SpaceX Just Made The Same Mistake Twice With Starship flight 9

SpaceX’s Starship Flight 9 launched with sky-high expectations, but unfortunately, it ended in failure — crashing and burning in a way that eerily mirrored what happened with Flight 3 over a year ago. Both missions saw the boosters explode and the Starship upper stage spin out of control during re-entry, missing critical milestones such as payload deployment and controlled landings. Despite SpaceX’s bold advancements in rocket reusability, why are these catastrophic setbacks resurfacing?

Let’s break down the details and what this means for Starship’s future.

A Strong Sense of Déjà Vu: Comparing Flight 9 to Flight 3

Taking a closer look at Flight 9, the sequence of events and ultimate failure bear striking similarities to Flight 3, the test flight from March last year that used Booster 10 and Ship 28. Like Flight 9’s Booster 14 and Ship 35, Flight 3 ended with the booster exploding during landing attempts and the upper stage losing control during re-entry, ultimately being destroyed over the ocean.

These parallels are too significant to ignore, so let’s rewind and examine Flight 3 first.

Flight 3 Recap: Booster 10’s Promising Start and Sudden Failure

Flight 3 began well — all 33 Raptor engines ignited perfectly, and the rocket smoothly lifted off from Starbase. At about 2 minutes and 44 seconds into flight, the upper stage ignited during a hot staging maneuver, allowing the two stages to separate cleanly.

The booster then executed a controlled 180-degree flip to prepare for its boost-back burn, successfully relighting all 13 center Raptor engines to slow its descent toward the Gulf of Mexico. However, things quickly unraveled.

As the booster descended at over 1,000 km/h, one of the four grid fins struggled to maintain stability. Meanwhile, only 3 of the 13 Raptor engines successfully reignited for the landing burn, but even these faltered shortly after. This mix of engine failures and aerodynamic instability led to the booster exploding mid-air.

SpaceX later identified the root cause as a loss of pressure in the booster’s liquid oxygen (LOX) tank, which caused the engines to fail.

Flight 9: Booster 14 and Ship 35’s Parallel Failure

Flight 9’s booster — Booster 14 — followed a somewhat different approach but ended in a similar fate. After stage separation, Booster 14 flipped and began its boost-back burn with all engines firing, but SpaceX intentionally shut down the engines mid-descent as part of a new test where they did not plan to recover the booster.

The booster then descended belly first with a high angle of attack to increase drag and slow its fall. Near the landing burn phase, 12 of 13 engines successfully reignited, but suddenly the feed cut, and Booster 14 exploded violently.

This sequence of throttling down to three engines for descent and exploding during the landing burn was almost identical to Flight 3, and early indications suggest the cause may again be related to loss of propellant pressure, possibly in the LOX tank.

Upper Stage Troubles: Ship 28 and Ship 35

Boosters aren’t the only component struggling. Both Ship 28 (Flight 3) and Ship 35 (Flight 9) encountered significant issues during their missions.

Ship 28 began tumbling uncontrollably while in space and failed to maintain proper orientation during re-entry. The reaction control system (RCS) responsible for stabilization malfunctioned, causing the ship to plunge into the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds without proper heat shield protection. It broke apart over the Indian Ocean.
Ship 35 initially performed well, reaching a suborbital altitude of 189 km — a record for the Block 2 design. But a fuel leak disrupted its RCS during engine relight and satellite deployment phases, leading to attitude control failure. The payload bay doors never opened, satellites weren’t deployed, and the ship was destroyed upon re-entry.

These failures highlight ongoing issues with the RCS and fuel management systems that SpaceX has yet to fully resolve.

What Does This Mean for SpaceX and Starship?

The similarities between Flights 3 and 9 suggest these are not isolated incidents but recurring problems SpaceX must address before Starship can be considered reliable for future missions, including highly anticipated ones like Artemis 3.

Despite the setbacks, these flights represent significant progress:

Flight 3 proved Starship Block One’s potential by reaching 150 km altitude.
Flight 9 marked the first time a Block 2 upper stage reached orbital velocity and involved the first booster reuse with Booster 14.

