@YaakovSaxon you'll want to extend market close date!

I think the Pacific splashdown is supposed to be identical to the one proposed for IFT-1. It is documented extensively in the WR. If all goes as planned, the SS will deliberately hit the water belly-down with enough force to break the LCH4 downcomer inside the LOX tank mixing the fuel and oxidant and causing an explosion that will sink the SS even if it would otherwise stay afloat. Nothing to recover. SpaceX assets will then do a search for any messy bits that might still be afloat.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59836.msg0#new

Suppose above is plan and it explodes as expected at/after splashdown but there are surprisingly large bits still afloat, is that nominal?

Suppose above is plan but the heat shield reaches its limits and it explodes a little before the splashdown. Has that "reached zone"? Is this a not nominal leading/splashdown causing a no resolution?

@ChristopherRandles I wasn't aware that was the plan. In that case I wonder whether I ought to resolve N/A as that seems pretty different than anything I thought when writing it up. But I suppose we could say "whatever was planned happens nominally" applies even to a deliberate crash with intention to sink the entire starship? Idk... Unlike, say, a nominal soft splashdown, I'm not sure this is really relevant to "how good Starship is as a rocket" which is more what this whole series is going for.

Any thoughts?

@YaakovSaxon I was thinking "whatever was planned happens nominally" applies even to a deliberate crash but I could see a n/a being ok as not really relevant to starship development.

What is nominal in that case and what is "reaches zone" seem rather undefined for people to know what they are betting on.

"reaches zone" = survives reentry? reaches water? reaches 10km above water without having exploded?

nominal = explodes at or shortly after splashdown? if it breaks apart without an explosion is that nominal?

An n/a for being too undefined might also be a possibility rather than adding too many clarifications now that some traders might claim are unexpected?

@ChristopherRandles I'd think the most reasonable criteria given SpaceX' plan is it it hits the water in one piece. I'm also fine with N/A though

@Mqrius If it fails to hit water in one piece, I would guess that is probably going to be a heat shield failure so would this class as not reaching zone causing the claim to wait for the next launch?

I would suggest if it hits in one piece and either breaks up or explodes then that is what was planned and is nominal. We expect most to sink so most sinking but a few unexpectedly large pieces floating doesn't seem far enough from expecting most to sink to say it is not nominal. If an explosion rips off the bottom end which sinks but the top half is largely in one piece which floats then I think there is more of a case that this was not nominal. However perhaps this could or should be viewed as post landing event which should be irrelevant?

@ChristopherRandles Yeah personally I don't care if it breaks up when it hits the water or not. It's expected to break up, but whatever, it doesn't change whether the flight is successful or not.