On this question (https://manifold.markets/ACXBot/40-will-spacexs-starship-reach-orbi) a key uncertainty is if Scott will resolve Yes or No given a the successs of the current flight trajectory which skims orbit but won't remain there and hence isn't "technically" an orbital flight
In the ambiguous case (where spacex succeeds the current trajectory but doesn't succeed an umabigously orbital one) whill scott resolve yes?
if they do acheive orbit this will resolve "n/a" even if scott says how he would have resolved
1,000People are also trading
@benshindel Because it didn't manage a full suborbital flight either, so Scott's answer is irrelevant to this market, making this market N/A
@benshindel Nah ift2 got close but it had some kind of oxygen leak near the end of its burn and was terminated by the FTS, re-entering near Puerto Rico.
Fwiw he has already indicated his opinion on this, making this market probably No.
>> 5. In 2023, will SpaceX's Starship reach orbit? Does a transatmospheric orbit count or does it have to be at an altitude of more than 100km?
I'm not an expert on the definition of orbit. Google suggests an orbital spaceflight is one "in which a spacecraft is placed on a trajectory where it could remain in space for at least one orbit." I will consult with people who know more about orbits but try to generally use this definition.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/open-thread-284/comment/18444159
@zQ4Z82W If you look at the question as predicting the rate of Starship development, if it's totally clear and everyone agrees that Starship could have reached orbit and this is proved by the test flight, then whether or not the specific flight actually achieves an orbital trajectory seems like more of a technicality. If it decelerates to land near Hawaii instead of the Gulf to avoid overflying populated areas and so only completes 95% of an orbit, does it really matter?
@Sailfish It doesn't seem like a technicality to me: whether or not Starship actually achieves orbital velocity seems core to the question. I do agree that if Starship actually achieves orbital velocity, but then decelerates to avoid completing a full orbit, that Scott would resolve YES.
@zQ4Z82W It will certainly reach an orbital velocity, it will not reach "orbital velocity" because the trajectory intersects with the Earth. Orbital velocity depends on altitude, if it was ever at orbital velocity it would be in orbit. The point is that it will clearly perform at a level which would have been orbital if it was put in an orbital trajectory, it would be at orbital velocity at its actual altitude. Raptor has never been relit in a vacuum so it would be a bad idea to ever put it in a trajectory could complete an orbit. Uncontrolled re-entry would be pretty bad if it almost never overflies populated areas. I just don't think that the planned trajectory not being orbital says anything important or useful about the rocket itself, even if it is clear and objectively true that it will be at no point actually in orbit.
These questions have resolved in a way that is somewhat ambiguous from the actual wording so I think there is a relatively small but not insignificant chance that Scott decides that this is a better interpretation of the intent of the question, even if the letter is not satisfied.
@Sailfish My understanding is that there is a decent possibility the final trajectory will have a perigee within the atmosphere (so above the surface, but low enough that the orbit decays before completing a single orbit). I have not attempted to validate this claim (by running numbers against the trajectory given in the public documents), so it could certainly be incorrect, and we simply may not know until the first "successful" flight.
@Sailfish I'm minded to say no here because I'm not sure I trust someone's ex ante stance. What do you think?