SpaceX has a new Raptor vacuum Problem after Starship Flight 12; Delayed HLS on NASA Artemis...

I watched it and immediately thought, wow, because Flight 12 somehow looked spectacular and slightly concerning at the same time, which is becoming a very Starship experience. On the surface, the mission was impressive, and for a moment, Starship looked dangerously close to true reusability. But then there was the engine. No explosion, no dramatic failure, just smoke drifting around a Raptor vacuum engine like it had already submitted its resignation paperwork. So what happened? Why did the engine fail? How will SpaceX respond? And despite the issue, why are many people still calling Flight 12 one of the most successful ship flights yet? Let's break it down on today's episode of Great SpaceX. What a chaotic, beautiful, stainless steel roller coaster it turned out to be. One of the biggest highlights of the flight was the debut power of the Raptor 3 engines. These engines represent the next evolution of SpaceX propulsion. Now overall, the ship portion of Flight 12 actually performed extremely well, but early into ascent, trouble appeared. At T plus 3 minutes and 3 seconds, one of the Raptor vacuum engines failed, and unlike temporary glitches seen on previous flights, this one never recovered. The engine was completely dead. SpaceX later confirmed the issue in an official update stating, During its ascent burn to space, Starship lost one of the Raptor 3 vacuum engines but demonstrated its engine out capability and achieved its planned trajectory. That statement is important because despite the failure, ship still successfully reached its intended trajectory. That alone is a major achievement, but obviously losing an engine this early is not something SpaceX can casually ignore while pretending everything is fine. So what exactly caused the problem? To understand it, we need to examine the livestream footage carefully. The most revealing moment came at T plus 7 minutes and 29 seconds. At that point, the three sea level engines and two of the vacuum engines were still operating normally, but one vacuum engine stood out immediately, and not in a good way. There was no visible exhaust plume, no bright energy emission, nothing. The engine looked completely inactive, instead it was surrounded by an odd cloud of grayish blue smoke, and unlike the other engines, the upper section also lacked frost buildup. That detail may seem small, but it's actually extremely important. The frost normally appears because the engine components remain incredibly cold due to cryogenic propellants, but if heat suddenly rises in that area, the frost disappears, which strongly suggests something near the top of the engine overheated, or worse, burned. That immediately led many observers to suspect structural damage, and honestly, the evidence supports that theory pretty well. Now here's where things get especially interesting. In the Raptor 3 design, SpaceX removed the external engine heat shield that existed on earlier Raptors. Previously, there was a protective outer casing around the upper portions of the engine. But with Raptor 3, SpaceX decided they no longer needed it. Why? Because the company wanted to reduce mass and simplify the engine architecture. SpaceX also believed Raptor 3 had become integrated enough to survive without additional thermal protection, but Flight 12 may have exposed the limits of that confidence. During ascent, the engine likely experienced intense thermal stress. That heat could have damaged sensitive plumbing or components near the top section, and once damage began, things may have escalated quickly. The smoke itself could indicate a leak. If cracks formed in the engine structure or propellant lines, hot gases escaping under extreme pressure would create exactly the kind of plume visible in the footage. And because these engines operate under absurd conditions, even tiny failures can grow very quickly. Remember, Raptor engines run at chamber pressures so high, they basically treat physics like a speed limit suggestion. This is not forgiving hardware. Now interestingly, the engine issue wasn't the only visible damage on ship. Sharp-eyed viewers also noticed what appeared to be minor damage around the ship's skirt area, specifically near the region between sea level engine 140 and vacuum engine 98. A red glow became visible in the livestream footage. Most likely, this damage occurred during hot staging separation. That's the phase where a ship ignites its engines while still attached to Super Heavy. During this sequence, small sparks or thermal blasts may have damaged part of the skirt structure. Fortunately, it appears to have been relatively minor. The bigger concern remains the engines, and right now, fixing them is absolutely critical for SpaceX because one thing seems very clear. SpaceX probably doesn't want to bring back the old heat shield design. Doing so would almost feel like admitting defeat. The entire philosophy behind Raptor 3 is simplification and integration. Re-adding bulky shielding would partially reverse that progress. So instead, SpaceX will likely search for smarter solutions. One