight first. 

If 13/31 can fly in a couple weeks with minimal/no regulatory churn and at the cost of "just" some propellant and labor hours, vs. a couple months of waiting to finish getting 33 ready and modify the licensing for a new test... might as well fly and demonstrate that relight.  Might also be easier/faster to combine the "new entry protection system" and "orbital" into one license modification process vs. two separate ones. 

I'd also argue that perhaps the full orbital approval is possibly more important than the forward flaps from a near term perspective.  Fly 31, demonstrate relight, then 33 can (if equipped) dispense some payload as a secondary test objective.  Then your test flights can start doing useful things as well, while you iterate the TPS.

[Riccardo11]

Ships S31 and booster 13 appear to be ready: testing an in-space engine relight makes a lot of sense, so that they can go orbital with the first V2.

They need a license modification, however FAA already approved an engine relight for IFT3, so it should be straightforward.

[KSC Sage]

Skip whatever the next V1 is, and straight to V2 SN33.  Same flight plan, shooting for reliability metrics so IFT-7 can attempt a lading at BC.

The V2 vehicles need to launch off Pad 2.  Pad 2 won't be ready for use until early next year.

[dondar]

They actually could fly 13/31 by mid-November. They've taken Ship 13 out for SF, so it looks like they plan to fly. I don't see too much more they can learn with V.1, however, so I would not be surprised if they decided within a couple of days simply to go straight to V.2. Of course, regulatory approval for that may engender more regulatory delays. Perhaps they have already filed for that approval and may be preparing to fly Ship 13, in case they don't soon get the permit for V.2. But if they do get the approval for V.2, I would expect them to just leapfrog straight to it.

V1 is still useful to test engine relight and controlled landing  outside of ballistic corridor.
They also need to assemble statistics about Booster landings, they also need to test some simple failure modes.

[Russell_C]

Two flight 6 prediction threads merged.

Is that like...crossing the streams in Ghostbusters?  Should I be worried?

[alexterrell]

I would have thought that if they did a controlled landing in the Indian ocean, they could have travelled a bit further and landed on an empty Australian beach. Then they could have measured exactly how much burn through there was on the heat shield.

Maybe something for Flight 6, if they don't go for a full orbit?

From a project point of view, re-entry is still the one they haven't proven, and if they lose a Star Ship each time, the testing is expensive. Flight 5 came in at sub orbital speed. Future flights might come in with double the kinetic energy. 

The other thing that might be interesting is to reuse the same booster (after checking and measuring any damage).

[InterestedEngineer]

Skip whatever the next V1 is, and straight to V2 SN33.  Same flight plan, shooting for reliability metrics so IFT-7 can attempt a lading at BC.

The V2 vehicles need to launch off Pad 2.  Pad 2 won't be ready for use until early next year.

V2 booster yes, but V2 starships flying with V1 boosters are already on the official-ish plan, so tossing S31 and going straight to S33 is entirely plausible.  Depends when they can get S33 to Massey's.

[sanman]

Sorry for the small digression -- but since people here know a lot about scheduling plans, then when is Raptor-3 scheduled to fly? Will it debut with the V2 vehicles, or a little later?

Btw -- Felix from WAI says there are rumors of Nov 11 as the tentative date for Flight 6 (sounds a little early, if you ask me, but another flight within this year seems quite reasonable)

[rpapo]

Maybe delete the forward flaps and do an early test of this configuration.

Why would you omit the forward flaps and not omit the aft flaps?  Both are required for EDL, and neither are required if you are not planning on returning the ship, as in using it as a fuel depot or sending it to land on the moon.  For that matter, you would simply leave off the tiles in both cases too.

[gin455res]

Maybe delete the forward flaps and do an early test of this configuration.

Why would you omit the forward flaps and not omit the aft flaps?  Both are required for EDL, and neither are required if you are not planning on returning the ship, as in using it as a fuel depot or sending it to land on the moon.  For that matter, you would simply leave off the tiles in both cases too.

