The Boeing Starliner, which has been plauged with failures since its inception, had two additional helium leaks occur during the evening of June 5, hours after launch into orbit. Engineers spent the night troubleshooting the issue, and were only able to determine that the vehicle was "safe for now."
This market will resolve to YES if the capsule returns to Earth earlier or later than scheduled for any reason other than weather or ISS logistics, if the astronauts return to Earth by some other method, or if one of the astronauts is injured or killed by the Starliner. Otherwise, it will resolve to NO.
1,000
3.00Resolves YES - another delay:
https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1801599731589910707?t=IOJDY57jxe1c7WFG1dEMIw&s=19
4 day delay from June 14 to 18 is discussed below
Edit ignore this.
Sorry it is delayed to 22nd
https://x.com/jeff_foust/status/1801596509793710536
https://blogs.nasa.gov/boeing-crew-flight-test/2024/06/14/nasa-boeing-target-june-22-for-flight-crew-test-return/
Even this positive framing makes it clear it is about starliner not ISS logistics or weather:
“We have an incredible opportunity to spend more time at station and perform more tests which provides invaluable data unique to our position,” said Mark Nappi, vice president and program manager, Commercial Crew Program, Boeing. “As the integrated NASA and Boeing teams have said each step of the way, we have plenty of margin and time on station to maximize the opportunity for all partners to learn – including our crew.”
You're correct. This essentially is an abort of the mission. Someone isn't being candid about why this new delay happened.
Now that they've delayed it two times, the odds of it being delayed a third are substantially higher. And then, how can anyone ever pull the trigger and say it's time to leave?
Not only does the market resolve YES, the following market is now undervalued:
This should already be resolved to YES?
The mission was supposed to be a one week stay:
https://starlinerupdates.com/nasa-boeing-set-for-june-5-crew-flight-test-launch-attempt/
And then delayed 4 days:
https://futurism.com/the-byte/boeing-starliner-stuck-space-station-more-leaks
You said "It will also resolve to YES if the "systems checks" delay the mission for at least a day for more". This is already the case, as the system checks have delayed return at LEAST 4 days. They had a schedule to abide by if everything was going fine, and a spacewalk was not part of the original plan. Everything is not fine, to the point of delaying for system checks. These checks would not be needed if they didn't run into so many issues.
Your additional requirement of:
"The news reports would have to specifically report that the "systems checks" found a problem and that repairs or analysis is the reason for the delay"
Is contradictory to:
"It will also resolve to YES if the "systems checks" delay the mission for at least a day for more"
Because the existence of a mission delaying system check already qualifies as a resolution, which also agrees with the title, and description of this bet.
I think that normal checks would be included in their schedule. And the sudden change in schedule, as well as the well publicized unexpected issues, precisely meets the definition of a Yes resolution as written in the title, description, and your comment: "It will also resolve to YES if the "systems checks" delay the mission for at least a day for more"
I'm not sure, though, that this counts because the first date that was announced was June 18. I don't see any evidence that there ever was a hard date before that. If someone can provide it, and the mission actually stays until June 18, then that would be YES.
I think, though, that most likely outcome is the Starliner will be deemed unsafe to depart, and that it won't matter in the end for this market.
I said in another market that it's quite different to continue the mission while alone than it is to leave a perfectly working space station in a vehicle that has engine failures, helium leaks, water problems, and more. They can easily send a Dragon to get them here; if they leave and lose propulsion, that's a life threatening situation.
There was indeed a pre-planned date before all of the issues necessitated systems checks that delayed departure:
"Wilmore and Williams were scheduled to return to Earth on Friday, June 14. However, the mission has been extended until June 18"
https://abcnews.go.com/US/boeings-starliner-5-small-helium-leaks-astronauts-iss/story?id=111012781
I still don't see where there is a direct case and effect relationship between the June 14 and June 18 dates. The article does not state that they postponed the date because of the engine failures, leaks, or other problems. It only states that they will perform systems checks during those few extra days, which I imagine they would have done anyway if they left earlier.
We need an article establishing a direct cause and effect relationship that June 14 was the option they would have chosen and they did not chose it because of the failures.
But again, I don't think there will be a problem resolving this market, because if we just wait, I do not believe that they will undock from the space station on June 18, or at all.
https://x.com/Space_Station/status/1799916564042711151
.
@NASA and @BoeingSpace teams set a return date of no earlier than Tuesday, June 18, for the agency’s Boeing Crew Flight Test. The additional time in orbit will allow the crew to perform a spacewalk on Thursday, June 13, while engineers complete #Starliner systems checkouts.
'Set a date' indicates this is first time a scheduled date has been set? I think that previously it has been "about a week".
"Allow the crew to perform a spacewalk" might also be considered to be ISS logistics?
The "while engineers complete #Starliner systems checkouts." seems secondary and unclear whether this could be done earlier?
@ChristopherRandles I'd suggest that if the mission is delayed for one or more days because the "systems checks" or spacewalk find defects, the market will resolve to YES. It will also resolve to YES if the "systems checks" delay the mission for at least a day for more "systems checks" because there is insufficient confidence to return in this vehicle.
The news reports would have to specifically report that the "systems checks" found a problem and that repairs or analysis is the reason for the delay.
@SteveSokolowski I have also changed the title of this market, because I believe that it contradicts the text of the question. People may mistakenly arrive at the question and quickly bet without reading the resolution criteria.
@SteveSokolowski The original title matched the original description. Now you have changed both to something entirely different, after people have already bet. I suggest that you N/A the question if it would resolve differently in the original and new version.
@dp9000 I considered your request and have decided not to do that.
The resolution criteria of this market have not changed, except for clarifications in the text. The market would always have, and still will, resolve to YES if there are delays to the mission. There has only been one bet since the title was changed, so there was not a rush of people betting based on changes in the title or criteria.
There was clearly an inconsistency in the title and resolution criteria from the start of the market, but the criteria was always there and people were able to read it. Since the resolution criteria itself isn't contradictory, I don't believe there is sufficient reason to waste everyone's time here.