FAA Grounds Starship Following Booster Failures and Raptor 3 Debut
Table of Contents
A Mandatory Pause for Booster 19
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has stepped in to mandate a formal mishap investigation following the off-nominal performance of SpaceX’s Starship Flight 12. The agency’s decision comes after a thorough assessment of the mission, which took place on May 22, and specifically centers on the behavior of the Super Heavy booster, tail number Booster 19.
While SpaceX often treats its test flights as iterative learning experiences—essentially “failing fast” to improve hardware—the FAA operates on a different set of mandates. When a flight deviates from its predicted trajectory or hardware fails in a way that could potentially impact public safety, it is classified as a “mishap.” Under this designation, the FAA requires SpaceX to lead a technical investigation into the root cause, with the agency overseeing every step and approving the final corrective actions before a new launch license is granted for Flight 13.
The Raptor 3 Variable
The technical failures during Flight 12 were concentrated in the propulsion systems, specifically the debut of the Raptor 3 engines. About 1 minute and 42 seconds into the ascent, one of the 33 Raptor V3 engines on the Super Heavy booster failed. While the rocket continued its climb, the situation deteriorated during the critical transition to boostback.
During the descent, the booster attempted a directional flip to return toward the launch site. However, the engine ignition sequence for the boostback burn was erratic. On-screen telemetry during the broadcast showed that several engines failed to ignite as planned. Dan Huot of SpaceX’s communications team described the event as an “early boostback shutdown.” The result was a partial burn that lacked the thrust necessary for a controlled return, leading to a hard splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico.
The instability wasn’t limited to the booster. The upper stage (S39) also suffered an engine failure among its three Raptor Vacuum engines. While this didn’t trigger the FAA’s mishap investigation—as the ship still reached its intended splashdown site in the Indian Ocean—it suggests a broader reliability issue with the newest iteration of the Raptor engine architecture.
The Stakes for Starlink and IPO Ambitions
This regulatory hurdle arrives at a precarious time for Elon Musk’s aerospace venture. In recent financial filings related to an anticipated initial public offering, SpaceX explicitly linked its growth strategy to the scalable deployment of Starship. Specifically, the company aims to begin deploying Starlink Version 3 satellites in the latter half of 2026.
Because Starlink V3 satellites are significantly larger and heavier than previous iterations, they require the massive payload bay of Starship. Any prolonged grounding or a series of failed Raptor 3 tests doesn’t just delay a rocket launch; it threatens the timeline for SpaceX’s next-generation satellite internet and its planned in-orbit AI compute infrastructure.
Flight 13: A Conservative Pivot?
Looking toward Flight 13, which will likely utilize Ship 40 and Booster 20, the company faces a strategic crossroads. Given the failure of the boostback burn and the instability of the Raptor 3 engines, it is unlikely SpaceX will attempt a high-risk “catch” of the booster using the launch tower’s “chopstick” arms.
Instead, the company may opt for a more conservative approach, repeating the soft splashdown profile to validate engine reliability before attempting a precision landing. With hardware already in flow and a history of shifting engines between boosters—such as the ten Raptor engines moved from Booster 20 to 19 back in March—SpaceX is likely to spend the next few weeks refining the Raptor 3’s ignition sequence to satisfy FAA safety requirements.
