"SpaceX is Hiding Why Starship Really Failed 9 Times!", Engineers revealed

SpaceX’s Starship project has been touted as the future of space travel—promising to revolutionize how humanity explores the cosmos with payloads of 100 tons to Mars and beyond. But after nine flights and two years, Starship still can’t reach orbit successfully. What SpaceX doesn’t want you to know is the truth behind these failures, NASA’s surprising gamble, and why the world is still watching—even copying—this seemingly flawed rocket.

In this article, we’ll dive deep into the hidden realities of Starship’s development, the controversial design choices, the massive weight issues, and the unexpected reasons NASA put America’s entire moon program on this rocket. Buckle up, because the truth will blow your mind.

The Performance Lie: 100 Tons Promised, 50 Tons Delivered

When Elon Musk and SpaceX first unveiled Starship, they promised the world a rocket capable of carrying 100 tons to orbit. Sounds impressive, right? Yet the cold hard data paints a different picture: Starship can barely manage 50 tons—half the promised payload.

Imagine ordering a truck advertised to carry 10 tons but receiving one that struggles with only 5 tons. Would you call that a success? Would you pay the full price?

The Engine Thrust Myth

Central to Starship’s hype are the Raptor engines, the powerful heart of the rocket. SpaceX claims these engines produce an astonishing 7,590 tons of thrust when 33 are fired simultaneously. But here’s the catch—they’ve never officially demonstrated this in a public test or any independent verification.

Think of it like buying a sports car advertised to have 500 horsepower, but the manufacturer never lets anyone test it on a dynamometer. Would you trust that?

Moreover, the Raptor 3 engines are supposed to generate even more power—around 10,000 tons of thrust. But if SpaceX can’t prove the current engine’s claimed power, why should we believe in the next generation?

The Weight Crisis Nobody Mentions

Starship’s engine problems are just the start. A much bigger issue is the massive weight problem plaguing the entire program.

The Super Heavy booster weighs a staggering 200 tons empty—just sitting on the launch pad.
The Starship spacecraft on top adds another 100 tons of dead weight.
That’s 300 tons before adding a single drop of fuel.

For comparison, this is heavier than a fully loaded Boeing 747—and the 747 actually flies.

Every new version of Starship tries to shed weight. SpaceX strips out systems, removes safety features, and simplifies structures to cut mass. But what happens? Everything breaks.

Flight 8 was scrubbed due to fuel tank failure.
Flight 9 was destroyed by a catastrophic leak and loss of control.

It’s like someone trying to lose weight by cutting off their arms—you’re lighter but can’t function.

The Stainless Steel Disaster

One of the most controversial decisions in Starship’s design is the choice of stainless steel as the primary construction material.

Why Stainless Steel?

Most aerospace experts advise against stainless steel because it’s heavy. Instead, materials like carbon fiber, which is about 50% lighter, are industry standards for high-performance aerospace vehicles.

Yet Elon Musk insisted on stainless steel, arguing it’s cheaper and easier to work with. But this “cost-saving” move is like building a racecar from concrete—less expensive but doomed to lose.

On a 300-ton vehicle, switching to carbon fiber could save 150 tons—the difference between success and failure.

The Development Nightmare: 2 Years, 9 Flights, No Orbit

SpaceX has spent billions of dollars testing Starship over two years with nine flight attempts. Yet, Starship still hasn’t reached orbit successfully.

Contrast this with traditional aerospace development:

NASA typically spends 2-3 years between major tests, thoroughly analyzing failures and refining every component before proceeding.
SpaceX pushes rapid iteration—launching every few months and hoping for the best.

SpaceX calls this “rapid iteration,” but many engineers call it reckless.

Every failure costs hundreds of millions of dollars, destroys months of work, and sets the program back. At what point does learning from failure become just expensive failure?

The NASA Paradox: Betting the Moon on Starship

Despite these glaring problems, NASA has bet America’s entire Artemis moon program on Starship.

How could the agency that built the most reliable rockets in history gamble on a rocket that has failed repeatedly?

Two possibilities arise:

NASA has lost their minds — an unlikely scenario given their history.
NASA knows something we don’t — perhaps they see the potential buried under the failures.

Artemis depends completely on Starship. Without it, American astronauts won’t return to the moon, and the program collapses.

The Economic Incentive

NASA’s existing Space Launch System (SLS) costs a staggering $4 billion per flight. In comparison, Starship promises to reduce this cost to just $10 million per flight—a 400x decrease.

But the catch: Starship has to work first—and right now, it doesn’t, at least not reliably.

NASA is betting that SpaceX will solve the rocket’s problems in the next two years, despite failing to do so over the past two years. That’s faith more than engineering.

The Global Copycat Phenomenon: Why Is Everyone Copying Starship?

If Starship is such a disaster, why is the entire world copying it?

China is building its own version.
Europe is scrambling to keep up.
Every major space power is designing massive reusable rockets that look suspiciously like Starship.

Countries don’t spend billions copying failures—they copy successes. So what do they see that we don’t?

The Mars Deception: The Rocket for Mars That Can’t Leave Earth

SpaceX defends their design choices by saying Starship is built for Mars:

The heavy stainless steel is ideal for Martian manufacturing.
The methane-fueled Raptor engines align with in-situ fuel production on Mars.
The massive size is designed for transporting colonists and cargo to the Red Planet.

But here’s the brutal truth: You have to get to Mars first. And Starship can’t even reach orbit reliably.

Designing a rocket that can’t escape Earth’s atmosphere is like designing a submarine that can’t hold water.

The Frequency Fantasy: 25 Launches a Year? Multiple Launches a Day?

