The SpaceX Thread

[UserJoe]

That depended on having propulsive landing for Dragons, because Mars doesn't have oceans or much atmosphere. They thought they could develop propulsive landing for Dragons the same way they did for Falcon 9, by using paid-for customer flights. Specifically, cargo return trips from ISS, paid for by NASA. What changed is that NASA (quite reasonably) refused to let SpaceX risk their down-cargo. For SpaceX to test propulsive Dragons on their own dime would have been expensive. So it got cancelled, in favour of going all-in on Starship. One of SpaceX virtues is their willingness to change their plans when necessary.

Starship landing on Mars in 2027 was plausible when the first propellant transfer tests were happening 2Q 2025, which itself was plausible in 4Q 2024. Now the setbacks with V2 Starship are making it look much less likely. The orbital propellant transfer tests may not happen until next year now, and of course they need to land Starship on Earth before attempting it on Mars. I still wouldn't rule it out. They'll surely pull out all the stops to avoid losing the 2-year transit window.

They probably need to pull out all the stops to meet their NASA commitments for the moon landing system at this point. Their engineering method of measure once, cut n times, solve for n seems to have run into problems with Starship.

 

[deadman12-4]

That depended on having propulsive landing for Dragons, because Mars doesn't have oceans or much atmosphere. They thought they could develop propulsive landing for Dragons the same way they did for Falcon 9, by using paid-for customer flights. Specifically, cargo return trips from ISS, paid for by NASA. What changed is that NASA (quite reasonably) refused to let SpaceX risk their down-cargo. For SpaceX to test propulsive Dragons on their own dime would have been expensive. So it got cancelled, in favour of going all-in on Starship. One of SpaceX virtues is their willingness to change their plans when necessary.

Starship landing on Mars in 2027 was plausible when the first propellant transfer tests were happening 2Q 2025, which itself was plausible in 4Q 2024. Now the setbacks with V2 Starship are making it look much less likely. The orbital propellant transfer tests may not happen until next year now, and of course they need to land Starship on Earth before attempting it on Mars. I still wouldn't rule it out. They'll surely pull out all the stops to avoid losing the 2-year transit window.

Starship landing on mars was NEVER plausible in that timeline. Its been just 2-3 years away since 2018. Almost like fusion - just around the corner but the corner never actually gets closer.
Starship landing on mars is much further away, but the story is the real goal. Making people believe something that isn't true.

 

[Dmytry]

They probably need to pull out all the stops to meet their NASA commitments for the moon landing system at this point. Their engineering method of measure once, cut n times, solve for n seems to have run into problems with Starship.

To be honest the Starship is just a huge complex rocket, more like the Soviet N1 than Saturn V.

The reason N1 kept exploding was that the most economical way to fully test them was to launch it. Again and again.

Of course, the propagandist spin on this is that soviets simply weren't good at engineering a rocket, but I think that (apart from some significant and yet easily overstated advantage from CAD software and simulation), the engineering is and was about as good as it could realistically be.

As far as costs go the accounting was pretty funky under communism, and it is even more funky under modern capitalism as well - the "broken window fallacy" is partially true when there's a huge net flow of wealth towards its concentration, making even wasteful non-concentration activities (like paying the engineers) better than the alternative (where instead of making a rocket, engineers are employed in less productive roles, perhaps as unproductive as making videogames).

 

[deadman12-4]

To be honest the Starship is just a huge complex rocket, more like the Soviet N1 than Saturn V.

The reason N1 kept exploding was that the most economical way to fully test them was to launch it. Again and again.

Of course, the propagandist spin on this is that soviets simply weren't good at engineering a rocket, but I think that (apart from some significant and yet easily overstated advantage from CAD software and simulation), the engineering is and was about as good as it could realistically be.

Talk about alternate history. The N1 wasn't being "tested", they were honestly trying to make it work. They were not eschewing computer simulations to work everything out and were simply trying to be "hardware rich" to "move fast and break things". This is a fantasy rewrite of history.

 

[Dmytry]

Talk about alternate history. The N1 wasn't being "tested", they were honestly trying to make it work. They were not eschewing computer simulations to work everything out and were simply trying to be "hardware rich" to "move fast and break things". This is a fantasy rewrite of history.

I have trouble parsing what is it that you are trying to say. That SpaceX eschews computer simulations when it comes to starship? That USSR engineers did?

