Raptor 3 just Became Biggest Problem for Starship!

First orbit. Two controlled splashdowns. Starlink V3 is officially in service. On paper, Flight 14 looks like a huge success. Starship reached orbit, deploying all 26 Starlink V3 satellites, and both stages eventually made controlled splashdowns. But nothing is perfect, and Flight 14 still had one major problem. The engines. And it's not just on one stage. It's both. So what exactly happened to the Raptor 3 engines? And more importantly, could those problems affect SpaceX's plan to catch the ship on Flight 15? After that, we'll also look at three major events involving SpaceX and Tesla on October 1st. Let's get into it on this episode of Great SpaceX. If you watched Flight 14 and came away thinking everything went perfectly, well, not quite. The mission achieved its primary goals, but some of the most important problems happened during the first half of the flight. And once again, they involved the engines. Since SpaceX transitioned to Raptor 3, we've seen major improvements in the engines' design and performance. But operating a large cluster of Raptors reliably is still an enormous challenge. Just look at the previous flights. On Flight 12, one of B-19's engines failed shortly after liftoff. That was followed by multiple engine issues during the boostback and landing burns. Super Heavy eventually came down hard. S-39 also lost a Raptor vacuum engine during ascent, with unusual smoke visible from the vehicle. Flight 13 showed clear progress. B-20 avoided the engine damage seen previously. The boostback burn was more stable. And S-40's engines performed extremely well, helping the ship survive its return and splashdown. So, going into Flight 14, expectations were high. And then, B-21 lifted off, all 33 engines fired, the vehicle cleared the tower beautifully. Until, at T-plus 1 minute and 16 seconds, one of the middle ring engines shut down. The good news? Starship kept climbing. With 33 engines, the vehicle has substantial redundancy. Losing one engine doesn't automatically end the mission, but it still costs performance. And SpaceX specifically mentioned the shutdown in its post-flight update. Then, things got even more interesting. After stage separation, Super Heavy began its boostback burn. One of the engines failed to relight. Then, another middle ring engine shut down. So now, the booster had lost two engines during ascent, and another during boostback. Yet, B-21 kept going. For the landing sequence, SpaceX used 11 engines. And despite the earlier problems, the booster still reached the water in a remarkably controlled splashdown. That's important, because it showed that Super Heavy could tolerate multiple engine losses and still complete its return sequence. But it also highlighted an area SpaceX still needs to work on. Raptor relight reliability. Then, we turn to S-41, and this is where things became even more interesting. After Flight 13's strong performance, many of us expected S-41 to deliver another clean ascent. Instead, at T-plus 7 minutes and 18 seconds, one of the ship's Raptor vacuum engines shut down. That immediately raised a much bigger question. Could S-41 still reach orbit? Fortunately, the answer was yes. SpaceX explained that the remaining five engines burned for longer than planned, allowing the ship to maintain its planned, passively safe trajectory. Then, the flight team determined that the remaining sea-level engines were healthy enough for the orbital insertion burn. One of them fired successfully. S-41 reached an orbit of approximately 275 kilometers. And from there, the mission continued. Starlink deployment worked. The deorbit burn worked. Reentry worked. And S-41 eventually reached the ocean in another controlled splashdown. So, the engine failure didn't stop the mission, but it did change it. SpaceX decided to bring S-41 home earlier than originally planned, saying the decision was made out of an abundance of caution given the engine issue experienced during ascent. In other words, the engine problem didn't prevent success, but it did affect how long the vehicle stayed in orbit. And that's where things got a little peculiar for Flight 15. Because we still don't have the complete root cause of these failures, so any explanation right now is speculation. Potential areas of investigation could include the engine filtration system, turbopumps, ignition, thermal conditions, or software and control systems. Filtration is especially worth watching because SpaceX previously identified ice-related issues as a contributor to engine problems. But that doesn't mean filtration caused the Flight 14 failures. The same goes for the other possibilities. Without SpaceX's data, we simply don't know yet. And the B-21 relife failure could have a different cause altogether. For example, the fact that the engine worked during ascent but failed to restart later could point investigators toward the relife