The previous two integrated test flights have resulted in RUDs for both stages. On the next mission, IFT-3, will Starship's hardware be recoverable?
This market resolves to YES if Starship does not experience a RUD and returns to Earth successfully for recovery.
If SpaceX declares that the mission hardware will not be recovered and it does not RUD, that still qualifies for a YES.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ486 | |
| 2 | Ṁ68 | |
| 3 | Ṁ43 | |
| 4 | Ṁ21 | |
| 5 | Ṁ18 |
Looks like they don't intend a soft landing for the second stage. Does that mean this definitely resolves No? @quantizor
If SpaceX declares that the mission hardware will not be recovered and it does not RUD, that still qualifies for a YES.
I've extended the close date as IFT-3 hasn't happened yet and the creator is inactive.
Edit: sorry, they aren't inactive. I didn't look at their comments tab (checking if people are active is way too many clicks). Anyway, @quantizor I hope you don't mind the extension.
@quantizor I had just been viewing closed markets in my own portfolio (which is how I got here), and when I clicked through to your profile it was still set to show only closed markets. My mistake! Though seriously manifold needs a "user last active X days ago" indicator, I make this mistake way too often.
If there is a rapid scheduled disassembly on or shortly after splashdown does that resolve yes or no? Or is it breaks up on impact but no explosion resolves yes while explosion after water impact resolves no? Or do intentions matter so if SpaceX is expecting explosion on/shortly after water impact that is a yes?
If one stage explodes and the other sinks sufficiently intact / without explosion, does this resolve 50% for each stage or is it yes/no for starship i.e. stage 2 only matters?
@ChristopherRandles any unexpected RUD resolves to a NO. If both mission stages are successful and SpaceX decides to activate FTS after declaring mission completion, that would count as a YES.
@quantizor This is just about Starship, right? A booster RUD wouldn't cause this to resolve NO?
Starship burnup on re-entry causes this market to resolve YES, right? Assuming they were aiming for it to either soft-land in the ocean, or be destroyed at splashdown rather than earlier, which seems to be the case.