Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 06-19-2025 09:10 AM
Please use this topic to discuss the development of SpaceX's Starship and Super Heavy launch vehicle through its integrated flights tests 10 and onwards.
For discussion of the first nine test flights, see here.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 06-19-2025 09:13 AM
From SpaceX:
On Wednesday, June 18 at approximately 11 p.m. CT, the Starship preparing for the tenth flight test experienced a major anomaly while on a test stand at Starbase. A safety clear area around the site was maintained throughout the operation and all personnel are safe and accounted for.
Our Starbase team is actively working to safe the test site and the immediate surrounding area in conjunction with local officials. There are no hazards to residents in surrounding communities, and we ask that individuals do not attempt to approach the area while safing operations continue.
Video from NASA Spaceflight:
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 06-19-2025 03:32 PM
SpaceX release
Starship Static Fire Update
On Wednesday, June 18 at approximately 11 p.m. CT, the Starship preparing for the tenth flight test experienced an anomaly while on a test stand at Starbase.
After completing a single-engine static fire earlier this week, the vehicle was in the process of loading cryogenic propellant for a six-engine static fire when a sudden energetic event resulted in the complete loss of Starship and damage to the immediate area surrounding the stand. The explosion ignited several fires at the test site which remains clear of personnel and will be assessed once it has been determined to be safe to approach. Individuals should not attempt to approach the area while safing operations continue.
As is the case before any test, a safety zone was established around the test site and was maintained throughout the operation. There are no reported injuries, and all personnel are safe and accounted for.
There are no hazards to the surrounding communities in the Rio Grande Valley. Previous independent tests conducted on materials inside Starship, including toxicity analyses, confirm they pose no chemical, biological, or toxicological risks. SpaceX is coordinating with local, state, and federal agencies, as appropriate, on matters concerning environmental and safety impacts.
Engineering teams are actively investigating the incident and will follow established procedures to determine root cause. Initial analysis indicates the potential failure of a pressurized tank known as a COPV, or composite overwrapped pressure vessel, containing gaseous nitrogen in Starship's nosecone area, but the full data review is ongoing. There is no commonality between the COPVs used on Starship and SpaceX's Falcon rockets.
The SpaceX team would like to thank officials and residents in the surrounding Rio Grande Valley communities for their support, particularly first responders who have assisted since shortly after the anomaly took place.
issman1 Member
Posts: 1190 From: UK Registered: Apr 2005
posted 06-19-2025 03:40 PM
Is a rapid unscheduled disassembly of Starship ever considered failure or success by Musk?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 06-19-2025 05:02 PM
Musk takes it more seriously in another post:
Preliminary data suggests that a nitrogen COPV in the payload bay failed below its proof pressure.
If further investigation confirms that this is what happened, it is the first time ever for this design.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
The first grid fin for the next generation Super Heavy booster. The redesigned grid fins are 50% larger and higher strength, moving from four fins to three for vehicle control while enabling the booster to descend at higher angles of attack.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-15-2025 10:25 AM
SpaceX is targeting as early as Sunday (Aug. 24) for the tenth flight test of Starship from Starbase...
The FAA-required investigation of the SpaceX Starship Flight 9 mishap is closed. There are no reports of public injury or damage to public property. The FAA oversaw and accepted the findings of the SpaceX-led investigation. The final mishap report cites the probable root cause for the loss of the Starship vehicle as a failure of a fuel component. SpaceX identified corrective actions to prevent a reoccurrence of the event.
SpaceX can now proceed with Starship Flight 10 launch operations under its current license.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-24-2025 05:38 PM
From SpaceX:
Standing down from today's (Aug. 24) tenth flight of Starship to allow time to troubleshoot an issue with ground systems.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-25-2025 07:17 AM
SpaceX has re-targeted for today (Monday, Aug. 25) for its Flight 10 launch. The 60-minute test window opens at 6:30 p.m. CDT.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-25-2025 06:24 PM
From SpaceX:
Standing down from today's flight test attempt due to weather. Starship team is determining the next best available opportunity to fly.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-26-2025 08:26 AM
SpaceX will try again today (Tuesday, Aug. 26). The 60-minute test window opens at 6:30 p.m. CT.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-26-2025 07:39 PM
Flight 10 was a success!