or ignition system. Again, that's a possibility, not a confirmed diagnosis. And now we get to the question that really matters. What does all this mean for Flight 15? Because catching a Starship isn't just about having a tower and a pair of chopsticks. The engines have to work. They control ascent performance. They perform the critical burns. And on the way home, they have to provide precise thrust for the final landing maneuver. For ship, however, Flight 14 provided some encouraging data. S-41 demonstrated orbital insertion. It completed a de-orbit burn, survived free entry, and it performed its landing burn despite losing a Raptor vacuum engine earlier in the flight. Those are all important pieces of the catch sequence. The catch itself is obviously a completely different challenge. But Flight 14 gave SpaceX real-world data from almost the entire profile. And before Flight 14, Musk said that a successful mission could lead to an attempt to catch a ship on Flight 15 with the odds previously estimated at around 50 to 60%. A booster catch could also be considered. That's where the engine situation becomes more complicated. B-21's incomplete relights during boostback and landing show that Raptor 3 still has some reliability questions to answer. SpaceX could therefore choose to keep the booster recovery strategy more conservative on the next flight, especially if the catch infrastructure isn't ready for both vehicles. So, did the engine problems cancel the possibility of a ship catch on Flight 15? Not necessarily. Flight 14 still accomplished its primary objectives. The redundancy worked. Both stages returned to Earth. And S-41 demonstrated that it could continue the mission after losing an engine. But SpaceX now has another set of engine data to analyze. And that could influence the exact recovery plan, the timing, or how aggressively SpaceX approaches Flight 15. Until SpaceX releases more information, we simply won't know. And honestly, that's what makes the next flight so interesting. Flight 14 proved Starship can reach orbit and come home. Flight 15 could be the flight where SpaceX tries to bring ship all the way back to the tower. You're probably already familiar with China's growing push to develop rockets and engines that bear striking similarities to technologies pioneered by SpaceX. We've seen it across rocket designs, propulsion systems, and launch infrastructure. And now, there's another one to add to the list. Space Pioneer, the company behind the Tianlong rocket family, has just released a new lineup of engines. And there's one in particular that's immediately going to catch your attention. The Tianhe-21. Take away the Chinese characters, and at first glance, you could almost mistake it for SpaceX's Raptor 3. The resemblance is striking. Just compare it with Space Pioneer's earlier engines, the Tianhe-12 and Tianhe-11 engines, covered in external pipes and complicated-looking hardware. Then, look at the Tianhe-21. Most of that complexity is gone. Instead, we get a much cleaner and more compact design with far fewer exposed components. And that looks very similar to the direction SpaceX took with Raptor 3. SpaceX has been simplifying the engine by integrating more components and eliminating unnecessary external plumbing. That can reduce weight and manufacturing complexity while also removing potential failure points. It can make the engine easier to produce, inspect, and eventually reuse. But the really interesting question is what's happening underneath the remarkably clean exterior. Because Tianhe-21 isn't simply a visual redesign. Its specifications point to some major changes from Space Pioneer's previous engines. Let's start with the fuel. Tianhe-21 uses methane and liquid oxygen, or methalox. That's a major departure from the earlier Tianhe-12 used liquid oxygen and kerosene, while Tianhe-11 used a different propellant combination altogether. There's another reason it's particularly interesting for long-duration spaceflight. Methane and oxygen can potentially be produced from resources available on Mars. That's one of the reasons SpaceX chose methane for Raptor. And now, Space Pioneer is moving in the same direction. Then there's the engine cycle. According to the translated specifications, Tianhe-21 uses a full-flow staged combustion cycle. That's a major step up from the gas generator cycle used by Tianhe-12 and the fuel-rich staged combustion approach associated with Tianhe-21. And the numbers get even more interesting. Tianhe-21 is listed at around 2,450 kN of thrust. That's roughly 250 metric tons of thrust, for comparison. Tianhe-11 was listed at around 280 kN, while Tianhe-12 reached approximately 1,100 kN. This isn't a minor upgrade. It's a substantial jump in engine performance. Its listed specific impulse also reaches around 322 seconds at sea level, compared with roughly 285 seconds for Tianhe-12. And the variable thrust range remains around 