Starship = the second stage, having launched on top of Super Heavy
Land = a successful landing. After it comes to rest vertically Starship should neither move, explode nor be engulfed in flames* for a period of 60 mins (if SpaceX deliberately moves the spacecraft in this hour that will obviate the no-moving requirement)
*if this is the point of contention I will make a good faith attempt to determine whether at any point in visible footage more than 25% of Starship is occluded by flames. I think this is enough to exclude minor fires.
"a" launch pad. If Starship lands on a pad at the same launch centre as the one it took off from, this would count. If it lands in a different location, this would not count
If it really matters it the moment of liftoff, local time, will be used to determine when a successful resolution took place.
Update 2026-01-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Tower catch counts as a valid landing method for this market.
https://manifold.markets/JoshuaWilkes/when-will-starship-land-on-a-launch
Update 2026-05-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral are considered the same location for the purposes of the 'same launch centre' requirement.
Update 2026-05-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): What happens after the landing (e.g., where the chopsticks lower the ship to) does not matter for resolution. Only the landing/catch itself is relevant.
Update 2026-05-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The 25% flames occlusion test is only intended to assess whether an accidental fire is major or minor. If flames are present during or immediately after landing but there is no reason to think this was non-nominal (e.g., flames from a vent port behaving as expected), the 25% occlusion test will not be applied.
1,000People are also trading
@JoshuaWilkes
Does "land on a launch pad" count:
A Being caught by chopsticks of same tower as launch
B Being caught by chopsticks of a different tower to launch but at the same site eg tower 1 and tower 2 at Starbase.
C Landing on a landing pad that is the same pad number as the same launch complex. So launch from KSC 39A with landing at KSC landing pad 39C would be OK but landing at CCSFB landing pad 37B would not count.
D Any of the above
E Landing on a landing pad not far from the launch complex
F Catches only count if the chopsticks after catch place the ship on the launch mount or on a booster on the launch mount but not if ship is caught by chopsticks but then lowered to a transport stand rather than on to a launch pad.
Maybe it is obvious that pad includes both launch mount and the tower so it isn't F, but I want to check to be sure.
I tend to think it should be D rather than F but if it is F then it might be much later. Consequently with that, it might be sensible to indicate whether launch from KSC pad 39 but catch at CCSFB pad 37 is same launch centre or a different location. There are different authorities running different launch centres but both are in the same general Cape Canaveral area location.
If 25% is occluded by flames for just 1 second immediately after coming to rest but SpaceX say shortly after the catch that this is entirely ok and normal and later the ship is successfully launched again. This happening might be a odd situation for a no resolution?
25% occluded before landing may well be normal due to downward movement into flames. While I doubt it typically happens in the seconds after coming to rest, version 3 engines with v3 design ship with less heat shielding might well be different from what we have seen so far.
Sufficient occlusion by flames for sufficient time that it is clear this has caused damage that will either need repairs or scrapping of the ship feels more like what you should be aiming for?
"If Starship lands on a pad at the same launch centre as the one it took off from, this would count. If it lands in a different location, this would not count" - Kennedy and Canaveral are considered the same location for the purposes of this part of the description.
@ChristopherRandles what happens after the landing, eg where the chopsticks lower the ship to, does not matter for resolution.
@ChristopherRandles wrt to flames, this is only intended to help assess whether an accidental fire is major or not. If there are flames blowing everywhere during the landing, or if flames come from a vent port immediately after landing, and there is no reason to think this wasn't nominal, this test will not be applied.