bro noone is gonna die gang

@SEBsauce That's what they thought before space shuttle Columbia reentered, despite knowing about the event that had damaged the heat shield, ultimately leading to the death of everyone on board.

Hopefully you're right.

@SimonWestlake I hope

I absolutely cannot WAIT for them to get to the moon and find that someone else is already there. This will be the highlight of the decade.

@Eliza What's the sleeping schedule on board?

@Eliza someone else as in secret Chinese space program or extraterrestrial aliens?

@TheAllMemeingEye whatever would be most funny

@Eliza bro what are we doin

To avoid ambiguity, “return to Earth” is defined to be at the moment of splashdown.

@jks so if they touch down alive and then the ship immediately explodes in a fireball, it resolves YES?

iiinteresting

I really think this market is overvalued. Here's two links to get started:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddi792xdfNXcBwF8qpDUxmZzIksrs0jy/

https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly.htm

@SimonWestlake I thought for sure there was no way a mission would launch with 1/20 chance of everyone being dead, but then after reading more and more about it, it turns out that everyone just accepts this and 1/20 may be a realistic real value rather than something more like 1/200 which I would have guessed.

@Eliza I think it's less that everyone accepts it, but that NASA systematically denies it by using insufficient analysis that gets them numbers that they like

Is it 95, 92, or 98?

@jks Would you consider re-opening this market until the mission ends April 12?

@LoganTurner Yes! I didn’t mean for it to close. Thank you.

I'm dying. Someone help.

There is no way someone would launch a crewed mission to space if there was nearly a 1 out of 10 chance that PEOPLE WOULD DIE.

There has to be more to the story, someone tell me what is going on.

@Eliza FWIW, I doubt they will presently fly it with the current heat shield, my bet is they will delay and switch.

@Eliza Seems like the usual lack of incentives to bet down tiny probabilities. Maybe a market zooming in on the low end could help?

@JussiVilleHeiskanen it's extremely clear that's not going to happen

@Eliza look up Casey Handmer's blogs about Artemis, he argues that this is a terribly unsafe program and NASA is ignoring problems just like they did with the space shuttle

@Eliza Historically 2.4% of people who tried to go to space have died (19/791).
If, like some, you believe that Artemis has both
A) suffered some defects in engineering and management that increase risk, and
B) an elevated level of risk due to the duration and extent of the mission
...you can easily end up with an estimate of the risk that's even a little higher than that.

@BorisBartlog, but that probability drops as steps as you proceed through the mission. Nearly half of the fatalities you cite came during the quite dangerous launch phase, and then most of the rest during the equally dangerous re-entry phase. (It is not unlike air travel in this way, I am most tense at the start and end of a flight.)

How much can I trust the 96 here? There is absolutely no freaking way the organization would accept that risk level if it was true, right????

@EvanDaniel find a way to get the real probability!!!