possibility involves upgrading the engine materials themselves. Certain components may need improved heat resistance or better durability under extreme operating conditions. The challenge, however, is scale. SpaceX already has many Raptor engines manufactured. If a major material flaw exists, replacing everything would become massively expensive and time-consuming. So any material improvements may primarily apply to future production runs. For existing engines, SpaceX may instead focus on external reinforcement methods. That could include specialized coatings or heat-resistant paints designed to improve thermal protection without significantly increasing mass. It sounds simple, but advanced aerospace coatings can make a huge difference. SpaceX may also prioritize improvements to the cooling systems. More efficient thermal management could reduce overheating and better protect vulnerable engine sections during ascent. Another critical area involves fire detection and suppression. Future systems may become more responsive and capable of identifying early warning signs before visible damage develops. In particular, the smaller pipes and plumbing sections likely deserve special attention. These tiny components are often the most vulnerable parts of the rocket engines. But despite all these issues, there's still a huge positive takeaway from Flight 12. The ship survived. Not only did it survive, it completed its mission objectives remarkably well. That reflects one of the smartest aspects of SpaceX's design philosophy. Instead of relying on a few giant engines, Starship uses many smaller ones. That means the vehicle can tolerate engine failure without catastrophic mission loss. Losing one engine does not automatically doom the spacecraft. And honestly, it's one of the reasons Starship remains so exciting despite all the explosions. Every test keeps revealing that the system itself is surprisingly resilient. So the big question now is this. Can SpaceX fix the engine issue quickly enough to push Starship even further on the next flight? Because the company clearly isn't slowing down. If anything, they seem more aggressive than ever. And honestly, if you know SpaceX, you already know the engineers are probably sleeping beside laptops right now while someone whispers, Flight 13, in the distance like a horror movie villain. But engines were only part of the story. Overall, ship actually performed extremely well during Flight 12. In fact, compared to previous flights, this may have been the most reassuring ship performance yet. One major success involved maintaining stability throughout the remainder of the mission. Even after losing an engine, the rest of the propulsion system stayed healthy. That stability became especially important during landing operations. SpaceX successfully performed landing flip maneuvers and continued testing dual engine landing capability. Those tests are essentially for future recovery operations. And they appeared far more controlled this time around. Then came payload deployment, which was another huge milestone. SpaceX successfully deployed two Starlink satellites during this mission. And those satellites later captured some absolutely stunning imagery of ship in space. But perhaps the biggest victory involved the heat shield. Before Flight 12, thermal protection remained one of Starship's biggest weaknesses, with earlier flights showing major tile loss and severe reentry damage. This time looked dramatically better. Splashdown footage revealed a far cleaner exterior, with the massive orange oxidation streaks from previous flights largely gone. That is major progress, because true reusability depends on surviving reentry without extensive refurbishment. Several critical regions, including the aft flaps and fuel tank sections, also returned in notably good condition, despite historically being vulnerable during descent. The upgraded thermal protection systems appear to be working, and that matters enormously for future reuse and landing operations. For the first time in a while, it genuinely feels like SpaceX is beginning to close the gap between experimental prototype and operational spacecraft. Orbital landings, rapid reuse, eventually catching and relaunching ships, those goals suddenly feel far more realistic than they did even a year ago. Of course, major challenges remain, engine reliability still needs improvement, and full operational reusability remains unproven. But Flight 12 demonstrated something critical. Starship is evolving rapidly, and every flight is solving real problems, even while discovering new ones, which, I've got to say, is basically the history of rocket development. The Artemis 3 crew has been finally announced. And while the astronauts themselves are certainly exciting, the bigger story may actually be how NASA plans to pull off the mission. Because Artemis 3 is shaping up to be one of the most complex space missions ever attempted. Involving multiple rockets, multiple spacecraft, multiple docking, June 9th marked an important day for NASA. As promised, the agency officially revealed the astronaut crew selected for Artemis 3. The mission will be