SpaceX’s eighth orbital test flight of Starship/Superheavy ends like the seventh flight
Starship just before loss of signal
Today’s eighth orbital test flight of SpaceX’s Starship/Superheavy giant rocket has turned out to be almost identical to the seventh flight, with Superheavy completing its mission with a perfect chopstick catch at the launch tower in Boca Chica and Starship failing just before engine shutdown that would have put it into its orbit.
The screen capture to the right shows that moment. Note that graphic on the far lower right. It indicates that only two of the outside engines are firing, in an asymmetrical configuration. As a result Starship began tumbling, as shown by the fact that the Earth is not visible in the background. Shortly thereafter contact was lost, and I expect the flight termination system took over to destroy the ship. Expect videos from the Caribbean of it burning up overhead in the next day or so.
Superheavy however completed the third ever capture by the launch tower chopsticks. Musk has indicated that the company is pushing to reuse a Superheavy booster as soon as possible. The lose of Starship and the fact that two Superheavy engines shut down prematurely during the boost-back burn after stage separation likely delays that reuse at least one or two test flights. First, this Superheavy had issues, that might be solvable but they nonetheless exist.
More important, the loss of Starship just before its orbital coast once again means SpaceX was unable to do any of its orbital and return test program. It will not make sense to risk the next Starship flight with a used Superheavy when testing Starship has now been delayed twice.
Nor does it matter much. It will take many more launches before this rocket is reliably reusable. The first priority now is to make it more reliable on its first launches. Expect SpaceX to target the next test flight for sometime in mid- to-late April.
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Starship just before loss of signal
Today’s eighth orbital test flight of SpaceX’s Starship/Superheavy giant rocket has turned out to be almost identical to the seventh flight, with Superheavy completing its mission with a perfect chopstick catch at the launch tower in Boca Chica and Starship failing just before engine shutdown that would have put it into its orbit.
The screen capture to the right shows that moment. Note that graphic on the far lower right. It indicates that only two of the outside engines are firing, in an asymmetrical configuration. As a result Starship began tumbling, as shown by the fact that the Earth is not visible in the background. Shortly thereafter contact was lost, and I expect the flight termination system took over to destroy the ship. Expect videos from the Caribbean of it burning up overhead in the next day or so.
Superheavy however completed the third ever capture by the launch tower chopsticks. Musk has indicated that the company is pushing to reuse a Superheavy booster as soon as possible. The lose of Starship and the fact that two Superheavy engines shut down prematurely during the boost-back burn after stage separation likely delays that reuse at least one or two test flights. First, this Superheavy had issues, that might be solvable but they nonetheless exist.
More important, the loss of Starship just before its orbital coast once again means SpaceX was unable to do any of its orbital and return test program. It will not make sense to risk the next Starship flight with a used Superheavy when testing Starship has now been delayed twice.
Nor does it matter much. It will take many more launches before this rocket is reliably reusable. The first priority now is to make it more reliable on its first launches. Expect SpaceX to target the next test flight for sometime in mid- to-late April.
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
The engine-outs notwithstanding, they’re clearly getting very good with the booster. Always flawless right through stage separation; every attempt to catch has been a success.
But Starship V2 doing a RUD both times it has launched is, as Eric Berger just put it, “clearly a setback.” Impossible to quarterback right now from the outside with no real information to play with. But I expect some tense meetings behind close doors at Starbase.
Does it help if ship is launched by itself from Boca? Have it go up and then return to the tower? The idea to get the engines working perfectly before another boosted flight.
Steve, I take it you are talking about Starship. That is a good question. SpaceX has tested the Starships before. Not counting the hoppers, I believe they had ten Starship models that were used for testing and landing. I believe four of those prototypes were damaged or destroyed. I am positive I will be corrected on the model numbers.
What is the difference now between those models and the last three? They are being tested with the Super Heavy Booster at a high velocity and there are some changes to the wings (some people say canards) on the front of Starship. One other difference, the now Starship has six raptor engines; three of them are just like the ones on the Super Heavy Booster and the other three at the center are the vacuum rated engines that are gimbaled.
