SpaceX Raptor V3 on Starship Flight 13 Landing: Why They Had to Start Over!

Engines have been a massive headache for SpaceX stretching from Flight 12's drama right up to Flight 13's nail-biting pre-launch hurdles. Now though, SpaceX has earned the right to be proud as most of those terrifying gremlins are officially solved. However, a few stubborn landing quirks still need ironing out to achieve absolute perfection. Let's do a quick deep dive into what actually happened to the Super Heavy engines and Starship during this high-stakes flight on this episode of Great SpaceX. Let's do a quick deep dive into what actually happened to the Super Heavy engines in particular and Starship in general during this most recent high-stakes flight. Flight 13 was arguably SpaceX's ultimate mic drop answer to its anxious fans and the broader aerospace community after months of rampant speculation and it totally promises to unlock even bigger cooler prospects moving forward so as a massive show of support for SpaceX and our channel please hit subscribe if you haven't already to stay looped in on unexpected space news that none of us can predict. The rock solid foundation for that futuristic utopia always lies in relentless progress and one of the absolute main characters in this flight is the engine. I'm going to get straight to the point because in this industry we always have to find ways to hustle past problems instead of crying over spilled liquid oxygen. As I've talked about ad nauseum the engine was the biggest disaster on flight 12 especially on the booster side which triggered a massive post-flight mishap investigation. The FAA ultimately concluded the root cause was severe heat effects on propulsion system components during ascent alongside some wonky engine alarm system settings. After the aggressive B-20 hot fire tests it looked like the headache was cured but the universe decided to laugh by throwing a curveball and aborting the very first launch attempt. Right above the final July 24th launch window SpaceX candidly revealed a moody little issue with the turbo pumps. Clearly SpaceX rolled into flight 13 carrying some serious baggage and anxiety regarding the super heavy's raptor engines especially since they didn't even get a final static fire to ease nerves. Therefore despite a bunch of clever engineering upgrades some distinctly weird behavior regarding the booster engines popped up again this time around. Specifically the drama centered entirely around the landing burn sequence. After completing its controlled free fall phase at an altitude of approximately three kilometers right at t plus six minutes and 26 seconds the engines fired up to slam on the cosmic brakes. Normally boosters are supposed to wake up 13 middle and inner ring engines to decelerate rapidly. Once the vehicle stabilizes 10 middle ring engines are supposed to shut down leaving just three inner ring workhorses active for the final approach. However from the absolute start of the landing burn all the way through the next six seconds the exact number and position of the active engines looked pretty sketchy. Initially only 10 engine gimbals activated while three engines sitting in the middle ring two clumped together and one directly opposite refused to wake up and they didn't fire at all later either. Less than a second after that two more engines one in the middle ring and one in inner ring suddenly choked and shut down. Finally the remaining three middle ring engines cut out leaving a lonely squad of just five engines running two in the inner ring and three in the middle. The fact that three engines completely ghosted the command led to wild speculation that they were malfunctioning preventing SpaceX from throwing enough power at the deceleration phase. Clearly activating the full complement of engines was necessary because before cutting to the engine diagram telemetry showed V20's descent speed was still screaming along at over 2,000 kilometers per hour at an altitude of roughly seven and a half kilometers. That velocity might have dipped slightly by the time the landing burn actually triggered but I firmly believe SpaceX should have fired up more engines for optimal braking. Furthermore the fact that two engines operated for less than a second right after ignition raises serious suspicions that this wasn't some intentional chess move but rather a low-key failure. As a result the entire landing burn essentially limped along with just five active engines. This definitely slashed the overall effectiveness of the maneuver making it feel like final second flight control wasn't quite dialed in. Flawless vehicle control is an absolute non-negotiable requirement for nailing a booster catch with the Mechazilla arms. SpaceX has already pulled it off three times but those were with an earlier much simpler version of the booster that featured totally different engine layouts and grid fins. The upcoming V3 architecture is going to introduce massive upgrades to the navigation system alongside a brand new launch pad. That kind of hardware demands precision down to the exact second and centimeter which is why a sloppy maneuver just won't cut it. That being said there are still plenty of wildly optimistic predictions defending V20's chaotic final maneuver. This hopeful camp speculates that SpaceX intentionally wanted to pull off a specific booster flip and therefore deliberately withheld certain engines to create a balanced differential thrust across the vehicle sides. Furthermore the engines that failed to fire or shut