On May 18th 2023 15:11 UTC SpaceX tweeted: Ship 25 moved to a suborbital pad at Starbase for an upcoming static fire of its six Raptor engines
Will this static fire be completely successful? A full duration static fire of all 6 engines is required for a YES resolution.
I will wait for 6 hours after the static fire for an official statement on Twitter from SpaceX or Elon Musk. If "anomaly", "shut down", or similar is mentioned this resolves to NO. If less than 6 engines are fired this resolves to NO. If "successful" or a similar word is used to describe the static fire this resolves to YES.
If there's an obvious visible anomaly during the static fire (like an explosion, or similar) this resolves to NO.
If the static fire is canceled and delayed I will extend the closing time of this market.
If there are official statements or obvious signs that SpaceX changed their mind on performing a static fire for ship 25, and decided to never fire it, this market resolves to N/A no later than July 1st.
If SpaceX performs any static fires of other Starships or Boosters before testing ship 25 this will not affect the market resolution. This market is about the scheduled static fire of ship 25 specifically.
In the event of a conflict between the official statement and the agreed-upon common-sense spirit of the market, I may resolve it according to the market's spirit or N/A, after a discussion.
Upd 05-20 19:46 UTC: fixed minor typos
Related questions
๐ Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | แน97 | |
| 2 | แน72 | |
| 3 | แน65 | |
| 4 | แน53 | |
| 5 | แน25 |
@Blomfilter Also these:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1673564912948326400
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1673580231217618946
>"If the static fire is canceled and delayed I will extend the closing time of this market."
So extension needed.
Does extension also apply to "decided to never fire it, this market resolves to N/A no later than July 1st."? or is July 1st a firm last date resulting in a N/A if that date is reached before the test?
@ChristopherRandles hm... I don't want predictions of others go to waste, and the title says "next static fire", so I'm actually not against pushing the July 1st date.
I want to know the opinion of other predictors: Is it reasonable to extend this market indefinitely, if there are clear indications that ship 25 is still planned to be fired?
What if they intentionally decide to only fire 3 engines at first? N/A I presume, unless they later do 6 engines?
What if they start the process but then stop before ignition? Market waits for the next attempt I presume.
What if they start the process but do a spin prime first that doesn't have ignition. Also waiting I presume.
@Mqrius If SpaceX declares ahead of time that they're performing a partial test (spin prime, firing only 3 engines, stop before ignition, or similar) I will extend this market, until the full 6-engine static fire is attempted.
If there is a clear and visible failure (like an explosion) during the partial test I will resolve this as NO, because I feel that a partial test is part of preparation for a full test, and a failure during preparation doesn't feel compatible with "completely successful" in the name of this market.
If after a successful partial test they change their mind and cancel a full 6-engine static fire I will resolve this as N/A, after holding a discussion in the comment section.
If they don't declare ahead of time that they're conducting a partial test (spin prime, firing only 3 engines, stop before ignition, or similar) and then we don't see a full 6-engine static fire, I will assume that something failed, and resolve this as NO.