SpaceX Found Brilliant Solution to Open Starship Door in Space

People always say that everything gets a hundred times harder in space, and apparently that includes something as simple as opening a door. We saw that firsthand during Starship's Flight 9. The mission was going well up to that point, but when it came time to open the payload bay and release the dummy satellites, the door didn't fully open. So what went wrong? And more importantly, how can it be fixed? Let's take a closer look. The big difference between Starship and something like a submarine comes down to how pressure works in their environments. Submarines are built to handle pressure from the outside. When you're deep underwater, all that water is pushing in on the hull. That's why submarine doors are designed to open outward. The water pressure actually helps keep the door sealed shut. Spacecraft work in the opposite way. In space, there's no air outside because it's a vacuum. That means all the pressure is coming from inside the spacecraft. So most spacecraft doors open inward. The pressure inside the cabin helps press the door against the frame, which makes for a more secure seal. But Starship is a little different. Its payload bay isn't pressurized at all. There's no internal pressure to help push the door outward or hold it in place. That means the door has to rely completely on its mechanical systems to move and stay secure. And that's where things can get tricky. Mechanical systems that work great on Earth don't always behave the same way in space. Once Starship is in orbit, the absence of gravity can cause parts to shift slightly. Metal structures that were assembled on Earth might relax once the force of gravity is gone. That small shift can mess with how parts fit together. Something that used to move freely might now be wedged too tightly to move at all. Temperature swings in space add another challenge. One side of the vehicle might be in direct sunlight while the other is freezing cold. That kind of extreme heat and cold can cause parts to expand or contract. When you're dealing with tight tolerances and moving pieces, even small changes like that can make things jam up or behave unpredictably. To make things even more complicated, Ship 35 was dealing with some issues during that flight. Almost immediately after the engines shut down, the ship began to tumble unexpectedly. It tried to correct itself using other vents. But as we later found out, there were leaks in the fuel systems inside the vehicle. Starship's attitude control system relies on the gas in the space above the liquid propellant inside its tanks. If there's a leak, the tank can't build up enough pressure and the system stops working properly. Even so, we still got several good views of the payload bay. One camera was looking down onto the dummy satellites and the forward dome beneath them. You can actually see particles floating around, showing how the ship was spinning out of control. Their movement changes as the coast phase continues, making the spin even more noticeable. So how does all of this connect to the payload door not opening? Well, if any of the leaking fluids made their way into the payload bay, they could have messed with the pressure balance or caused unexpected resistance in the door mechanism. That alone could explain why the door didn't open properly. There's also the possibility that the spinning itself interfered with the door operation. It's not hard to imagine that the system has built-in safety limits to prevent the door from opening while the ship is rotating too much. So, let's talk about possible solutions. SpaceX will likely need to add stronger structural reinforcements to help stabilize the payload door. These reinforcements have to be strong enough to keep the door secure during all phases of flight, but still flexible enough to work smoothly with the actuator system. The goal is to develop a design that allows the door to open and close reliably, even in the low-pressure environment of space, Improving things like alignment, locking mechanisms and actuator coordination will probably be part of the fix as well. SpaceX can also take some inspiration from an iconic NASA vehicle that already tackled these challenges, the Space Shuttle. The shuttle's payload bay was not built to handle pressure differences. In other words, it could not survive being pressurized while the outside was a vacuum, or vice versa. To deal with this, NASA used a system of vents and ducts to manage airflow and pressure. This setup was called the Active Vent System, or AVS. The AVS used motor-driven doors controlled by the onboard computers. Before launch, the doors were either closed or slightly open in a purge position to keep any propellant vapors from entering the bay. Some compartments were also being purged with dry air from ground systems. Right before launch, all the doors were fully opened so that as the shuttle climbed and the outside pressure dropped, air from the payload bay could flow out. The doors stayed open throughout the ascent, and while the shuttle was in orbit. Before re-entry, the crew would close the doors by sending commands through the onboard computer. During the de-orbit burn, some of the rear doors reopened briefly to vent out any vapors that had built up. Then all the doors were automatically closed again before the shuttle reached the entry interface. During the early part of re-entry, the doors stayed shut to keep hot plasma out of the payload bay. Once the vehicle slowed to Mach 2.4 at around 85,000 feet altitude, the doors opened again to let air flow into the bay and equalize pressure. Even in emergency scenarios like ascent aborts, the door sequence was handled automatically. But honestly, I'm not sure how much Starship can really learn from the shuttle's payload bay design. Since Starship uses a pretty unique