down early were sitting in neat symmetrical positions which heavily implies this might have been a planned choreography all along. Regardless of whether it was a real mechanical glitch or a secret master plan I think SpaceX still needs to obsess over the Super Heavy Booster engines and Starship in general to score bigger wins in the future. Do you think this weird engine hiccup is a massive red flag or are there other underlying issues we completely missed? Drop your hot takes in the comments down below. Of course after dragging the problems into the light we still need to hype up the incredible things the Starship engines actually achieved. Let's be real with all those pre-flight turbo pump scares I mentioned at the top we were sweating bullets about whether the ship would even survive the ascent phase but this time the rocket cleanly ripped off the launch pad without a single scrub. Obviously that was the exact moment we could all collectively unclench our shoulders proving that the ox turbo pump saga was thoroughly conquered after a grueling week of all-nighters by the engineering team. Right behind that came the ascent phase which was the exact spot where flight 12's booster engines famously imploded. As you probably saw this time all 33 Raptors fired like clockwork scoring a literal zero failure rate. That kind of reliability unlocked peak aerodynamic performance during the punch into the upper atmosphere. That rock solid reliability was dialed up even further once the flight transitioned into stage separation and the boost back burn. This is the exact highest stress phase where Starship's propulsion systems have to toggle on and off with Swiss watch precision and they totally nailed the assignment. Right after separation SpaceX orchestrated a gorgeous shutdown of the booster engines starting with the eight symmetrical engines in the middle ring at t plus two minutes and 19 seconds followed by the outer ring before cutting 20 outer engines into staggered waves. This theatrical shutdown method wasn't just visually stunning it showcased elite thrust management designed to keep the vehicle perfectly balanced. The sequence wrapped up with just five engines maintaining steady thrust right up until separation. The absolute second the upper ship fired its own engines to pull away the booster instantly kicked off its boost back burn. At that exact moment the remaining booster engines fired back up again moving sequentially from the inside out in a buttery smooth sequence allowing for absolute mastery over the booster's speed and trajectory. Even the final boost back shutdown process executed a textbook perfect transition from the outside in. It's safe to say that the booster engine management during the first half of this flight was genuinely world-class arguably the cleanest performance of any test flight to date. Clearly if they can squash those lingering doubts surrounding the terminal landing phase the entire operational flight profile will be bulletproof. The upper ship's engines were equally impressive. We have plenty of low-key anxiety about how the upgraded ship would handle the vacuum of space but it's fantastic that zero ship engines failed this time around. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that whatever gremlin mess with the Raptor vacuum on flight 12 has been thoroughly exterminated. Thanks to that newfound reliability the ship enjoyed a buttery ascent before coasting into a prime state for payload deployment. On top of that it successfully pulled off an in-space engine relight that ran longer than any previous attempt proving it's officially ready for deep space missions and beyond. The Raptor's journey finally wrapped up with its own terminal landing burn which relied on just three active engines. All three engines successfully restarted permitting a smooth flip deceleration and precise navigation toward a controlled splashdown. Because the ship miraculously refused to explode upon impact this time post landing camera angles gave us a pristine look straight into the engine compartment which looked remarkably intact. Flight 13 can easily be stamped as a monumental stepping stone for the Raptor engine program. Most flight phases demonstrated elite reliability empowering SpaceX to exercise near total control from ignition to splashdown. Sure there was a minor hiccup with the super heavy during the landing phase but knowing this team it'll get patched up faster than you can refresh your feed. This success completely opens up massive highly lucrative potential for the next flight where the ship might actually claw its way into a true full orbit or perhaps even get snagged out of midair by the mechazilla arms as Musk recently teased. We'll definitely break down those wild possibilities in the next episode so stay tuned. Starship refueling is one of the most important systems SpaceX has ever attempted to build and according to NASA it may have just become even more challenging than many people realized. So how difficult is Starship's refueling architecture and more importantly how does SpaceX plan to solve the problem? About a year from now Artemis 3 is expected to be nearing launch and roughly 18 months to two years later focus will begin shifting toward Artemis 4 and 5. Starship is expected to play a major role in all of those missions but as we all know Starship is unlike any lunar lander that has come before it. The vehicle is enormous, exceptionally powerful and capable of carrying unprecedented amounts of cargo but those advantages come with