I think Elon said (IIRC) that it might be possible to re-enter (and I guess belly-flop) without them and they might at some point get rid of them. I guess this might only apply to ships coming back empty-ish and not Mars ships which would have a lot of mass in the front.


 Deleting them would save weight and complexity.


Current flaps on V1, are obsolete now, why not lose them on the next test flight.

[tenkendojo]

Maybe delete the forward flaps and do an early test of this configuration.

Maybe also delete the aft flaps and the heat tiles, and send it to lunar impact trajectory. For science of course.

[gin455res]

Maybe delete the forward flaps and do an early test of this configuration.

Maybe also delete the aft flaps and the heat tiles, and send it to lunar impact trajectory. For science of course.

In the chapter about flaps EM talks to EA about a scenario where you might be able to delete the forward flaps. It's at 37:21.


It's from 2022..

[BitterJim]

Maybe delete the forward flaps and do an early test of this configuration.

Are there any V1 Starships where that's a trivial change? It seems like the amount of time/work to remove the flaps, re-work the area around the flap roots, and redo the heat shield around that area would be better spent just getting V2 ready to fly

[catdlr]

Maybe delete the forward flaps and do an early test of this configuration.

Are there any V1 Starships where that's a trivial change? It seems like the amount of time/work to remove the flaps, re-work the area around the flap roots, and redo the heat shield around that area would be better spent just getting V2 ready to fly

There are two sitting out in the Rocket Garden. (Yeah, I know. They're old but don't have forward flaps—cannibalize the top of one and put tiles on it.)

[StraumliBlight]

There's a road closure on October 21 between the factory and the launch pad.

Could it be for a Booster 13 static fire (seeing as Ship 31 has already been tested)?

[catdlr]

There's a road closure on October 21 between the factory and the launch pad.

Could it be for a Booster 13 static fire (seeing as Ship 31 has already been tested)?

That would be the fastest OLM turnaround between flights,  but I guess all they need to have ready is enough refurbishment to allow a static fire.  In the past, all (or most all) of the hold-down clamps had to be R&R.

[InterestedEngineer]

Flight 5 came in at sub orbital speed. Future flights might come in with double the kinetic energy. 

wut.  They were about 100-200 m/sec short of orbital velocity.  That's 0.36% more energy.

Their entry interface speed was about 7.6km/sec.  To double that energy would require 1.4x the velocity, or 10.7km/sec.  That's almost re-entry speed from a lunar return trajectory.

They won't see "Double the kinetic energy" until they return from the Moon or Mars.  GTO might get 1.6-1.7x.  It's going to be quite a while till they are re-entering from GTO orbits, they gotta learn how to refuel first, plus they need customers who need 100t to GTO, which don't exist yet.

[Eka]

For IFT-6 I think the most important thing is they could test is more flap sealing methods.

A short in space in flight engine restart would also be good to do, but was it in the IFT-5 flight options? The relight in atmosphere during reentry with the atmosphere pushing hard into the exhaust come is very different. In space there is no back pressure. Can they built proper pressure?

SpaceX should be sending in IFT-7 and IFT-8 flight plans ASAP, if they haven't sent them in already, for future updates to the license.

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

For IFT-6 I think the most important thing is they could test is more flap sealing methods.

A short in space in flight engine restart would also be good to do, but was it in the IFT-5 flight options? The relight in atmosphere during reentry with the atmosphere pushing hard into the exhaust come is very different. In space there is no back pressure. Can they built proper pressure?

SpaceX should be sending in IFT-7 and IFT-8 flight plans ASAP, if they haven't sent them in already, for future updates to the license.

Aft flap joints seem to be performing well. This will be the last flight with the V1 forward flaps before they move to the more leeward placement on Ship 33. They might try a few changes with the gap filler but I suspect they will consider these good enough for Flight 6 objectives.

Flight 6 objectives will be focused on two areas:

1) preparing for orbital operations;
2) demonstrating another precision ship landing to build confidence for the first ship catch.

[rfdesigner]

Flight 5 came in at sub orbital speed. Future flights might come in with double the kinetic energy. 

wut.  They were about 100-200 m/sec short of orbital velocity.  That's 0.36% more energy.