The goal remains clear: a super heavy rocket system that is fully reusable, cost-effective, and capable of opening space access like never before.

What’s Next for Starship?

Elon Musk has not announced a date for Flight 10, but recent comments suggest the launch cadence may accelerate, with Flights 36, 37, and 38 in preparation.

SpaceX will continue to analyze flight data and refine designs, aiming to fix the propellant pressure and reaction control system failures that have plagued recent tests.

While these failures are disappointing, they are part of the iterative testing process essential for developing revolutionary technology.

Conclusion

SpaceX’s Starship program has taken bold steps toward redefining space travel. Flights 3 and 9 underscore the challenges of pioneering new rocket designs but also the determination to learn from failures and push forward.

As SpaceX continues its relentless pursuit of reusable spaceflight, each setback is a stepping stone toward future success — bringing humanity closer to an era where space is more accessible, affordable, and sustainable.

Stay tuned as Starship’s journey unfolds — the best is yet to come.

FAQs

1. What happened during SpaceX’s Starship Flight 9?

SpaceX’s Starship Flight 9 ended in failure when Booster 14 exploded during landing, and the upper stage, Ship 35, lost attitude control during re-entry, leading to its destruction over the ocean.

2. How does Flight 9 compare to Flight 3?

Both flights experienced similar failures: booster explosions during landing and upper stages losing control on re-entry, caused primarily by issues related to propellant pressure and reaction control systems.

3. What caused Booster 14 to explode during Flight 9?

Early signs suggest that Booster 14’s explosion was caused by a loss of liquid oxygen (LOX) tank pressure, similar to the cause behind Booster 10’s failure in Flight 3.

4. What problems did Ship 35 face during Flight 9?

Ship 35 experienced a fuel leak that disrupted its reaction control system (RCS), causing a loss of attitude control, failure to deploy payload satellites, and ultimately destruction during re-entry.

5. Why is the reaction control system (RCS) important for Starship?

The RCS stabilizes Starship during spaceflight and re-entry, allowing it to maintain proper orientation and control. Failures in this system lead to loss of control and potential destruction of the vehicle.

6. Has SpaceX made any progress despite these failures?

Yes, Flight 9 marked the first time a Block 2 Starship reached orbital velocity and reused a booster, which are significant milestones in SpaceX’s development of reusable rockets.

7. What is a boost-back burn and why is it important?

A boost-back burn is a maneuver where the booster reignites engines to reverse its course and return to the landing site. It’s critical for controlled booster recovery and reusability.

8. What lessons is SpaceX learning from these repeated failures?

SpaceX is focused on addressing propellant pressure issues, improving reaction control systems, and refining landing procedures to enhance Starship’s reliability.

9. How does SpaceX plan to improve Starship’s booster landings?

By analyzing failure data, SpaceX aims to fix liquid oxygen tank pressurization problems and engine restart reliability to ensure safer, controlled booster landings in future flights.

10. What was unique about Booster 14’s landing attempt on Flight 9?

Unlike previous flights, SpaceX intentionally shut down Booster 14’s engines during descent to test a new landing approach, but the booster still exploded during the final landing burn.

11. What milestones did Flight 3 achieve despite its failure?

Flight 3 was the first Starship Block One to reach 150 kilometers altitude, successfully demonstrating potential for suborbital flight despite booster and upper stage failures.

12. Why is reusability such a big focus for SpaceX’s Starship program?

Reusability significantly lowers launch costs and increases flight frequency, making space access more affordable and sustainable — key goals for SpaceX’s vision.

13. When can we expect the next Starship flight after Flight 9?

Elon Musk has hinted that the pace of Starship flights may increase soon, but no official date for Flight 10 has been announced yet.

14. What does the future look like for Starship and SpaceX?

While challenges remain, SpaceX continues to push boundaries with ongoing development and testing. The ultimate goal is a fully reusable, super heavy-lift rocket capable of revolutionizing space travel.