a significant challenge because Starship is so large it requires an enormous amount of propellant to travel beyond Earth orbit. The problem is that most of that fuel is consumed by simply reaching space. That is why Starship requires orbital refueling and that is also one of the primary reasons critics remain skeptical about the architecture. The question has always been straightforward. How many refueling launches will be required to prepare a Starship for a lunar mission? Recently a document from NASA's Office of Inspector General or OIG may have provided an answer. In a report discussing launch infrastructure in Florida NASA included a particularly striking statement. The agency wrote an eight-day launch cadence is necessary as SpaceX will need to launch at least 15 Starships to deliver propellant to low Earth orbit where it will be stored in a fuel depot before being distributed to the Starship human landing system that will transport astronauts to the lunar surface. That statement appeared as a footnote connected to a broader discussion about future launch operations in Florida. NASA also stated launches from Kennedy and CCSFS or Cape Canaveral Space Force Station are expected to further increase the production of SpaceX's Starship launch vehicle in 2026. The company intends to launch Starship up to 44 times annually from LC-39A and maintain an eight-day launch cadence once the launch vehicle is fully operational. It also plans to launch Starship an additional 76 times per year from CCSFS to support Starship's launch cadence. SpaceX is expanding launch operations to Space Launch Complex 37 at CCSFS and has shifted all Falcon 9 launches to Space Launch Complex 40. Those figures reveal the extraordinary scale of what SpaceX is attempting to accomplish. A launch every eight days, roughly three to four launches every month, 44 launches annually from LC-39A alone, and potentially another 76 launches every year from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. But perhaps the most attention-grabbing number is the estimate of 15 tanker flights. According to NASA's assessment, SpaceX may need at least 15 Starship launches simply to deliver enough propellant into low-Earth orbit. That fuel would then be stored inside an orbital depot before eventually being transferred to the Starship HLS destined for the moon. As we've discussed before, SpaceX currently has two primary approaches to orbital refueling. The first involves direct propellant transfer, where two Starships dock with one another and transfer fuel directly between vehicles. The second approach relies on an orbital depot, where tanker vehicles repeatedly deliver fuel to a dedicated storage platform before the mission vehicle arrives later to receive the accumulated propellant. Both approaches offer advantages and disadvantages. Direct transfer avoids the challenge of storing cryogenic propellant for extended periods in space, but it requires numerous launches in rapid succession along with repeated docking operations. The depot approach reduces the need for perfectly synchronized launches, but it introduces an entirely different challenge. How do you store extremely cold cryogenic propellants in orbit for months without excessive boil-off losses? NASA's report specifically references the depot architecture, and according to the agency's estimate, filling such a depot could require at least 15 launches. If Starship eventually reaches a launch cadence of three to four flights per month, completing 15 tanker missions would require approximately four months, and that's roughly a third of a year. Which leads directly to the obvious question, how do you keep cryogenic fuel stable for four months in orbit? That's not a small engineering problem. It's one of the most technical challenges facing the entire Starship program, and it must be solved before 2028. That's currently the target time frame for Starship HLS to support NASA astronauts on the lunar surface. In reality, the schedule was once even more aggressive. Under earlier planning, Artemis III was expected to conduct the first crewed lunar landing. However, that timeline eventually became unrealistic for both SpaceX and Blue Origin. As a result, NASA adjusted its architecture. Instead of performing a lunar landing, Artemis III is now expected to focus on docking operations involving Orion and lunar landers, while the first crewed lunar landing has shifted to Artemis IV in 2028. That change provides additional development time for Starship and its refueling systems. But even with that extra margin, SpaceX cannot afford to move slowly. The company still needs to perfect orbital refueling within the next two years, and that process cannot truly begin until Starship masters its foundational capabilities, including orbital operations, payload deployment, reliable upper stage performance, and full recovery of both stages. SpaceX has already outlined an initial refueling test plan. The concept begins with two Starships. One vehicle launches first and remains in orbit. A second Starship launches weeks later. The two spacecraft rendezvous, dock, and maneuver into the vertical orientation required for propellant transfer demonstrations. Additional testing would follow. Eventually, dedicated depot hardware would be launched. Then, formal propellant transfer operations could begin. As you can see, the timeline is highly ambitious. That's why NASA's estimate of filling a depot says that it will require four months, even at a launch cadence of eight days. The challenge