If it is just barely off but reliable sources say that it fulfilled all test objectives (eg demonstrated orbital energy etc) with respect to apogee, and it is basically considered to be successful then this will still resolve YES. But I will err on the side of resolving NO in such a case if it is unclear.
Apr 20, 10:57am: On the next full stack launch of starship (after 4/20), cond. on second stage lighting, will it reach intended apogee? → On the next full stack launch of starship (after 4/20) where the second stage lights, will it reach intended apogee?
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ315 | |
| 2 | Ṁ94 | |
| 3 | Ṁ34 | |
| 4 | Ṁ15 | |
| 5 | Ṁ3 |
@YaakovSaxon Wikipedia says 250km apogee/apoapsis was planned and only 148km was reached:
There's no source on Wikipedia for the 250km planned apoapsis, but it likely comes from this FCC filing, which says:
The orbital Starship spacecraft will continue on its path to an altitude of approximately 250 km before performing a powered, targeted landing in the Pacific Ocean.
And although this pertained to the first test flight, all reports are that the second test flight had the same planned trajectory.
@chrisjbillington Oh and the second stage lit:
Starship executed a successful hot-stage separation, powering down all but three of Super Heavy’s Raptor engines and successfully igniting the six second stage Raptor engines before separating the vehicles.
So that should be all the criteria satisfied to resolve this NO.
@YaakovSaxon Is this still unresolved only because we don't know for sure what intended apogee was?
Regardless of the fact that it didn't reach its target speed, apogee would not have been over the Gulf of Mexico in any case - that would put perigee over the Indian ocean, which would be incompatible with an unpowered re-entry in the pacific.
@Mqrius Do you have any suggestions for improving it? Should we just add "where the first stage performs nominally"?. So far there are only YES bets so it shouldn't be a rug pull.
I guess what the market is trying to capture is if the second stage performs nominally, but maybe that's a bit ambiguous. Like if all second stage engines complete their entire intended burn at nominal thrust, that would ideally be Yes even if the first stage underperformed, right? But then how do we judge it if one of the engines fails?