---
title: 'SpaceX has a new Raptor vacuum Problem after Starship Flight 12; Delayed HLS on NASA Artemis...'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=voOJGh7crgg'
video_id: 'voOJGh7crgg'
date: 2026-06-13
duration_sec: 1168
---

# SpaceX has a new Raptor vacuum Problem after Starship Flight 12; Delayed HLS on NASA Artemis...

> Source: [SpaceX has a new Raptor vacuum Problem after Starship Flight 12; Delayed HLS on NASA Artemis...](https://youtube.com/watch?v=voOJGh7crgg)

## Summary

Starship Flight 12 showcased impressive progress but revealed a critical Raptor vacuum engine failure. The video analyzes the failure, its implications for SpaceX's design philosophy, and the broader context of NASA's Artemis 3 mission and Amazon's Project Kuiper.

### Key Points

- **Flight 12 Overview** [00:06] — Starship Flight 12 was both spectacular and concerning, highlighting progress and a Raptor vacuum engine failure.
- **Engine Failure at T+3:03** [01:05] — One Raptor vacuum engine failed early in ascent and never recovered, but SpaceX confirmed engine-out capability and successful trajectory.
- **Visual Evidence of Failure** [01:51] — At T+7:29, the failed engine showed no exhaust plume, grayish-blue smoke, and lack of frost, indicating overheating or structural damage.
- **Raptor 3 Design Change** [02:48] — Raptor 3 removed external heat shields to reduce mass, but Flight 12 suggests thermal stress may have damaged sensitive components.
- **Skirt Damage During Hot Staging** [04:04] — Minor damage observed near the ship's skirt area, likely from hot staging separation, but considered relatively minor.
- **Potential Fixes for Engine Issue** [05:01] — SpaceX may improve engine materials, add coatings, enhance cooling, or upgrade fire detection rather than reintroducing heat shields.
- **Positive Takeaways from Flight 12** [06:17] — Ship survived, completed mission objectives, demonstrated engine-out tolerance, and showed improved heat shield performance.
- **Payload Deployment Success** [07:49] — Deployed two Starlink satellites, which captured imagery of the ship in space.
- **Heat Shield Improvement** [08:04] — Re-entry damage was dramatically reduced, with cleaner exterior and good condition of aft flaps and fuel tank sections.
- **Artemis 3 Crew Announcement** [09:26] — NASA announced Artemis 3 crew: Commander Randu Breznik, mission specialists Frank Rubio and Andre Douglas, pilot Luca Parmitano. They will test systems in orbit, not land.
- **Artemis 3 Mission Architecture** [10:32] — Three separate launches: Blue Origin lander pathfinder, Orion on SLS, and SpaceX Starship pathfinder, with docking tests in orbit over ~2 weeks.
- **Starship Pathfinder Role** [12:56] — Starship pathfinder likely lacks life support, focusing on docking demonstrations, while Blue Origin lander includes life support for crew interaction.
- **Challenges for Artemis 3 Partners** [14:14] — NASA making progress on SLS; Blue Origin faces New Glenn testing issues; SpaceX's Starship timelines remain uncertain.
- **Amazon Project Kuiper FCC Waiver** [16:18] — FCC granted waiver extending deployment deadline, but Amazon loses spectrum protections until half of 3,232 satellites are operational.
- **Amazon's Launch Challenges** [17:10] — Amazon has launched only 331 satellites; bottleneck is launch availability, not production. May need to buy launches from SpaceX.

### Conclusion

Flight 12 demonstrated Starship's resilience and progress, but the Raptor engine failure requires a solution that balances simplification with reliability. Artemis 3's complex multi-launch architecture and Amazon's Kuiper delays highlight the challenges and interdependencies in modern spaceflight.

