why did ship 35's deployment of Starlink simulators through the Pez dispenser fail and what was the FAA's reaction to Flight 9 hey I'm Lucas Welcome to the SpaceX community Let's get started On May 27th 2025 at 6:36 p.m Central Standard Time SpaceX launched the 9inth test flight of its Starship Mega rocket from Starbase Texas marking a significant milestone in its reusable spacecraft program This flight known as Starship Flight 9 aimed to achieve several objectives including the reuse of a Superheavy booster booster 14 testing the payload door mechanism to deploy eight Starlink simulator satellites conducting a heat shield test with 100 removed tiles and achieving a controlled re-entry and landing burn While the mission achieved some successes it faced critical challenges particularly the failure to open the payload door which prevented the deployment of the Starlink simulators Today we will have a comprehensive analysis of the flight's performance explores the probable causes for the payload door failure and examines the FAA's reaction The launch itself was successful with all 33 Raptor engines on the Superheavy booster igniting as planned Booster 14 on its second flight performed well during ascent and achieved stage separation demonstrating progress in SpaceX's reusability efforts However during its landing burn the booster was lost likely due to a Raptor engine explosion This loss prevented recovery but its performance during ascent was notable The Starship upper stage ship 35 reached space and completed its scheduled engine cut off An improvement over previous flights like flight 7 and 8 which failed earlier However during the coast phase a fuel system leak led to a loss of attitude control This leak affected the reaction control system RCS which relies on tank oolage for maneuvering and prevented the completion of planned objectives including the payload door operation Consequently ship 35 disintegrated during an uncontrolled re-entry over the Indian Ocean The failure to open the payload door was a critical setback for flight 9 as it was intended to deploy eight Starlink simulator satellites Essential for testing deployment mechanisms for SpaceX's operational Starlink constellation The door also referred to as the PEZ dispenser in earlier tests had been successfully opened and closed in previous flights such as flight 3 However on Flight 9 it failed to open fully as confirmed by multiple sources Although the exact cause of the payload door failure has not been officially disclosed by SpaceX or the FAA based on the flight's events there might be a loss of control due to fuel leak the fuel system leak which caused ship 35 to lose attitude control likely prevented the necessary conditions for opening the payload door The door requires precise orientation and stability and the tumbling motion as observed in real time by suspace.com could have made it impossible to execute the opening procedure Mechanical or system malfunction There could have been a mechanical issue with the door itself such as a jam or an electrical failure in its control systems Given that the door worked in previous flights this suggests a specific condition during flight 9 possibly related to the flight profile or environmental factors affected its performance Debris or obstruction An expost speculated that debris in the cargo bay might have obstructed the door but this remains unconfirmed and is not supported by official reports Software or command issues The loss of control during the coast phase could have disrupted the sequence of commands needed to open the door If the ship systems were not functioning as expected it might have been impossible to execute the door opening procedure These potential causes are speculative as SpaceX has not released an official statement on the failure However they align with the observed events and provide a framework for understanding the issue The payload doors functionality is crucial for future missions especially for deploying large constellations like Starlink which is a cornerstone of SpaceX's business model providing high-speed internet to underserved areas globally The Federal Aviation Administration FAA plays a critical role in overseeing SpaceX's launches ensuring compliance with safety and environmental regulations Following flight 9 the FAA announced it would investigate the incident focusing on the loss of the booster and the ship This investigation is standard procedure for any anomaly during a licensed launch aiming to determine root causes and ensure necessary corrective actions are taken Prior to Flight 9 the FAA had approved license modifications including increasing the number of annual launches from 5 to 25 at Starbase as noted by Reuters This approval announced on May 15th 2025 reflects the FAA's confidence in SpaceX's safety protocols despite challenges in previous flights The FAA's statement emphasized that SpaceX could not launch until the Flight 8 mishap investigation was closed or a return to flight determination was made indicating a rigorous safety review process Specific statements from the FAA regarding the payload door failure in Flight 9 are not yet available as the investigation is ongoing However the FAA's role ensures that any findings will guide future safety measures protecting public safety and the environment SpaceX is required to submit a mishap report which the FAA will review potentially leading to recommendations for improving the payload door mechanism and other systems Despite the setbacks Starship Flight 9 provided valuable data for SpaceX's