Starship's eighth flight was a lot like its seventh.
SpaceX launched the eighth test flight of its Starship megarocket today (March 6), sending the 403-foot-tall (123 meters) vehicle aloft from its Starbase site in South Texas at 6:30 p.m. EST (2330 GMT; 5:30 p.m. local Texas time).
Seven minutes later, Starship's huge first-stage booster, known as Super Heavy, returned to Starbase for a dramatic catch by the launch tower's "chopstick" arms. It was the third time that SpaceX has demonstrated this jaw-dropping technique.
Starship's 171-foot-tall (52-meter-tall) upper stage — called Starship, or just "Ship" — kept flying, heading southeast toward the Atlantic Ocean. The Flight 8 plan called for Ship to deploy four payloads — dummy versions of SpaceX's Starlink internet satellites — on its suborbital trajectory about 17.5 minutes after liftoff before coming in for a controlled splashdown in the Indian Ocean off of Western Australia roughly 50 minutes later.
That didn't happen, however. Several of Ship's six Raptor engines conked out toward the end of its ascent burn, and the vehicle began to tumble. SpaceX lost contact with Ship about nine minutes into the flight, and it presumably detonated high in the sky shortly thereafter.
Today's results mirrored those of Starship Flight 7, which launched on Jan. 16. SpaceX pulled off a Super Heavy chopsticks catch on that day as well, and it lost Ship at about the same point in the mission.
"Obviously a lot to go through, a lot to dig through, and we're going to go right at it," SpaceX's Dan Huot said during live launch commentary today after Ship was lost. "We have some more to learn about this vehicle."
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
Spectators in the Bahamas spotted debris from Starship upper stage falling back to Earth in a fiery light show as the Ship vehicle broke apart.
Related: SpaceX catches Super Heavy booster on Starship Flight 7 test but loses upper stage (video, photos)
Starship Die Cast Rocket Model Now $47.99 on Amazon.
If you can't see SpaceX's Starship in person, you can score a model of your own. Standing at 13.77 inches (35 cm), this is a 1:375 ratio of SpaceX's Starship as a desktop model. The materials here are alloy steel and it weighs just 225g.
SpaceX traced the Flight 7 anomaly to "a harmonic response several times stronger in flight than had been seen during testing, which led to increased stress on hardware in the propulsion system," the company wrote in a Feb. 24 update. That stress caused propellant leaks, which in turn triggered "sustained fires."
(The SpaceX-led investigation into the mishap is ongoing, but the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration recently gave the company permission to launch Flight 8 after completing a safety review.)
SpaceX took steps to minimize the chances that the problem would recur on Flight 8. For example, it conducted an extra-long 60-second "static fire" test with Flight 8's Ship, a sustained trial that "informed hardware changes to the fuel feedlines to vacuum engines, adjustments to propellant temperatures, and a new operating thrust target," SpaceX wrote in last month's update.
"Additional vents and a new purge system utilizing gaseous nitrogen are being added to the current generation of ships to make the area more robust to propellant leakage," the company added.
During operational missions, SpaceX plans to bring both Super Heavy and Ship back to Starbase for launch-tower catches. This strategy will reduce the time between launches for the fully reusable rocket, which SpaceX aims to fly multiple times per day.
So, prior to today's launch, the company made some modifications to help facilitate a future Ship chopsticks catch. For example, SpaceX removed some heat-shield tiles from the Flight 8 upper stage to stress-test certain vulnerable areas.
"Multiple metallic tile options, including one with active cooling, will test alternative materials for protecting Starship during reentry," SpaceX wrote in a Flight 8 mission description. "On the sides of the vehicle, non-structural versions of Starship's catch fittings are installed to test the fittings' thermal performance, along with a section of the tile line receiving a smoothed and tapered edge to address hot spots observed during reentry on Starship’s sixth flight test."
In addition, the company tested radar sensors on the Starbase launch tower during Flight 8, "with the goal of increasing the accuracy when measuring distances between the chopsticks and a returning vehicle."
It's too soon to say what went wrong on Flight 8, so it's unclear what further changes SpaceX may make going forward.
Related: Explosion of Starship Flight 7 traced to fires in rocket's 'attic,' SpaceX says
SpaceX believes Starship's combination of immense power and full reusability will make Mars settlement — a long-held goal of company founder and CEO Elon Musk — economically feasible.
The rocket flew in a fully stacked configuration for the first time in April 2023. It flew twice that year and four times in 2024. We should expect another boost in cadence this year, perhaps a dramatic one; SpaceX has requested approval for 25 Starship launches from Starbase in 2025.
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Michael Wall is a Senior Space Writer with Space.com and joined the team in 2010. He primarily covers exoplanets, spaceflight and military space, but has been known to dabble in the space art beat. His book about the search for alien life, "Out There," was published on Nov. 13, 2018. Before becoming a science writer, Michael worked as a herpetologist and wildlife biologist. He has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from the University of Sydney, Australia, a bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz. To find out what his latest project is, you can follow Michael on Twitter.