## Transcript

I watched it and immediately thought,
"Wow." Because Flight 12 somehow looked
spectacular and slightly concerning at
the same time, which is becoming a very
Starship experience. On the surface, the
mission was impressive. And for a
moment, Starship looked dangerously
close to true reusability. But then
there was the engine. No explosion, no
dramatic failure, just smoke drifting
around a Raptor vacuum engine like it
had already submitted its resignation
paperwork. So, what happened? Why did
the engine fail? How will SpaceX
respond? And despite the issue, why are
many people still calling Flight 12 one
of the most successful ship flights yet?
Let's break it down on today's episode
of Great SpaceX. What a chaotic,
beautiful stainless steel roller coaster
it turned out to be. One of the biggest
highlights of the flight was the debut
power of the Raptor 3 engines. These
engines represent the next evolution of
SpaceX propulsion. Now overall, the ship
portion of flight 12 actually performed
extremely well. But early into Ascent,
trouble appeared. At T + 3 minutes and 3
seconds, one of the Raptor vacuum
engines failed, and unlike temporary
glitches seen on previous flights, this
one never recovered. The engine was
completely dead. SpaceX later confirmed
the issue in an official update stating,
"During its ascent burn to space,
Starship lost one of the Raptor 3 vacuum
engines, but demonstrated its engine out
capability and achieved its planned
trajectory." That statement is important
because despite the failure, ship still
successfully reached its intended
trajectory. That alone is a major
achievement. But obviously, losing an
engine this early is not something
SpaceX can casually ignore while
pretending everything is fine. So, what
exactly caused the problem? To
understand it, we need to examine the
live stream footage carefully. The most
revealing moment came at t plus 7
minutes and 29 seconds. At that point,
the three sea-le engines and two of the
vacuum engines were still operating
normally. But one vacuum engine stood
out immediately and not in a good way.
There was no visible exhaust plume, no
bright energy emission, nothing. The
engine looked completely inactive.
Instead, it was surrounded by an odd
cloud of grayish blue smoke. And unlike
the other engines, the upper section
also lacked frost buildup. That detail
may seem small, but it's actually
extremely important. The frost normally
appears because the engine components
remain incredibly cold due to cryogenic
propellants. But if heat suddenly rises
in that area, the frost disappears,
which strongly suggests something near
the top of the engine overheated or
worse burned. That immediately led many
observers to suspect structural damage.
And honestly, the evidence supports that
theory pretty well. Now, here's where
things get especially interesting. In
the Raptor 3 design, SpaceX removed the
external engine heat shield that existed
on earlier Raptors. Previously, there
was a protective outer casing around the
upper portions of the engine. But with
Raptor 3, SpaceX decided they no longer
needed it. Why? Because the company
wanted to reduce mass and simplify the
engine architecture. SpaceX also
believed Raptor 3 had become integrated
enough to survive without additional
thermal protection, but Flight 12 may
have exposed the limits of that
confidence. During ascent, the engine
likely experienced intense thermal
stress. That heat could have damaged
sensitive plumbing or components near
the top section. And once damage began,
things may have escalated quickly. The
smoke itself could indicate a leak. If
cracks formed in the engine structure or
propellant lines, hot gases escaping
under extreme pressure would create
exactly the kind of plume visible in the
footage. And because these engines
operate under absurd conditions, even
tiny failures can grow very quickly.
Remember, Raptor engines run at chamber
pressures so high they basically treat
physics like a speed limit suggestion.
This is not forgiving hardware. Now,
interestingly, the engine issue wasn't
the only visible damage on ship.
Sharpeyed viewers also noticed what
appeared to be minor damage around the
ship's skirt area, specifically near the
region between sea level engine number
140 and vacuum engine number 98. A red
glow became visible in the live stream
footage, most likely. This damage
occurred during hot staging separation.
That's the phase where ship ignites its
engines while still attached to Super
Heavy. During the sequence, small sparks
or thermal blasts may have damaged part
of the skirt structure. Fortunately, it
appears to have been relatively minor.
The bigger concern remains the engines.
And right now, fixing them is absolutely
critical for SpaceX because one thing
seems very clear. SpaceX probably
doesn't want to bring back the old heat
shield design. Doing so would almost
feel like admitting defeat. The entire
philosophy behind Raptor 3 is
simplification and integration. Reding
bulky shielding would partially reverse
that progress. Readdding bulky shielding
would partially reverse that progress.
So instead, SpaceX will likely search