development program The successful reuse of the Superheavy booster even though it was lost during landing demonstrates progress toward reusability a key goal for reducing launch costs Reaching SECO with ship 35 is also a step forward allowing for more extensive testing of re-entry and landing systems in future flights However the payload door failure highlights areas needing improvement particularly in maintaining control during coast phases and ensuring the reliability of critical mechanisms I'd like to quickly remind you to subscribe to our channel if you haven't already We regularly upload informative SpaceX and space news videos that you won't want to miss Be sure to turn on the notification bell so you're notified whenever we release new content Blue Origin a key player in the aerospace industry recently shared significant updates about its ambitious lunar lander projects during the spring meeting of the lunar surface innovation consortium on May 19th John Kolurus the senior vice president of lunar permanence at Blue Origin provided fresh insights into the company's development of the Blue Moon Mark 2 lander designed for NASA's human landing system HLS program and introduced a new element in their lunar architecture a specialized transporter vehicle This vehicle is a critical component of Blue Origin strategy to support lunar missions and Kurus unveiled a new illustration of it marking a notable milestone in the company's progress The transporter's role and design have evolved considerably since Blue Origins secured a $3.4 $4 billion contract from NASA 2 years ago to develop the Blue Moon Mark II a lander intended to ferry astronauts to the lunar surface At the time of the award Blue Origin had shared minimal details about the transporter which was initially slated to be developed by other companies within the Blue Origin national team However industry sources have since indicated that Blue Origin has taken full control of the transporter's development reflecting the company's growing confidence in its technical capabilities and its commitment to streamlining the project The transporter vehicle is central to Blue Origin's lunar mission architecture Its primary function is to aggregate and transport cryogenic propellants liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen from low Earth orbit to a near rectalinear halo orbit around the moon Once there it transfers these propellants to the Blue Moon Mark 2 lander enabling the lander to execute a lunar landing This approach is designed to optimize the efficiency of the lander's operations by ensuring it has sufficient fuel for the demanding journey to the lunar surface Kurus emphasized that the transporter has undergone significant refinements since its initial conception When Blue Origin first won the NASA contract the transporter's design was less defined and its development was expected to be a collaborative effort among the national team partners The decision to bring its development in-house reflects Blue Origin's strategic shift toward greater control over critical components of its lunar program likely driven by a desire to reduce risks and ensure alignment with the company's broader objectives The transporter's design leverages the capabilities of Blue Origin's new Glenn rocket which will serve as its launch vehicle Once in low Earth orbit the transporter will be fueled using excess propellant from New Glenn's upper stages Kurus did not specify how many refueling operations will be required to fully load the transporter but he highlighted a key design feature The transporter uses tanks with a 7 m diameter identical to those of the new Glenn upper stage This design choice allows Blue Origin to streamline production by utilizing the same assembly line for both the rocket and the transporter reducing costs and complexity By adopting a standardized approach to tank manufacturing Blue Origin is positioning itself to scale its operations efficiently a critical factor as it aims to support not only lunar missions but also potential future missions to other destinations in the solar system A cornerstone of the transporter's functionality is Blue Origin's development of zero boiloff technology which prevents the loss of cryogenic propellants during long duration missions Cryogenic propellants like liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen must be maintained at extremely low temperatures 20 Kelvin for hydrogen approximately 20° C above absolute zero and 90 Kelvin for oxygen to remain in liquid form Preventing boiloff where these propellants evaporate due to heat exposure is a significant technical challenge Kurus acknowledged the difficulty noting that many in the industry view zero boiloff as a daunting goal However he expressed optimism about Blue Origin's progress stating that the company has made significant strides in developing systems to maintain these propellants in a stable storeable state Blue Origin has already integrated a prototype of this system and placed it in a thermal vacuum chamber for testing Kuras announced that by June the company expects to demonstrate consistent storage of liquid hydrogen and oxygen as storeable propellants with flight ready units slated to begin testing by December This timeline underscores Blue Origin's aggressive push to meet the technical demands of its lunar program and its commitment to achieving breakthroughs in propellant management Thanks for watching today's episode Don't forget to subscribe and give us a thumbs up if you enjoyed it Stay tuned for another great video tomorrow