Their entry interface speed was about 7.6km/sec.  To double that energy would require 1.4x the velocity, or 10.7km/sec.  That's almost re-entry speed from a lunar return trajectory.

They won't see "Double the kinetic energy" until they return from the Moon or Mars.  GTO might get 1.6-1.7x.  It's going to be quite a while till they are re-entering from GTO orbits, they gotta learn how to refuel first, plus they need customers who need 100t to GTO, which don't exist yet.

If arriving at earth with greater velocities the easiest solution is to "double dip".  Make a first pass that removes half the energy at very high altitude, keeping temperatures well under control, the ship exits the atmosphere and cools off before making a final reentry at something closer to orbital velocity.

That's not even novel.

[TomH]

If arriving at earth with greater velocities the easiest solution is to "double dip".  Make a first pass that removes half the energy at very high altitude, keeping temperatures well under control, the ship exits the atmosphere and cools off before making a final reentry at something closer to orbital velocity.

That's not even novel.

But it requires both time and accuracy. Mess up and it's Danger, Will Robinson. Danger! It's even more dicey if it's a manned mission, not just the technical energy management risk, but time in the Van Allen belts.

[StarshipTrooper]

It seems to me there is very little to be learned in following the exact same flight plan. The next launch should go to orbit, deliver Starlink satellites. Then they can call the Starship a fully functional launch system, with many improvements to come, of course.

What is the benefit of a test to relight the Raptor engines in orbit? Nobody has ever considered this even being an issue on any other rocket. Superheavy has relit individual Raptor engines in space dozens of times. The Starship has relit its engines in performing the flip maneuver during the last two flights.

[DanClemmensen]

It seems to me there is very little to be learned in following the exact same flight plan. The next launch should go to orbit, deliver Starlink satellites. Then they can call the Starship a fully functional launch system, with many improvements to come, of course.

What is the benefit of a test to relight the Raptor engines in orbit? Nobody has ever considered this even being an issue on any other rocket. Superheavy has relit individual Raptor engines in space dozens of times. The Starship has relit its engines in performing the flip maneuver during the last two flights.

SpaceX must prove that Starship can relight when it is in orbital conditions, i.e., in microgravity for more than a few seconds. This capabiltiy is needed to accurately de-orbit, which is needed for safe controlled de-orbiting of a 100-ton steel spacecraft.

[freddo411]

It seems to me there is very little to be learned in following the exact same flight plan. The next launch should go to orbit, deliver Starlink satellites. Then they can call the Starship a fully functional launch system, with many improvements to come, of course.

What is the benefit of a test to relight the Raptor engines in orbit? Nobody has ever considered this even being an issue on any other rocket. Superheavy has relit individual Raptor engines in space dozens of times. The Starship has relit its engines in performing the flip maneuver during the last two flights.

SpaceX must prove that Starship can relight when it is in orbital conditions, i.e., in microgravity for more than a few seconds. This capabiltiy is needed to accurately de-orbit, which is needed for safe controlled de-orbiting of a 100-ton steel spacecraft.

This seems likely to be solved by implementing techniques to settle the propellent, allowing engine restart.   Seems directly related to functionality needed for propellent transfer.   

Perhaps a likely mission objectives for flight 6

[aporigine]

Imo a V1 flight makes sense to test the next iteration of TPS. Flap hinge issues remain unsolved.

[InterestedEngineer]

It seems to me there is very little to be learned in following the exact same flight plan. The next launch should go to orbit, deliver Starlink satellites. Then they can call the Starship a fully functional launch system, with many improvements to come, of course.

What is the benefit of a test to relight the Raptor engines in orbit? Nobody has ever considered this even being an issue on any other rocket. Superheavy has relit individual Raptor engines in space dozens of times. The Starship has relit its engines in performing the flip maneuver during the last two flights.

SpaceX must prove that Starship can relight when it is in orbital conditions, i.e., in microgravity for more than a few seconds. This capabiltiy is needed to accurately de-orbit, which is needed for safe controlled de-orbiting of a 100-ton steel spacecraft.