deployment system of its own, it's called the PEZ dispenser. And yes, if you're picturing one of those little candy toys that pushes out a single rectangular candy from a small slot, you're thinking in the right direction. That's basically how SpaceX deploys its Starlink satellites. The PEZ dispenser system uses a sliding door that opens on the side of Starship. It's not a huge door, but it doesn't need to be. The satellites inside are stacked in a way that lets them slide out through this slot, kind of like dropping a letter through a mail slot. To keep the area around the opening strong and stable, there are a bunch of doubler plates built into the structure around it. These doubler plates add extra material and reinforcement to handle the stresses in that section. Think of it like a window in a house. The glass itself doesn't hold up the building, but the frame around it does. Same idea here. The door panel itself isn't a structural part of the vehicle, but the reinforced frame around it takes care of the structural stability. So whether the door is open or closed doesn't make much of a difference structurally, since the payload bay isn't pressurized anyway. To actually open the door, a set of pistons pulls it upward. As it opens, the panel tilts inward slightly while moving up. Of course, the satellites don't just fall out on their own. The PEZ dispenser uses an active system to push them out. Inside, there are two floating roller tracks that run along the bottom. Along these, two chain drives move in parallel, providing the force needed to roll the satellites out of the bay. We even got a good look at these chains in the interior shots from Flight 9's payload bay. Unfortunately, we didn't get to see them in action this time. In the future, Starship is expected to carry not only Starlink satellites, but a wide variety of payloads, including ultimately human passengers. As its mission profile expands, Starship will move beyond the current PEZ dispenser deployment system. But before we explore that, take a second to hit that subscribe button. We're aiming for 10,000 subscribers, and you can help us get there. Thanks! One of the most likely alternatives is the clamshell payload door, which opens by folding back the entire leeward side of the payload bay. According to the Starship User Guide back in 2020, the Starship payload fairing is a clamshell structure in which the payload is integrated. Once integrated, the clamshell fairing remains closed through launch until the payload is ready to deploy. To deploy the payload, the clamshell fairing door is opened, and the payload adapter and payload are tilted at an angle in preparation for separation. The payload is then separated using the mission-unique payload adapter. If there are multiple payloads on a single mission, a rotating mechanism can be provided to allow each satellite to separate with maximum clearance. Once separation is confirmed and the payloads have cleared the fairing, the payload fairing door is closed in preparation for Starship's return to Earth. This new fairing door is essential for missions to the Moon or Mars, where Starship will need to transport large payloads and infrastructure to support the construction of a permanent base. Its wide, clamshell-style opening allows for the deployment and retrieval of oversized cargo that wouldn't fit through traditional fairings. Interestingly, Elon Musk has even suggested that this door could enable Starship to collect orbital debris. When asked about this on X back in 2021, he replied simply, We can fly Starship around space and chomp up debris with a moving fairing door. In essence, Starship could act like a kind of space whale, scooping up junk as it orbits the Earth. Okay, putting the technical stuff aside for a moment, things seem to be heating up at the Oval Office. About $22 billion worth of SpaceX's government contracts are now potentially at risk, and several major U.S. space programs could face serious disruption due to a public feud between Elon Musk and former President Donald Trump. It all started when Musk criticized Trump's tax cut and spending legislation last week. The disagreement quickly escalated. Trump reportedly lashed out at Musk during a conversation in the Oval Office, and Musk responded with a series of pointed posts on X. In one of them, Trump threatened to terminate SpaceX's government contracts. Musk fired back by saying he would begin decommissioning the Dragon spacecraft used by NASA. That comment sent shockwaves through the community. Dragon is currently the only American spacecraft capable of carrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Under a roughly $5 billion contract with NASA pulling it out of service would have a huge impact, not just on NASA, but on the dozens of countries participating in the ISS program under a decades-old international agreement. However, just hours later, Musk seemed to backtrack. Responding to a follower on X who suggested both he and Trump cool off and take a step back, Musk replied, Good advice? Okay, we won't decommission Dragon. Still, the mere threat to pull Dragon from service marked a rare and dramatic outburst from one of NASA's most important commercial partners. While NASA does have access to Russia's Soyuz spacecraft as a backup, any disruption to Dragon would be a major complication. Even though Musk once claimed he was done with politics, it is clear that detangling himself from it will not happen overnight. Personally, I just hope he refocuses on what he does best, running SpaceX and building the future of space exploration. His company needs him, and that is where he has always made the biggest impact. After Starship's ninth flight, it's clear that the vehicle, especially Block 2, is facing some problems. But unless you work at SpaceX, you probably have no idea what's going on, since the company