Resolves Yes if IFT-3 launches by August and successfully demonstrates propellant transfer.
Defining reaching orbit as a stable orbit and completing at least one revolution around Earth
Defining successful propellant transfer based on how SpaceX/NASA report
Elon Musk stated IFT-3 goals here:
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxSnl8J96XUzY43RZ8WxTcJVBoEknjqji9?si=yQUOdCUXq3XoK622
Therefore the resolution options are:
Will resolve Yes if they reach true orbit and demonstrate propellant transfer
Will resolve No if they reach true orbit and fail to demonstrate propellant transfer
Will resolve No if they fail to reach true orbit and succeed in demonstrating propellant transfer
Navigation:
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ160 | |
| 2 | Ṁ33 | |
| 3 | Ṁ22 | |
| 4 | Ṁ19 | |
| 5 | Ṁ0 |
@OlegEterevsky This market requires Starship to compete a full orbit around the Earth, which isn't currently the plan as far as we know. The propellant transfer is reasonably likely to go ahead according to markets that don't require a full orbit:
@chrisjbillington Everyone seems extremely confident that it isn’t the plan. I’m confused as to why? Elon said in his presentation the plan for IFT-3 was orbital insertion and de orbit. What is the counter evidence?
@NGK He did not in fact say that! Re-watch the video very carefully, and you will see that:
Elon's comments about IFT-2 nearly making it to orbit establish that he is using the term "orbit" loosely. So when he says IFT-3 will go to orbit, that is not evidence it will be a different trajectory to IFT-2.
His comment about doing a burn was phrased as "to prove that we can deorbit", it was not actually called a deorbit burn.
His comments about testing the payload doors emphasised testing the doors, rather than "deploying a payload". The doors were described as the doors "that will deploy starlink satellites" (but it would be leaping to conclusions to assume he meant they will do so in this mission - this was just a description of what the doors are for generally - this Starship is a starlink-deploying variant and contains a "pez dispenser").
There was much opportunity to say it was going for full orbit, but the payload doors and deorbit burn were instead described in ways that would be weird if you were going for full orbit and actually doing a deorbit burn or deploying a payload. So my reading from that talk was that they were unlikely to be going for full orbit.
Then at the astro awards, a SpaceX employee said that the IFT-3 planned trajectory is the same as IFT-2. This employee is not on the Starship team, so that's maybe not super definitive, but on top of the evidence from Musk's talk (which I see as evidence against orbit, because, Bayesian type reasoning, there was much opportunity to imply full orbit, yet we didn't see it, instead seeing stuff that would be oddly phrased if they were going for full orbit), that puts the chances of full orbit very low in my mind.