"Unplanned Dismantling"

NASASpaceflight.com

🚨BREAKING NEWS🚨 SpaceX has provided an update on what went wrong during Starship Flight 8 on March 6th, 2025. The following provides some excerpts from this update, the full update is linked in the comments. 👇
For Booster 15's Boostback burn, only 11 our of 13 Raptor engines ignited, while 12 out of the 13 planned ignited for the Landing Burn, which was followed by a successful catch of the booster by the Chopsticks at the launch and catch tower at Starbase. The most probable cause for engines not relighting during the boostback and landing burn phases was traced to torch ignition issues on the individual engines caused by thermal conditions local to the igniter. Post-flight testing was able to replicate the issue and engines on future flights will have additional insulation as mitigation.
Approximately five and a half minutes into Starship 34's ascent burn, a flash was observed in the aft section of the vehicle near one of the center Raptor sea level engines followed by an energetic event that resulted in the loss of the engine. Immediately after, the remaining two center Raptor engines and one of the Raptor vacuum engines shut down and vehicle control authority was lost.
Starship flew within a designated launch corridor to safeguard the public both on the ground, on water, and in the air. All debris came down within the pre-planned Debris Response Area, and there were no hazardous materials present in the debris and no significant impacts expected to occur to marine species or water quality.
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.
 
Better than 7 and 8 but hardly a success. RIP 9
Is that 3 failures for 3 attempts ? Sure in development these things happen.
In experiments there is the proverbial One Time is bad luck 2 times is a rule
Now 3 for 3 ( if so ) Making a proposition --How it will go next time.

Kaaa aaaaa booom ...again
 
Is that 3 failures for 3 attempts ? Sure in development these things happen.
In experiments there is the proverbial One Time is bad luck 2 times is a rule
Now 3 for 3 ( if so ) Making a proposition --How it will go next time.

Kaaa aaaaa booom ...again

Wow, maybe if is fundamentally flawed.

Starship program needs an independent oversight review. No more funding till the review is completed.

Everything they've accomplished so far, even with the various exploding rockets, has been done cheaper than if NASA had done it. Remember, the other SpaceX rockets had many catastrophic failures before they became very reliable. For that matter, the same was true of NASA's efforts through the years.
 
Everything they've accomplished so far, even with the various exploding rockets, has been done cheaper than if NASA had done it.
Space X didn't have to "invent" space flight. That's because NASA wrote the book. When something hasn't been done before, it takes a ton of effort, time and yes, money... lots of money.

Space X doesn't have to write the book, it's been done.... by NASA.
Following and expanding on those that wrote the book should be a damn sight cheaper, eh?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps. But what E.M. has done, for the most part, is throw out the old book, and write a new one.
Really? Robert Goddard... von Braun. Safely to the moon and back.... 7 times. Rovers on Mars. Two Voyagers that have left the Solar System and are running free in Interstellar Space....

Musk has a long way to go to come close to achieving what NASA has. Let's not anoint him the god of space travel just yet, eh?
 
Last edited:
Everything they've accomplished so far, even with the various exploding rockets, has been done cheaper than if NASA had done it. Remember, the other SpaceX rockets had many catastrophic failures before they became very reliable. For that matter, the same was true of NASA's efforts through the years.

Never in the history of governments has privatising been proved to save money for the consumer. All of the overflow benefiting the public ends up in the hands of the privateer who then make money selling it back to the public through other companies that have to pay for it, then charge said public.

Go back to post #50 where I delve into the advantages/ disadvantages

A couple of excerps

NASA was said to generate $77 billion worth of Tax's and supports private enterprise companies, and their associated distribution/generation of wealth for the $26 Billion cost to Gov't....................Indirectly it makes money, at roughly $3 for $1 Spent.

Post #50

NASA got around 26 Billion last year...............gov't funded dep't and is not set up to make a profit like private enterprise has to.

NASA cost is 0.03% of the total Gov't Budget.

10-15% of NASA's budget goes to Cal-Tech, (basically run/funded by NASA), and JPL, a Subsidiary of Cal-Tech................That's all the physics and jet propulsion needed for space travel/rockets.

All space associated Patents NASA registers cost around $100,000 for a world wide patent. All of these patents are free for companies who do work with them, (don't know where the line is drawn), but they state they are free to use.....................This cost is absorbed within their budget and the cost of registration, ($100,000), would be a small part of the cost to develop any associated patent..................The cost to develop, trial and refine a patent, (also the time), can take years and millions if not billions, (today.) on top of the Registration cost.

NASA was said to generate $77 billion worth of Tax's and supports private enterprise companies, and their associated distribution/generation of wealth for the $26 Billion cost to Gov't....................Indirectly it makes money, at roughly $3 for $1 Spent.

NASA has given billions to Boeing and SpaceX to create Enterprise. Last year, (22), SpaceX got $2.04 Billion, (almost 10% of NASA's total budget) to develop their space ship. Another 1.4 billion, (another, roughly, 6% of their budget), for another 5 Astronaut trips to and from the space station. 2.9 billion was payed to SpaceX in ( April 21) to develop a moon lander.

