The timing of the Flight 8 failure was similar to Flight 7 in January, which also featured several engine shutdowns and a loss of communications about eight and a half minutes after liftoff. However, SpaceX says the two failures had different causes.

“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 company stated.

In the case of Flight 8, SpaceX said one of the center Raptor engines in Starship suffered a hardware failure, details of which the company did not disclose. That failure enabled “inadvertent propellant mixing and ignition” that caused the loss of the Raptor. Immediately thereafter, the other two center Raptor engines shut down, along with one of the three outer vacuum-optimized engines with larger nozzles. The vehicle then lost control authority.

The company said it made changes to the Raptors in the Starship upper stage, with “additional preload” on key joints and a new nitrogen purge system as well as improvements to the propellant drain system. A future version of Raptor in development will also have reliability improvements to address the problem seen on Flight 8.

On Flight 7 in January, SpaceX, said the vehicle suffered a harmonic response several times stronger than expected, creating additional stress on the vehicle’s propulsion system. That caused leaks that triggered a fire in the engine bay.

“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,” SpaceX said.

  • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    You’re overlooking the fact that this development is a side project for them. While they’re designing this rocket, their other rocket is in operational use and has the best success rate of any rocket of its scale in history, and they’d already be considered hugely successful if they never did anything innovative ever again.

    They’re also trying to do something far more difficult than the Saturn 5, in at least two ways. Nobody has ever tried to land a rocket anywhere near as large as either of the stages of this system, and on top of that they’re trying to come up with a design which is cheap to operate, which wasn’t remotely on the cards during the Apollo program.

      • ptfrd@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Thunderfoot

        The guy who had a whole video about how Falcon 9 reusability would never work, and then quietly deleted it when proved badly wrong?

        I’d stick with Destin if I were you …