tempted to conclude Yes on the basis of this last flight where they could have done orbits, but I was trying to be precise and that's not precisely what this question is. maybe next time they'll actually do a few orbits just to hang out in space a few hours and prove they can come back from that. [shrug]

@BrianOlson imo the conditions are pretty clear and this flight doesn't fulfill them
> (at least one pass around the Earth while above 100 km)
> (if the first flight is not planned to orbit, wait for the first flight that is planned to orbit, but sub-orbital tests are some lame Blue Origin garbage)

Not that I mind a Yes resolution but it wouldn't be correct right now imo

Further, if the planned trajectory for this flight were to fulfil the criteria for this market, then so would have the planned trajectory for the first flight, which did not reach its target trajectory. So if you were going to resolve YES on this flight, you would have to instead resolve NO on the first flight (of course, you should do neither).

expected 4th flight in June is also a high elliptical where starship expected to just go up and splash down west of one orbit.

May wish to extend the market close date at least until end of June @BrianOlson. Next near-orbital flight expected probably late May, so probably not going to see a full-orbit attempt for at least a month after that.

looks like the upcoming third flight plan is still a 3/4 orbit attempt. weeaaaak

@BrianOlson Perhaps even less than 50% of an orbit. Hmm perhaps is less than 50% way around Earth anyway.

@BrianOlson It is some progress because they can test a relight in space

IFT-3 is not going for full orbit, so that increases the chances for this market.

@Mqrius increases chances but delays return of investment plus winnings.

It's currently unclear if the third one is going for a full orbit or not. We currently know from FCC filings that it's gonna attempt a "powered landing in the Indian Ocean". That might mean it's going for full orbit and then do a deorbit burn, but opinions on this are divided.

the upcoming test is still not attempting orbit, but only about 3/4 of an orbit. :-/

I strongly suspect they're not going to actually aim for a fully orbital trajectory unless success is practically guaranteed. So I'm ~95% on this.

Damn lol I should have read the comments lol. Here’s hoping it also fails the second go around

Second one is probably aiming for the same almost-orbital trajectory, Elon said in twitter spaces yesterday.

This notes that the Monday 4/17 test is not planning on orbit, but a highly elliptical hop up to 235km and back down at around 3/4 of a turn around the earth into the Pacific
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/green-light-go-spacex-receives-a-launch-license-from-the-faa-for-starship/

@BrianOlson So if that is accurate (virtually certain that it is), I take it this market stays open

That's my understanding, and the main reason I've got Yes

@BrianOlson Transatmospheric orbits are often still considered orbits.

@SeamusBronski Not in KSP :D

@Mqrius Starship notably did not launch in KSP

I'm aware. We're arguing definitions, not reality. So at this point it depends on who you ask, what standards you hold, and it comes down to the opinion of the market creator, who has already given his view.

A high energy highly elliptic path that intersects the surface of the planet is not an orbit (trans-lithic?)
Hopefully it'll be obvious when it works (or crashes). This market is still dependent on the stated plan of whatever the next flight(s).

The problem is that today's launch may have been targeting a lowest point that's like 50km above the surface. That's not high enough to do an orbit around the Earth, but it's also not low enough to intersect the surface of the planet. It intersects the atmosphere though.

We're also not exactly sure what they were planning. The tricky thing is that this market depends on what they're planning, and not just on what actually happens.

@Mqrius Yes, but it doesn't depend on the orbital parameters - the market description defines orbit as completing one pass around the earth at an altitude of >100km. We know they weren't intending that, and even if they were on an orbital trajectory with high perigee and subsequently did a deorbit burn to re-enter near Hawaii, they would still not count as being in orbit for the purposes of this market.

So when looking at that they intend, we're looking only at whether they intend to go around the earth at least once, which is a bit easier than figuring out what orbital parameters they were aiming for!

Yeah that's fair enough, I agree with that.