Resolves YES if the next time a Starship booster with 33 engines installed is ignited (static fire, static fire attempt, or launch attempt or aborted launch attempt), there are 33 engines which ignite. Resolves NO if there are less than 33 engines which ignite. Does not resolve if the test was not designed for the possibility of igniting all 33 engines.
Resolution time: we are currently waiting to see if more information comes out during Musk's interview on Friday. Will resolve as soon as audio of the event (or credible reports thereof) come out.
1,000People are also trading
Thanks to this market I've learned to be extremely precise in my wording 🙂
Hope you'll find this interesting: https://manifold.markets/MayMeta/will-the-next-static-fire-of-starsh
Ok. There's a conflict between the "completely successful" in the title (by which I meant lifting off with 33 engines, which did not happen) and the "ignition" criterion for resolution in the body, which we can infer probably happened, based on inferences from the Musk quote: “the system didn't think they were healthy enough to bring them to full thrust, so they were shut down." Still, no direct confirmation, and there is a clear dispute between the intention/title of the question and the resolution criterion. Resolving N/A. Sorry guys.
"At liftoff there were 3 engines that we chose not to start, essentially we hit abort. So we actually lifted off with 30 engines, which is the minimum number of engines. Those instruments did not explode <...> the system didn't think they were healthy enough to bring them to full thrust, so they were shut down."
I would resolve this as NO. It was not 'completely successful' as the market name states.
@MayMeta See discussion about this data point below. They didn't lift off with it, but they might have ignited. Not bringing them to full thrust sounds like they ignited but were then shut down. However, it's ambiguous, and the ambiguity would mean an N/A resolution would be appropriate I think. I doubt we'll get more info by this point.
@Mqrius remember the Feb 10th 31/33 Engine Static Fire? I would argue that shutting down one of the engines before it finishes the full duration of the static fire or before it throttles up to it's intended thrust - doesn't count as a 'completely successful' firing of that engine.
On Apr 20th Starship Super Heavy successfully fired only 30/33 engines, the other 3 had an anomaly. If you judge otherwise - this means that the first Super Heavy static fire on Feb 10th was also a 'successful firing of 32 engines', which is not the official SpaceX position and contradicts the intended meaning of this market.
@MayMeta the title says "successful firing", but the description with the criteria only speaks about ignition. Typically the description is the resolution criteria to go with, clarifying what is meant with the title. In this market, the description says that by "successful", they mean an ignition.
@Mqrius In this case an 'engine failure' or a 'failed static fire' loose all meaning, because the majority of failures happen during the engine startup process i.e. after engine ignition. I still feel that an N/A or a YES resolution will be against the intended purpose of this market, which was to predict the success rate of Super Heavy Raptor engine firings.
@MayMeta if a description literally says that the resolution depends on ignition, then it would be bad to later suddenly decide that no, something else actually mattered.
@Mqrius I'm simply claiming that a 'nominal' ignition was implied, otherwise this market doesn't provide any meaningful insight.
At the end of the day this decision is up to the market creator.
Relevant to this and the other market. It sounds like the engines ingited, so I'm not 100% sure how you want to resolve this, but ignition per se is not the same thing as successful startup it turns out, and I would guess that in static fires when they say how many engines worked, it is counting engines that ignited but were shut down due to poor health indicators as not having started.
I would argue for a NO resolution in favour of the spirit rather than the letter of the resolution criteria, because this seems like a normal way for engine startup to fail, which you probably would have wanted to capture in the resolution criteria. But to the letter, they did ignite so that would be a YES.
@chrisjbillington Actually, from only the above quote, I suppose it's not 100% certain they ignited. I suppose there could be health indicators that are available before ignition. I thought I heard on the Spaces that they did ignite, but will have to wait to re-listen to the recording to confirm.
"We lifted off with 30 engines"
"The system didn't think they were healthy enough to bring them to full thrust, so they were shut down"
Best I can tell they did ignite, but before liftoff they were automatically shut down. But yes it's a bit ambiguous.
I think that if they did ignite, then Yes would be the appropriate resolution, because this market came from the static fire markets, and there an ignition followed by quick shutdown would've counted Yes. But I'd also be fine with an N/A judgements due to ambiguity.
@Mqrius Ah, was unaware this would have counted as a YES if it were a static fire. That makes the case for YES more compelling.
https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/12t04pd/figuring_out_which_boosters_failed_to_ignitee3/ I'm in agreement with Chris Billington here. I'm going to give it one week on the offchance there is some clarification from SpaceX official sources, and if there is no news, assume that at least one of those three engines failed to ignite at launch.
@brp I would advocate an N/A resolution if there isn't confirmation, though my current best guess would be that the 2 outer-ring engines were killed by debris (debris more likely at the edges and the engines were adjacent to each other, suggesting a common cause), and that the centre engine didn't light (because less debris risk in the centre).
@brp Musk is talking on Twitter (subscribers only, but the audio will certainly end up on Youtube afterwards) on Friday about the launch. Want to defer resolution (for this market and the other one) at least until after that in case it contains some information?
@chrisjbillington Thank you for the information. Delaying until the audio becomes available sounds like a good ieda.
@chrisjbillington Oh dang I still had a limit order here. Hm yeah I'm not sure if we can tell right now whether they ignited.
@Mqrius Well I just sold back up to a little above your limit order price, so you might yet profit!
The below footage and a comment on Reddit suggesting the engines may have lit, but been subsequently destroyed by debris blowback made me reconsider