A recent mishap de-orbiting with Falcon-9 upper stage that went off target caused a paused in flights for a week or two, and the architecture of Starship practically demand a reliability test before allowing full orbit.

(architecture being comparatively weak thrusters, first time lighting a new methalox engine in zero G, a tank design not tested in zero G, much more likely for larger parts to survive re-entry and hit the ground, and probably others)

[DanClemmensen]

It seems to me there is very little to be learned in following the exact same flight plan. The next launch should go to orbit, deliver Starlink satellites. Then they can call the Starship a fully functional launch system, with many improvements to come, of course.

What is the benefit of a test to relight the Raptor engines in orbit? Nobody has ever considered this even being an issue on any other rocket. Superheavy has relit individual Raptor engines in space dozens of times. The Starship has relit its engines in performing the flip maneuver during the last two flights.

SpaceX must prove that Starship can relight when it is in orbital conditions, i.e., in microgravity for more than a few seconds. This capabiltiy is needed to accurately de-orbit, which is needed for safe controlled de-orbiting of a 100-ton steel spacecraft.

This seems likely to be solved by implementing techniques to settle the propellent, allowing engine restart.   Seems directly related to functionality needed for propellent transfer.   

Perhaps a likely mission objectives for flight 6

I'm not a rocket scientist. I think there are probably a bunch of straightforward ways to do this and I'm sure SpaceX has implemented one or more of them for Starship. I was not commenting on implementation. I was trying to explain for StarshipTrooper's benefit why a 0 g relight demonstration is needed prior to the first full orbital flight. The demonstration would be needed even if SpaceX is 99.99% sure that it will succeed. An uncontrolled de-orbit of a 100-tons chunk of stainless steel would be really bad from a PR perspective even though the actual probability it hitting anything important is quite small.

[StarshipTrooper]

... the architecture of Starship practically demand a reliability test before allowing full orbit.

This could be done as part of an orbital mission.

You could have a initial burn that places you in a (sub)orbit like flight 5, coast for a short period, relight the engines briefly to elongate the orbit while still remaining within a safe reentry point, if the adjustment is nominal, only then relight the engines to adjust the course to the desired orbit.

[sdsds]

An in-space engine relight demonstration is key to confirming controlled de-orbit capability before going orbital. Orbital mechanics isn't always intuitive; many of us 'have a feel' for what prograde and retrograde burns do at perigee and apogee and less clarity on what effect e.g. a radially outward burn at apogee would have. If it were sized properly on flight 6, it could retain the negative perigee height and simply change the point of impact with the Earth's surface.

Cleverly done it might steer the instantaneous impact point trace from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean along a path that avoids land masses. Or so my (perhaps faulty) intuition asserts. Since this would be way cool, it's at least part of my way-too-early prediction for flight 6.

[Oersted]

It used to be necessary to cram a multitude of tests into just one or two test flights, but SpaceX has changed that paradigm with their focus on the machine that builds the spaceships. They now have a veritable production line spitting out spaceships, they learn and improve from each flight and can arrange and schedule their test objectives in the way that makes the most sense in the development program.

[litton4]

An in-space engine relight demonstration is key to confirming controlled de-orbit capability before going orbital. Orbital mechanics isn't always intuitive; many of us 'have a feel' for what prograde and retrograde burns do at perigee and apogee and less clarity on what effect e.g. a radially outward burn at apogee would have. If it were sized properly on flight 6, it could retain the negative perigee height and simply change the point of impact with the Earth's surface.

Cleverly done it might steer the instantaneous impact point trace from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean along a path that avoids land masses. Or so my (perhaps faulty) intuition asserts. Since this would be way cool, it's at least part of my way-too-early prediction for flight 6.

This was on the schdule for IFT-3 iirc.

The IIP for starship was somewhere in the Pacific (North of Australia?) and the burn would have extended this out in the general direction of Hawaii .
It was skipped, since SS wasn't under full control and rotating to an extent that thrusters couldn't nullify.