Super Heavy made a soft water landing in the Gulf. Starship made it into its planned suborbital trajectory, demonstrated dummy Starlink deploy, relit a Raptor engine, made it through reentry despite purposeful stresses and made a pinpoint splashdown in the Indian Ocean.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3877 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 08-26-2025 07:57 PM
Yes, it would be mean-spirited not to call that a success, although I would love to know what caused that explosion in the engine bay. The picture of splashdown shows the engines lit, but the engine status indicator (bottom right) shows no engines lit. Perhaps that explosion disabled the telemetry between engines and status indicator?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-26-2025 08:12 PM
By "explosion," are you referring to the structural failure of part of the aft skirt?
Dan Huot attributed that to they having purposefully removed heat shield from that area as part of the overall stress test.
issman1 Member
Posts: 1190 From: UK Registered: Apr 2005
posted 08-27-2025 01:40 AM
Glad this latest flight test succeeded, as I really did not think it would.
Musk has no choice but to keep going with Starship having staked his future, SpaceX and that of American manned spaceflight on it. Anything less could lead to the rapid unscheduled disassembly of them all.
onesmallstep Member
Posts: 1535 From: Staten Island, New York USA Registered: Nov 2007
posted 08-27-2025 08:21 AM
I don't think you could say "...his future... and that of American manned spaceflight." There are many other US companies vying for contracts to support Artemis; crewed flights to LEO; and commercial space stations (Blue Origin, for example, is leading a consortium to develop the Blue Moon lander for Artemis).
The point is not having 'all your eggs in one basket' as was proven tragically with the Challenger accident. The fact that two companies (SpaceX and Boeing) were chosen for astronaut flights to ISS validates the rule that you provide another option (the problems with Starliner notwithstanding) for access to space.
GACspaceguy Member
Posts: 3219 From: Guyton, GA Registered: Jan 2006
posted 08-27-2025 10:15 AM
I would call this test flight a success (in flight issues in a test flight program are inevitable, thus the word test). I would think the next test flight to be sooner then they have been. Any discussions on when the next flight may take place?
issman1 Member
Posts: 1190 From: UK Registered: Apr 2005
posted 08-28-2025 07:25 AM
SpaceX seems to have more impetus and momentum than Blue Origin even though its MK2 lunar lander looks promising.
Having a back up is always a good idea but time is not on Bezos's side, if China is to be beaten, whereas Starship has flown and Musk is constantly promoting his vision for America's future in space.
onesmallstep Member
Posts: 1535 From: Staten Island, New York USA Registered: Nov 2007
posted 08-28-2025 08:20 AM
"..If China is to be beaten.." Well, that depends if a crewed lunar landing is made by the US before China.
Artemis II is well along for preparations for launch in the first quarter of 2026, so a crewed flight around the moon, the first since 1972, is certain to be made by American and Canadian astronauts.
We'll see how Starship and Blue Moon come along; I suspect there will be an earth orbital test for Blue Moon, like Apollo 9, to at least validate the hardware and procedures of a lunar mission. Of course, there are the unpredictable variables of funding, politics and hardware delays for any US flight.
issman1 Member
Posts: 1190 From: UK Registered: Apr 2005
posted 08-28-2025 01:10 PM
Besides the Artemis missions, Starship will serve different purposes — as a satellite launcher or free-flyer — therefore a clearcut advantage over Blue Moon and other systems.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-28-2025 01:47 PM
Both companies' architecture are designed to serve multiple purposes, including satellite deployment and cargo delivery.
