For it to count as a launch the rocket needs to complete the countdown sequence and the holdown clamps need to release. A scrub won't count as a launch. Achieve orbit means pushing the payload to orbital velocity.
The next launch attempt is on 8 January 2024.
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,121 | |
| 2 | Ṁ801 | |
| 3 | Ṁ668 | |
| 4 | Ṁ245 | |
| 5 | Ṁ192 |
@Sailfish I'm extremely bullish, which is a decent fraction of the market price here I think :)
And it's a short enough timeframe that 95% isn't that close to the risk-free rate. I'd bid a risk-free market on this time scale up to 99% depending what else was going on. (And did, in the Barbenheimer Golden Globes market.)
@EvanDaniel Yep I didn’t want to say anything hoping that someone would fill my 75% limit order but betting against ULA’s 100% flight record is risky. ULA will simply refuse to fly if there’s any risk of mission failure. It seems like the larger launch providers I.e NASA/SpaceX/ULA have extremely respectable reliability in modern times.
@NGK Yeah, if this were an Atlas/Delta launch the correct price would clearly be somewhere in the range of 99.0%-99.7%. It's not, so it's lower. But ULA is good, so it's not that much lower. I'd entertain arguments for anything in about the 93-98% range, maybe a little higher. The Centaur stage proof test failure suggests it's not actually all previously flown hardware, though, so I don't think I can see my way to much over 99% and even that feels a bit optimistic.
12000 Yes at 75% if anyone wants it
If people want a similar market:
https://manifold.markets/JoshuaWilkes/will-ariane-6-successfully-deliver?r=Sm9zaHVhV2lsa2Vz
@wilsonkime Different company, different goals for the launch.
Vulcan is a much more conventional rocket, with less drastic changes vs. previous vehicles than Starship has. The Starship launch was explicitly a test flight intending to get data; the ULA launch is carrying a paying customer payload. SpaceX likes to test and get data and learn and not worry about explosions during test, then move to production and be reliable there. ULA has decided to perform ground testing and analysis and deliver a rocket that works the first time.
Both companies deliver highly reliable rockets; odds better than 99% would likely be correct for both a Falcon 9 launch and an Atlas/Delta launch.
But this is a new rocket and a new engine, and that's something ULA has relevant experience for but hasn't actually done. (Atlas V was a Lockheed rocket; Delta IV was Boeing. Both were transferred to ULA along with their teams.)
Getting the odds right on this market actually feels fairly tricky. I think it's higher than 75% and lower than 99%, but that's a pretty wide range. My hunch is it should be something like 90%, maybe a little higher, but that runs into questions of how much I should defer to the market and how much exposure I want on one question.
@Mqrius ULA has the track record to do it if anyone does, Atlas V has a perfect record and the first Delta IV Heavy launch would have counted for this market (the payload reached orbit). I think BE-4's track record should shift this confidence significantly down, but I guess we'll see.
@Sailfish The plan is to launch Peregrine into HEO. If they make it to low orbit but not enough for Peregrine to get to the moon, does this still resolve Yes?
@Mqrius It just needs to be in some orbit around some celestial body, if the second stage underperforms and it's stuck in some orbit around Earth, that would count.