An orbit around earth is defined as having a perigee above 100 km. All past flights have targeted perigees with negative values (inside the surface of the earth). So when do you think Starship will have a perigee above 100km?
This obviously assumes Starship is in one piece and flying nominally when it reaches this orbit. If a piece of debris once belonging to Starship happens to reach orbit it will not count (resolve NO).
Starship must actually fly to orbit if it is targeted so if orbit is not reached in flight this market resolves NO. Additionally, this is a prediction market, if a flight is targeting orbit the market will close just before launch. I feel it is in the spirit of a prediction market to make sure no one profits off of knowing the resolution while it is open. I will run the market with this in mind.
I will add more flights as needed. I’ll try to keep at least 5 open at a time given the results of these flights seem sufficiently uncertain. In hindsight this seems rather unlikely but you never know.
Resolution Criteria may vary but a “nominal orbital insertion” call or something equivalent during a live stream of an attempted orbital flight would be enough. If the meeting of resolution criteria is unclear it may take until a mishap investigation is released 😢.
Thanks all and good luck!
1,000
3.00To all,
We’ve hit some of the criteria previously suggested as a sign to consider adding Flight 9 for trading. Feedback will be appreciated. Personally im leading towards adding it. Let me know if you strongly object.
Thank you
@RyanTyznar Yeah go for it, doesn't hurt. In the end it's your market and it doesn't have any real downsides.
@dp9000 Does this mean no relight test? Is the difference between the two nominal landing trajectories (burn vs no burn) enough that the plane couldn't cover both? I am not sure.
I would think if they don't plan a relight test that casts some doubt on flight 8 orbital preparedness.
@RyanTyznar I don't think the relight is an issue, it seemed to work fine on flight 6, maybe they won't even test it again.
But I think their main goal now is reentry/recovery of the second stage; I doubt they will bother to go to orbit without attempting to catch the ship afterwards. That would be an unnecessary intermediate flight profile that would have to be approved separately, without much benefit.
So I guess that for the first orbital flight not only the deorbit burn has to be reliable, but they must also be confident enough that reentry over populated areas is safe, without dropping too many heat shield tiles on Mexico.
@dp9000 I agree with your conclusion but I am absolutely sure that relight and orbital maneuvering reliability are the sole reasons we have not seen an orbital test until now. For human safety but probably even more so for ITAR lol. If this reneters on an uncontrolled trajectory into the wrong country that would be a huge deal bc critical technologies have a real chance to make it to the ground.
As far as their confidence after one test I do not know but considering the consequences of failed deorbit idt they will be satisfied with one test.
@RyanTyznar
>"absolutely sure that relight and orbital maneuvering reliability are the sole reasons we have not seen an orbital test until now"
What about risk of flap or other parts falling off during re-entry?
This would presumably be a fairly low risk if re-entering over Western Indian Ocean with planned soft landing Eastern Indian ocean. It would however be more dangerous if travelling E to Boca Chica for a catch. (mass to surface area for parts would likely be much lower so it wouldn't travel as far as intended) .
If the fix for the flaps is really repositioning them (Is that v2 of ship or earlier?) perhaps FAA want to see a re-entry or 2 without seeing holes burnt through flaps before allowing ship return to Boca Chica?
I am not sure above fully explains the lack of orbit attempt on flight 7 situation. 1 hour implies same suborbital trajectory. Why not 1.45 times way around Earth rather than 0.45? Perhaps adjusting altitude can get different re-entry speeds to do all the testing you want without adding any risk of being left in LEO?
Anyway:
Relight and orbital maneuvering reliability may be the main reasons we have not seen an orbital test until now.
but that doesn't mean other factors won't come into play. Possibility of a break up during re-entry may well be more relevant for returning to Boca Chica.
So seeing all flaps fully surviving a re-entry without burn through damage and perhaps also seeing how later design and positioning fare may be relevant.
Also perhaps why risk being left in LEO for unpredictable re-entry if you can do the testing you want without that risk?
There are doubtless more considerations than I am aware of, so your "sole reasons" seems a bit too exclusive to me.
@ChristopherRandles Most of these other problems you mention are only problems if you reenter over land or are intending a catch. I am not assuming this is necessary for an orbital flight. They can deliver payload to orbit and do other tests and still land in the ocean but the only way to guarantee a reentry over ocean is with a successful relight and deorbit burn. It wouldn't matter then if the ship failed the reentry would be safe.
This is why i say “sole reason” bc there are legitimate orbital launch tests they could do without a catch attempt but they haven’t. As to the risk reward logic I agree with you. There is plenty they can do with the suborbital trajectories that make orbital not worth the risk of getting stranded.
Regardless, sole reason was probably too strong but I stand by that it is by far the primary reason.
PS
I believe 1.45 times around earth requires orbit and/or in space maneuvering. Same with the different altitudes thing that is also correct but dont quote me orbital mechanics is hard.
Yes, it is my understanding as well that the new flap location Starships are Starship V2.
Wouldn't mind some feedback on if another launch should be added.
They seem to be running out of things to test with the current high energy suborbital trajectory they've been doing. At the same time they haven't really shown any signs of pursuing orbit just yet. Maybe I’m wrong or I missed something. Let me know.
I’ll adjust the market according to quality feedback if convincing. Thank you ahead of time.
@RyanTyznar Usually I just look at the market values. If '8' was at 50%, then add another. But it's 80% so it seems alright for now. The options you have cover the expected outcomes neatly.
Yes 9 would seem virtually certain but likely trade at less than 99% because of the time until resolution. I don't see that as adding useful info, more like tying up mana. So I wouldn't add it yet. Another month or two without any advance in plans and/or 8 falling below 70% and that might change my mind.
Hi All,
I changed the description a little bit mostly to address some grammar and clarity problems. These fixes were intended to bring the description more clearly to my original intent but also not change the stated meaning.
The only significant change was stating that flights will only be added if the results seem sufficiently uncertain rather than always having 5 available. If it any point it becomes too obvious I will not add more options and that may include not adding any ever.
Thanks and Good Luck!