Richard M, yep, I expect Musk will be spending slightly less time in Washington and more time in Boca Chica and Hawthorne. Another “all hands on deck” situation.
An initial impression was that there was progress between flight 7 and 8, but now it looks to me like no progress at all.
This looks like a definite setback.
Looked like the engine problems took place 8+05 after launch when the first 3 went out. 4th out a few seconds later. 5 out 9+10. Ship started tumbling somewhere around then. Telemetry out 9+14 or so. At least 3 tumbles before telemetry out.
Thought they would figure out how to recover Booster first because they’ve been doing it with Falcon 9 for years. Of course that was before they decided on catching it rather than landing it.
Thought Ship would be more difficult, though at the time I thought it would be reentry issues. Sadly, last two flights they never got to reentry. Problems took place in the engine compartment or just above it in the attic. Wondering if the fix is to chuck Block 2 and go to Block 3 +Raptor 3 engines. They both are in the pipeline. Unknown how painful it will be to move them up in the flow. Should be an interesting month. Cheers –
There’s a demon lurking in Starship. They didn’t catch him first time. Looking forward to result of investigation.
I’m not sure that Elon being present will make any difference. The changes for Flight 8 would have been decided weeks ago and the rest is process.
Demon lurking indeed. I think I have a slightly different take on the problem then agimac.
Seems like problems started to with Block 2 Ship airframe & plumbing. Wonder if they have, on Block 2 airframes, a piping flow and throughput problems that they did not have with Block 1 airframes and piping. I DO like the idea of going to Raptor 3 engines to reduce pipe joints and flange issues.
I wonder if you could take a Block 1 ship, take the nose section with straight forward flaps off and put on a Block 2 nose with clocked forward flaps. If I were flight test, I would recommend going with Raptor 3 engines on the Frakenship.
Seems like Ship is designed in sections to help facilitate this kind of experimentation.
Agree with Steve and Jay. Always wondered why they did not fly Ship alone for incremental testing.
I was really hoping for success so that the pace could be further increased. Gotta get to orbital refueling.
Mike Borgelt: Would that be Muskwell’s Demon?
Re: Super Heavy
I thought it interesting that on the first re-ignition after separation, two adjacent Raptors failed to light, but the second re-ignition saw one of those two light up.
Although, since it worked it’s far less interesting than whatever went wrong with Starship.
I have been wondering if someone will sabotage something because they disagree with Musk’s politics or DOGE efforts.
I thought test 8 was easier to follow; and things went farther with the tumbling being the clear bad sign. At the end I thought I heard a callout “FTS has entered safe mode.”
The thought has occurred to others over the last day. But I think that it would be very difficult to pull off and get away with it. SpaceX has cameras absolutely everywhere at Starbase, including all over the vehicles, too.
I don’t know what the failure mode was this time, and yes, this was a significant setback. But I kinda liked what Jonathan McDowell had to say last night:
https://x.com/planet4589/status/1897822768105656790
I’m wondering about transonic/Max Q turbulence with the grid fins. Difficult to simulate turbulent flow drag very close to the second stage engines, the center of the assembly, and the junction between sections. There might be some interesting harmonics which were not accounted for.
From the Space Affairs video of the launch:
8+05 – at least 3 engines out
8+07 – exterior view of a rear flap. Video shows a visible flash offscreen to the right below the bottom of the flap. Flash flickers a few times. Never goes away. Ship immediately starts tumbling.
8+15 – View along the body of Ship shows vapor and debris out of the bottom right of Ship similar to screen capture by RZ above of debris 8+27. Ship is still tumbling.
From here, looks like a quick massive leak that ignited and may have even detonated.