N1 was spectacularly blowing up, again and again, because even with all the test firings they could do at a test stand, a number of integration issues which would inevitably slip manual review, had to get discovered in flight. Then it was cancelled because it had one purpose, to go to the moon, and that became irrelevant.

Likewise, starship is a huge huge rocket with approximately the same number of engines. Plus new shit like re-lighting said engines.

The similar reason for cancellation is unlikely to occur, but another one could - it is all done on a whim of a billionaire, who has plenty of other whims.

 

[Megalodon]

N1 was spectacularly blowing up, again and again, because even with all the test firings they could do at a test stand, a number of integration issues which would inevitably slip manual review, had to get discovered in flight.

Point of clarification: they couldn't do a static test of the N1 because the NK-15 engines used could only be fired once. The subsequent NK-33 engine resolved this issue but was never flown as part of the Soviet program because as you note the program was wound down (though it did fly on an American launcher decades later). Subsequent Soviet launchers like Zenit and Energia ultimately used the oxygen rich staged combustion technology, though not using the NK-33 engine. Fortunately the later RD-170 engine family shook the bad reputation, and are some of the most remarkable engines ever made.

 

[Dmytry]

Ahh, right. I mean, the engine design was obviously developed via stand testing, but the integration they had to test by flying it, expecting a number of failures.

 

[EllPeaTea]

Point of clarification: they couldn't do a static test of the N1 because the NK-15 engines used could only be fired once. The subsequent NK-33 engine resolved this issue but was never flown as part of the Soviet program because as you note the program was wound down (though it did fly on an American launcher decades later). Subsequent Soviet launchers like Zenit and Energia ultimately used the oxygen rich staged combustion technology, though not using the NK-33 engine. Fortunately the later RD-170 engine family shook the bad reputation, and are some of the most remarkable engines ever made.

The NK-33 engines were also recently used in the Soyuz 2.1v rocket (basically a single-stick variant). They used up the last of the engines earlier this year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_2.1v

 

[AbidingArs]

I think this question is on topic for this thread: today's Rocket Report says that the Bahamas have suspended all Falcon 9 rocket landings until the latest Starship incident is investigated - including an environmental assessment:

"No further clearances will be granted until a full environmental assessment is reviewed," Bahamian Director of Communications Latrae Rahming said.

How big of an impact is that to Falcon 9 launches? I'm not that familiar with Falcon 9's landing zones and which ones are needed for different launch profiles; does anyone have any insight?

 

[Ecmaster76]

I think they have landed in the Bahamas all of once not very long ago. Maybe a couple of times since?

It was a mix of promotion/tourism and maybe a small improvement in droneship return time but definitely not critical to SpaceX in the slightest

 

[MilleniX]

I thought it was about being able to land with full payload performance for an expanded set of launch azimuths. Otherwise, the first stage would need to dogleg on its return.

 

[EllPeaTea]

The Bahamas agreement lets SpaceX do certain south-west trajectories without needing to do a dog-leg around the Bahamas. This lets them put one or two more Starlinks on-board. It actually doesn’t speed up droneship return. On their first (and so far only) Bahamas landing it took the drone ship at least a day longer than usual to return.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

Boca Chica update dropped this morning. Looks like the increased cadence is fully approved - once the Flight 8 investigation is completed, anyway.

-----
Dear Interested Party:

The FAA is announcing the availability of the Tiered Environmental Assessment for Updates to Airspace Closures for the Flight 9 Mission Profile of the SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy Vehicle Increased Cadence at the SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas and associated license modification.

Environmental Assessment

Based on the safety analysis for Starship-Super Heavy Flight 9, an Aircraft Hazard Area and associated Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) would necessitate FAA to close airspace over a portion of the Bahamas and the Turks & Caicos Islands. This is an update to the existing operations involving the Starship/Super Heavy described in the April 2025 Tiered EA.

The FONSI/ROD was signed on May 15, 2025. An electronic version of the document is now available on the project website: https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship.

License Modification

SpaceX applied to the FAA to modify its existing vehicle operator license for the operation of the Starship-Super Heavy launch vehicle from its existing Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas. After completing an evaluation of all applicable 14 CFR Part 450 requirements, the FAA issued a modification of SpaceX’s vehicle operator license for launches of the Starship/Super Heavy in Cameron County, TX on May 15, 2025. The modification authorizes the Flight 9 mission profile of the Starship Super-Heavy.