hasn't shared any details. So, what is SpaceX hiding from us? To really understand what's wrong, we need to rewind to mid-January when Starship Flight 7 took off and ultimately failed. Most people know this flight as the debut of Starship's version 2 design and, unfortunately, its first major failure. According to SpaceX, something went wrong near one of the Raptor vacuum engines. A flash, which is an unintended ignition of propellant, was seen in the aft section of the vehicle, an area often called the attic. This section sits between the bottom of liquid oxygen tank and the aft heat shield and is not pressurized. After the flash, sensors picked up a sudden rise in pressure there, pointing to a possible leak. So, what exactly is a flash? It happens when fuel or oxidizer ignites unexpectedly, usually because of something like a leak, an improper fuel mix, overheating, or rapid pressure changes. In any case, it is not supposed to happen and it can be catastrophic. Now, why did this flight fail when the previous one seemed to go relatively well? There is one important detail that often gets overlooked. Flight 7 was the first time SpaceX attempted to launch Starship with a meaningful payload. In this case, dummy Starlink satellites weigh about 20 tons. That is only around 13% of what Starship is eventually expected to carry, so it might seem like a light load. However, there is an interesting possibility being discussed among spaceflight watchers. Some believe that Starship might currently be underpowered, meaning even that relatively modest payload could have stressed the vehicle more than expected. And this assumption is not without reason. The Starship's upper stage, in terms of dry mass, is over 20 times heavier than Falcon 9's upper stage. During a Starship update presentation in April 2024, Elon Musk mentioned that integrated flight test 3 could have delivered around 40 to 50 tons to low Earth orbit. That is only about half of Starship's intended payload capacity, and we know that Elon usually overestimates things, so that number could be lower. To be fair, that is not entirely surprising for Block 1. The first version of Starship was not designed for maximum payload performance. Its main goal was to reach orbit and return safely. It is heavier than ideal, uses earlier versions of the Raptor engines, and was not optimized for efficiency. In fact, it ended up being heavier than originally expected. Block 1 was really just a proving ground, a version built to demonstrate that Starship could actually fly and be reused. But now we have moved on to Block 2, which is supposed to get closer to the payload capacity SpaceX has been aiming for. That raises an important question. How do you make a larger, more powerful spacecraft while still using the same six engines? One possibility is that SpaceX is being forced to cut down on every bit of extra weight and push the engines closer to their operational limits during launches. The downside is that this makes the rocket more fragile and increases the chances of engine overheating and vibrations, which is a combination that can very easily lead to failure. Because of this, SpaceX reduced the number of dummy satellites on Flight 8 from 10 to 4, hoping the lighter load would make the flight more stable. They also added vents and introduced a new purge system using gaseous nitrogen to make the ship more resistant to propellant leaks. To be fair, according to SpaceX, these upgrades did help to some extent, but other issues emerged during Flight 8. SpaceX later stated that the most likely root cause of the failure was a hardware problem in one of the center Raptor engines on the upper stage. This strongly suggests either a fuel leak or an overheating issue, both of which can happen when engines are built too light or are pushed beyond their limits during flight, which brings us to Flight 9. For this attempt, SpaceX reinforced key joints on the ship and improved the propellant system to make it even more resistant to leaks. As a result, the ship survived longer than before, but since the core issue still remains, it struggled to make it all the way through the mission. Another issue with this version of the design is Starship's attitude control system. Starship relies on Eulage gas to manage its orientation. Eulage gas refers to the pressurized gas that fills the empty space above the liquid propellant in the tanks. As the engines consume fuel, this empty space increases. To maintain proper tank pressure, Starship boils off a portion of its cryogenic propellants and re-injects it as a high-pressure gas. This pressurized gas keeps the fuel stable and flowing correctly. It is also used to power the thrusters that control the vehicle's orientation. However, if the tank develops a leak, as it did during Flight 9, it cannot maintain enough pressure. Without sufficient pressure, the attitude control system cannot function properly because the gas jets depend on that pressure to operate. As a result, the vehicle loses its ability to steer during the coasting phase and re-entry. So, what's the solution? SpaceX has been actively experimenting with different methods to optimize the thrust and efficiency of Starship launches. One of the most significant changes was how the team used hot staging not just for stage separation, but also to control the booster's initial flip maneuver, and they did it with a surprisingly simple trick. Recently, SpaceX released several video angles from Flight 9 showcasing this hot staging event. Among them was a unique view from inside Starship's engine bay, offering a close look at the Raptor engines gimbaling during the maneuver. The other three clips came from external cameras mounted on both the ship and the booster. These external perspectives provided a much clearer view of the stage separation and the controlled flip maneuver that