-
msunderl This is still a test program, and will be for a few years. To quote Elon Musk, "If you're not breaking things, you are not trying hard enough."Reply -
Unclear Engineer It is odd that the last 2 flights resulted in Ship failing at almost exactly the same point in its fight program, after several previous flights went well past that part of the program and landed essentially intact in the Indian Ocean.Reply
Did the version of Raptor rocket motor change for these last 2 flight tests? -
TEAMSWITCHER People marveled at the success of the Apollo program landing humans on the Moon. I think it's high time we marveled at the Space Shuttle program as well. Every Space Shuttle was unique but had a successful first flight .. into orbit .. completing a mission with a runway landing and recovery. Every first flight also had Astronauts on board! Truly amazing engineering.Reply
SpaceX is flailing with Starship, not one of them has been a complete success. While they managed to soft land in the ocean, the damage they incurred from their heat-shield probably would have made any normal landing and recovery difficult at best and a complete failure at worst.
Starship is not maturing to become a more reliable and reusable Space Shuttle ... It's a mess. -
TEAMSWITCHER
Yea.. that wasn't the motto of the Apollo program... So cope harder!msunderl said:This is still a test program, and will be for a few years. To quote Elon Musk, "If you're not breaking things, you are not trying hard enough." -
Unclear Engineer The Space Shuttle also killed 14 astronauts, many more than any other program - mainly due to issues that were "calculated away" that really did not physically go away.Reply
And we lost 3 astronauts to a cabin fire while in a capsule being tested on the ground before any Apollo mission ever launched. And Apollo 13 came very close to killing 3 more astronauts.
Testing has its purposes.
And Apollo did some testing of components in LEO, including the LEM, before embarking on the first lunar mission, which did not land on the Moon.
So, please don't try to claim that other development programs went off without a hitch.
The SpaceX StarShip program is in development phase, not even operational testing of a design that is expected to succeed on all parameters. Things are being pushed specifically to see where and how they fail. No astronauts are being risked.
All that said, it still bothers me, and I expect that it bothers the SpaceX engineers, that the last 2 flight of StarShip failed in much the same way, far earlier in the flight than previous missions. Hopefully, the extra cameras and sensors on flight 8 will reveal what is going wrong that did not go wrong before. -
FatBear The version 2 ship was designed to fly on a version 2 booster and to be propelled by Raptor3 engines. They have been using "adapted" Raptor2 engines because Raptor3 is not ready yet. That probably means they are a bit of a kludge. And their adaptations have certainly not been put through the grueling testing that the original Rapter2 engines were put through. Also, I would imagine that there is probably some different connection mechanism between booster and ship, so the HSR is probably also functioning as a temporary adapter - essentially another kludge. The gyrations they went through with the HSR on this flight suggests they are struggling with that very thing. Kludges aren't necessarily bad in a prototyping environment, but they are by their nature likely to introduce additional failure modes and increase the probability of what we've seen during these first two flights of the V2 ship. I doubt that you'll see significant improvement in V2 reliability until it is mated to the engines and booster that it was designed for. In the mean time, I'm sure they are learning and improving with every flight, even though it looks bad from out here in the audience.Reply -
DanaBspaced
Beginning with the previous flight I am beginning to lose a bit of patience and respect for the Starship team. Harmonic effects as a possible cause of the previous failure probably should have been modeled, and maybe they were, incorrectly.msunderl said:This is still a test program, and will be for a few years. To quote Elon Musk, "If you're not breaking things, you are not trying hard enough."
To turn right around and lose another Starship under similar circumstances is kinda unacceptable.
Good thing Elon has his thumb on the FAA. Heck, they probably won't even investigate this failure... if they want a job. -
DanaBspaced
It bothers me. Their thinking feels to me as if they are too accepting of failure, and not trying hard enough to succeed.Unclear Engineer said:The Space Shuttle also killed 14 astronauts, many more than any other program - mainly due to issues that were "calculated away" that really did not physically go away.
And we lost 3 astronauts to a cabin fire while in a capsule being tested on the ground before any Apollo mission ever launched. And Apollo 13 came very close to killing 3 more astronauts.
Testing has its purposes.
And Apollo did some testing of components in LEO, including the LEM, before embarking on the first lunar mission, which did not land on the Moon.
So, please don't try to claim that other development programs went off without a hitch.
The SpaceX StarShip program is in development phase, not even operational testing of a design that is expected to succeed on all parameters. Things are being pushed specifically to see where and how they fail. No astronauts are being risked.
All that said, it still bothers me, and I expect that it bothers the SpaceX engineers, that the last 2 flight of StarShip failed in much the same way, far earlier in the flight than previous missions. Hopefully, the extra cameras and sensors on flight 8 will reveal what is going wrong that did not go wrong before.
Is it cheaper to build another Starship, and blow it up, rather than do more thorough testing and modeling? -
VladOk if von Braun instead of making Apollos had been actively doing something else :) then people would have flown to the Moon very soon.Reply
I'm afraid we won't fly to Mars very soon :)
Our only hope is ULA. Hello, Moon! -
Tercius
This is not a test program, it's just a waste of money with off-the-shelf technology. Any program in the past with 8 failures would have been discarded.msunderl said:This is still a test program, and will be for a few years. To quote Elon Musk, "If you're not breaking things, you are not trying hard enough."