The seventh Starship test flight, although it did not go as we all would have liked, represents a mixed success for SpaceXSpaceX. To summarize this shot, we could write that after a perfect takeoff and a separationseparation successful of the two stages, then a separation in flight from the “ring”, the Super Heavy booster (the main stage) made a controlled descent towards the launch pad, where it was recovered. However, at an altitude of 146 kilometers, the Starship exploded due to a ” anomaliesanomalies “, as indicated Elon MuskElon Musk on X, specifying that this explosion was “ probably caused by an oxygen or methane leak ».
A significant advance compared to previous flights
Despite the loss of the upper floor, many positive points can be highlighted. First of all, SpaceX succeeded, for the second time, in recovering the booster in a controlled manner using the mechanical arms installed on the launch tower. This feat, which had only been achieved once before, during Starship 5, demonstrates undeniable technical progress and underlines the complexity of this maneuver, which was considered one of the most difficult aspects of this flight.
During this flight, the booster used an engine that had already flown before, which highlights the reliability of Raptor engines in terms of reusability. Although an analysis of data specific to this engine is planned, the positive performance already observed can be used to learn from it and identify possible improvements, even for an already qualified engine. This data could also prove valuable for optimizing future engines.
-Flight failure as a vector of development
During the Booster's successful recovery, an incident occurred with the second stage at approximately 90 miles (146 kilometers) altitude, while flying toward space. SpaceX announced that it “lost the ship” following an anomaly, which ultimately resulted in an explosion. If the explanations provided by Elon Musk prove to be correct, this rules out a design defect, which would have required prolonged immobilization of the vehicle. In a humorous note, a SpaceX official confirmed this loss of communication with the ship, mentioning that the anomaly was followed by a “ unscheduled rapid disassembly », a rather diplomatic formulation to evoke a failure.
It is essential to note that the in-flight vehicle was an improved version compared to the previous six Starships. Furthermore, the development method adopted by SpaceX, which is based on experimentation and learning through both successes and failures in flight, differs radically from the traditional approach in Europe, as is the case for the Ariane system. While ArianeGroup favors the qualification of Ariane launchers on the ground before their first flight, SpaceX favors practical tests to perfect its technologies and accelerate the development of its launcherslauncherseven if some flights end in failures. This philosophy of rapid and flexible innovation allows SpaceX to learn valuable lessons from each launch.
Related News :