for smarter solutions. One possibility
involves upgrading the engine materials
themselves. Certain components may need
improved heat resistance or better
durability under extreme operating
conditions. The challenge, however, is
scale. SpaceX already has many Raptor
engines manufactured. If a major
material flaw exists, replacing
everything would become massively
expensive and timeconuming. So any
material improvements may primarily
apply to future production runs. For
existing engines, SpaceX may instead
focus on external reinforcement methods.
That could include specialized coatings
or heat resistant paints designed to
improve thermal protection without
significantly increasing mass. It sounds
simple, but advanced aerospace coatings
can make a huge difference. SpaceX may
also prioritize improvements to the
cooling systems. More efficient thermal
management could reduce overheating and
better protect vulnerable engine
sections during ascent. Another critical
area involves fire detection and
suppression. Future systems may become
more responsive and capable of
identifying early warning signs before
visible damage develops. In particular,
the smaller pipes and plumbing sections
likely deserve special attention. These
tiny components are often the most
vulnerable parts of the rocket engines.
But despite all these issues, there's
still a huge positive takeaway from
Flight 12. The ship survived. Not only
did it survive, it completed its mission
objectives remarkably well. That
reflects one of the smartest aspects of
SpaceX's design philosophy. Instead of
relying on a few giant engines, Starship
uses many smaller ones. That means the
vehicle can tolerate engine failure
without catastrophic mission loss.
Losing one engine does not automatically
doom the spacecraft. And honestly, it's
one of the reasons Starship remains so
exciting despite all the explosions.
Every test keeps revealing that the
system itself is surprisingly resilient.
So, the big question now is this. Can
SpaceX fix the engine issue quickly
enough to push Starship even further on
the next flight? Because the company
clearly isn't slowing down. If anything,
they seem more aggressive than ever. And
honestly, if you know SpaceX, you
already know the engineers are probably
sleeping beside laptops right now while
someone whispers flight 13 in the
distance like a horror movie villain.
But engines were only part of the story.
Overall, ship actually performed
extremely well during flight 12. In
fact, compared to previous flights, this
may have been the most reassuring ship
performance yet. One major success
involved maintaining stability
throughout the remainder of the mission.
Even after losing an engine, the rest of
the propulsion system stayed healthy.
That stability became especially
important during landing operations.
SpaceX successfully performed landing
flip maneuvers and continued testing
dual engine landing capability. Those
tests are essentially for future
recovery operations and they appeared
far more controlled this time around.
Then came payload deployment which was
another huge milestone. SpaceX
successfully deployed two Starling
satellites during this mission and those
satellites later captured some
absolutely stunning imagery of ship in
space. But perhaps the biggest victory
involved the heat shield. Before flight
12, thermal protection remained one of
Starship's biggest weaknesses. With
earlier flights showing major tile loss
and severe re-entry damage, this time
looked dramatically better. Splashdown
footage revealed a far cleaner exterior
with the massive orange oxidation
streaks from previous flights largely
gone. That is major progress because
true reusability depends on surviving
re-entry without extensive
refurbishment. Several critical regions,
including the aft flaps and fuel tank
sections, also returned in notably good
condition despite historically being
vulnerable during descent. The upgraded
thermal protection systems appear to be
working, and that matters enormously for
future reuse and landing operations. For
the first time in a while, it generally
feels like SpaceX is beginning to close
the gap between experimental prototype
and operational spacecraft. Orbital
landings, rapid reuse, eventually
catching and relaunching ships. Those
goals suddenly feel far more realistic
than they did even a year ago. Of
course, major challenges remain. Engine
reliability still needs improvement, and
full operational reusability remains
unproven. But Flight 12 demonstrated
something critical. Starship is evolving
rapidly, and every flight is solving
real problems, even while discovering
new ones, which I've got to say is
basically the history of rocket
development. The Aremis 3 crew has been
finally announced. And while the
astronauts themselves are certainly
exciting, the bigger story may actually
be how NASA plans to pull off the
mission. Because Artemis 3 is shaping up
to be one of the most complex space
missions ever attempted, involving
multiple rockets, multiple spacecraft,
multiple docking, June 9th marked an
important day for NASA. As promised, the
agency officially revealed the astronaut
crew selected for Aremis 3. The mission