becomes even more apparent when we compare that requirement with Starship's current flight rate. We're already in the second half of 2026 and SpaceX has completed only one version 3 mission. At the moment, the most realistic launch cadence appears to be approximately one launch every two months. That highlights just how much work remains. A single figure buried within a NASA report has revealed the enormous complexity of Starship refueling. But what do you think? Can SpaceX solve these challenges before Artemis 4 arrives? Let me know with a yes or a no in the comment section down below. And don't forget to like the video if you enjoyed it so far, as well as share it with your friends and family if you found it helpful, and subscribe if you haven't already so you can be among the first to receive updates on the latest SpaceX and aerospace developments. Of course, most SpaceX supporters would probably answer yes. To be fair, SpaceX appears to have several viable paths forward. The first is straightforward, build more launch pads. NASA's projected launch cadence is largely based on LC-39A, but Starship's future will not rely on a single site. Starbase already has two launch pads, with Pad 2 active and Pad 1 being upgraded after supporting 11 launches. Meanwhile, Florida is becoming an increasingly important part of the program. In addition to LC-39A, SpaceX plans to build two more Starship pads at SLC-37, which could eventually support up to 76 launches per year. With LC-39A also being upgraded and construction progressing at SLC-37, SpaceX could eventually operate at least five Starship launch pads, with even more possible in the future. The challenge is getting those facilities online quickly. With five pads operating at roughly an eight-day cadence, SpaceX could theoretically complete enough tanker launches to fill a depot in about a month, significantly reducing cryogenic storage challenges while spreading operations across multiple sites. But launch pads alone won't solve everything. Even with several facilities, launching 15 tanker missions remains a major undertaking. That leads to the second solution, reduce the number of launches required. The easiest way to do that is by increasing the amount of propellant delivered per flight, in other words, make Starship bigger. That's where Starship V4 comes in. Expected to be substantially larger than current variants, V4 could carry roughly 2,300 tons of propellant, which is about 700 tons more than V3, with dedicated tanker versions capable of transporting even greater quantities of fuel. According to Musk, that could reduce the number of tanker flights required for refueling operations from around 15 to just five or six. Of course, V4 is still years away. SpaceX has only recently begun flying V3, which is intended to establish the operational foundation needed for future upgrades. Realistically, V4 may not arrive until around 2027. Beyond larger vehicles and additional launch pads, SpaceX must also continue scaling production, logistics, testing, integration, transportation networks, fuel systems, and ground infrastructure to support truly high-frequency operations. Florida remains a major focus, with much of that infrastructure still under development. NASA faces challenges as well. The agency's recent report noted that portions of Florida's launch infrastructure are aging and increasingly strained by growing launch activity, meaning NASA and SpaceX will likely need to work together on major modernization efforts across the space coast. Every solution comes with challenges, but every solution also provides a path forward. And if SpaceX can successfully execute these plans, the obstacles highlighted by NASA may prove far more manageable than they appear today. Starship refueling may ultimately become the greatest technical challenge SpaceX has ever faced. NASA's report makes one thing clear – orbital refueling is far from a simple engineering challenge. It may ultimately become one of the most complex space logistics systems ever created, requiring tanker launches, orbital depots, cryogenic fuel storage, massive launch infrastructure, and rapid launch cadence to operate together with exceptional reliability if Starship HLS is to reach the moon on schedule. Fortunately, these challenges are not new to SpaceX. The company has been preparing for them for years through new launch paths, expanded production facilities, growing operations in Florida, and future Starship upgrades with significantly larger fuel capacity. Taken together, these developments suggest SpaceX is already building the foundation needed to support the future NASA envisions. Perhaps most importantly, confidence within the company remains high. Musk and other SpaceX leaders continue to view orbital refueling as the critical technology that unlocks humanity's future beyond Earth. Without it, permanent lunar bases become far more difficult, Mars missions become vastly more challenging, and Starship's potential remains out of reach. Will orbital refueling become SpaceX's next great breakthrough? No one can answer that with certainty yet, but one thing is clear – SpaceX is committed to making it work. The future of Starship, the success of Artemis, and eventually humanity's path to Mars may all depend on it. The next few years could become the most important chapter in Starship's development, and the solutions SpaceX creates for orbital refueling may shape the future of space exploration for decades to come. And 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!