SpaceX promises a future where Starship launches 25 times per year—eventually even multiple launches per day.

But this fantasy ignores huge obstacles:

Ground infrastructure to support such frequent launches doesn’t exist.
Regulatory approvals are nowhere near granted.
Reliability needed for such cadence has never been demonstrated.

This is not ambition—it’s delusion.

SpaceX’s Ocean Landing Breakthrough: The Secret to Unlimited Payloads

Recently, SpaceX shifted from flashy tower catches to ocean platform landings, unlocking new possibilities.

Why Abandon Tower Catches?

Tower catches look spectacular but burn 30% of fuel just to reverse mid-flight and land back at the launch site. That’s fuel wasted that could instead carry an extra 30 tons of cargo.

Ocean landings let boosters follow a natural downward path, saving fuel and maximizing payload.

The Secret Weapon: Floating Oil Rigs

SpaceX bought two oil rigs in 2020—Phobos and Deimos—originally thought to be scrapped but now repurposed as floating landing platforms.

The new platforms are:

Massive landing pads handling 200-ton vehicles.
Fuel processing stations to refurbish rockets mid-ocean.
Mobile—can be positioned anywhere on Earth within days.

This technology is crucial preparation for Mars, where no landing infrastructure exists.

The Mars Reality Check: Precision Landings Without Ground Support

Landing on Mars will be one of humanity’s greatest challenges:

No launch towers.
No catch arms.
No ground support equipment.

Each ocean landing tests precision, emergency procedures, and recovery techniques essential for survival on Mars. It’s real training, with Earth’s safety net backing it up.

The Engineering Marvel: Ocean Platforms and New Landing Legs

These new ocean platforms are feats of engineering:

Absorbing impact forces exceeding 2,000 tons.
Maintaining stability against 15-foot swells and hurricane winds using dynamic positioning thrusters.
Redesigned landing legs that extend wider, absorb impact, and lock automatically.

Rocket recovery happens within hours, enabling rapid reuse.

The Staggering Economics: A 40% Cost Revolution

This ocean landing method could slash launch costs by 40%, making missions to Mars more economically feasible.

The Final Verdict: Breakthrough or Disaster?

Starship stands at a crossroads:

Is it humanity’s greatest leap toward becoming a spacefaring civilization?
Or is it the most expensive engineering failure in history?

The truth lies in the next few years. Will SpaceX finally reach orbit? Will NASA’s lunar ambitions succeed? Will Mars become more than just a dream?

What Do You Think?

Are you betting on Starship’s success or failure? Drop your thoughts below and join the conversation because the space race is far from over.

FAQs

1. Why has SpaceX’s Starship failed to reach orbit after nine flights?
Starship has faced significant engineering challenges, including engine thrust issues, a heavy vehicle design, and repeated flight failures that have prevented it from successfully reaching orbit.

2. What is the promised payload capacity of Starship compared to the reality?
SpaceX promised Starship could carry 100 tons to orbit, but current data suggests it can barely manage 50 tons—only half of the initial claim.

3. Why are SpaceX’s Raptor engines controversial?
Raptor engines are claimed to produce massive thrust, but SpaceX has never publicly demonstrated these numbers in official tests, leading to skepticism about their true performance.

4. How does Starship’s weight affect its performance?
The Starship vehicle is extremely heavy, with the booster alone weighing 200 tons empty and the ship adding another 100 tons, causing major payload and fuel efficiency issues.

5. Why did SpaceX choose stainless steel over carbon fiber for Starship?
Although stainless steel is heavier, Elon Musk chose it for cost and manufacturing ease. However, this decision adds significant weight compared to lighter carbon fiber alternatives.

6. How does SpaceX’s rapid iteration development compare to NASA’s traditional approach?
SpaceX launches prototypes frequently, learning from failures in real time, while NASA typically spends years testing and analyzing each component thoroughly before moving forward.

7. Why is NASA relying on Starship for the Artemis moon program despite its failures?
NASA bets on Starship because it offers drastically lower launch costs compared to existing systems, and they believe the issues can be resolved in time to support lunar missions.

8. What are the economic advantages of Starship over NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS)?
Starship aims to reduce launch costs from $4 billion per flight with SLS to about $10 million per flight, making space missions far more affordable if it becomes reliable.

9. Why is the global space industry copying Starship’s design?
Other countries like China and Europe see Starship’s reusable, large-capacity design as the future of spaceflight and are developing similar rockets despite current challenges.

10. What makes Starship’s design suitable for Mars missions?
Starship’s methane engines and stainless steel structure are optimized for Mars’ environment, with in-situ fuel production and manufacturing in mind.

11. Why is the switch from tower catches to ocean landings significant?
Ocean landings save 30% of booster fuel by avoiding mid-flight reversals, enabling higher payload capacity and preparing SpaceX for landing on Mars where no infrastructure exists.

12. What role do SpaceX’s floating ocean platforms play in Starship’s future?
The platforms act as mobile landing and refurbishment bases in the ocean, enabling rapid turnaround and providing training for precision landings crucial for Mars.

13. How do ocean landings prepare SpaceX for Mars exploration?
Ocean platform landings mimic Mars’ challenging terrain and lack of ground support, helping engineers refine remote landing techniques and emergency procedures.

14. What are the biggest risks facing the Starship program in the next few years?
The key risks include failing to achieve reliable orbital flight, not meeting launch cadence goals, and NASA’s reliance on Starship for lunar missions potentially jeopardizing the Artemis program.

“SpaceX is Hiding Why Starship Really Failed 9 Times!”, Engineers revealed