If not all second stage engines light, but reliable sources indicate that enough engines lit to perform the test objective (regardless of if that objective ultimately fails for other reasons) this will still resolve YES
Apr 20, 10:58am: On the next full stack launch of starship (after 4/20), conditional on stage separation, will second stage engines light → On the next full stack launch of starship (after 4/20) with nominal stage separation, will second stage engines light
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ49 | |
| 2 | Ṁ48 | |
| 3 | Ṁ3 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1 | |
| 5 | Ṁ0 |
@traders See my comment in the below-linked market, with updates from SpaceX on the root cause of the booster explosion (a filter blockage), and comments from the FAA describing the separation as "successful", and listing corrective actions, together I think this information points to nominal stage separation and therefore a YES resolution for this market:
⚠AFK Creator
📢Pending Resolution
@SirCryptomind I don't think this should resolve. While the conditions for a No resolution are unlikely, they could still theoretically happen. We don't yet know whether IFT-2 had nominal stage separation, and I currently suspect it did not, making this a question about IFT-3 or later.
See the discussion here:
/YaakovSaxon/on-the-next-full-stack-launch-of-st-19d3901cff4e
@EvanDaniel So you would say this does not prove the question? https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2
There are a handful of these questions with the "(after 4/20)", so I have seen the cross talk across them.
I don't mind unresolving and waiting.
@SirCryptomind I think "successful" and "nominal" are different words and might be relevantly different here. "Successful" might be primarily a statement that it didn't damage the second stage, whereas nominal would mean the whole thing went according to plan (within tolerances).
IMO if the first stage explosion was caused in part by propellant motion in the tanks that exposed the inlets and allowed pressurant ingestion and/or caused loss of head pressure, from the first stage deceleration at stage sep as opposed to the flip maneuver on its own, then IFT-2 did not have a nominal stage separation.
Anyway, I think it should be reopened or at least unresolved and left closed. I like reopen but I'm not sure what the creator wanted for this series.
I think a proper judgment of these two and also /YaakovSaxon/will-starships-hotstaging-work-on-t are waiting on the mishap report to be released.
@EvanDaniel That is fine. I read the decription part "that enough engines lit to perform the test objective (regardless of if that objective ultimately fails for other reasons)" and took that as even if another event happened after the 2nd stage lighting, this is still a yes. I will wait though.
@SirCryptomind It was written before the hot staging plan was announced, so figuring out what to do about that is a little complicated. But I think this is most consistent with how the others are being handled.
@SirCryptomind FWIW the creator was actively discussing resolution of a similar question 11 days ago:
/YaakovSaxon/on-the-next-full-stack-launch-of-st-a003f51d2735
I think they will resolve this themselves, either soon or when the FAA mishap investigation is concluded (which should also be fairly soon).