Each option resolves YES if the next (3rd) Starship full stack flight test completes that milestone without exploding, NO otherwise (i.e. if it explodes during or before completing that milestone).
See the flight plan at https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3
Examples and more detailed definitions:
This question refers to the next Starship full stack flight test which has a planned trajectory that reaches space (100km altitude). So a 10km altitude flight test does not count.
"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 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 most other rockets!
Note that the planned MECO will have 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 planned ocean or continent (currently planned for the Indian ocean), and is intact at the moment it hits the surface, even if it is an uncontrolled crash. If it touches down elsewhere, that's a NO.
Similarly for booster touchdown, resolves YES if the booster (separated from the second stage) touches down anywhere in the planned ocean or continent 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.
Previous market for IFT2: https://manifold.markets/jack/how-far-will-the-2nd-starship-test
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,305 | |
| 2 | Ṁ557 | |
| 3 | Ṁ405 | |
| 4 | Ṁ388 | |
| 5 | Ṁ379 |
@Mqrius From the description:
for booster burn startup, at least half the engines that are supposed to ignite must ignite to count as a success.
for booster touchdown, resolves YES if the booster (separated from the second stage) touches down anywhere in the planned ocean or continent and is intact at the moment it hits the surface.
If it exploded before hitting the water that's a NO (the question is how far it gets before exploding)
As others have commented below, it looks pretty clear that both the booster landing burn startup and booster touchdown resolve NO. Any thoughts on whether to resolve now (and of course if new info comes out to contradict we would re-resolve) or continue waiting e.g. for the mishap report?
13 engines were supposed to relight for the booster landing burn, and it looks like only 3 did relight, less than the half required for "Booster landing burn startup"
The booster had a RUD at 462 meters according to SpaceX https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3. So it didn't make it to the water for "Booster touchdown"
@jack Both seem like no and waiting a couple of months seems a long wait. As it can be re-resolved later, I don't see any problem with resolving now.
@esusatyo I will make it but usually I wait until we have a bit more idea of what the planned mission is.
@jack I see thick lines that look more like water to me than anything that cloud can make. But I'm happy waiting for a more certain resolution. I myself am convinced enough to bet anyway.
@jack SpaceX Update:
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3
“Super Heavy successfully lit several engines for its first ever landing burn before the vehicle experienced a RUD (that’s SpaceX-speak for “rapid unscheduled disassembly.”) The booster’s flight concluded at approximately 462 meters in altitude and just under seven minutes into the mission.”
@Pax Interesting! Well, that seems conclusive, but I still am unclear on what exactly caused its destruction.
This should be enough to resolve to NO but I'll probably wait a bit for more confirmation.
At T+6:30 on the livestream they say that the landing burn is to start with 13 engines relighting (before going down to three). The graphic on the stream showed 3 engines lighting, and Gwynne Shotwell says in the below tweet "likely a couple of engines making mainstage" (i.e. completing startup). Seeming like the "half of engines needing to light" criterion is not likely to be satisfied for the Booster landing burn startup answer.
@chrisjbillington Thanks. Yeah, 13 makes sense, IIRC that's the same as last time - everything except the outer ring.
Will wait some more for more info, but I'm pretty confident less than half lit.
@Mqrius From the description:
for booster burn startup, at least half the engines that are supposed to ignite must ignite to count as a success.
for booster touchdown, resolves YES if the booster (separated from the second stage) touches down anywhere in the planned ocean or continent and is intact at the moment it hits the surface.
If it exploded before hitting the water that's a NO (the question is how far it gets before exploding)
@jack Telemetry showed 3 engines lighting then 2 shutdown within a second or two and then telemetry lost showing just the 1 remaining central engine remaining lit. Do we know how many were supposed to light?
If 7 or more were supposed to have relighted is this enough to resolve no. Lighting after telemetry lost seems unlikely to me but maybe it is still possible if the telemetry loss was a minor communications matter? Given timing, more likely to have been something seriously terminal but perhaps better to wait for more detail.
Launch window coming up! Here are some more markets to bet on