🏅 Top traders

Inactive creator, resolved remaining answers in accordance with my best understanding of the mission.

"failed to orbit" interpreted as if "orbit" was the target, which is in line with SpaceX's use of the term even though it wasn't orbit by a strict definition. If we used the strict definition of orbit I'd want to NA this one since such a trajectory was not attempted, so "failure" doesn't really apply.

It remains possible that something was amiss during the boostback burn since it seems the vehicle didn't travel as far back toward land as it was expected to. But the burn was full-duration, and SpaceX have not commented on it as a failure. So I resolved "failure during boostback burn" to NO. Even if there were problems, I think in the context of this market "failure" would mean something more dramatic, like a RUD.

Other resolved yes due to loss of attitude control during orbit/door failure

@KewlKid are you saying that the second stage didn't burn up on re-entry?

@JoshuaWilkes It's not mutually exclusive, so I don't think that logic necessarily holds - I guess a charitable interpretation is "something else of note also happens". Which is a judgement call, but Manifold currently would leave that up to the creator. Possibly other than the fact that they profited off of their lack of clarity....

Anyway, few people bet on it, so planning on leaving it be.

Could you clarify what each of these mean?
For example, when you say "1st fails ocean touchdown" do you mean that it makes it to touchdown but doesn't touchdown softly? Or does it require a RUD? Or would a failure of the 1st stage before even making it to touchdown count?

@Nat Like it would hit the ocean at a extreme speed

Bbg