Wow! Starship Onboard Cam Leaked Shows What Exactly Happened with Flight 8...

Absolutely stunning revelations have just come to light. New onboard footage from Ship Flight 8 has emerged, offering a gripping look at the unfolding chaos during the mission. Most strikingly, the engine explosion. So what exactly went wrong? We'll break it down in just a moment. Meanwhile, the Axiom IV mission may be facing yet another delay, with its launch window And in a bold new move, a proposal has surfaced that could impose flight fees on space missions, a policy that may reshape the landscape for commercial rocketry, including SpaceX. All this and more in today's episode of Great SpaceX. We are steadily approaching the long-awaited Flight 10. Of the three Starship launches this year, Flight 8 stands out for its dramatic engine anomalies. While much was already captured in the livestream, newly released information offers a sharper lens on what truly happened during that mission. Shared recently on X, a series of behind-the-scenes images from Ship 34's Flight 8 reveal a deeper level of detail. Some visuals align with what was seen during the original broadcast, but others expose critical moments the public had not yet witnessed. One image in particular has captured widespread attention. It shows a Raptor engine violently torn apart, appearing to have exploded before detaching from the ship. In that photo, the engine's nozzle is split down the middle, with the upper section shredded and exposed. The protective shell is missing entirely, revealing inner mechanisms meant to be shielded from such force. Scattered fragments are visible in the frame, hinting at the violence of the event. Other newly surfaced images align with footage from the livestream. In one, two Raptor vacuum engines are engulfed in flames. In another, what seems to be smoke or vapor, possibly from vented fuel, blasts outward from the sea-level engines. These were likely early signs of the failure to come. By cross-referencing the new images with livestream footage, a timeline begins to emerge. At around T plus 7 minutes and 45 seconds, the camera cuts to the engine bay, where fires and thick plumes first appear. Within 20 seconds, the situation deteriorates rapidly. And by T plus 8 minutes and 5 seconds, one vacuum engine and three sea-level Raptors have failed. Explosions erupt on screens, captured by the aft flap camera. The loss of multiple engines throws off the ship's thrust balance, eventually leading to loss of control. Curiously, the image of the engine falling away is not found anywhere in the public footage. This suggests the image was captured using internal SpaceX diagnostics or private camera angles not used in the stream. Though unconfirmed, the image offers a powerful glimpse into the severity of the failure. Following the flight, SpaceX released an official update attributing the vehicle loss to a hardware failure in one of the central sea-level Raptor engines. The failure allowed fuel and oxidizer to mix unintentionally, triggering the explosion. The newly uncovered evidence seems to support this claim. It's possible a deep crack formed in a critical area, perhaps between fuel lines, growing over time under stress. When the threshold was reached, the crack widened, causing a sudden rupture. The clean split in the nozzle suggests the structural failure began well before final burnout. As the failing engine disintegrated, shrapnel and heat likely damaged neighboring components, sparking a chain reaction. In such a high-stress, high-temperature zone, even a single compromised engine can wreak havoc on an entire system in moments. Despite the severity of the failure, SpaceX acted swiftly. For Flight 9, the Raptor engines were upgraded with several key improvements. These included stronger structural joints with increased preload, a new nitrogen purge system designed to prevent propellant mixing, and a more efficient fuel drainage system. These enhancements build on earlier adjustments made after Flight 7 when harmonic vibrations caused premature shutdowns. While Flight 9's engine performance was more stable overall, the mission faced a different hurdle, a leak in one of the propellant tanks. This caused a pressure drop that starved the engines of fuel, eventually causing Ship 35 to lose control. Now, with Flight 10 on the horizon, SpaceX is bringing every lesson learned into sharper focus. Each past mission, Flight 7's vibration-induced shutdowns, Flight 8's engine explosion, and Flight 9's tank leak, holds crucial insights. Addressing all of them will be key to achieving a successful launch, sustained flight, and eventually re-entry and landing. The stakes are high. The last fully successful flight, which included a soft landing, was Flight 6 in November of last year. Since then, every attempt has been met with major in-flight issues, preventing validation of Starship's new upper stage landing and re-entry systems. If you support the vision behind Starship and believe in what Flight 10 represents, type KEEP GOING in the comment section down below. And if you found this breakdown insightful, be sure to like the video and subscribe to the channel for more updates on SpaceX's journey to the stars. Next, we turn to the latest developments surrounding the Axiom 4 mission. Since late May, Axiom 4 has experienced multiple delays. The initial postponement stemmed from scheduling conflicts between NASA and SpaceX. Not long after, a fuel leak was discovered in the Falcon 9 booster. That was soon followed by a separate leak in one