50 to 110%. So, from the fuel to the engine cycle to the overall architecture, Space Pioneer is making some pretty significant changes. And many of those changes happen to be characteristics we've already seen become central to SpaceX's Raptor development. That's what makes Tianhe-21 so interesting. It's not simply that the engine looks similar to Raptor 3. The underlying design direction appears to be moving in a similar direction as well. But there's an important question here. Is Tianhe-21 just another Raptor-inspired engine concept? Because we've seen similar designs before. We've previously covered engines such as JZYJ's FY-100 and Arctec's Mammoth-1. If you haven't seen our previous Raptor 3 copycat coverage or our other Raptor 3 copycat episode, you can check them out after this video. But there's an important difference here. Those other engines have largely remained at the development stage. Space Pioneer already has an actual rocket program. And that's where Tianlong-3 comes in. Because before Tianhe-21 started looking like Raptor 3, Tianlong-3 was already drawing comparisons to another SpaceX rocket. Falcon 9. At around 72 meters tall and 3.8 meters in diameter, Tianlong-3 is remarkably close to Falcon 9 in size. Both are two-stage rockets. Both use nine engines on the first stage. Both use vacuum-optimized engines on the second stage. And both are designed around first stage recovery and reuse. Space Pioneer is targeting around 10 to 20 booster reuses with Tianlong-3, designed to deliver around 17 to 22 tons to low Earth orbit. So the Falcon 9 comparison isn't simply about appearance. It's about the operating philosophy. Launch, recover, refurbish, fly again. But here's where things get even more peculiar. Tianlong-3 isn't trying to copy Starship either. It's a much smaller vehicle, closer to Falcon 9 in overall mission class. Yet its propulsion technology is moving toward the same territory as Starship. Methane propulsion, full-flow staged combustion, and a highly integrated engine architecture. In other words, Space Pioneer appears to be combining ideas from two different stages of SpaceX's development. Falcon 9's reusable booster architecture with Starship's advanced methalox propulsion. The company has also reportedly explored stainless steel construction, another feature strongly associated with Starship. So, on paper, the formula is certainly interesting. A Falcon 9-sized reusable rocket, powered by an engine architecture that resembles the direction SpaceX took with Raptor, using methane, and potentially incorporating lessons from Starship's manufacturing approach. But copying a design philosophy is only the beginning. The real challenge is making it work. An engine can look like Raptor 3 without matching its performance. A rocket can be designed for reuse without actually achieving it. And a successful landing is still very different from rapid, repeatable operations. That's what Space Pioneer ultimately has to prove with Tianlong-3. Because the similarities are easy to see. The hard part is turning those similarities into a reliable launch system. Tianhua-21 may look like Raptor 3. Tianlong-3 may look like Falcon 9. But none of that matters unless the hardware can deliver the performance, survive flight, come back, and do it all over again. That's where the real test begins. Not when these designs leave the drawing board. Not when they leave the factory. But when they leave the launch pad and start flying. Clearly, these designs look impressive. But can Space Pioneer actually catch up with SpaceX? That's where things get complicated. Let's start with Tianhua-21. On the surface, it looks remarkably similar to Raptor 3. The shape is similar. The structure is similar. Even the advertised thrust figures point in the same direction. But reproducing the appearance of Raptor 3 is very different from reproducing what's happening inside it. Musk recently made that point. He warned that new companies should avoid trying to build Raptor 3 because, despite its remarkably simple exterior, the engine contains extremely complex internal geometry that requires heavily modified 3D metal printing. And that's where the real challenge begins. Raptor 3 isn't defined by what you can see from the outside. Its performance comes from everything happening underneath that surface. The combination, the combustion chamber, the cooling system, the turbo machinery, the materials, the manufacturing process, all of those systems have to work together under extreme temperatures and pressures. And SpaceX didn't arrive at the configuration overnight. It took years of testing, failures, redesigns, and refinement. Tianhua-21 now has to go through that same unforgiving process. Until the engine survives serious ground testing and eventually flight, its advertised specifications remain just that, specifications. And Tianlong-3 gives us an important example of why that distinction