Starship's Tenth Flight Test
184 comments
·August 24, 2025geerlingguy
I was able to see the (under construction) launch stand for Starship at KSC last week; it sounds like they built it and are rebuilding it constantly in response to pad learnings in Texas. It'd be amazing to get at least the first stage to a reliable state so the launch site could be complete in Florida without major concerns about the Falcon 9 launch tower situated close nearby!
The main thing I took away from visiting KSC the first time (alas missed out on any launches) was how incredibly huge all things orbital-launch-related are, even for smaller rockets. Also didn't realize how large the Blue Origin facilities are there. It's one thing to see glimpses in a spaceflight YouTube channel video, it's another to drive alongside them.
mathgeek
One of my favorite parts of living in Central Florida is watching the rockets take off every few days. Sadly a lot of the launches lately have been daytime or in the middle of the night, but seeing Falcon Heavy split off during the holidays one year remains a highlight.
bandrami
Here's where I curmudgeonly insist that manned space exploration is a terrible idea, and the insistence on it has held back unmanned space exploration by decades. We would have livestreaming Jobian dirigible drones right now if we didn't insist on trying to get humans into the least permissive environment there is.
GuB-42
Maybe you don't realize how important humans in the loop are. Astronauts during the Apollo mission could do way more in a much shorter period of time than, say, Mars rovers, even 50 years after.
People can take initiatives on a completely unknown environment way better than our best computers can, including fixing things. That's a reason manned space stations are so useful, you can launch an experiment up there and know than there are smart people who will make things work even if you forgot some minor details. It is even more important the further you go, as latency increases.
In addition, manned space exploration tells us valuable information about ourselves. About our bodies, our mind. It may lead to valuable medical discoveries. And of course, at some point we will want to go there in person, from long term goals like space colonization to simple curiosity, and these are the things we need to know.
And I don't think manned space exploration held back anything. Manned exploration is inspiring, and Apollo was an important political move, it means lots of funding. Pictures of outer space clearly don't have the same impact. It is easy to see, for the decades where no one considered manned space exploration, not much happened compared to what happened in the 70s, including on the unmanned side, simply because of shrinking budgets due to the lack of interest. Yes, we did stuff, but Voyager, Venera, Hubble, Pioneer, etc... all in the 60s and 70s.
MartinMcGirk
I’ll take the other side of that argument. Without human space flight inspiring the public by pushing the boundaries of what humans can achieve, you would never get the public on board to get the political buy-in to send unmanned craft to anywhere.
If you didn’t have human Spaceflight you’d get the budget for gps, military, and maybe weather satellites and not a whole lot else.
MengerSponge
Crewed. Or piloted in certain cases https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/12/astro...
This is NASA's language: https://www.nasa.gov/reference/jsc-crewed-spacecraft/
fred_is_fred
That and the Vietnam war both set us back. Why send humans to Mars with the advances we see daily in robotics?
echelon
We're not adapted to space, and our bodies are frail and die in 78 years.
We should focus on building digital bodies to house our children.
Our species in its current form dies with this gravity well. We're evolved to and fit it like a glove.
It's our minds that will see the universe.
msgodel
We're not adapted to intercontinental sailing either but we overcame that.
Being realistic is one thing but completely giving up on pushing out the frontier of our capabilities is shameful IMO. Literally mailing it in isn't a substitute for space travel.
amanaplanacanal
The nice thing is that the continent at the end of the voyage, we were adapted to. This time, not so much.
Teever
Your comment is moot because the primary purpose of Starship is not exploration but colonization.
bandrami
That's an even dumber idea though
Jabrov
Interplanetary colonization is a much dumber idea than manned spaceflight
Teever
Yeah, I agree with the idea that planetary colonization is not the best idea.
I'm more of a massive spinning space station made from asteroid/lunar mined materials kind of guy myself.
But if harebrained ideas to colonize a body with substantially lower gravity that may no idea if the human body is even compatible with that lower gravity get us the infrastructure needed to get lots of stuff into space then so be it.
ekianjo
It's dumb because it's not practical yet?
Dinux
This is a big one for SpaceX. They have had a couple of faillures on Starship on their previous launches.
jjcm
FWIW, it appears they're purposefully introducing multiple simulated failures into this test. It doesn't appear that they're trying to make this succeed at all costs. From the site:
> The primary test objectives for the booster will be focused on its landing burn and will use unique engine configurations. One of the three center engines used for the final phase of landing will be intentionally disabled to gather data on the ability for a backup engine from the middle ring to complete a landing burn. The booster will then transition to only two center engines for the end of the landing burn, entering a full hover while still above the ocean surface, followed by shutdown and drop into the Gulf of America.
