Resolves YES if the next (5th) Starship integrated flight test has an unplanned explosion or breakup, known as a "rapid unscheduled/unplanned disassembly (RUD)".
The upper stage and booster each resolve separately to whether they each have a RUD.
Being destroyed on contact with the surface as planned is not a RUD.
Other examples of things that aren't sufficient to count as a RUD: a part flying off without causing the breakup of the rocket, or a single engine having a fire.
Exploding on the pad before the launch would also count as a RUD.
We'll use a common sense definition here. The sources for resolution will be SpaceX, media, prominent space youtubers, etc. In case it isn't clear then I'll run a poll.
This question is about the next Starship mission with a planned trajectory that reaches space (100km altitude) - any low altitude test does not count for example. The close date is not a deadline, the question resolves when the flight occurs.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ997 | |
| 2 | Ṁ749 | |
| 3 | Ṁ301 | |
| 4 | Ṁ199 | |
| 5 | Ṁ106 |
People are also trading
It exploded on ground so it is nor a RUD
@DanielCsomor this is far from obvious. It will depend on a) did it explode? And b) was the explosion unintentional?
@JoshuaWilkes if it was "unplanned" then yes. But everything I heard on the stream indicated it was planned, unless I misunderstood.
@jack specifically, it was always planned to touch down in the water and there's no way for it to survive a water landing intact. Also they said they did not plan to recover the hardware.
@jack what I'm imagining is that we get a statement to the effect of "we didn't think it would explode like that as opposed to just sinking"
To be clear, I don't think this is very likely! But I think it's not impossible
@JoshuaWilkes I mean, we'll see what their post test report says and the market rules say what they say, we can cross that bridge if we get there.