NASA is still funding Boeing to the tune of Billions. Why, maybe it is so there is some competition and a back up just in case............and not create a monopoly

Now we are onto the money/profit SpaceX is making, well the cost in time development and implementation it hasn't had to pay out because NASA has already done the work, Patented it and given the patents to them for free. Not just the cost of development but the time $ saved because years of work does not need to be done. ..................The launch pad readiness was questioned long before launch and it was well discussed by experts the pad wouldn't stand up to the rocket engines. Steel plate and using water to help generate thrust. ..........................Was the failure of the launch pad a cost cutting exercise by SpaceX?? because the technology is there for them to use

Going off the video SpaceX made a 55 million profit last year.
They have received at least 6 Billion in the last 3 years from NASA alone without the free patents or cost of time or cost of developing.. In 2021 private investors poured $14.5 billion into space companies. No idea how much SpaceX got but, they would have received a good part of it


Star-link revenue was 1.4 billion in 22 but he needs Star-liner to be operational to be able to finish putting up the satellites or it will take years to finish and will not make any money due to cost/time of how many launch's it would take to finish the satellites placement, and not being able to finish. Star-liner is partly funded by NASA, Starliner is integral to the star-link program.

Trying to compare, a private company, (who receive the largest portion of NASA' budget payed to contractors, more than Caltech), to a Gov't funded agency that s not designed to make money, (but indirectly it generates $3 for every $1 in funding), but funds a University, public and private enterprises and has/is paving the way for pace exploration and Mars with the rovers, voyagers, (50 years ongoing), Hubble, Asteroid probes, ect,ect, is a non argument.

And it is all done on 0.03% of congress's budget...............0.03%. Don't know about any of you guys but to me that is exceptional value for cost. Even better when it is making 3 times the amount of money spent........................Elon also has the advantage where he can offset losses against profits at Tax time where all those losse's are ultimately payed for by all the other tax payers................all a part of a private/public business structure.............NASA does not have that luxury. Also cannot compare NASA to SpaceX because a lot of their funding is spent with other companies other than SpaceX, Boeing, Russians, European Space-agency, Cal-tech, (JAs), and all of those other smaller companies integral to the pace program, which is all designed for the development of many and the US Gov't.
 
Space X didn't have to "invent" space flight. That's because NASA wrote the book. When something hasn't been done before, it takes a ton of effort, time and yes, money... lots of money.

Space X doesn't have to write the book, it's been done.... by NASA.
Following and expanding on those that wrote the book should be a damn sight cheaper, eh?

NASA didn't have to invent space flight, either. Wernher von Braun and the Nazi scientists at PeenemĂĽnde did that. Yet, NASA blew up a lot of rockets.

It's kind of the nature of trying to push a vehicle with a controlled, continuous explosion. Change anything just a little bit, and a rocket goes boom.

The Saturn V rockets used RP-1 (a type of kerosene)/liquid oxygen in its first stage, and liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen in its second and third stages. Further, the Saturn V was a single use vehicle.

The Starship uses supercooled liquid methane/liquid oxygen, and is designed to be reusable. The Raptor engine is a full-flow staged combustion cycle, with both oxygen and methane-rich turbopumps. Prior to the Raptor engine, there were only two other such rocket engine designs advanced enough to undergo testing: the Soviet RD-270 (developed 1960–1970, but never used in flight testing), and the Aerojet Rocketdyne IPD (Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator developed in the 2000s (but also never flight tested).

In other words, the SpaceX Starship (and its Raptor engines) are as revolutionary when compared to the Saturn V as the Saturn V was to the V2. Maybe more so.
 
Really? Robert Goddard... von Braun. Safely to the moon and back.... 7 times. Rovers on Mars. Two Voyagers that have left the Solar System and are running free in Interstellar Space....

Musk has a long way to go to come close to achieving what NASA has. Let's not anoint him the god of space travel just yet, eh?

Once they went to the moon once, everything else was just wash, rinse, repeat. NASA started working on rockets in 1950 and went to the moon in 1969, but they borrowed the greatest rocket thus far (the V2) and the guy who first chucked one into space (Wernher von Braun). Before that, they weren't getting very far.
 
Last edited:
Never in the history of governments has privatising been proved to save money for the consumer. All of the overflow benefiting the public ends up in the hands of the privateer who then make money selling it back to the public through other companies that have to pay for it, then charge said public.

Go back to post #50 where I delve into the advantages/ disadvantages

A couple of excerps

NASA was said to generate $77 billion worth of Tax's and supports private enterprise companies, and their associated distribution/generation of wealth for the $26 Billion cost to Gov't....................Indirectly it makes money, at roughly $3 for $1 Spent.

Post #50

NASA got around 26 Billion last year...............gov't funded dep't and is not set up to make a profit like private enterprise has to.

NASA cost is 0.03% of the total Gov't Budget.

