Topic: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)

[Nemesis]

IFT 8 has flown.  Good news and bad news.

Booster - launched all 33 engines, perfect separation.  Re-ignition only 11 of the 13 engines ignited (last time it was 12 of 13).  Second re-ignition 12 of 13 engines ignited (last time it was all 13).  Final re-ignition all 3 ignited and it was a 3rd perfect catch.

Starship - Separation perfect all 6 engines.  At about 8 minutes and 5 seconds they quickly lost one of the vacuum raptors and all 3 sea level engines (needed for attitude control).  It spun out of control and lost the last 2 engines before explosion (detonated or breakup I don't know).  It was about 20 seconds from planned engine shut off.

This may be a failed fix of the IFT 7 issue (but still improved as it lasted longer) or it may be something new.

On to IFT 9.  Previous prediction was April, will it happen then????

[Nemesis]

A Falcon 9 was relaunched only 9 days after landing, a new record speed.

[Nemesis]

IFT 9 will reuse booster 14 and 29 engines (+4 new engines for 33 total). One of those engines has already flown twice.  Rumours have it that there will be no attempt to catch it but no reason is given.  Could it be they are going to try for a Starship catch?  Perhaps booster 14 has damage that prevents a catch but not a launch?  It has had a static fire done this last week.

Still no date for the launch.  Perhaps mid to late May. 

[Tus-XC]

A starship test would be great, but I don't think that is the case.  Likely they don't want to risk the platform with damage should something go wrong with reuse. 

[Nemesis]

Part of the header tank for Starship 39 seems to be labelled "version 3".  So the question is, is that version 3 of that component or is Starship 39 the first Block 3 Starship? 

[Nemesis]

Starship 35 has been moved to the testing site where it should be having a static fire.  This (if no issues) might mean IFT 9 in as little as two weeks.

Update:  The static fire had already happened when I posted that.  It apparently had "issues" though SpaceX does not seem to have released any info.  With any luck they learned something useful to prevent repeating the loss of Starship on the prior two flights.  Worst case delays caused by repairs or scraping Ship 35 for Ship 36.

Amazons launch of one batch of Project Kuiper satellites (ULA Atlas 5 - very few left) has resulted in claims that they have only built 45 so far.  They need a bit more than 1600 in orbit by the end of July 2026.  So far it looks like there is only 1 more launch of Kuiper satellites in 2025 (on a Falcon 9).  They need ~60 launches by that July 2026 date or they risk losing their license.  I don't see New Glenn + Vulcan + Ariane 6 contributing substantially to those launches.  So Falcon 9 would be needed, can it add enough flights?  Will Starship take over launching Starlink by then and allow Falcon 9 to do those launches?  Will Starship launches supplant Falcon 9 launches enough to block Falcon 9 from doing those launches?  All up in the air and speculative at present.

[Nemesis]

IFT 9 is now listed as "May".  Rumours have it as ~21st.  Now the big thing is have the ironed out the cause of the last 2 RUDs? 

Parts are being seen with metal heat tiles with what looks like active cooling. 

A ring section was just scrapped with what is being speculated to be components to hook up a fuel tanker to a Starship (or fuel depot) in orbit for refuelling. 

Update:  Starship 35 has had a 60 second static fire and Super Heavy 14 has been (by now) moved to Launch Pad A presumably for its static fire.  14 is a previously flown booster with reused engines (1 twice flown). 

The mobile launch mount (all 1100 tons) was also taken to Pad B and installed.  Still a lot of work I'm sure to hook everything up. 


Update :  Date seems to have slipped to the 22nd.

Update :  Date seems to have slipped to the Mon 26th.

Update :  Date seems to have slipped to the Tue 27th.

Update :  FAA has now approved the launch.

[Nemesis]

They have identified the issue with not all the booster engines relighting (and at times one will fail the 1st relight but make the 2nd), overheating igniters, they have added insulation.

The issues with flight 7 and 8 were different and the corrections for flight 7 appear to have worked. 