While the FAA has issued a license modification for SpaceX’s proposed Flight 9 operation, the SpaceX-led mishap investigation for Starship-Super Heavy Flight 8 remains open. All mishap investigations are overseen by the FAA. SpaceX may not proceed with the proposed Flight 9 launch until the FAA either accepts the final mishap investigation report or the FAA issues a return to flight determination.

Please email SpaceXBocaChica@icf.com to be added to the project mailing list to receive future updates on this project.

For any media inquiries, please contact the FAA Press Office at pressoffice@faa.gov.

Thank you,

The FAA SpaceX Boca Chica Project Team

 

[1Zach1]

The FAA completed the Flight 8 safety review and cleared SpaceX for Flight9. Current NOTAM has NET 5/27 for the opening of the window, but with testing of Ship35 not sure what SpaceX will officially come out with for their window.

FAA Approves SpaceX Starship Vehicle Return to Flight

The FAA conducted a comprehensive safety review of the SpaceX Starship Flight 8 mishap and determined that the company has satisfactorily addressed the causes of the mishap, and therefore, the Starship vehicle can return to flight. The FAA will verify SpaceX implements all corrective actions.

The FAA’s determination of when a vehicle involved in a mishap can resume operations is based on public safety. When making this determination, the FAA considers several factors, including but not limited to, the nature of the mishap, the performance of vehicles safety-critical systems, and the generation of unplanned debris. Prior to making a return to flight determination, the FAA must find that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety or any other aspect of the operator’s license.

With the Starship vehicle return to flight determination, Starship Flight 9 is authorized for launch. The FAA finds SpaceX meets all of the rigorous safety, environmental and other licensing requirements.

More at the Source: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/statements/general-statements

 

[deadman12-4]

hhmmm.... investigation "closed" but spacex doesn't actually know what went wrong.....
Don't you miss the days of government regulation. Musk literally owns the faa, they cannot do what he doesn't like. If they do, he fires anyone who gets in his way.

 

[Ecmaster76]

The investigation isn't closed

The safety review of the mishap was completed. That portion doesn't require full RCA

 

[1Zach1]

My fault on the incorrect wording, I've updated my comment.

 

[1Zach1]

SpaceX has released both their report on Flight 8. Indicating the root cause was most likely a failure in one of the Raptor engines. They also conclude that it was a separate issue from Flight 7, and the fixes they put into place for harmonic issues worked.

The most probable root cause for the loss of Starship was identified as a hardware failure in one of the upper stage’s center Raptor engines that resulted in inadvertent propellant mixing and ignition. Extensive ground testing has taken place since the flight test to better understand the failure, including more than 100 long-duration Raptor firings at SpaceX’s McGregor test facility.

To address the issue on upcoming flights, engines on the Starship’s upper stage will receive additional preload on key joints, a new nitrogen purge system, and improvements to the propellant drain system. Future upgrades to Starship will introduce the Raptor 3 engine which will include additional reliability improvements to address the failure mechanism.

While the failure manifested at a similar point in the flight timeline as Starship’s seventh flight test, it is worth noting that the failures are distinctly different. The mitigations put in place after Starship’s seventh flight test to address harmonic response and flammability of the ship’s attic section worked as designed prior to the failure on Flight 8.

They also released the Flight 9 information. Looks to be mostly the same from Flight 8, though they plan on some changes for the Booster return which I don't remember them testing, but I could have just missed these objectives last time.

After the conclusion of the boostback burn, the booster will attempt to fly at a higher angle of attack during its descent. By increasing the amount of atmospheric drag on the vehicle, a higher angle of attack can result in a lower descent speed which in turn requires less propellant for the initial landing burn.

As well as a change to the engine startup for the Booster.

Finally, unique engine configurations will be demonstrated during the Super Heavy’s landing burn. One of the three center engines used for the final phase of landing will be intentionally disabled to gather data on the ability for a backup engine from the middle ring to complete a landing burn. The booster will then transition to only two center engines for the end of the landing burn, with shutdown occurring while still above the Gulf of America and the vehicle expected to make a hard splashdown.

Ship objectives seem the same as Flight 8, with Starlink simulators, in flight relight and adjustments to heat tiles.

