🏅 Top traders

Resolves Yes!

@Mqrius Agree, might need a mod to resolve though, question creator seems inactive.

@AnjanPoudel5d85 Are you around?

Some ambiguity here as to whether we're talking about the Ship (the part that, in my opinion, does make a "re-entry") or the Super Heavy booster (the boostback and descent never being at orbital-ish speeds, so few of the normal re-entry characteristics).

@JonWharf This is the one thing the description does clarify, specifying that the question is referring to the booster

@Nat I'd prefer losing the term "re-entry" from the question for that to be crystal clear.

@JonWharf What term would you use in its place?

@Nat "descent"

@SirSalty
Unresponsive creator and the question does not seem adequately specified.

Does "controlled" mean that it only needs to have working attitude control even if it breaks apart early during re-entry well before maximum re-entry heating?
Or does it have to survive mainly in one piece past maximum re-entry heating?
Or maybe it has to survive all re-entry heating stress to be a successful re-entry?
or ...

@ChristopherRandles I'm happy to update the criteria. What do we think makes the most sense? @traders

Perhaps it resolves YES if SpaceX claims it as a successful re-entry? "Controlled" seems too subjective. Note Re-entry success =/= landing success, as alluded to in the description. If no one objects to this change, and after hearing any additional suggestions for clarity, I will update the description.

@SirSalty for me, it's a reentry you could 'walk away from' (doesn't need to land)

@SirSalty Is SpaceX likely to make such a claim? And what would count as making that claim?

Problem is that the creator didn't regard IFT-3 as a successful "reentry" of the booster, despite it surviving all the way down to the ocean. I don't know how to firm that up in any way that makes sense.

@Mqrius Yeah I'm honestly inclined to say that the best interpretation is to just subjectively resolve based on whether the reentry appears to be 'controlled' or not; obviously that's a difficult thing to define but it would seem to be the best aligned with the creator's intentions? Then again they did say in the description it would resolve after official confirmation from SpaceX so idk maybe @SirSalty's proposal is best.

Either way I was already going to create a market based on whether it appeared to be controlled (but with better definitions for exactly what counts) so if you do base it off of SpaceX statements I'm happy lol

@Nat imo just N/A this and write a better defined market. IFT-3 was arguably bad because the burn was maybe not as long as intended and its return trajectory didn't reach as far back as intended, but none of that has been confirmed or commented upon by SpaceX, and it also only became clear-ish later. Can't really resolve based on something like that.

@Mqrius it was clear that it didn't have a stable attitude and broke up

@GordanKnott I think Mqrius is talking about booster which reached 462m which seems well below altitude at which I would say re-entry is over. The IFT-3 starship certainly didn't have controlled re-entry. If the creator understood this then it seems re-entry has to be (wholly?) successful as well as controlled but I do wonder if this point was missed.

@ChristopherRandles Yeah 400m altitude I'd count as the landing phase, normally. I was talking about some analysis I saw later that looked at cloud patterns and determined that the boostback of the booster didn't actually boost it back close to the launch site at all, indicating that the boostback was wonky somehow. Can't find the analysis right now though.

This is what I meant

But do we know what was planned? I would suggest that is a lot closer than if there had been no boostback burn. Yes I did see speculation that the speed was higher than planned after the boostback burn and therefore suggestions it cut off early perhaps in odd asymmetric way (or maybe that was a data delay). This is the problem with speculation, is it accurate or not? Waiting for SpaceX can be a long wait esp if there is mishap investigation when they tend not to say anything to prevent prejudicing mishap investigation.

With this claim: Clearly tumbling during re-entry is not controlled and should resolve no (without waiting for SpaceX I suggest).

But does the successful refer to controlled or to re-entry as a whole?

If it is basically intact before hitting ocean then I would say re-entry was successful and that doesn't pose a problem.

The main problem comes with a break up in lower atmosphere after a controlled re-entry. If SpaceX says the re-entry was controlled but unfortunately too many heat tiles were lost and the ship broke up. We would be lucky if we got information that was so clear and on point for this question, but which way does that resolve?

If the information from SpaceX is less clear that becomes more of a problem, including how long to wait for more information.

@ChristopherRandles yeah I agree therefore I think N/A on this market is easiest.

Would you count IFT3's booster reentry as successful?

@Mqrius No it was not a successful re-entry

@AnjanPoudel5d85 Can you say why not? I'm trying to figure out what situations this market would resolve Yes or No

@AnjanPoudel5d85 Would also like clarification on this point - does it need to make it to touchdown? Or does it need to successfully relight the engines for the landing burn? Or is it based on whether it can maintain attitude control during re-entry? There's a lot of ways this question could be interpreted.

@AnjanPoudel5d85 ?

@Mqrius it didn't have a stable attitude and would've broken up