Starship Flight 7 achieves spectacular catch success but is quickly followed by disheartening failure
Flight 7 introduced a block of planned updates to Starship’s upper stage, “bringing major improvements to reliability and performance”. SpaceX’s words will no doubt soon be proved true, but they were demonstrably wrong on this first outing.
The most obvious change is the forward flaps which have been reduced in size, shifted towards the vehicle’s tip, and away from the heat shield. This design upgrade is intended to reduce exposure of the flaps to re-entry heating, whilst also simplifying the underlying mechanisms and protective tiling. Problems with the old design of the forward flaps were highlighted in earlier flights, especially during the re-entry of Flight 4. But, on this occasion, we didn’t get to see these improvements working in practice.
Flight 7 stacked and ready to launch. Credit: SpaceX
Re-designs to the ship’s propulsion system include a 25% increase in propellant volume, the vacuum jacketing of feedlines, and a new fuel feedline system for the vehicle’s Raptor vacuum engines. The avionics have likewise undergone a complete re-design, necessary for more complex missions like propellant transfer and ship return to the launch site.
So we weren’t expecting the ship to experience a rapid unscheduled disassembly at approximately eight and a half minutes into the flight during its ascent burn.
After Wednesday’s launch was delayed because of unfavourable weather conditions, everything was looking good the following day (Thursday). I’m sure we weren’t alone in expecting a highly successful test flight…
Super Heavy’s 33 Raptor engines. Credit: SpaceX
Lift-off happened on schedule at 4.37pm CT (10.37pm UK time), powered by the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor engines - one of which was being re-used from Flight 5. Stage separation went smoothly. Ship’s 6 Raptor engines ignited. And the call-out was made for the booster to return to the launch tower.
At 6 minutes 19 seconds into the flight, we were treated to amazing close-up views of the Super Heavy booster hurtling back down to Earth. Then the middle ring of 13 Raptor engines re-ignited for the landing burn, quickly reducing to just 3 as the booster got closer to the tower. The booster aligned itself just as some might have been forgiven for thinking there was about to be a spectacular crash. It all worked fantastically well, as intended - a feat of engineering that everyone will probably take for granted as normal in the not-too-distant future.
Return of the booster! Credit: SpaceX
Kate Tice, SpaceX quality systems engineering senior manager and broadcast host, had joined co-presenter Dan Huot outdoors for the first time to witness a launch from Starbase. She’d been overwhelmed at seeing the launch nearby, rather than on screen, before brilliantly summarising the catch as: “That was absolutely insane!”
Angled for catch! Credit: SpaceX
With the excitement of a second successful catch still in full swing, a diligent viewer would have noticed the graphics indicating one of the ship’s Raptor engines failing at 7 minutes 39 seconds. 20 seconds later, a second, then third Raptor blinked out - shortly followed by a fourth and fifth, leaving only one. When SpaceX briefly cut to pictures of the aft flap of the ship, you could see fire coming out of the hinge opening. At 8 minutes 25 seconds into the flight, it looked as if the ship’s telemetry had been lost. Elation shifted to downheartedness.
Initial data indicates a fire developed in the aft section of the ship, leading to a rapid unscheduled disassembly. Elon Musk added: “Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity. Apart from obviously double-checking for leaks, we will add fire suppression to that volume and probably increase vent area.”
It must be emphasised that Flight 7 was part of an ongoing test program. As such, it has to be expected that things will sometimes - probably often - go wrong. It’s all about testing, learning/improving, then testing again.
Written by Iain Scott, 17th January 2025