will be commanded by NASA astronaut
Randu Breznik. Joining him will be NASA
astronauts Frank Rubio and Andre Douglas
as mission specialists while ESA
astronaut Luca Pararmitano will serve as
mission pilots. It's an impressive team
and unlike Artemis 2 which is focused
primarily on flying around the moon,
Artemis 3 has a very different
objective. These astronauts won't
actually be landing on the lunar
surface. Instead, they will help test
and validate critical systems that
future moon missions will depend upon.
NASA didn't just announce the crew. The
agency also revealed new details about
how Artemis 3 is expected to unfold. And
honestly, the mission architecture is
fascinating. According to NASA, Artemis
3 will involve three separate launches.
The agency described the mission as
launching the world's most powerful
rockets in short order. That phrase
alone should excite space enthusiasts
because whenever multiple super heavy
rockets are involved in the same
mission, things tend to get very
interesting. The entire mission is
expected to last roughly 2 weeks.
However, the exact duration will depend
on how various rendevous and docking
operations unfold in real time. Space
missions rarely follow a schedule down
to the minute. Space has a habit of
reminding everyone who's really in
charge. The first launch will involve
Blue Origin's lunar lander pathfinder.
Assuming New Glenn is operational and
ready by then, it'll likely carry the
Pathfinder into orbit. This spacecraft
will arrive well before the astronauts.
The goal is to allow the lander to spend
several weeks operating in space while
engineers evaluate how well it survives
and functions in the harsh orbital
environment. Think of it as a dress
rehearsal before the main performance,
except the stage is orbit, and the
audience is every space agency on Earth.
And after the lander is already waiting
in orbit, NASA will launch the second
major mission. This will be Orion riding
a top the SLS. Inside Orion will be the
four astronauts NASA just announced.
Once in space, Orion will rendevous and
dock with the Blue Origin lander. The
docking phase is expected to last about
2 days. During that time, the astronauts
will conduct system checks, perform
demonstrations, and enter the lander
itself to evaluate crew support systems
and operational procedures. This portion
of the mission is particularly
important. NASA wants to understand how
astronauts interact with the vehicle
long before anyone attempts an actual
lunar landing. Finding problems in Earth
orbit is significantly better than
discovering them halfway to the moon.
After those tests are complete, Orion
will separate from the Blue Origin
vehicle. And this is where things become
even more interesting. Next comes the
arrival of SpaceX. A Starship Pathfinder
vehicle will launch and rendevous with
Orion. The two spacecraft will dock in
orbit. However, unlike the Blue Origin
phase, this docking period is expected
to last only about a day. The focus
appears to be verifying docking
procedures and basic spacecraft
interactions. Once those tests are
complete, Orion will separate once
again. The astronauts will then return
safely to Earth. Their mission will
conclude with a splashdown in the
Pacific Ocean. Recovery teams from NASA
and the US Navy will retrieve both the
spacecraft and its crew, and hopefully
everyone will return home with enough
data to keep engineers busy for years.
NASA's latest update also reveals some
interesting clues about the vehicles
themselves. For example, the Blue Origin
Pathfinder appears likely to include
life support systems. That makes sense
because astronauts are expected to spend
multiple days interacting with the
spacecraft. As a result, it probably
contains hardware similar to what will
eventually fly aboard the crude Blue
Moon Mark II lander. The SpaceX vehicle
appears to be different. Neither NASA's
webcast nor the official update
mentioned life support systems inside
the Starship Pathfinder. Combined with
the mission's one-day docking timeline,
that suggests the vehicle may function
primarily as a docking demonstrator. In
other words, it may resemble a standard
Starship more closely than a finished
lunar lander. Its primary modifications
could focus on docking hardware and
missionspecific interfaces that would
allow SpaceX to test critical systems
without needing to complete every
feature of the final human landing
system version. It's a practical
approach. Why build the entire mansion
when all you need right now is to test
the front door? Of course, announcing a
mission plan is one thing. Actually
executing it is something else entirely,
and every organization involved still
has a tremendous amount of work ahead.
NASA appears to be making encouraging
progress on SLS. Hardware is being
transported from facilities in Utah to
Florida. Engine testing continues and
overall development appears more
organized than during previous Artemis
preparations. Part of that progress may
reflect NASA's growing sense of urgency.
The agency knows the schedule is tight
and that there is very little room for
major delays, especially if it hopes to
maintain momentum across the broader
