pigeonberry

The licence has been approved, the NOTAM and marine warnings published, closure announced.

Fish and Wildlife's comments were published yesterday. I gather that the document was deleted from the original location, but as I recall, it was pretty much copied and pasted into the body of the final FAA determination WRITTEN RE-EVALUATION OF THE 2022 FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE SPACEX STARSHIP/SUPER HEAVY LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM AT THE BOCA CHICA LAUNCH SITE IN CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS. I remember the bit about "Per the table above, an average summertime thunderstorm at Boca Chica would deposit more water over the landscape than any single or all combined activations of the deluge system".

Update at https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2023/10/09/international-space-station-operations-update/

Roscosmos confirmed that the observed leak is on Nauka’s backup radiator, which is mounted to the outside of the module. The radiator was delivered to the space station on the Rassvet module during space shuttle mission STS-132 in 2010. It was transferred to the Nauka during a Roscosmos spacewalk in April. The primary radiator on Nauka is working normally, providing full cooling to the module with no impacts to the crew or to space station operations.

Teams on the ground will continue to investigate the cause of the leak, and additional updates will be made as available.

I chose the title because I thought and hoped it's a reasonable inference.

As an example, the first time I booked my own air flight -- actually, every time -- I made sure it was a ticket for the days and places I want, and that I got to my home at the end.

Do you know more about this Varda licensing situation? Is it possible to get a re-entry licence before launch? If they could have, they're incompetent not to. If not, that seems like a ridiculous regulation, requiring someone to launch with no confidence that they can legally come back (and possibly still incompetence on Varda's part for not making sure all the conditions were going to be met).

As You999 put it, "the laws of the country that the craft is registered still applies". I hadn't heard the term "the Chicago Convention". I've heard only "The Outer Space Treaty", or formally Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies. Specifically Article VIII:

A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party of the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

Could Varda actually land the capsule? I presume so (the whole thing is a moot point if they can't). Would the FAA (and, for all I know, other agencies) land on them like a pile of bricks? I certainly hope so!

Some are suggesting: lit all too well, like sparks and flames and kabooms and all.

The FAA has repeated multiple times: there is no launch licence yet for a second launch. Since the FAA asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to look into the matter, I think it's highly unlikely that the FAA would issue the licence before FWS says it's O.K.

I don't know that there has been a definitive statement of the exact ending date. The Xeet summary provided included "The FWS has up to 135 days to submit the final biological opinion to the FAA (Started in August)." If it's 4 months including weekends and holidays, it could be up to December 1 to December 31ish. But it could be handled before then, or if the FAA agrees, the deadline could be extended, or maybe it's working days only. Also, the FAA would likely need time to digest it and issue its own ruling.

But there have been other reports that the FAA hopes to be done with it by October. So maybe they have inside knowledge.

I posted here about the FWS environmental re-assessment due to the booster bidet.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're referring to. I think the new render is near the top, showing Starship and Super Heavy stacked. I didn't look at the page before, so I don't know what else might have changed.

Just wanted to point out a glamor video of Starlink deployment.

Eric Berger quoted a tweet from the FAA here, but it was in the form of an image. A text transcript was kindly provided by World Spills @WorldSpills here:

SpaceX conducted a test flight of the Starship/Super Heavy at Boca Chica, TX on April 20, 2023. As a result of that launch, SpaceX completed a mishap investigation with FAA oversight; this investigation analyzed the launch, mishap events, and corrective actions. Before it is authorized to conduct a second Starship/ Super Heavy launch, SpaceX must obtain a modified license from the FAA that addresses all safety, environmental, and other regulatory requirements. As part of that license application determination process, the FAA will review new environmental information, including changes related to the launch pad, as well as other proposed vehicle and flight modifications. The FAA will complete a Written Reevaluation (WR) to the 2022 Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) evaluating the new environmental information, including Endangered Species Act consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If the FAA determines through the WR process that the contents of the PEA do not remain valid in light of the changes proposed for Flight 2, additional environmental review will be required. Accordingly, the FAA has not authorized SpaceX's proposed Flight 2.

It was followed by untranscribed

The FAA will provide updates with notification of any license determination or results of additional environmental review.

When the major problems from your first test can be illustrated by Heath Ledger in 2008 -- debris zoom but boom no boom -- it's not surprising.