...
> The flight test includes several experiments focused on enabling Starship’s upper stage to return to the launch site. A significant number of tiles have been removed from Starship to stress-test vulnerable areas across the vehicle during reentry. Multiple metallic tile options, including one with active cooling, will test alternative materials for protecting Starship during reentry. On the sides of the vehicle, functional catch fittings are installed and will test the fittings’ thermal and structural performance, along with a section of the tile line receiving a smoothed and tapered edge to address hot spots observed during reentry on Starship’s sixth flight test. Starship’s reentry profile is designed to intentionally stress the structural limits of the upper stage’s rear flaps while at the point of maximum entry dynamic pressure.
moffkalast
They're still planning on landing both in the ocean, doesn't seem like they've gotten any more confident given that.
ACCount37
It'll be a while before they're comfortable landing Starship itself onto the launch tower, so an ocean splashdown is the best outcome possible. And the booster is going to be testing another one of those extra aggressive reentry trajectories.
They broke the previous booster by overdoing it, so it remains to be seen whether they'll find the balance between "fuel efficient" and "doesn't cause catastrophic internal booster damage" this time around.
dzhiurgis
They are new designs, not just some patches.
Given they've demonstrated all core steps (near successful re-entry, near-orbit insertion, booster catch) I'd say they are like 95% there.
tahoeskibum
Godspeed (or naturespeed for atheists)! Starship is my only hope for ever being able to go to space (assuming that they can bring the costs down).
d_silin
For all the humanity's challenges and flaws, Starship is its most inspiring expression, in steel and fire.
gooseus
Funny, I'd say that for all of SpaceX's innovation and successes, Starship and its owner represent of some of the greatest expressions of humanity's flaws and challenges.
coldpie
Yeah. I used to be excited about SpaceX stuff, I remember watching those early livestreamed landing attempts. But their recent close association with the American fascist movement basically killed my enthusiasm. I can't support the company anymore.
idiotsecant
Elon Musk is one nepobaby with poor emotional regulation. SpaceX is an enormous number of very smart, very driven, very dedicated professionals who all work ridiculous hours in not great working conditions because they believe in the outrageous idea of humanity out among the stars.
It's ok to not like the guy at the top, but still marvel at the achievements of the people he pays.
gnarlouse
Yin and yang, I can see both you and OP's comments as a bit of true.
sneak
Starship is SpaceX’s greatest technological achievement already, even if it never reaches orbit reliably (with the potential exception of the inter-satellite Starlink laser links).
Did you not see the booster catch work on the first try? The partially successful re-entry even with half the control surface melting away?
The hundreds at SpaceX are doing Apollo-level breakthrough work, and it should not in any way be minimized due to tangential Elon-hate.
djeastm
>The hundreds at SpaceX are doing Apollo-level breakthrough work, and it should not in any way be minimized due to tangential Elon-hate.
You're right. It shouldn't be. And yet here we are wasting our digital breaths talking about the man. And there's really only one person responsible for that.
pythonaut_16
"Even if it never reaches orbit reliably"
How is that a greater achievement than Falcon 9 and reusable boosters, especially Falcon Heavy? Like sure if Starship lives up to its goals it will be a greater achievement. But how would an ambitious project that fails its most fundamental task (reaching orbit reliably) be a greater achievement than one that actually does meet its goals and was (and is) still incredibly revoluationary?
itishappy
While I agree with your larger point, I think it's a bit telling that you're using a 50 year old program that launched the only humans to ever visit another celestial body as the standard against which to judge the "greatest achievement." Humanity has sure done some amazing stuff!
xenocratus
Koyaanisqatsi
sneak
For a film with no narrative it sure does seem sad (and wrong) to claim our modern life is “out of balance”.
Still one of my favorite works of music and cinematography both; I just don’t agree at all with the implicit message. We are destined for the stars.
That end scene with the Atlas missile that you linked is def the best though (and Prophecies is the best song/track too).
riversflow
> it sure does seem sad (and wrong) to claim our modern life is “out of balance”.
I think the global CO2 levels would disagree. Our oceans, and therefore most of the biosphere are quite literally out of (pH) balance due to rapid CO2 release.
> We are destined for the stars.
I doubt it. Don’t get me wrong I love the idea of it, but the reality is our physical form is so fragile and fleeting relative to the harsh vastness of the Universe.