 

[Ecmaster76]

I was just about to hit post!

 

[Zich]

I'll believe it when the 3rd try doesn't fail at the exact same point.

 

[NervousEnergy]

As long as it doesn't burn down, fall over, and sink into the swamp.

 

[BrangdonJ]

They also released the Flight 9 information. Looks to be mostly the same from Flight 8, though they plan on some changes for the Booster return which I don't remember them testing, but I could have just missed these objectives last time.

I think it's all new. They've decided to sacrifice this booster rather than catch it, and want to learn as much as possible from its demise.

 

[marshals]

Interesting that they're using blocked vents in the hot stage ring to control the separation flip direction of the booster. The IFT9 page says that previously the direction was random, whereas I thought the theory was they angled the booster grid fins in the ship engine exhaust flow to control the direction.

I guess it makes sense though—the grid fins would only come into play once physical separation had happened. TIL...

 

[Skoop]

They've decided to sacrifice this booster

Easier and less man/$ time than to scrap it.

They'll learn the same sensor data whether they ditch it or catch it; they only miss out on any teardown observation. But they've burned so many engines in flight and at test that the latter may not be as important as it once was.

 

[gregatron5]

Easier and less man/$ time than to scrap it.

Why spend money and be environmentally responsible when you can save money and just throw things in the sea?

 

[Skoop]

Said all the militaries and rocket companies ever.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

Why spend money and be environmentally responsible when you can save money and just throw things in the sea?

Anything particularly concerning you on the booster? Sinking structures as artificial reefs is pretty beneficial for sealife in many areas, including that portion of the Texas coast.

 

[BrangdonJ]

Easier and less man/$ time than to scrap it.

They'll learn the same sensor data whether they ditch it or catch it; they only miss out on any teardown observation. But they've burned so many engines in flight and at test that the latter may not be as important as it once was.

Not as as important as preserving the pad, certainly. At least some of the things they are testing are failure modes for late in the landing sequence. They say they expect the booster to make a "hard splashdown".

From SpaceX:
Finally, unique engine configurations will be demonstrated during the Super Heavy’s landing burn. One of the three center engines used for the final phase of landing will be intentionally disabled to gather data on the ability for a backup engine from the middle ring to complete a landing burn. The booster will then transition to only two center engines for the end of the landing burn, with shutdown occurring while still above the Gulf of America and the vehicle expected to make a hard splashdown.

I'm not sure whether this means will at least try for a soft sea landing and are trying to manage expectations for if that fails, with failure being quite likely, or whether they fully intend to destroy the booster regardless by shutting off the engines at high altitude. I suppose the latter works fine; they can simulate a tower catch at 500 ft above sea level instead of 0 ft, and maybe they'd rather the booster broke up.

 

[Skoop]

SX trying it again in about 20 minutes.

 

[Skoop]

Booster blew up when reentry burn started.

 

[gregatron5]

Ugh. Can't rewind the feed like you can on YouTube.

 

[Skoop]

Payload door won't open. Starlink simulators no yuo.

 

[Ecmaster76]

Ugh. Can't rewind the feed like you can on YouTube.

You can on a desktop browser at least

 

[gregatron5]

You can on a desktop browser at least

I am on desktop. Once I saw your post I figured out that I had to click the X icon to watch it there instead of from the SpaceX website. Now I can rewind.

 

[NervousEnergy]

Nice launch and got it into orbit... looks like she's tumbling now though.

 

[mboza]

"A little bit of a spin" according to the commentary. Looked to be spinning, and obviously leaking a trail of something, as soon as the sea level engines shut off, but the attitude display on the broadcast wasn't moving while the horizon did.

Still looks to be getting faster and faster

 

[UserJoe]

This should be the SpaceX theme song and video for starship launches.

 

[NervousEnergy]

Astounding that it held data and video transfer till it was under 90 KM and moving 26K. Spectacular shots.

Though I'm also very glad we didn't have this tech when Columbia didn't make it back. In the future with Starlink, if you lose control during re-entry, you'll die on live, real-time cam.

Edit: snippets of video with massive plasma streaming off of the ship at 70 km!

 

[Skoop]

obviously leaking a trail

These V2.0 ships have plumbing issues.

 

[Megalodon]

I see SpaceX has the in-flight explosion problem solved.