Total Members Voted: 193
Remember “Elon time” is at play. There is a mandatory Mishap Investigation that is required after IFT-2 and until SpaceX completes and submits that report, and the FAA reviews data from that report as well as the post-launch inspections and water quality reports required by the existing launch license, IFT-3 is on hold.’Even aside from the reporting and regulatory aspects, the OLM, tower and tank farm complex need to be inspected and any repairs made; the deluge system probably needs to be pressure tested and maybe flow-tested as well to confirm it held up with no repair necessary; and the deluge and propellant tanks need to be replenished. After all that is done, then the next Booster (10?) and Ship both need static fire campaigns, plus any ancillary servicing (grid fin actuators, TPS tile tests/repairs, potentially engine swaps …)....
Elon's 3-4 weeks is when he thinks the hardware will be ready. He didn't say a word about when the mishap investigation will be over, or when the FAA license will issue, or what'll happen if they find they need to make significant changes. So, not a referendum on Elon time, just a referendum on when everything will align.
Quote from: JAFO on 11/20/2023 08:59 pmIs this what the forum really thinks of Elon's 3-4 weeks estimate?I voted on a launch date, not on a hardware ready date. Or are you talking about some other Elon quote than the one in the OP?
Is this what the forum really thinks of Elon's 3-4 weeks estimate?
If they change the name to AFT-Alpha is it still IFT-3?The IFT naming convention has been used for almost a year, long overdue for a change.
I would not mind the IFT naming convention remaining until Starship is declared operational.
Quote from: KilroySmith on 11/20/2023 09:04 pmElon's 3-4 weeks is when he thinks the hardware will be ready. He didn't say a word about when the mishap investigation will be over, or when the FAA license will issue, or what'll happen if they find they need to make significant changes. So, not a referendum on Elon time, just a referendum on when everything will align.If the FTS on both booster and ship worked as planned, and the debris stayed in the correct zone, is there a reason why the mishap investigation and license process needs to be more than a formality?
I would have voted for January, but it's not on the list
Voted March as a NET with lots of technical and regulatory uncertainties acting on it. Caveat that it can easily slip to the right as per the latest flight's experience - more so based on the first test flights, but I expect the major -and much needed- improvements in infrastructure to play a significant role now. Very unlikely to the left IMO, although institutional (and specifically NASA) pressure has worked its magic once already, and quite publicly so, so now it's not just internal SpaceX interests that drive the program forward, at least short-term.Source: got a 2/2 track record in prior flight polls, nailed to within very close accuracy, plus repeated correct foresights regardimg Boca Chica tests before full stacks were a thing. Nobody's crystal ball is perfect though, that's for sure.Not a source: Musk's tweets get less factual on average as a function of calendar time (very much not limited to rockets, but most of us know that already). Willing to bet my car on no further flights in 2023.