Summary from my watch:

- Launch roughly on time, after a scrub yesterday. (Sounds like the scrub was due to ground equipment, most notably the water system.)

- Initial ascent was good, but then one engine on the booster went out.

- Relight of the booster's engines after stage separation for the boost back burn failed. Engines did light again for a landing burn, but seems to have hit the water harder than expected and was very off target.

- Starship lost one engine shortly after stage sep. Turned into an unintentional test of engine out capability. It made it to space.

- Some weird motion and lots of off-gassing after engine cut-off, with uncertainty about if it actually got a good orbital(ish) insertion. Seems to have been benign, with the motion being a weird slow flip to the orientation for payload deployment.

- Test deployment of dummy payloads was successful, including a couple with cameras to look back at Starship.

- An in space engine relight test was skipped, presumably due to the issues during launch.

- Re-entry to over the Indian Ocean seemed to go really well. Nothing obviously burning or falling off. The amazing views of the plasma during re-entry, something never seen live before starship, are now routine.

- Starship did a maneuver to simulate how they'll have to go out over the gulf and back to the landing site.

- Nailed the target, evidenced by views from drones and buoys. Soft landing before falling over and giving us a big (expected) boom.

As far as overall progress from previous test flights goes, they're at least treading water while making many large changes. I think they were hoping to try for a tower catch and actually going orbital for next flight, but I highly doubt that now. The boostback burn failing was the largest failure, with the engine failure on Starship being a close second. Good performance despite engine out seems to be an unintentional success.

The views from Ship's engine bay looked rather ominous -- with the red glow visible in multiple places, and something venting furiously from the broken engine. It was a pleasant surprise that the ship did not explode and not only that, but it even landed exactly on target. Guidance system software engineers have done a very good job!

The booster not completing the return part of the flight was disappointing. They had a similar incident in one of the previous flights, when they tried to maneuver the booster too aggressively immediately after stage separation which caused problems with the fuel supply. If it was something similar this time, it might be solvable by changing just a few details of the maneuver. So, maybe it is not that huge of a deal.

There were many cool things in the webcast, from them showing the catamarans that are deployed at the landing site, to the views form the cameras on-board of the "satellites". The first few minutes after liftoff were just amazing visually.

I am just delighted that SpaceX continues with the "good enough" pace of development here, at least at these phases. Rapid iteration of build, test, learn, and improve rather than wait for perfection.

They are willing to have "negative outcome learning experiences" to gather data quickly. and, of course, data, data, data.

I like it because I know what insane amount of red tape has built up to do anything similar in a Gov (any Gov).

The best part of this flight was seeing the full reentry with no visible hot spots or burn through like we've seen on every previous reentry of Starship. Seems like they have the heat shields really nailed.

My favorite part of this launch that others haven't already mentioned: during reentry, the dummy payload satellites were visible burning up behind the ship!

Seeing both the Starlink mass simulators deploy and the camera view from the last simulators looking back at Starship was really cool.

The amount of data they must have at this point running so many of those raptor engines has got to be insane... at least 300+ engine launches now -- wow.

This was good forward progress (V3 mostly worked, clear improvements on heat-shield, near-final Starlink deployment system).

Is this enough progress to keep a 2028 crewed landing? Don't know.

I'm curious whether they are going to try to recover a Starship before trying for in-space refueling (or the reverse). Either way, I think both have to work before they can try for an uncrewed lunar landing (presumably in 2027).

The big question is re-usability. How close are they to relaunching a Starship? They may not know for sure until they can get one back intact. If they can launch at least once a month, maybe they'll make it.

If they can re-fly a Starship this year AND demonstrate in-space refueling, then 2027 can be all about an uncrewed landing attempt. That would make me feel good about a 2028 crewed landing on the moon.

Some footage: https://youtu.be/CiWX1nsvqBs?si=lE5autC2y2b8ez2X

At a minute in you can see the satellites being ejected out one by one.

It lifts off so rapidly, it’s truly incredible

Does anyone know how important hot staging is?

It seems to give the booster a real kick - what's that do to turbo's and fuel movement?