commanded by NASA astronaut Ron Dubresnik. Joining him will be NASA astronauts Frank Rubio and Andre Douglas as mission specialists, while ESA astronaut Luca Parmitano will serve as mission pilot. It's an impressive team. And unlike Artemis 2, which is focused primarily on flying around the moon, Artemis 3 has a very different objective. These astronauts won't actually be landing on the lunar surface. Instead, they will help test and validate critical systems that future moon missions will depend upon. NASA didn't just announce the crew. The agency also revealed new details about how Artemis 3 is expected to unfold. And honestly, the mission architecture is fascinating. According to NASA, Artemis 3 will involve three separate launches. The agency described the mission as launching the world's most powerful rockets in short order. That phrase alone should excite space enthusiasts. Because whenever multiple super-heavy rockets are involved in the same mission, things tend to get very interesting. The entire mission is expected to last roughly two weeks. However, the exact duration will depend on how various rendezvous and docking operations unfold in real time. Space missions rarely follow a schedule down to the minute. Space has a habit of reminding everyone who's really in charge. The first launch will involve Blue Origin's lunar lander Pathfinder. Assuming New Glenn is operational and ready by then, it'll likely carry the Pathfinder into orbit. This spacecraft will arrive well before the astronauts. The goal is to allow the lander to spend several weeks operating in space while engineers evaluate how well it survives and functions in the harsh orbital environment. Think of it as a dress rehearsal before the main performance. Except the stage is orbit. And the audience is every space agency on Earth. And after the lander is already waiting in orbit, NASA will launch the second major mission. This will be Orion, riding atop the SLS. Inside Orion will be the four astronauts NASA just announced. Once in space, Orion will rendezvous and dock with the Blue Origin lander. The docking phase is expected to last about two days. During that time, the astronauts will conduct system checks, perform demonstrations, and enter the lander itself to evaluate crew support systems and operational procedures. This portion of the mission is particularly important. NASA wants to understand how astronauts interact with the vehicle long before anyone attempts an actual lunar landing. Finding problems in Earth orbit is significantly better than discovering them halfway to the moon. After those tests are complete, Orion will separate from the Blue Origin vehicle. And this is where things become even more interesting. Next comes the arrival of SpaceX. A Starship Pathfinder vehicle will launch and rendezvous with Orion. The two spacecraft will dock in orbit, however, unlike the Blue Origin phase, this docking period is expected to last only about a day. The focus appears to be verifying docking procedures and basic spacecraft interactions. Once those tests are complete, Orion will separate once again. The astronauts will then return safely to Earth. Their mission will conclude with a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. Recovery teams from NASA and the U.S. Navy will retrieve both the spacecraft and its crew, and hopefully everyone will return home with enough data to keep engineers busy for years. NASA's latest update also reveals some interesting clues about the vehicles themselves. For example, the Blue Origin Pathfinder appears likely to include life support systems. That makes sense because astronauts are expected to spend multiple days interacting with the spacecraft. As a result, it probably contains hardware similar to what will eventually fly aboard the crewed Blue Moon Mark II lander. The SpaceX vehicle appears to be different. Neither NASA's webcast nor the official update mentioned life support systems inside the Starship Pathfinder. Combined with the mission's one-day docking timeline, that suggests the vehicle may function primarily as a docking demonstrator. In other words, it may resemble a standard Starship more closely than a finished lunar lander. Its primary modifications could focus on docking hardware and mission-specific interfaces. That would allow SpaceX to test critical systems without needing to complete every feature of the final human landing system version. It's a practical approach. Why build the entire mansion when all you need right now is to test the front door? Of course, announcing a mission plan is one thing. Actually executing it is something else entirely, and every organization involved still has a tremendous amount of work ahead. NASA appears to be making encouraging progress on SLS. Hardware is being transported from facilities in Utah to Florida. Engine testing continues, and overall development appears more organized than during previous Artemis preparations. Part of that progress may reflect NASA's growing sense of urgency. The agency knows the schedule is tight and that there is very little room for major delays, especially if it hopes to maintain momentum across