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

The pez dispenser loader move to Sanchez and the flurry of engine relight tests at McGreggor has changed my mind. I’m going all in on a full orbital test flight with a pez dispenser test with dummy Starlinks.

IIP will be the same as flight 5 with a flight director call prior to the insertion burn. Ship splash landing will be in a previously approved location.

[Douglas59]

A recent TechCrunch article discussed some more reasons for doing IFT6, in the class of things that didn't go as planned, but were not so visible. There are very likely plenty of those  that we don't know about, except for maybe inadvertent disclosures like those described in the article. A 2nd pass test using the same flight profile will allow that list of risks and issues to be whittled down significantly prior to the first V2 flight.

“I want to be really upfront about scary shit that happened,” the unnamed engineer said, seemingly as Musk played Diablo IV. He went on to explain that a misconfigured component didn’t have the right “ramp up time for bringing up spin pressure” on the booster.

“We were one second away from that tripping and telling the rocket to abort and try to crash into the ground next to the tower,” the engineer says.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/25/yikes-while-gaming-musk-inadvertently-broadcasts-scary-near-abort-of-starship-booster-landing/

So yeah. IFT6 as soon as they can get the list of near misses defined and mitigated, as well as vacuum relight and further pez testing.

[QuantumG]

Very little predictions in this prediction thread.

I'm betting on Nov 6

[Douglas59]

Adding a date prediction.

IFT4 was Jun 6th. SpaceX said the vehicles were ready for IFT5 pending regulatory approval in early August (8th?). This was about a 2 month interval (9 wks?), but had lots of work on the heat shield. Assume a 1/3 faster turnaround, because testing and improving shorter turnarounds is a goal as well as the vehicle testing and there is supposedly less major work to do. That would be about 6 weeks, which would be late November (6 wks from Oct 13th is Nov 24th).

Since Thanksgiving is the 28th, they will probably avoid that date and either side of it. This argues for Nov 21 - 25 or Dec 2 - 5. I will guess Nov 25th.

[magnemoe]

The pez dispenser loader move to Sanchez and the flurry of engine relight tests at McGreggor has changed my mind. I’m going all in on a full orbital test flight with a pez dispenser test with dummy Starlinks.

IIP will be the same as flight 5 with a flight director call prior to the insertion burn. Ship splash landing will be in a previously approved location.

My take is multiple short and perhaps couple longer orbital burns where the longer is shortly before reentry as effect on splashdown point will be much smaller. 7 will be be the orbital one, and yes they might test the dispenser.
They probably want to be suborbital to some degree to test the dispenser even if the boilerplate is just an weight and shape fit to verify the mechanism is space.
Yes its just an plate dispenser but they uses gravity.

[Lemurion]

(snip)

What is the benefit of a test to relight the Raptor engines in orbit? Nobody has ever considered this even being an issue on any other rocket. Superheavy has relit individual Raptor engines in space dozens of times. The Starship has relit its engines in performing the flip maneuver during the last two flights.

The thing to remember is that Starship is a very large upper stage that is designed to survive re-entry. If another upper stage doesn't perform a successful de-orbit burn it will simply burn up in the atmosphere somewhere else. Starship, on the other hand, is more like Mir--in fact, Starship with 2.5% propellant remaining is almost exactly the same mass as the Mir station according to Wikipedia. That means SpaceX has to ensure that the de-orbit burn's ignition time, duration, and thrust are exactly as predicted: especially since the eventual plan is to land the thing at Boca Chica. The requirements are more stringent because the risks are greater.

[dondar]

I would expect some Sunday in late november, (17 or 24).
For a Booster they should do  relight in flight, if successful they could perform landing in Australian shore waters.
 For a booster "the same old" but better. See heatshield heating mitigation, deformation of nozzles, as it was mentioned in the "leaked" debriefing  they need to clean approach protocols etc. etc. etc.

[Eka]

IFT-6 launch Nov 8-10 or 15-17 seams most likely to me right now. Weekends to get away from construction during the week. I suppose it could happen as soon as Nov 1-3 But I read too much hesitation. Staying away from Thanksgiving trips by employees is highly likely.