followed. This aspect looked noticeably different from earlier test flights. One particular shot from a camera near one of Starship's forward flaps captured the booster reorienting itself post-separation, pointing upward and beginning a controlled turn back toward the launch site. According to SpaceX, this flight path is now considered the most efficient one yet. It is designed to minimize propellant use. As they stated in a post on X, after stage separation, Super Heavy flipped in a controlled direction for the first time. This maneuver requires less propellant to be held in reserve and enables additional payload mass to orbit. To achieve this improved maneuver, SpaceX made a subtle yet clever hardware change on Flight 9. They partially blocked some of the vents in the hot stage ring. While this modification was previously spotted by observers, many assumed it was simply for directing heat flow. However, it turns out that the blocked vents were intentionally placed on the side opposite the direction of booster separation. In effect, when Starship's upper stage engines ignited, the thrust pushed directly against the blocked portion of the ring. This asymmetry provided a force vector that helped guide the booster during separation. It was a remarkably simple yet brilliant way to add control to the process without extra hardware. However, this design is not expected to stick around for long. The current setup, which includes an expendable hot staging ring, has always been a temporary solution. SpaceX's long-term goal is to make the entire vehicle fully reusable. An upcoming version, which Elon Musk hopes to debut later this year, will feature a completely new, hot staging design that remains attached to the ship and can be reused after flight. This redesigned hot staging ring is made of struts that are permanently fixed to the booster. It appears taller, lighter, and much more open compared to the current version. Interestingly, it resembles the type used on some Russian rockets. This new configuration is designed to allow exhaust from the upper stage Raptor engines to vent more effectively while the stages are still connected. It also provides better protection for the top of the booster and reduces the risk of flame blowback into the ship's engine bay. Beyond performance improvements, the simplified design is easier to mass-produce. That's a crucial factor, as SpaceX eventually aims to build up to three Starships per day. A clear example of the updated design could be seen during Elon Musk's recent presentation at Starbase, where a real top section of a super-heavy booster was visible in the background. Another major upgrade coming with Starship Block 3 is the introduction of the Raptor 3 engine. This update is expected to greatly help address the vehicle's underperformance issues. Raptor 3 represents a significant leap forward compared to its predecessors, Raptor 1 and Raptor 2. The sea-level variant of Raptor 3 produces 280 tons of thrust, which is a 51% increase over Raptor 1's 185 tons and a 21% increase over Raptor 2's 230 tons. Despite this boost in power, it is also lighter, weighing just 1,525 kg compared to Raptor 1's 2,080 kg and Raptor 2's 1,630 kg. With a specific impulse of 350 seconds, the engine also offers improved efficiency. One of the most notable improvements is the simplified plumbing. SpaceX has streamlined many parts of the design, integrating secondary fluid circuits and electronics directly into the engine's structure. This change helps better protect those components during flight. Raptor 3 is also designed to operate without a base heat shield, which saves significant mass at the bottom of the rocket. At first, removing the heat shield might seem counterintuitive, especially considering concerns about the rocket being too fragile. However, Elon Musk offered a solid explanation. He stated that in the event of a small fuel leak, Raptor 3 is actually more robust. Because the engine is exposed, any leaking fuel would simply burn off harmlessly in the surrounding plasma during flight. In contrast, with the current Raptor 2 design, where the engines are enclosed, any leak becomes much more dangerous. Fuel can accumulate in the sealed compartment, increasing the risk of fire or explosion. All that aside, we're still left with a key issue. Starship is currently quite heavy. The upper stage of Starship has a dry mass that is more than 20 times that of the Falcon 9 upper stage. This means that to match Falcon 9's performance, it would need about 20 times the thrust, assuming it has the same specific impulse. Even if we assume the Raptor engines perform exactly as advertised, each one produces roughly three times the thrust of a Merlin 1D engine. Falcon 9's upper stage uses a single Merlin 1D, so six Raptors on Starship's upper stage would produce about 18 times the thrust. That's impressive, but it still falls short of what's needed to fully offset the added mass. A major reason for this weight is likely SpaceX's decision to build Starship entirely out of stainless steel. While this material is durable and cost-effective, especially when launching frequently and potentially discarding vehicles early in testing, it adds significant mass. That said, Starship is still in the development phase. If the vehicle reaches a more advanced stage where long-term reusability and payload performance become top priorities, SpaceX might want to reconsider using alternative materials. Reintroducing carbon fiber, for example, could help reduce dry mass and significantly increase the vehicle's capabilities. If you have watched this far, I truly appreciate your time and interest. I am glad to know that this video has been helpful to you. We are on our way to reaching our goal of 10,000 subscribers, so feel free to support us by hitting that subscribe button. It really helps a lot. Thank you!