Artemis program. Blue Origin faces its
own challenges. The company has already
revealed parts of its lander Pathfinder,
including the docking module, but many
critical systems remain out of public
view. That's not unusual, as much of the
integration work happens behind the
scenes. Still, the clock is ticking. The
recent new Glenn testing incident has
added uncertainty, and repairing
infrastructure, validating hardware, and
resuming launches will take time. If
Blue Origin hopes to keep Artemis
schedules intact, progress will need to
come quickly. Then there's SpaceX,
perhaps the most unpredictable player in
the entire program. Neither the Starship
Pathfinder nor the operational lunar
lander has been publicly unveiled. Based
on NASA's plans, they appear to be
separate vehicles with the Pathfinder
focused on testing and the final lander
carrying life support systems and other
missionritical hardware. Given SpaceX's
development pace, both could appear
within the next year. But predicting
Starship timelines remains one of
aerospace's most dangerous hobbies. Some
people collect stamps, space enthusiasts
collect revised Starship schedules, and
the collection keeps growing.
Regardless, NASA's latest announcement
offers the clearest picture yet of how
Artemis 3 is expected to work. The
architecture is incredibly ambitious,
requiring multiple companies, spacecraft
launches, and an extraordinary amount of
coordination. If successful, it'll
demonstrate capabilities humanity has
never attempted before. And the next
year could become one of the most
important periods in Artemis history. Do
you think NASA can successfully pull off
this three rocket Artemis 3
architecture? Let me know with Go 3 in
the comment section down below. And now,
let's turn to our final part of today's
news. Amazon and Project Kyper, which
recently received an important FCC
decision that offers more flexibility,
but also comes with new pressure. In
simple terms, Amazon no longer faces the
immediate July 30th deadline that would
have required half of its 3,232
planned satellites to be operational.
That sounds like a major victory, and in
many ways it is. But the situation is
more complicated. When the FCC granted
the waiver on June 5th, Amazon had
launched only 331 satellites, just over
10% of its first generation
constellation. The company argued that
launch availability, not satellite
production, have become the primary
bottleneck. Amazon has invested billions
in launch contracts and built large
numbers of satellites. The challenge has
been finding enough rockets to get them
into orbit. Amazon still expects to
complete deployment by July of 2029, and
that deadline remains unchanged. The
company says recent delays among its
launch providers will not prevent it
from meeting the requirement. Those
providers include Aryan 6, ULA, Blue
Origin, and even SpaceX. I know the
irony is quite hard to miss. One of
SpaceX's biggest competitors may
ultimately need SpaceX's help to deploy
its own satellite network. As FCC Space
Bureau Chief Jay Schwarz stated, "We
find that Amazon LEO has demonstrated
special circumstances warranting
deviation from the milestone rules." The
FCC also emphasized the importance of
maintaining competition in the satellite
broadband market, whereas Starling
currently holds a commanding lead. More
competition typically means lower
prices, better service, and faster
innovation. Amazon did not receive a
free pass, however, until at least half
of the constellation becomes
operational. Newly launched satellites
will lose certain priority spectrum
protections. That penalty could remain
in place until March of 2028, though
Amazon may shorten that period by
demonstrating faster progress. In other
words, the FCC has effectively told
Amazon, "We'll give you more time, but
we'd like to see some hustle." The
decision also increases pressure on
Amazon's launch partners. Aryan 6 must
raise its launch cadence. Vulcan must
enter regular service. Blue Origin must
recover from recent setbacks. And if
those providers cannot deliver enough
capacity, Amazon may need to purchase
additional launches from SpaceX.
Somewhere, a team of corporate
strategists is probably looking at
spreadsheets and feeling very
conflicted. Because nothing says
competitive marketplace quite like
paying your biggest rival to help
execute your business plan. More
broadly, the situation highlights how
quickly the space industry is evolving.
And Amazon is working to build a serious
challenger to Starlink. The result is an
industry that is becoming more
competitive, more interconnected, and
increasingly dependent on partnerships
between companies that are also fierce
rivals. It's a fascinating moment in
aerospace, and the pace of change shows
no signs of slowing down. And could
Amazon eventually become a serious
challenger to Starlink, or is SpaceX
already too far ahead? Leave your
thoughts in the comments below. I read
as many of them as I can, and some of
the best discussions on this channel
happen down there. That brings us to the
end of today's episode. Thank you so
much for tuning in. As always, this has
been Kevin from Great SpaceX.