10-15% of NASA's budget goes to Cal-Tech, (basically run/funded by NASA), and JPL, a Subsidiary of Cal-Tech................That's all the physics and jet propulsion needed for space travel/rockets.

All space associated Patents NASA registers cost around $100,000 for a world wide patent. All of these patents are free for companies who do work with them, (don't know where the line is drawn), but they state they are free to use.....................This cost is absorbed within their budget and the cost of registration, ($100,000), would be a small part of the cost to develop any associated patent..................The cost to develop, trial and refine a patent, (also the time), can take years and millions if not billions, (today.) on top of the Registration cost.

NASA was said to generate $77 billion worth of Tax's and supports private enterprise companies, and their associated distribution/generation of wealth for the $26 Billion cost to Gov't....................Indirectly it makes money, at roughly $3 for $1 Spent.

NASA has given billions to Boeing and SpaceX to create Enterprise. Last year, (22), SpaceX got $2.04 Billion, (almost 10% of NASA's total budget) to develop their space ship. Another 1.4 billion, (another, roughly, 6% of their budget), for another 5 Astronaut trips to and from the space station. 2.9 billion was payed to SpaceX in ( April 21) to develop a moon lander.

NASA is still funding Boeing to the tune of Billions. Why, maybe it is so there is some competition and a back up just in case............and not create a monopoly

Now we are onto the money/profit SpaceX is making, well the cost in time development and implementation it hasn't had to pay out because NASA has already done the work, Patented it and given the patents to them for free. Not just the cost of development but the time $ saved because years of work does not need to be done. ..................The launch pad readiness was questioned long before launch and it was well discussed by experts the pad wouldn't stand up to the rocket engines. Steel plate and using water to help generate thrust. ..........................Was the failure of the launch pad a cost cutting exercise by SpaceX?? because the technology is there for them to use

Going off the video SpaceX made a 55 million profit last year.
They have received at least 6 Billion in the last 3 years from NASA alone without the free patents or cost of time or cost of developing.. In 2021 private investors poured $14.5 billion into space companies. No idea how much SpaceX got but, they would have received a good part of it


Star-link revenue was 1.4 billion in 22 but he needs Star-liner to be operational to be able to finish putting up the satellites or it will take years to finish and will not make any money due to cost/time of how many launch's it would take to finish the satellites placement, and not being able to finish. Star-liner is partly funded by NASA, Starliner is integral to the star-link program.

Trying to compare, a private company, (who receive the largest portion of NASA' budget payed to contractors, more than Caltech), to a Gov't funded agency that s not designed to make money, (but indirectly it generates $3 for every $1 in funding), but funds a University, public and private enterprises and has/is paving the way for pace exploration and Mars with the rovers, voyagers, (50 years ongoing), Hubble, Asteroid probes, ect,ect, is a non argument.

And it is all done on 0.03% of congress's budget...............0.03%. Don't know about any of you guys but to me that is exceptional value for cost. Even better when it is making 3 times the amount of money spent........................Elon also has the advantage where he can offset losses against profits at Tax time where all those losse's are ultimately payed for by all the other tax payers................all a part of a private/public business structure.............NASA does not have that luxury. Also cannot compare NASA to SpaceX because a lot of their funding is spent with other companies other than SpaceX, Boeing, Russians, European Space-agency, Cal-tech, (JAs), and all of those other smaller companies integral to the pace program, which is all designed for the development of many and the US Gov't.

I wasn't trying to say NASA was a waste of money, but being a government entity (whose new "focus" wasn't rockets until very recently), you can bet it's rife with waste.

My point (poorly stated) is that SpaceX is doing very well at the development they're doing. They haven't stranded anyone in space. They haven't had the cost overruns that NASA seems to like funding with Boeing (boy is there a company who's lost its way), either.

Through the years, NASA has detonated quite a few rockets and 17 astronauts. How many people has SpaceX killed?
 
I wasn't trying to say NASA was a waste of money, but being a government entity (whose new "focus" wasn't rockets until very recently), you can bet it's rife with waste.

My point (poorly stated) is that SpaceX is doing very well at the development they're doing. They haven't stranded anyone in space. They haven't had the cost overruns that NASA seems to like funding with Boeing (boy is there a company who's lost its way), either.

Through the years, NASA has detonated quite a few rockets and 17 astronauts. How many people has SpaceX killed?


NASA 169 maned flights into space between 1960-2020

SpaceX 16, 11 for NASA, 5 commercial since 2020.
 
NASA 169 maned flights into space between 1960-2020

SpaceX 16, 11 for NASA, 5 commercial since 2020.

And before NASA's 7th manned flight, they'd blown up several rockets and killed three astronauts. Over NASA's history, they've had over 160 failures.

That means by the 7th manned flight, they had three dead astronauts. By SpaceX's 16th manned flight, they've had zero casualties.

I'm not saying SpaceX is perfect, nor am I saying NASA is terrible, only that Space X ain't as bad as some want to make it out to be.
 
Back
Top