Flight 9 booster will "land" in the Gulf because they are trying a different angle on the descent to increase drag and result in lower velocity at reignition resulting in less fuel usage (so more can be used to boost Starship).  It will be a reused booster (#14) with mostly reused engines (29?) with probably one on its 3rd flight (haven't heard an update since 1 engine was replaced). 

The hot staging ring has some vents blocked off to cause the booster to tip in a predictable manner on separation rather than randomly as it has been doing. 

[Nemesis]

IFT 9 is fuelling up.  Looks good for launch so far ~ T -20 minutes.

[Nemesis]

IFT 9 did fly.  Loss of both booster and 2nd stage.

All 33 engines (29 reused 1 of those on its 3rd flight)

The booster used their more aggressive attitude on return.  This may be the cause of the RUD when the engines were ignited.  The modified hot staging ring appears to have "flipped" the booster in the correct direction which will allow fuel savings on future flights as they don't have to waste fuel reorienting. Only 12 of the engines ignited, possibly the engine that didn't light up may have been the cause of failure.

2nd Stage managed the full engine burn (unlike IFT 7 and 8 ).  The venting of fuel (full fuel carried but not needed) resulted in a spin, looks like they had some uncontrolled fuel leaks.  Ice (or maybe dry ice?) was seen floating in the cargo area.  The cargo door failed to open, whether this was because of a cut off due to the spin or inability to open was not clear. 

IFT 10 is being predicted for June and Musk has claimed that it can now launch every three weeks. 

It also seems clear that the new tower can't be used with the current generation of vehicle so they may as well go ahead with using up the remaining 1st gen boosters and engines for testing.

The high bay is now down and construction should soon begin on its larger (in area not so much in height) successor.

Musk also claims a 50% chance of a Mars shot in 2026 and specifies 5 landers (Starship = Lander) and 10 tons of cargo per ship.  Knowing Musk this is more likely a 5% chance so don't hold your breath.

For 2028-2029 he predicts 20 landers each with 75 tons of cargo.  Seems a little too ambitious to be likely.  He does have later predictions but until he actually launches 1 to Mars these "forecasts" are just guesswork as far as I can tell.

[Nemesis]

The Trump nomination of Jarred Isaccman for head of NASA has been withdrawn.  Apparently he is not personally loyal enough to Trump to hold such a position.

[Nemesis]

Blue Origin is living up to their history of announce and delay.  The launches for this spring and summer have all been delayed to September and beyond.  I expect further delays.  No New Glenn launches this year wouldn't surprise me, neither would ONE more this year. 

[Nemesis]

IFT 10 Booster 16, Ship 36.

Sun • Jun 29th, 2025, 7:30 PM - 8:30 PM EDT

Subject to change of course.

New Glenn currently has the 2nd flight scheduled for September.  Not betting on it achieving another launch this year.  Not at this time willing to bet against it either. 

[Nemesis]

IFT 10 will be delayed.

Starship 36 had an "incident" during a static fire.  Something burst higher up (the line down from the header tanks may have burst) followed by an explosion.  Starship 36 was destroyed.  No personnel injuries (and everyone accounted for).  Damage likely to the test stand. 

Unless something went wrong in the filling procedure and over pressured the system this would seem to be either a manufacturing flaw or a design flaw.   At this point I'm guessing procedural flaw resulting in an over pressure. 

So the naysayers finally have their explosion destroying a Starship on the ground (but only a Starship not a full stack).  It would have been much worse if it had been a booster.  Boca Chica survived unlike the naysayers predictions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71AwkBt3_ts

More as I learn more.

Elon Musk has indicated that a COPV Nitrogen tank failed BELOW its designed pressure use.  I am not totally sure but I think these are not made by SpaceX themselves. 

More as data is released.

EDIT:  The failed COPV?  It was NOT the correct COPV and failed as it was not designed to the same standards for pressure (and maybe capacity) as the correct one.  How this happened is not yet explained.

It does appear that SpaceX custom builds their own COPVs. 

[Nemesis]

There are some indicators that while cleaning up the test site they will use an adapter and a transport stand mounted on the OLM to do the static fires for the next Starship.  Typical SpaceX, can't use the test site so lets use the launch site.  Lets hope they have no "incidents"?

This could potentially allow a July launch.