I’m always a fan of aerospace vehicles that have explosions and continue to fly at least for a while. Their structures guys designed a pretty tough beast. Plumbers still have problems. My guess is they will have enough data to figure out what happened and address it. Wondering if one of the reasons for the hold / destack Mon and delay on Fri were ship problems. Cheers –
Jay, just a nit: “…the now Starship has six raptor engines; three of them are just like the ones on the Super Heavy Booster and the other three at the center are the vacuum rated engines that are gimbaled.”
I believe that the three center engines with the smaller bells are sea-level like on the booster, and are gimballed. The three outer engines are vacuum engines and have large bells, and are not gimballed.
I hate Dad jokes, but credit where it’s due: Nice one, Patrick.
Ray,
Thank you for the correction. I knew I had a piece of information wrong in that post!
Is the fuel used by Starship simply more explode prone than that of other space vehicles? A RUD while in orbit would be a catastrophe in terms of the resulting debris. Yet, a working Starship will fire its engines until it reaches orbit, cut the engines off, do its work of dispensing the cargo into orbit, then use the remaining fuel to fire the engines and return to Earth.
Don’t other space countries and space companies have a case to make that SpaceX should not be allowed to put Starship into orbit because of the risk of an engine explosion which scatters debris, making it impossible for other satellites to operate safely?
( I asked Grok. It says SpaceX has a record of operating safely. https://x.com/i/grok/share/4pCTjhzUfKajk5aInuXnOO7Xz )
SpaceX is being judged by their own standard. Which is a miraculous, almost magical standard – they’ve made the impossible an every other day normal. Before Apr ’23, who would have put money on less than 2 failures in 3 launches? Twice in a row is the norm in the rocket business, by companies that don’t design-on-the-fly.
So who’s betting against Elon having the whole system working, w/Raptor 3 engines, by year end?
Not me.
“Don’t other space countries and space companies have a case to make that SpaceX should not be allowed to put Starship into orbit because of the risk of an engine explosion which scatters debris, making it impossible for other satellites to operate safely?”
Plenty of other upper stages and satellites have exploded on orbit. Is anyone else going to guarantee that their vehicle won’t?
Silly argument.
Ok, I’ll steelman the argument. Starship — that is, the upper stage — is also the largest, heaviest mass upper stage that has ever been flown, and by a pretty wide margin. So when a stage that big blows up, it’s producing a lot more debris than your typical medium or heavy lift rocket upper stage.
And it has to be said, SpaceX takes the steelman argument seriously. They understand that they’re testing a rocket upper stage that’s an orbital debris danger, and indeed, a ground debris danger, too, in a way that no one else’s rocket is. Being responsible orbital operators, they’re working to get Starship to a reliable enough state before they take the step of putting it into an orbit. (I don’t want to get into the whole “Has Starship gone to orbit” debate. I think it has, but in a qualified manner. It also is beside the point here.)
But once they’ve demonstrated reasonably that they have done this, then they have the right to move to a full orbital launch plan. And I have every confidence that they will.
BTW, Scott Manley has an analysis video up now for Flight 8, and Scott Manley is always worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJCjGt7jUkU&ab_channel=ScottManley
Granted, of course, that he doesn’t have access to most of the information that SpaceX engineers have. His speculations are usually very well educated speculations, but one must bear that in mind.
SpaceX has noted in its posts on Flight 7 and Flight 8 that a harmonic resonance was part of the issue with Starship. Basically, one part of the ship is vibrating at the same frequency, or a multiple, as the resonant frequency of another part. The ship 8 static fire ran for almost a full minute, and was apparently designed to test a number of scenarios for harmonic resonance. Looks like “more testing is needed.”
Harmonic resonance is a serious issue! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqqyAZDpV6c
To Mike Borgelt
“I’m not sure that Elon being present will make any difference. The changes for Flight 8 would have been decided weeks ago and the rest is process.”
It could make things worse—it is hard to do work with somebody standing over you–for good or ill.
The “bathtub curve” as it is called—should be flattening out by now.
it isn’t.
A similar engine-bell loss—on Titan II
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62497.msg2670312#msg2670312
Sound suppression
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GzoUkveLyDI