matters. Unlike Tianhua-21, Tianlong-3 is already a flying rocket. Space Pioneer had an impressive start with Tianlong-2, which reached orbit on its first attempt in 2023. Tianlong-3, however, has followed a much harder development path. On June 30th of 2024, all nine first stage engines were being fired during a static test when the rocket broke free from the test stand. It traveled roughly 1.5 kilometers before crashing and exploding. Nobody was injured, but the booster was destroyed. Then came the first flight on April 3rd of 2026. The launch initially appeared normal. But around 189.5 seconds into the mission, an interaction involving liquid oxygen and turbine exhaust triggered a fire near the bottom of the vehicle. The resulting damage led to engine shutdowns and an uncontrolled mission. And that failure illustrates something important about rocket development. It's not enough for individual components to work on their own. The engines have to work with the tanks. The plumbing has to work with the propulsion system. The avionics have to control the vehicle. The thermal protection has to survive the environment. And the flight control system has to keep everything operating as the rocket accelerates through the atmosphere. A rocket is an integrated system, and the only way to truly learn how that system behaves is to test it again and again under increasingly demanding conditions. That's where flight experience matters. SpaceX has been building that experience for more than a decade. Falcon 9 went from its first successful landing in 2015 to hundreds of flights and booster recoveries with some individual stages flying more than 20 times. Every flight adds another data point. Every landing reveals something new. Every refurbishment tells engineers what survived, what failed, and what needs to change. Over time, SpaceX turned recovery from an experiment into a routine part of launch operations. That's the experience gap Tianlong-3 still has to close, and SpaceX isn't standing still. The company is already pushing beyond Falcon 9. Starship is more than 120 meters tall, around 9 meters wide, methane-fueled, and designed around full two-stage reuse. Super Heavy has already demonstrated multiple tower catches, while SpaceX continues working toward recovering ship. So, Space Pioneer is effectively pursuing two different parts of SpaceX's approach. Tianlong-3 follows the Falcon 9 philosophy of reusable first-stage operations. Tianhua-21 moves toward an engine architecture resembling Raptor 3, but adopting those concepts isn't the same as reproducing SpaceX's operational experience. A design, an architecture, even advertised specifications can be copied. But years of test data, successful flights, failed flights, recoveries, inspections, and engineering lessons can't be replicated simply by studying the finished product. That's what Space Pioneer ultimately has to build for itself. The experience, the flight history, the recovery process, and eventually, the turnaround process. Launch it, recover it, inspect it, refurbish it, launch it again, then do it again and again until reuse becomes routine. Because Tianhua-21 may look like Raptor 3, Tianlong-3 may resemble Falcon 9, but copying the hardware is one thing. Building the experience behind it is a completely different challenge. There's still a significant gap between what Space Pioneer is showing on paper and what SpaceX has already demonstrated in the real world. But that's exactly what makes Tianhua-21 so interesting. Space Pioneer has now put forward an engine with an ambitious architecture, impressive specifications, and an unmistakable resemblance to the direction SpaceX took with Raptor. But the real test hasn't happened yet. Because everything we've talked about so far eventually comes down to one thing, flight. Can Space Pioneer manufacture the engine at scale? Can it survive the extreme conditions inside a full-flow staged combustion engine? Can it deliver the advertised performance reliably? And more importantly, can it do it again? That's the part SpaceX spent more than a decade proving with Falcon 9, and now Space Pioneer has to build that experience for itself. Tianhua-21 could become a major step in that process, but its real significance won't be decided by how closely it resembles Raptor 3. It'll be decided by what happens when the turbopumps spin up, the combustion chamber ignites, and the engine finally has to prove itself in flight. We've already seen how quickly ambitious rocket designs can run into problems once they leave the test stand. Now Tianhua-21 gets its chance. The design and the specs are on the table. The next question is simple. Can Space Pioneer make it work? Because the moment Tianhua-21 starts flying, we'll finally find out whether this is just a remarkable imitation or the beginning of a genuinely capable new engine. In any case, folks, thanks for watching, and I'll see you in the next one.