We should protect this cradle of our genesis with everything we have. That we have not met other life should be taken as a warning of how difficult the road ahead.
slipperydippery
> We are destined for the stars.
The stars suck, though. Even Mars is entirely awful.
Like, that's not very different from "we're destined for Hell". Not an inspiring sentiment, right? It's really bad.
How awful it is aside, it's also roughly as realistic as "we're destined for Tolkien's Middle Earth". Only marginally less fantastical.
TheOtherHobbes
There is no sense in which we're destined for the stars.
We could have been destined for the stars fifty years ago, but it turns out we're a stupid species with no planetary intelligence.
So we spend far too much energy finding clever ways to blow things up - cities, rockets, economies - and far too little on boring shit like keeping the climate stable and the lights on.
And even less on the breakthrough physics, psychology, politics, and ecology needed to make interstellar travel even remotely likely.
xenocratus
For sure, don't know if I agree with the central "message" of that title / song. But I can see the complaints raised therein.
I'm just a bit of a contrarian, and couldn't resist the appeal of that reply :@)
actionfromafar
[flagged]
loeg
Even among SpaceX's creations, I find the Falcon rockets more inspiring personally.
bigyabai
I'll always be more impressed by the Space Shuttle, to each their own I suppose.
pantalaimon
But that never allowed for cheap and easy access to space, it was way too expensive even compared to expendible rockets.
bamboozled
On the other hand, I doubt half of what's going on would be possible or desirable without the learning and expertise gained from the past. Sometimes you have to know what you shouldn't do.
vessenes
Cost to develop in today's dollars: $50bn (more if you consider it as a % of GDP). Cost per kg to launch something with it: roughly $70k.
Cost to launch on falcon per kg: $2-3k. Wait, that's price. SpaceX is profitable. It's roughly 100x cheaper.
ac29
> Cost to launch on falcon per kg: $2-3k. Wait, that's price. SpaceX is profitable. It's roughly 100x cheaper.
A fully loaded falcon costs less than $500k to launch?
imoverclocked
Same. If for no other reason than it had never been done before then for the technology they had to accomplish the feat with at the time.
vFunct
Seriously. NASA had a reusable orbital rocket 40 years ago. Space-X still only has reusable boosters.
I was mostly impressed by the materials science of the space shuttle tiles, even though they’re expensive.
ChocolateGod
> Seriously. NASA had a reusable orbital rocket 40 years ago. Space-X still only has reusable boosters.
Reusable but had to spend 2 months after use being repaired/having parts replaced, meanwhile Falcon 9 has turn around times in days and Starship is aiming for hours.
Whilst the the achievements and technological marvels by NASA should never be understated, Starship is aiming for a target significantly more difficult than the space shuttle.
rockemsockem
The space shuttle was an awesome feat of engineering, but in practical terms, it cost a lot for every launch, so it really didn't deliver well on the most important piece of what reusability is supposed to get you.
The tiles themselves were apparently a big source of the problems on the shuttle too. If they can figure out reusable tiles with starship, with quick turnaround and low-cost for maintenance, that'd be a huge engineering accomplishment.
They've gotta consistently re-enter it first though.
mgfist
The innovation is not making a reusable rocket, it's making a reusable rocket that is cheap and rapidly reusable.
thinkingkong
The shuttle itself was reusable but the two solid rocket boosters and the external fuel tank were all disposable components.
prasadjoglekar
It was reusable, but way over promised.
Don't take my word for it. Richard Feynman served on the Challenger commission and very nicely summarizes the difference between Apollo and Space Shuttle.
SpaceX is doing stuff that's just beyond the scope of what's deemed conventionally realistic. That's achievable and pushes us forward.
HPsquared
Reusable first stage (which is the largest, most expensive part), expendable second stage (only one engine vs nine on the first stage), and reusable spacecraft. I'd be surprised if the Falcon second stage cost more than the Shuttle's external tank. (Though, to be fair, they are decades apart)
sneak
It was only reusable if you keep building new ones after they explode and kill everyone inside.
Did we all forget that the Space Shuttle is a failed program because it was unacceptably deadly due to a high failure rate?
jiggawatts
Sure, but it was burning congressional pork as fuel and cost only the occasional human sacrifice.
m3sta
Science made it possible. Remember this when you see anti-scientific sentiment online.
antithesizer
[flagged]
amelius
Meh, rocket science is just Newtonian physics mostly.
