Prize Market
Musk says the goal of the next Starship mission is to get past the point of maximum re-entry heating "with all systems functioning". This market considers the somewhat lower bar of "not exploding".
Resolves YES if in the fourth Starship–SuperHeavy test flight, SpaceX confirms that Starship didn't experience a rapid unscheduled disassembly until after passing the point of maximum re-entry heating.
Any RUD (of Starship) earlier in the flight causes this market to resolve NO.
If telemetry is lost before the point of maximum re-entry heating, and it cannot be confirmed exactly when a RUD occurred with respect to the point of maximum heating, the market resolves NO. It only resolves YES if it can be confirmed that the vehicle survived past that point. Confirmation via other means than on-board telemetry will count (but seems unlikely).
This market stays open until the fourth flight launches, meaning lifts off the pad, however slightly, under the thrust of its engines. Therefore a RUD on the pad before launch does not cause this market to resolve NO, it will stay open pending the result of the next Starship–SuperHeavy flight, even if that flight is not named IFT-4.
Resolves NA if there is good reason to expect a fourth flight will never happen.
Edit May 21st: this market will close at launch so that I can recoup some subsidy at resolution. This makes subsidising markets like this more viable.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ27,975 | |
| 2 | Ṁ5,928 | |
| 3 | Ṁ5,512 | |
| 4 | Ṁ3,105 | |
| 5 | Ṁ2,668 |
@DanHomerick yeah and this way it's also not simply a game of who can mash buy or sell the fastest on the news
@AlQuinn otoh when the flap started burning, we're still predicting whether that's loss of mission or not
@DanHomerick That's true, although people can mark points on the graph e.g. "this is when launch happened".
The main thing Manifold needs to support is adding/removing subsidy whenever you want, which has been discussed plenty already.
Also, I do like being able to see profits on different segments, e.g. before launch vs after launch. IMO I would love if we could use the same market for trading but slice and dice the graphs and numbers differently.
@jack A tangible solution would be an independant multiple choice market, where you can close one submarket intended for pre-launch trading and open a second one for trading during launch.
@ScipioFabius that's a good idea but it's still different sets of shares, meaning for example you can't directly sell your shares from the prelaunch market during post launch trading
you can't directly sell your shares from the prelaunch market during post launch trading
That's a feature. Buying and selling shares to a market-maker when the event is in progress is kinda bullshit, IMO.
The market-making should halt once the event begins, and all exisiting limit orders should auto-expire. If people want to establish limit orders and make trades that way while the event is underway, that's fine.
Having a "dumb" market maker which will you can buy/sell shares against as the event unfolds is, IMO, pretty ridiculous. Pretend that you're that market maker (or are writing a bot to do it). Would you make money?
@DanHomerick Those are two separate things. What you're asking for is the same thing I said above:
The main thing Manifold needs to support is adding/removing subsidy whenever you want, which has been discussed plenty already.
@chrisjbillington Please open, need to sell. Lot's of the Ṁana boys being made the sPice men today but I am miscalculating it. Please, please, please!
Launch scheduled for 7:20 7:50 CDT!
Live stream starting here in 40 55 minute live now!
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1OwxWYzDXjWGQ
As mentioned, this market will close at launch. For live trading, here is one without any additional subsidy that will remain open:
Too much reading to do:
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1796049014938357932
Tiles fell off previously. Tiles haven't been tested as last re-entry wasn't done properly. So that leaves some of the problems: (a) launch issues, (b) tiles falling off during launch, (c) not getting the correct re-entry (they did add more control & filter systems), (d) heat tiles fail during re-entry and the heat shield fails. Plenty of speculation and talk about the tiles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4inBHz467Dk (16min in).
@SaviorofPlant we should know approximately 1h after launch. Re-entry (times approximate) starts at t+47:25 and landing would be at t+1:05:48. So maximum heating is somewhere in between, and if there isn't any confirmation of Starship's survival before expected landing time, SpaceX will likely declare the vehicle presumed lost at that point.
Flight plan here: https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-4
@chrisjbillington But if it explodes during blackout period where plasma prevents communications then there could be a longer wait.
@ChristopherRandles some wait, but what I'm saying is that the wait shouldn't be much longer than the time until expected landing. If the vehicle doesn't phone home (or is otherwise verified to be in one piece) by expected landing time at t+1:05:48, I expect SpaceX will call it.
