Only five of six engines fired, yet the spacecraft touched down controlled
Starship V3 successfully deployed 22 simulated satellites and landed in the Indian Ocean despite engine malfunctions during ascent and descent phases. NASA officials expressed concerns about Starship's complexity and technical risks for lunar landing missions, while Blue Origin competes for the same NASA contract.
- 12th Starship test flight, May 22, 2026
- Deployed 22 simulated satellites; landed in Indian Ocean
- Only 5 of 6 engines fired during ascent; 2 of 3 during landing
- SpaceX spent $3 billion on Starship R&D in 2025, lost $4.9 billion overall
- NASA now says lunar landing could occur as early as 2028; few experts believe it
SpaceX's 12th Starship test flight achieved a controlled ocean landing despite operating with one failed engine, marking progress toward NASA's lunar missions while raising safety concerns.
SpaceX's twelfth test flight of its Starship mega-rocket ended in a controlled splash down in the Indian Ocean on May 22nd, a landing that counted as a win despite the vehicle flying most of the mission on a single failed engine. The test, which launched from Starbase in South Texas, demonstrated both the ambition and the brittleness of the company's lunar ambitions.
The countdown proceeded without incident—a relief after a launch delay the previous day. All 33 Raptor engines ignited on schedule, and Starship climbed into an orbital trajectory within expected parameters. The vehicle then deployed 22 simulated satellites, two of them equipped with cameras designed to photograph the spacecraft's heat shield as it fell back through the atmosphere. Those images would give engineers crucial data about how the black hexagonal tiles that protect the ship were holding up under the extreme temperatures of reentry.
But trouble arrived early. The Super Heavy booster, the first stage, failed to complete the maneuvers needed for a controlled landing. More critically, only five of Starship's six engines ignited during the initial boost phase, a problem that prevented the vehicle from reaching the proper orbital altitude. That failure meant the team had to cancel a planned mid-flight engine restart test—a capability SpaceX considers essential for future missions. The restart test had succeeded in previous flights, but the newly redesigned Raptor engines on this version had not yet proven themselves in that scenario.
As Starship descended toward the Indian Ocean, only two of its three landing engines fired. Yet the reentry proceeded cleanly, and the spacecraft touched down in the water in a controlled manner, its final moments marked by flames and the cheers of SpaceX employees watching from mission control. The recovery ship, stationed about 320 kilometers off the Australian coast, had already cleared the landing zone and captured images of the vehicle crossing the sky.
The test mattered because SpaceX and its rival Blue Origin are locked in a race to build the lunar lander NASA will use to return astronauts to the Moon—a mission NASA now says could happen as early as 2028, though few experts believe that timeline is realistic. SpaceX proposes using Starship itself. Blue Origin is developing a simpler vehicle called Blue Moon, designed more like the Apollo-era lunar modules. In May 2025, Sean Duffy, who briefly served as NASA's acting administrator, announced that the agency would use whichever lander was ready first, a statement widely read as a rebuke to SpaceX's ambitions.
The stakes are enormous. SpaceX spent roughly three billion dollars on Starship research and development in 2025 alone, and another billion in the first three months of 2026. The company lost 4.9 billion dollars overall last year. Starship has been a financial anchor, and SpaceX needs it to start generating revenue. The company plans to begin launching operational Starlink satellites aboard Starship in the second half of 2026. But before that can happen, the vehicle must demonstrate several critical capabilities it has not yet fully proven: in-space refueling, booster reusability, and reliable engine performance across multiple restarts.
NASA's own safety advisors have raised concerns. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel warned that Starship's "intricate design, complex operational concept, and challenges during current flight testing" pose enormous technical risks for a crewed lunar landing. The NASA Inspector General's office noted gaps in the testing strategy and crew survival analysis. If a landing module suffered a catastrophic failure, the report stated, NASA would have no way to rescue stranded astronauts. SpaceX has not directly addressed these warnings, though the company emphasized in a statement that it is funding over 90 percent of Starship's development costs itself, working under fixed-price contracts worth up to four billion dollars with NASA.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk has made a dramatic pivot in SpaceX's stated priorities. In a Super Bowl Sunday post on X in February 2026, he announced that the company was shifting focus from Mars to building "an expanding self-sustaining city on the Moon." It was a striking reversal after more than two decades of Musk rhetoric centered on Mars colonization. The company's IPO filing this week revealed that Musk's compensation package includes stock tranches tied to SpaceX reaching a valuation of 7.5 trillion dollars—and, in a flourish of grandiosity, establishing a permanent human colony on Mars with at least one million inhabitants. The filing also disclosed that Musk has drawn the same salary of 54,080 dollars annually since 2019.
SpaceX still harbors another ambition largely out of public view: using Starship as a hypersonic transport system to move people between any two cities on Earth in under an hour. The company's website still promotes a theoretical 34-minute flight from London to Hong Kong. In its IPO documents, SpaceX acknowledged the obstacles—supersonic flight restrictions over land, economic viability questions on shorter routes—but expressed confidence in its strategic position to capture market share in terrestrial logistics and transport. For now, though, the company must focus on the immediate challenge: making Starship work reliably enough to carry humans to the Moon.
Citas Notables
It's incredible to be on the ship, with no land in sight for miles, and then hear the sonic boom of Starship and watch it cross the sky. It's one of the most magical sensations on Earth.— Suren Sanai, SpaceX recovery engineer, from the recovery vessel 320 kilometers off Australia
SpaceX has oriented Starship development on two fronts: the core system and supporting infrastructure, which SpaceX finances entirely and represents over 90 percent of system costs, and the lunar-specific configuration that modifies the main vehicle to meet NASA's requirements.— SpaceX statement, October 2025
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does one failed engine matter so much if the landing still worked?
Because Starship needs to do this dozens of times, and each time it needs to be more reliable, not less. A single engine failure on ascent forced them to cancel a critical test—the mid-flight restart. That's a capability they'll need to bring the vehicle back from the Moon. You can't learn it if you keep skipping it.
So this test was actually a setback disguised as a success?
Not exactly. The landing itself was the point, and they nailed it. But the path to get there revealed problems they'll have to solve. It's like learning to drive and making it home safely despite your brakes being soft. You're relieved, but you know you can't ignore the brakes.
What's the real competition here—is it actually between SpaceX and Blue Origin?
On the surface, yes. But the deeper competition is between SpaceX's complexity and Blue Origin's simplicity. SpaceX is trying to make one vehicle do everything: land on the Moon, carry people, eventually fly between cities on Earth. Blue Origin is building something narrower, more like the old Apollo landers. Simpler often wins.
Why would Musk suddenly care about the Moon instead of Mars?
NASA told him to. When Duffy said the agency would use whichever lander was ready first, that was a threat. SpaceX had been the default choice for lunar missions. Suddenly it wasn't. Musk responded by saying the Moon is actually the priority now. Whether he believes that or whether it's a negotiating position, I can't say.
The financial numbers are staggering. How does SpaceX justify spending billions on something that hasn't made a dollar?
They're betting on scale. Once Starship works, they believe it will be so cheap to operate that it transforms spaceflight economics. But that's a bet, not a fact. Right now, they're burning cash at a rate that would bankrupt most companies. They're only surviving because Musk has other sources of wealth.
What happens if Blue Origin lands on the Moon first?
SpaceX loses the narrative, at least for a moment. But the investment analysts I read think the long-term damage would be limited. SpaceX's reputation rests on execution at scale, not on being first. Still, being second stings. And it would prove that sometimes the simpler approach wins.