Successful full duration static fire today! However, the time from final static fire to launch for past flights still makes me pessimistic about a May launch.

@Natthaphon I

https://x.com/Ellieinspace/status/2051089869137428637
Everyone keeps asking me when Flight 12 of Starship will be. A few days ago, I was confident that the NET date would be May 12th, but now that seems a bit deluge-ional after a water deluge issue yesterday.

deluge-ional lol 🤣

@OlegEterevsky 1 May can resolve.

Perhaps more interesting: I am surprised this is posted for so soon, particularly before a static fire is completed. Anyway should note this may provide plenty of scope for it to be pushed back to later than May 12.

https://x.com/dpoddolphinpro/status/2050237415596372269

BREAKING: Starship Flight 12 NET May 12, 22:30 UTC / 17:30 CDT
An advisory has appeared on the CADENA Operational Information System. - NEW Trajectory - Afternoon Launch Window

The window spans 22:30 - 00:43 UTC, which is 17:30 - 19:43 Starbase local time. Instead of flying the corridor between Florida and Cuba, Starship Flight 12 appears to be targeting a more inclined corridor, threading the needle between Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula, Cuba, the Cayman Islands, Jamaica, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. Despite this change in launch trajectory, splashdown remains in the Indian Ocean, with a corridor running through Madagascan, Mauritian, and Australian airspace.

@ChristopherRandles agreed my theorem has been no launch within a month of a successful booster static fire. Especially with all the new ground systems relatively untested. 2 weeks seems close even if they were fully prepped for wet dress rehearsal.

@RyanTyznar I might have suggested 3 weeks rather than a month from successful static fire to first v3 launch but 8 days from TFR period starting 4th May which seems like it is for SF to 12th May as first target launch date sounds a rather aggressive aim to me particularly if they haven't done any full stack and SQD testing before the static fire. For next few launches maybe 8 days is or will become plausible before being reduced further. Guess we will see.

@ChristopherRandles Done. I've also added a few more answers.

@ChristopherRandles 3 weeks is probably more realistic but going with a month i found is a better risk/reward that has worked in my favor often in the past. Even this last static fire for example faked everyone out looking successful but being too short. It helped me get NOs in at a higher percentage on the risk of further schedule slippage.

@RyanTyznar yes, I yoyo'd a bit on events started thinking it was too short then spaceX tweet not mentioning any problems seemed like that was a good sign then the video that admitted it was too short. There might be a longer appropriate time difference
i.e. if the static fire is known to be successful then assume 3 weeks
but if not known whether it was successful or if it is only 'about to happen' then assume a month.

Appropriate times are likely to come down with more experience of launching v3.

Road delay late 30 April - 1 May production to pad and pad to production.
https://www.starbase.texas.gov/beach-road-access

TFR presumably for a repeat static fire is for a period of 4th to 18th
https://x.com/WatchersTank/status/2049925604946899034
"A new TFR has been posted for May 4-18 for the next attempt at a 33-engine static fire of Booster 19! After the last attempt was aborted before reaching full duration, things are ramping up for Starship Flight 12. We're getting closer!"

Obviously in hype language, having to redo a static fie gets described as "We're getting closer!"
Successfully doing static early on in 4th to 18th period might allow flight 12 before end of May.

@ChristopherRandles sounds like July 1st and August 1st options and an extension of the market through August would be reasonable.

@AndrewMeyer With 1 June at 72% I am not sure I would add any date or not later than ~7th June for the moment but feel free to buy no on 1 June 2026 to make adding later options look more sensible. ;)

@ChristopherRandles I disagree. It's not that I think the pricing for the June 1st contract is unreasonable. I just think it's weird not to have a later option when the existing latest option is only about 70%.

Flight 12 in one hour. Oh oops wrong large launch vehicle. Falcon Heavy flight 12 in one hour. Starship flight 12 more like a month away

@ChristopherRandles NET May 12 actually

Oh you already posted that, nvmd

The last 33 engine static fire was aborted not planned to be short.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFn8h4RZgwI

20min 20 sec

We kicked out early. All teams triage alerts. Prepare for offloads.

Today we aborted our second attempt of the B19 full count static fire. We actually had another pad abort on the diverter. We made it through engine startup and then ultimately lost some of our sensors on one of the ramp manifolds. It basically said that the manifold pressure was lower than we believe it probably was and it kicked us out at T + 1.88 seconds.

It is just tough as there are some things that are hard to test ahead of time. So the diverter you can test as much as you want but you can't obviously test for what theoretical vibe and environment when the engines are turned on.

Can we clear out April 1st and add July 1st and August 1st?

@AndrewMeyer 8th & 15th May seems more relevant with 1 June at 88%

@AndrewMeyer Done. Sorry for the delay -- I'm travelling.

@OlegEterevsky no rush! Thank you for making these markets. I really enjoy them.

No static fires or even roll out notices for 33 engine booster 19 or for ship 39 yet, let alone inspections, final preps, load semi-dumblinks, stack and test pad SQD systems, destack fit FTS ...

I think before 1 April 2026 could easily resolve.
Possibly also 8 April - usually get NOTMARs / NOTAMs about a week to 10 days before launch but waiting until ~ 2nd April or even a little later might be reasonable for the before resolving 8th April question.

@ChristopherRandles I agree that it's extremely unlikely but don't ever resolve the markets negatively before the target dates, unless the positive resolution is physically impossible.

@OlegEterevsky Fair enough.

I like to try to get my large positions resolved before season end where possible, so ... I guess it is physically possible to omit static fires and maybe more has been done in preparation than we know. There is a FCC licence which starts 7th April but updated dates for that might be possible just minutes before launch. Notices to evacuate Boca Chica for possible overpressure event on launch go out the day before, but if a judge agrees some accelerated process perhaps that is physically possible with only a few hours. Road closures might be possible with little notice but I am less sure that is the case for more official notices like NOTMAR NOTAM TFR but maybe everyone is somehow informed and co-operates to keep the keep clear areas clear even if they were actually issued too late to be enforceable. So maybe as little as a couple of hours for transport to pad, stack and half hour prop load is all that is needed for 'physical possibility'. We know ship quick disconnect hasn't been tested on the pad as that requires a full stack but maybe just a few minutes testing is enough for that.

From ~9pm CDT on 31st gives you a few hours to resolve before season ends 🤣 😂

@ChristopherRandles I sympathize, but I want to keep it simple and don't want to introduce any judgement calls in the resolution, so I intend to wait until April 1 and resolve then.

@ChristopherRandles remember that Chinese static fire that accidentally turned into a launch like 2y ago?

@chrisjbillington Static fire requires fuelling and other ground support equipment which still requires movement of at least ship or booster quite possibly both (or it isn't an integrated test flight that would count as flight 12) to a place where vehicle can be fuelled and static fired.

So I still think transport of vehicles to a site where they can be loaded with some relevant fuel and other ground support equipment is available plus the loading of some fuel are still physical requirements as I claimed in last post.

Maybe SPMTs have higher top speed when loaded but even if you reduce the time while travelling, you still have some periods prepping for transport and stacking at the launch pad. I expect 3 hours is lowballing the physically impossible time but it may be possible to argue for 'an incident' as soon as a tiny amount of fuel has been loaded for a static fire but I am not really seeing any scope to reduce physical possibility time to less than a couple of hours

It certainly isn't happening today, no road delays, let alone closures or NOTMAR NOTAM TFRs etc There is a TFR at Masseys presumably for ship 39 static fire running from April 3 to April 14 so that shows the plans aren't to do a static fire today and I doubt full stack at Masseys is possible.

But creator has said what he is going to do and that is fine.