SpaceX making 'well over 1,000' changes to Starship ahead of next launch

SpaceX performs an engine-pump chill and spin test with its Starship Ship 25 prototype at its Starbase site in South Texas. The company posted this photo on Twitter on June 22, 2023. (Image credit: SpaceX via Twitter)

SpaceX apparently learned a lot from the first-ever test flight of its giant Starship rocket two months ago.

The company has made more than 1,000 changes to Starship's design since that landmark April 20 liftoff, which ended with a controlled destruction of the vehicle high over the Gulf of Mexico, SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk told journalist Ashlee Vance in a discussion on Twitter on Saturday (June 24).

SpaceX sent that self-destruct command after Starship experienced a number of problems, including the failure of the vehicle's two stages to separate as planned. The company is taking pains to ensure that latter issue doesn't recur on Starship's next flight, Musk said.

"So, we made a sort of late-breaking change that's really quite significant to the way that stage separation works, which is to use hot staging," Musk said. 

Related: Relive SpaceX's explosive 1st Starship test flight in these incredible launch photos

In hot staging, the engines on a vehicle's upper stage begin firing before those on the first-stage booster finish shutting down. The strategy, which is commonly employed on Russian rockets, should boost Starship's payload-to-orbit capacity by around 10%, Musk said.

The decision to go with hot staging required a suite of design changes on Starship, however. 

"The superhot plasma from the upper-stage engines has gotta go somewhere," Musk said. "So we're adding an extension to the booster that is almost all vents, essentially. So that allows the the upper-stage engine plume to go through the sort of vented extension of the booster and not just blow itself up."

The April 20 launch also caused considerable damage to the orbital launch mount at Starbase, SpaceX's facility on South Texas' Gulf Coast. The company has been working to repair that mount and protect it against similar damage on future launches.

For example, SpaceX is pouring about 35,300 cubic feet (1,000 cubic meters) of "reinforced high-strength concrete" at the mount. And the company is installing a water-spouting steel plate there as well, Musk said.

The plate is "basically like a gigantic upside-down shower head," he told Vance, who wrote a biography of Musk that was published in 2015. "It's basically gonna blast water upwards while the rocket is over the pad to counteract the massive amount of heat."

That heat comes from the 33 Raptor engines on Starship's first stage, a giant booster the company calls Super Heavy. The upper stage, a 165-foot-tall (50 meters) spacecraft known as Starship, sports six Raptors.

The Starship that flew on April 20 was powered by Raptors that "were somewhat of a hodgepodge," a collection that was built and tested over the course of a year or so, Musk said. The Starship being groomed for the next flight will feature more uniform engines with several slight but important improvements.

These changes are "very inside baseball," the billionaire entrepreneur told Vance. For instance, the new Raptors sport "an improved design of the hot gas manifold, as well as higher torque on the bolts of the hot gas manifold," Musk said.

The April 20 launch aimed to send Starship's upper stage partway around Earth, ending with a splashdown in the Pacific near Hawaii. The next liftoff will have similar aims, Musk has said.

The pad and the next Starship vehicle — consisting of prototypes called Booster 9 and Ship 25 — should be ready for a launch in roughly six weeks, he told Vance. 

But SpaceX isn't in complete control of the timeline. For example, a coalition of environmental groups is currently suing the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, claiming the agency didn't properly assess the damage Starship launches can cause to the South Texas environment and community.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Mike Wall
Senior Space Writer

Michael Wall is a Senior Space Writer with Space.com and joined the team in 2010. He primarily covers exoplanets, spaceflight and military space, but has been known to dabble in the space art beat. His book about the search for alien life, "Out There," was published on Nov. 13, 2018. Before becoming a science writer, Michael worked as a herpetologist and wildlife biologist. He has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from the University of Sydney, Australia, a bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz. To find out what his latest project is, you can follow Michael on Twitter.

  • c_glensmith
    In the sub head and article claims stage separation failed.
    The main failure here is space.com journalism.
    The vehicle simply did not reach the stage separation altitude/speed so stage separation was not initiated.
    This lack of understanding or care in research destroys any credibility this article or this web site may have had.
    Reply
  • bryant
    always troubling when a group of yuppies get bent out of shape over furthering our reach for the stars.
    Reply
  • Brad
    c_glensmith said:
    In the sub head and article claims stage separation failed.
    The main failure here is space.com journalism.
    The vehicle simply did not reach the stage separation altitude/speed so stage separation was not initiated.
    This lack of understanding or care in research destroys any credibility this article or this web site may have had.
    You took the words right out of my mouth but the article also seems to suggest that SpaceX basically said the same thing:

    "SpaceX sent that self-destruct command after Starship experienced a number of problems, including the failure of the vehicle's two stages to separate as planned. The company is taking pains to ensure that latter issue doesn't recur on Starship's next flight, Musk said."

    Clearly it never came close to stage separation. It was barley supersonic, just around max Q, and had already lost too many engines to ever get near seperation.
    Reply
  • theNerdonot
    I wonder why the "flip maneuver stage separation" acrobatics was considered a good idea by the SpaceX team in the first place. Sometimes, they confuse innovation and whimsiness.
    Reply
  • billslugg
    The flip is not intended to happen prior to stage separation. It normally is done by the booster stage, after separation, using nitrogen thrusters, to prepare for boostback burn. The flip we saw was simply due to rotational forces due to too many engines out on one side. It was not thought it would handle a rotation while still linked. They were surprised it did.
    Reply
  • theNerdonot
    billslugg said:
    The flip is not intended to happen prior to stage separation. It normally is done by the booster stage, after separation, using nitrogen thrusters, to prepare for boostback burn. The flip we saw was simply due to rotational forces due to too many engines out on one side. It was not thought it would handle a rotation while still linked. They were surprised it did.
    That would be the case for a Falcon. rocket. For Starship, the idea was to initiate a rotation before separation, so that a collision between the 2 stages would be unlikely. Scott Manley has a good video about the maneuver:

    1651031623859843073View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1651031623859843073
    Reply
  • Brad
    billslugg said:
    The flip is not intended to happen prior to stage separation. It normally is done by the booster stage, after separation, using nitrogen thrusters, to prepare for boostback burn. The flip we saw was simply due to rotational forces due to too many engines out on one side. It was not thought it would handle a rotation while still linked. They were surprised it did.
    No that's wrong. SpaceX envisioned this flip and separate maneuver. This has nothing to do with Falcon 9 boost back burns.
    Reply
  • billslugg
    I stand corrected. It makes sense. The maneuver would tend to pull the two halves apart. "Avoid collision".
    Reply
  • theNerdonot
    It was their initial assessment of how to tackle stage separation on Starship. One attempt was apparently enough to convince them to go a different way. It speaks volumes in terms of how bad the data must have been to give up so quickly on this technique.
    Reply
  • Toado
    Brad said:
    You took the words right out of my mouth but the article also seems to suggest that SpaceX basically said the same thing:

    "SpaceX sent that self-destruct command after Starship experienced a number of problems, including the failure of the vehicle's two stages to separate as planned. The company is taking pains to ensure that latter issue doesn't recur on Starship's next flight, Musk said."

    Clearly it never came close to stage separation. It was barley supersonic, just around max Q, and had already lost too many engines to ever get near seperation.
    Space X didn't say the same thing. Its just terrible, lazy reporting.
    Reply