And survive.
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ369 | |
| 2 | Ṁ293 | |
| 3 | Ṁ78 | |
| 4 | Ṁ66 | |
| 5 | Ṁ31 |
@ChristopherRandles Experimental mod ruling:
Other than resolution deadline (for which "by April" will be interpreted as "before May"), this question will be resolved according to the same criteria as this one: /chrisjbillington/will-spacex-land-a-spaceflown-stars
Resolves YES on a Starship flying to space (>100km altitude) and returning to Earth in one piece
in 2024[before May 2024].A ground landing, landing on a barge, being caught by the launch tower, or anything else that brings a Starship intact to a resting position on something solid and not airborne counts. A soft "landing" in a body of water does not count. A catch by an aircraft does not count until the aircraft lands.
Starship must not explode for at least ten seconds after landing for it to count as having landed in one piece.
The relevant timezone for "in 2024[before May 2024]" is local time at the landing site.
Perhaps "and survive" should be less generous than survival for merely ten seconds, but I think if it it lasted 8 minutes before exploding like SN10 did, people would generally want to count it as a landing (the metaculus question at the time resolved YES on this). And if you don't count that, where do you draw the line? A Booster on a barge fell over during a storm and was destroyed last month, but SpaceX markets didn't count it as failed landing. So ten seconds seems as good as anything else.
It seems reasonable that only space-flown Starships should count, otherwise SN10 or SN15 (the latter of which didn't explode at all!) would have been enough to resolve this market. They did land prior to market creation, but it seems this wouldn't be an interesting question if it included more hop tests, so I think it's reasonable to assume Giga was thinking about the first landing of a space-flown Starship.
@ChristopherRandles Experimental mod ruling:
Other than resolution deadline (for which "by April" will be interpreted as "before May"), this question will be resolved according to the same criteria as this one: /chrisjbillington/will-spacex-land-a-spaceflown-stars
Resolves YES on a Starship flying to space (>100km altitude) and returning to Earth in one piece
in 2024[before May 2024].A ground landing, landing on a barge, being caught by the launch tower, or anything else that brings a Starship intact to a resting position on something solid and not airborne counts. A soft "landing" in a body of water does not count. A catch by an aircraft does not count until the aircraft lands.
Starship must not explode for at least ten seconds after landing for it to count as having landed in one piece.
The relevant timezone for "in 2024[before May 2024]" is local time at the landing site.
Perhaps "and survive" should be less generous than survival for merely ten seconds, but I think if it it lasted 8 minutes before exploding like SN10 did, people would generally want to count it as a landing (the metaculus question at the time resolved YES on this). And if you don't count that, where do you draw the line? A Booster on a barge fell over during a storm and was destroyed last month, but SpaceX markets didn't count it as failed landing. So ten seconds seems as good as anything else.
It seems reasonable that only space-flown Starships should count, otherwise SN10 or SN15 (the latter of which didn't explode at all!) would have been enough to resolve this market. They did land prior to market creation, but it seems this wouldn't be an interesting question if it included more hop tests, so I think it's reasonable to assume Giga was thinking about the first landing of a space-flown Starship.