Each option resolves YES if the next (2nd) Starship full stack flight test completes that milestone without exploding, NO otherwise (i.e. if it explodes during or before completing that milestone).
(Use sort by old to show the options in order)
See the flight test timeline at https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2
Examples and more detailed definitions:
"Exploding" here will include any Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly
The second stage and stage separation milestones only require the second stage not to explode. Similarly, the booster boostback/landing milestones only require the booster not to explode.
If Starship reaches MaxQ but explodes 2 seconds later, MaxQ still resolves YES.
MECO/SECO are defined as when the engines are intentionally shut down - if all the engines shutdown unintentionally that doesn't count.
If MECO is attempted but the engines fail to shut down, and the rocket explodes before they can successfully shut down, MECO resolves NO.
Note that Starship will be doing a hot staging - they will cut off most but not all of the booster engines, ignite the second stage engines, and then the stages separate. This is different from typical!
Note that the planned MECO is "most engines cut off", not all.
Second stage engine start (SES) does not require stage separation to complete successfully, as long as the engines ignite successfully. At least half the engines must ignite to count as a success.
Similarly, for booster burn startup, at least half the engines that are supposed to ignite must ignite to count as a success.
For stage separation, if the second stage separates intact, that's a YES (even if e.g. the rocket starts spinning unrecoverably out of control, as long as it stays intact). If the engines light but the second stage explodes instead of separating, that's a NO. If the stages separate unintentionally, that's a NO.
Second stage touchdown resolves YES if Starship touches down anywhere in the Pacific Ocean and is intact at the moment it hits the surface, even if it is an uncontrolled crash. If it touches down elsewhere, e.g. in Texas, that's a NO.
Similarly for booster touchdown, resolves YES if the booster (separated from the second stage) touches down anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico and is intact at the moment it hits the surface.
The close date is not a deadline and will be extended as necessary until the test occurs.
This is a modified version of https://manifold.markets/jack/how-far-will-the-next-starship-test
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ664 | |
| 2 | Ṁ519 | |
| 3 | Ṁ195 | |
| 4 | Ṁ169 | |
| 5 | Ṁ117 |
@MayMeta Yeah. Note: if they failed after ignition that has no impact on whether the burn startup is a success. And the criteria for it to resolve YES is that at least half the engines that are supposed to ignite must ignite to count as a success.
See discussion in this thread https://manifold.markets/jack/how-far-will-the-2nd-starship-test#n3t6MqGwjMklLOW1CVIO
@jack It went from 3 engines lit (MECO) to 10 (boostback) at least briefly. Then it lost a couple, then it exploded. I'm not sure if we have the engine status display on a video with good replay capability yet.
@EvanDaniel It sounds like it made it almost through the boostback burn before FTS activated on the booster.
@jack https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1725863437887242515
You can see the engine status display go from 33->3 in rapid increments, with the engines visible doing the same thing on a little delay. Then as second stage separates, it goes 3->10 and then some immediately shut down again. But you can see some of the second ring are lit on video.
Then I think it kept tumbling way past intended orientation for FTS or whatever caused the explosion. Some kind of engine problem visible right at the end of that video.
Can someone confirm which engines are supposed to be lit for the boostback burn?
And for clarity, I will be using the "At least half the engines must ignite to count as a success." criteria, same as for second stage ignition. (Half of the engines that are supposed to ignite must ignite)
While Ship 24 would have performed its burn, Booster 7 would begin to flip around just after stage separation and reignite its inner 13 engines to perform the boostback burn a little over three minutes after liftoff.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/04/starship-maiden-launch/
Seems like it would be the same 13 inner 3 + 10 of which 3 stayed lit and 9 of 10 showed as lit before some more failed.
@JessRiedel Good question. For MECO to be YES it definitely needs to be commanded, not the engines shutting down unintentionally. It should also be roughly on schedule. If they command MECO 10 seconds early, not sure if that should count, thoughts?
@jack My guess is that an accident investigation will give a definitive answer to the question “did the engines anomalously shutdown prior to intended MECO command?” even if (as in the scenario you mention) that’s hard for outside viewers to determine immediately on launch day. Therefore, in that scenario, I recommend waiting to resolve the market until after the accident investigation.
Unlike the first test, Starship intends to perform a hot-staging maneuver where second stage engines ignite before stage separation. Therefore, setting aside ambiguous-to-resolve scenarios where the engines fail but the stages separate “accidentally”, second-stage engine startup should be as least as probable as stage separation.
@JessRiedel Yes, that's correct. The notes already say "Second stage engine start (SES) does not require stage separation to complete successfully, as long as the engines ignite successfully" but I'm sure people will miss it, since it's the opposite order to usual.
engines fail but the stages separate “accidentally”
I added "If the stages separate unintentionally, that's a NO." for stage separation. I imagine if there's an unintentional stage separation it'll most likely be clear that it was unintentional.
@Eliza It's a new, prototype booster though. So it should be lower than their track record for Falcon 9, which is very reliable.