You've got hot exhaust onto cold cryo fuel tank header?

You've got to carry more mass in terms of protection for the tank?

Is doing MECO and then push and then get 100 yards apart or something before second stage / ship engines kick on a big enough penalty to justify all the extra complexity?

I wonder if the hot separation was supposed to be that hot. Going at mach 5 and doing a quick U turn while there was some weird orange color on the side of the Super Heavy, then (possibly?) losing most engines from it seemed extra chaotic

This is amazing.

I don’t keep up with them. What’s different compared to v2?

Big takeaway for me is that the reentry and “landing” of Ship looked great. For the first time, it felt like they’re really on the path to achieving upper stage reuse. That was always the biggest “reach” of the entire program in my view, and today they took a major step forward.

Is it disappointing that they had a couple of engine outs, and also trouble with the booster relight? Sure. Do I have even a little doubt by now that they can fix these problems? None whatsoever.

The success of Ship 39 today was a big, big deal.

Oh man, so glad I stayed up to watch it. Kind of a rough start (but it's the 1st flight w/ new redesign, new engines, etc), had an engine out on both booster and ship, but the views were absolutely worth it. They managed to get the last satellite to connect to starlink and download the footage of the ship in orbit. Even with an engine out, the ship managed to reach orbit, deploy all the satellites, re-enter, flip and soft splash into the ocean, near a buoy! And on top of that we got the drone views of the landing. Fucking spectacular views.

Having a faultless payload deploy and a pinpoint landing after losing a whole vacuum engine (one of 3) so early was an unexpectedly amazing performance. I suppose they gimballed the inner non-vac engines to the max and burned longer, next level adaptability.

Most obvious improvement was having no re-entry heating problems, secondmost was deploying with zero issues and with a faster pace. It appears they decided to pause the "horizontal" movement of the pez dispenser before a final push away, probably to avoid vibration causing those "bonks" on the payload door, like we had once before.

So when's that self-growing Moon base happening?

Cool splashdown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiWX1nsvqBs&t=173s

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

It's worth remembering that, according to SpaceX's own filings, they've spent >$15 billion on the Starship program thus far with more to come. And SpaceX is burning cash still, particularly because Elon Musk bailed out his own bad decisions with Twitter and xAI with SpaceX stock, basically.

Flight 12 was a relative success. Some engines failed to light but that's an unintended good test. Rockets are typically designed such that they can have a certain number of engines fail and still achieve their mission.

At this point, the entire SpaceX project is a bet on telecommunications services, specifically direct-to-satellite handheld Internet. That's the only market that will recoup the program costs.

We don't have exact figures for the current true cost of a Falcon 9 launch factoring in reuse but many think it's somewhere betweenm $10 and $20 million. Well, SpaceX has spent 100 F9 launches on Starship so far and that's how you have to look at it. Say F9 is $20M and Starship once it starts launching Starlink is $10M that's 150-300+ launches just to break even.

You might be tempted to say there are other missions for Starship but there really aren't. Satellites aren't that bug, as evidences by there being ~1 Falcon Heavy launch per year (usually for the military and/or to geostationary orbit AFAICT). You can't economically put multiple payloads in one Starship because they all have different orbital parameters.

F9 is rated for human spaceflight. It's a long road for Starship to be certified for human spaceflight. SpaceX hasn't even begun to test in-orbit refuelling yet. Gases are weird in microgravity.

F9 is the cash cow funding all this and that too might go away if Blue Origin or one of the other wannabes ever gets a reusable launch platform to commercial operation.

There are big launches like interplanetary missions but those are few and far between.

It would be fascinating if what ends up dooming SpaceX is actually Twitter.

Another flight with many explosions and a trivial payload. Trial and error, trial and error. At least these million monkeys have upgraded from typewriters to something more fun.

This incremental progress, far smaller improvements than planned, has put them so far behind schedule I'm not confident this design is any good. Still haven't done orbit. This launch was not a smooth launch. SLS by contrast seems to work. Why did nasa contract SpaceX for the lander. The whole plan is bad.

What a time to be alive