SpaceX confirms 9th test flight of Starship/Superheavy now scheduled for May 27, 2025
Starship/Superheavy on March 6, 2025 at T-41 seconds
SpaceX has now confirmed May 27, 2025 as the launch date for the ninth test flight of Starship/Superheavy out of its Starbase spaceport at Boca Chica.
The launch window opens at 6:30 pm (Central), with the live stream beginning 30 minutes earlier. The flight will attempt to refly the Superheavy booster used on flight seven. To push the booster’s limits, it will test “off-nominal scenarios” upon return, requiring for safety that it land in the Gulf of Mexico and not be recaptured by the chopsticks. (Just as I don’t change names or my language willy-nilly because leftists demand it, I won’t play Trump’s name-changing game here. The Gulf of Mexico was given that name more than two centuries ago, most likely by the early Spanish explorers, and that name has been good enough since.)
Starship meanwhile attempt the same test profile planned for the previous two flights but stymied by the failure of the spacecraft before reaching orbit. It will test a Starlink satellite deployment system, do a relight of one of its Raptor engines, and test its thermal ability to survive re-entry.
The company also released a report describing the results of its investigation into the previous launch failure on March 6, 2025.
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.
There has been a lot of speculation by armchair engineers about the previous two failures, mostly focused on the issue of harmonics and vibration. This report indicates that was not the problem of the eighth flight, and had actually been resolved. If so, the odds of this ninth flight flying to completion are good.
This announcement coincides with the FAA’s issuance of a launch license late yesterday. As I predicted, unlike during the Biden administration the FAA quickly accepted SpaceX’s submitted investigation and issued the license, rather than spending one to three months retyping it. It is very clear the slow-walking effort during Biden has ended under Trump.
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/Superheavy on March 6, 2025 at T-41 seconds
SpaceX has now confirmed May 27, 2025 as the launch date for the ninth test flight of Starship/Superheavy out of its Starbase spaceport at Boca Chica.
The launch window opens at 6:30 pm (Central), with the live stream beginning 30 minutes earlier. The flight will attempt to refly the Superheavy booster used on flight seven. To push the booster’s limits, it will test “off-nominal scenarios” upon return, requiring for safety that it land in the Gulf of Mexico and not be recaptured by the chopsticks. (Just as I don’t change names or my language willy-nilly because leftists demand it, I won’t play Trump’s name-changing game here. The Gulf of Mexico was given that name more than two centuries ago, most likely by the early Spanish explorers, and that name has been good enough since.)
Starship meanwhile attempt the same test profile planned for the previous two flights but stymied by the failure of the spacecraft before reaching orbit. It will test a Starlink satellite deployment system, do a relight of one of its Raptor engines, and test its thermal ability to survive re-entry.
The company also released a report describing the results of its investigation into the previous launch failure on March 6, 2025.
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.
There has been a lot of speculation by armchair engineers about the previous two failures, mostly focused on the issue of harmonics and vibration. This report indicates that was not the problem of the eighth flight, and had actually been resolved. If so, the odds of this ninth flight flying to completion are good.
This announcement coincides with the FAA’s issuance of a launch license late yesterday. As I predicted, unlike during the Biden administration the FAA quickly accepted SpaceX’s submitted investigation and issued the license, rather than spending one to three months retyping it. It is very clear the slow-walking effort during Biden has ended under Trump.
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 Gulf as we Texans call it has been called the Gulf of Mexico off and on for nearly 500 years. The name was recorded multiple different ways for about half that period of time. If Trump had only named it Gulf of the Americas it would have been more fitting.
There is actually more coastline on the US part than on the Mexican part. Besides who wants to name it after a failed State?
Gulf of the Americas is wrong because it has nothing to do with South America at all. Gulf of the United States would be OK.
Interesting that of all the countries in the Americas the United States of America is the only one mentioning the word “America”.
I guess I don’t understand the big deal about the Gulf of America name. If Mexico wants to keep calling it the Gulf of Mexico, they can and the US can call it the Gulf of America. There is a narrow body of water between England and France. England calls it “the English Channel” and France calls it “La Manche” which translates to “the sleeve” in English, not “the English Channel”. Why can’t Mexico and the US have different names for this body of water?