the broader Artemis program. Blue Origin faces its own challenges. The company has already revealed parts of its lander Pathfinder, including the docking module, but many critical systems remain out of public view. That's not unusual, as much of the integration work happens behind the scenes. Still, the clock is ticking. The recent New Glenn testing incident has added uncertainty, and repairing infrastructure, validating hardware, and resuming launches will take time. If Blue Origin hopes to keep Artemis schedules intact, progress will need to come quickly. Then there's SpaceX, perhaps the most unpredictable player in the entire program. Neither the Starship Pathfinder nor the operational lunar lander has been publicly unveiled. Based on NASA's plans, they appear to be separate vehicles, with the Pathfinder focused on testing and the final lander carrying life support systems and other mission-critical hardware. Given SpaceX's development pace, both could appear within the next year. But predicting Starship timelines remains one of aerospace's most dangerous hobbies. Some people collect stamps, space enthusiasts collect revised Starship schedules, and the collection keeps growing. Regardless, NASA's latest announcement offers the clearest picture yet of how Artemis 3 is expected to work. The architecture is incredibly ambitious, requiring multiple companies, spacecraft launches, and an extraordinary amount of coordination. If successful, it'll demonstrate capabilities humanity has never attempted before, and the next year could become one of the most important periods in Artemis history. Do you think NASA can successfully pull off this three-rocket Artemis 3 architecture? Let me know with Go 3 in the comment section down below. And now let's turn to our final part of today's news. Amazon and Project Kuiper, which recently received an important FCC decision that offers more flexibility but also comes with new pressure. In simple terms, Amazon no longer faces the immediate July 30th deadline that would have required half of its 3,232 planned satellites to be operational. That sounds like a major victory, and in many ways, it is. But the situation is more complicated. When the FCC granted the waiver on June 5th, Amazon had launched only 331 satellites, just over 10% of its first-generation Constellation. The company argued that launch availability, not satellite production, had become the primary bottleneck. Amazon has invested billions in launch contracts and built large numbers of satellites. The challenge has been finding enough rockets to get them into orbit. Amazon still expects to complete deployment by July of 2029, and that deadline remains unchanged. The company says recent delays among its launch providers will not prevent it from meeting the requirement. Those providers include Ariane 6, ULA, Blue Origin, and even SpaceX. I know, the irony is quite hard to miss. One of SpaceX's biggest competitors may ultimately need SpaceX's help to deploy its own satellite network. As FCC Space Bureau Chief Jay Schwartz stated, We find that Amazon LEO has demonstrated special circumstances warranting deviation from the The FCC also emphasized the importance of maintaining competition in the satellite broadband market, whereas Starlink currently holds a commanding lead. More competition typically means lower prices, better service, and faster innovation. Amazon did not receive a free pass, however. Until at least half of the Constellation becomes operational, newly launched satellites will lose certain priority spectrum protections. That penalty could remain in place until March of 2028, though Amazon may shorten that period by demonstrating faster progress. In other words, the FCC has effectively told Amazon, We'll give you more time, but we'd like to see some hustle. The decision also increases pressure on Amazon's launch partners. Ariane 6 must raise its launch cadence, Vulcan must enter regular service, Blue Origin must recover from recent setbacks, and if those providers cannot deliver enough capacity, Amazon may need to purchase additional launches from SpaceX. Somewhere, a team of corporate strategists is probably looking at spreadsheets and feeling very conflicted. Because nothing says competitive marketplace quite like paying your biggest rival to help execute your business plan. More broadly, the situation highlights how quickly the space industry is evolving, and Amazon is working to build a serious challenger to Starlink. The result is an industry that is becoming more competitive, more interconnected, and increasingly dependent on partnerships between companies that are also fierce rivals. It's a fascinating moment in aerospace, and the pace of change shows no signs of slowing down. And could Amazon eventually become a serious challenger to Starlink, or is SpaceX already too far ahead? Leave your thoughts in the comments below, I read as many of them as I can, and some of the best discussions on this channel happen down there. That brings us to the end of today's episode, thank you so much for tuning in. As always, this has been Kevin from GreatSpaceX, and until next time, keep looking up!