@OlegEterevsky@JoshuaWilkes@dp9000 I INTENTIONALLY avoided any further criteria for protecting the friendly and simplicity of this market. Imagine a random person being interviewed on the street after the test and ask him/her 'Do you think the test is success or fail', he probably wouldn't go through red team checklist. I believe abstraction is a FEATURE instead of a BUG. For those guys keep asking other creator demonstrate resolve criteria on @Manifold and you probably think you are helping the community, Graham said and I quote, "In the short run, the market is a voting machine", people can use intuitive and common sense. You may question the impartiality of this market. I think in some degree we choose to trust market creator either by scoring system or just unfoundedly(I personally never check other creator history).

Furthermore, I won't join this market as a stakeholder for your concern. The bottom line is if you are unhappy with simple question, feel free to create a similar market with sophisticated resolve criteria.

There is a POLL about this debate.

@Krypton As it happens, I did create a similar market with a clear resolution criteria:

/OlegEterevsky/when-will-spacex-starship-reach-orb

@Krypton

To clarify, I think you are perfectly entitled to run your market however you like, and generally speaking I don't mind "vibes-bases" resolutions, although I wouldn't put a lot of mana into those markets.

But, 😃

The issue that I see here, in this specific market, is as follows:

There are a number of different common sense ways to measure the "success" or "failure" of Starship's test flights.

Especially, these include: did either vehicle explode? And: Did SpaceX achieve their stated objectives?

(Without even going into partial successes on these criteria)

If this market gets a lot of participation and then Super Heavy performs perfectly and Starship re-enters successfully but explodes before reaching sea level, the resolution will neither simple nor friendly.

At the moment, this isn't a market I would bet in, and of course that's fine, but I hope perhaps my points have some validity.

@JoshuaWilkes I'm with Joshua on this, I can't assume what you regard as "common sense". Did you regard the first and second test flights as failures or successes?

For the last Starship launch, the stated (ahead of the launch) goal was to go through stage separation. Reaching the target suborbital trajectory was considered an aspirational goal. Do you consider this a success? If not, what's your specific criteria?

I think these resolution criteria may need some work

What are the common sense definitions of success and failure for IFT3?

"0 means launch will success next time" sounds like it only refers to the launch (second stage reaching the intended orbit or almost-orbital trajectory to the point where a payload would be deployed). Or does it mean the whole flight including reentry and landing of both stages?