But we're straying off topic: this thread is intended for the discussion of SpaceX's Starship test flights.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-28-2025 05:18 PM
SpaceX video
View of Starship landing burn and splashdown on Flight 10, made possible by SpaceX's recovery team.
Starship made it through reentry with intentionally missing tiles, completed maneuvers to intentionally stress its flaps, had visible damage to its aft skirt and flaps, and still executed a flip and landing burn that placed it approximately 3 meters from its targeted splashdown point.
randyc Member
Posts: 954 From: Highlands Ranch, CO USA Registered: May 2003
posted 08-28-2025 05:45 PM
I'm surprised there are no questions or comments regarding the orange color of the side of Starship.
Any ideas of why it's orange?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-28-2025 07:37 PM
According to Elon Musk:
The red color is from some metallic test tiles that oxidized and the white is from insulation of areas where we deliberately removed tiles.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 09-07-2025 01:47 PM
quote:Originally posted by GACspaceguy: Any discussions on when the next flight may take place?
Static fire complete for the Super Heavy booster preparing for Starship's eleventh flight test.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3877 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 09-08-2025 11:29 AM
And this will be the booster's second launch.
View of Starship landing burn and splashdown on Flight 10, made possible by SpaceX's recovery team.
Is there any known reason why SpaceX seem so coy about showing the end of the video when Starship (inevitably?) explodes on contact with the cold seawater? This is not the first time they have cut the video before an (inevitable?) explosion.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 09-08-2025 12:01 PM
They don't cut off the live feed, so the footage is available, but it is understandable why SpaceX wants to keep the attention on its success in achieving a soft vertical water landing.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3877 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 09-09-2025 12:33 PM
I don't disagree with you, but I think it's unnecessarily thin-skinned of SpaceX to be concerned that anyone who understands what they're doing would feel any less impressed because the Starship explodes on contact with cold water.
GACspaceguy Member
Posts: 3219 From: Guyton, GA Registered: Jan 2006
posted 09-09-2025 01:02 PM
quote:Originally posted by Blackarrow: anyone who understands what they're doing
That would be the issue, the average person does not know and would assume an explosion would be a failed system. No matter how it is explained to them otherwise.
I saw and read a number of articles on flight 8 and 9 calling them failures when in fact these test flights provided an abundance of flight data. While not all data points were made, calling the flights failure was not a good report.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3877 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 09-10-2025 10:52 AM
I don't think "the average person" would be watching this video. I saw it because I am registered with cS. It's probably difficult for those of us interested enough to seek out this video to determine what "the average person" would make of the explosion if they happen upon the video by chance.
I would like to think that an averagely-intelligent person, on seeing a spacecraft descending on a tail of fire into the ocean, would first note the precision of the manoeuvre, then realise that hot rocket-engines are not designed to enter cold water, and that when they do, an explosion is probably inevitable. I suppose the best way to test this would be to show the video (including the explosion) to an "average person" and ask their opinion.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 55210 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 09-10-2025 10:59 AM
This video was originally posted to the X social media network, where the target audience was most definitely the "average" or general member of the public. It was not as easily or widely accessible as a YouTube video, but only because SpaceX no longer uses any other platform but X.
But based on the email feedback I have gotten on the video, I almost guarantee you that the average watcher would no way equate the temperature of the water with the reason for an explosion. I won't repeat their complete misunderstanding of basic science, but suffice to say, were they to see an explosion, they would most likely assume a failure on the part of the rocket.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3877 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 09-10-2025 04:24 PM
Robert, we're both space enthusiasts. Does either of us really know whether the "average person" browsing on X would actually click on the SpaceX video and watch it all the way through to the end? I don't know, but I somehow doubt it.
But it's a moot point, as the video is available with or without the explosion, and for better or for worse, SpaceX apparently aren't overly keen on people seeing the explosion in case they think it means "failure." I just think that's a bit thin-skinned, but I understand the points you have made.
posted 06-19-2025 09:10 AM
advertisement