SpaceX is just the commercialization of stuff that was invented by our parents and grandparents in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
idiotsecant
How to spot someone who has never designed a complex system in their life.
jgbuddy
Looks like it's cancelled
null
gonzopancho
Scrubbed
stephc_int13
If it works, it works. But for now...
jmyeet
I'm still going to be interested to see if Starship is ever an economic success.
These test launches are expensive and it's going to take a long time to recoup that R&D, in large part because of... the Falcon 9. You have to look at what problem Starship is solving. Typoical answers are:
1. Greater payload capacity. This is true but is there demand for that? This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem but we can point to the Falcon Heavy as a useful data point. There have only been ~13 launches thus far. Some might say "you can launch multiple payloads in one launch" but you really can't unless they're on pretty much the exact same orbit. Starlink works fine for this because they are on basically the same orbit.
2. Maybe it's "reusable second stage". This is only a fraction of the total cost, like an order of magnitude less than the impact of the reusable first stage and Falcon 9 already has taht. And it's proven; or
3. Which brings us to "landing humans on the Moon or Mars" but it's not really a suitable vehicle for that. Think about it. How are you going to land? They're reduced launch weight with the chopstick catching mechanism for the first stage such that it can't land on its own (unlike Falcon 9) so we'd need the second stage to be able to land on its own and take off again. We're nowwhere near even testing that. And it's going to take a lot of testing for human-rating flight.
But OK, let's look past all that and say it lands on the Moon. Well, how do the astronauts get out and back in? They're 30-40 meters off the ground.
I just don't know how this program succeeds.
gridspy
1. You raise some valid points, but it's pretty common that when you lower the price for something ($ per KG to LEO) you raise the demand. The planned price drop is so severe that it becomes practical to send full weight objects into space without spending money and time on reducing weight.
2. Still a huge reduction in price. A full StarShip launch is expected to be much cheaper than a full Falcon 9 launch (per launch) because the cost is just fuel (about $300k) and some maintenance.
3. Putting legs back on for the Mars landing vehicle (a small fraction of the # starships launched btw) is totally practical.
Testing-
Yes, there is a lot more testing to go. I personally prefer testing and data-driven approvals than the traditional Paperwork based approval methods.
gpm
1. I think starlink alone means there is demand for that. Starlink is an appreciable fraction of satellites in orbit... Apart from starlink, satellites spend a lot of money on being as light as possible, at the very least there's a tradeoff here where you get to make the same satellite cheaper by being less mass efficient.
2. I wouldn't dismiss the cost savings from a reusable second stage.
3. They already have experience with legs from Falcon 9, and they're already landing this rocket very precisely with their tower. I would expect the development timeline for legs to be short. Much shorter than the development timeline for human rating the rest of this, for instance...
3.5. Winches and ropes are light and cheap, lowering things to and raising things from the surface doesn't strike me as a particularly difficult problem... apart from maybe the human-rating aspects of the system.
I think Starship has a good theoretical basis for being an economic success. On the other hand I don't have much faith they will successfully execute at this point.
They're massively behind schedule and presumably above anticipated cost. They aren't showing signs of having successfully designed a safe, reliable, and cheaply built vehicle. They've been making what externally seem like stupid mistakes like having their rocket fail in basically the same way twice in a row. They are making political enemies left right and center whether it's by having a fascist CEO committing election related crimes, or littering the same down-range islands with rocket parts from failed launches. They are almost certainly driving away talent by virtue of the same CEOs political roles and crimes, and by virtue of doing things like taking SpaceX engineers and having them work on twitter.
sidibe
Space enthusiasts seem quite immune to politics compared to the Tesla consumers, they still hang on his every word when it comes to Starship.
As an ignorant outsider who only watches these Starship launches and doesn't do Kerbal, seems to me like another Cybertruck, where he after super successful model goes all in for big and cool (to him) even if it doesn't work
gridspy
In addition you don't need to worry as much about people scratching the side of your satellite after parking using SpaceX rockets.
(Driving a Tesla is subject to public scrutiny from others both while driving and when parking)
Edit: The launch was scrubbed for today. "Standing down from today's tenth flight of Starship to allow time to troubleshoot an issue with ground systems" https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1959755893324865963
Everyday Astronaut's live stream has started already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv97hecvwfI
NASASpaceflight also, with guest Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7WmlTp7ue0
The only official SpaceX stream will be here closer to launch: https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1yoKMPRjeYYxQ but the YouTube channels will be rebroadcasting it after their own cameras lose sight of the rocket.
There may or may not be an official SpaceX technical update presentation before or after the launch. There was supposed to be one last time too but it was silently canceled, so TBD.