of the modules aboard the ISS. Each issue has contributed to the continued reshuffling of the launch date. Originally rescheduled for June 19th, the mission has now been pushed again. Axiom Space has confirmed a new target of Sunday, June 22nd. SpaceX has echoed this update and provided more detail regarding the cause of the delay. According to recent statements, NASA is still conducting safety checks aboard the ISS with a particular focus on the Zvezda service module, which recently underwent repairs in its aft segment. Journalist Christian Davenport shared an internal communication on X confirming these inspections are ongoing. Both American and Russian space agencies, along with the current station crew, are exercising increased caution. Their goal is to verify that every system is stable before welcoming a new crew. Fortunately, this delay should not create major disruption. If Axiom 4 launches on June 22nd, it is expected to last roughly two weeks. This timing avoids any direct conflict with the upcoming Crew-11 mission, which remains scheduled for later in July. Still, the frustration is understandable. Axiom 4 has now been delayed for more than three weeks due to a string of largely unrelated setbacks. The most serious issue is the ISS leak. After over two decades of continuous operation, the station is beginning to show its age. As international partners look ahead to the ISS's final years, maintaining aging systems will become a growing challenge. Delays in crew rotations can cause a cascading effect on future missions, while postponed cargo deliveries may impact onboard research and daily operations. To manage these risks, space agencies must develop stronger contingency plans to ensure both safety and scheduled reliability in the years ahead. These complications also reinforce the urgency of advancing commercial space station projects to eventually succeed the ISS. Despite the hurdles, there is good news. The Falcon 9 booster has been cleared for flight after resolving the earlier leak, and the crew remains unchanged. Leading the mission is former NASA astronaut Peggy Whitson with pilot Subhanshu Shukla of India. They are joined by mission specialists Slavets Uzdanski-Wisniewski from Poland and Tibor Kapu of Hungary. A recent update from Axiom Space confirms the crew is healthy, in quarantine, and in good spirits as they prepare for launch. Let us hope Axiom 4 lifts off smoothly and marks another success in SpaceX's 2025 campaign. And now, let us turn our attention to our final update of today, a new proposal that could have major financial implications for aerospace companies like SpaceX. For decades, commercial space companies have paid little to nothing in federal fees for each launch they conduct. That arrangement may soon come to an end, as the recent Budget Reconciliation Bill introduced by Senator Ted Cruz proposes that the Federal Aviation Administration begin charging licensing fees to private rocket companies starting in 2026. According to the proposal, the revenue generated by these fees would be directed into a trust fund to support the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation, also known as AST. The fund would help the FAA expand its staffing, improve oversight, and manage the growing number of launches being conducted by private spaceflight companies. The AST, already operating under significant financial constraints, has struggled to keep pace with the rapid expansion of the commercial launch industry. The intent of the proposal is to improve the FAA's ability to issue permits and coordinate airspace more efficiently. Aerospace companies, including SpaceX, have previously criticized the FAA for slow licensing procedures, delayed approvals, and an overall lack of responsiveness during urgent operations. By boosting the FAA's funding through a direct-fee model, lawmakers hope the agency will be able to streamline its operations and keep pace with the accelerating cadence of modern spaceflight. Currently, commercial space firms pay only nominal fees for launch and re-entry permits. These costs are insignificant compared to what commercial airliners pay to support FAA operations through various aviation-related taxes and service fees. As a result, a growing argument has emerged. If the aerospace industry wants continued support from the FAA, it must contribute more directly to the system that regulates and enables its growth. Under the proposed system, licensing fees would be calculated based on payload weight. Beginning in 2026, the FAA will charge a quarter per pound. That amount would increase annually by roughly a dime per pound, capping at $1.50 per pound in 2033. For high-frequency launch providers like SpaceX, this represents a significant shift in annual operating costs. In 2023, SpaceX completed 134 orbital missions. It aims to exceed 170 in 2025. If the fee system had been in place last year, the company could have faced hundreds of thousands of dollars in new costs. A standard Starlink launch, typically involving a payload of 23 satellites, would incur an additional $9,400 under the 2026 rate. At the current launch cadence, SpaceX would have owed more than $800,000 last year alone. As the launch tempo increases and payloads become heavier, those costs could rise dramatically. Starship, under the proposed fee structure, a full Starship launch could cost tens of thousands of dollars in FAA licensing fees. That's a stark contrast to today's near-zero costs. And SpaceX is not the only company that would be affected. Blue Origin, ULA, and Rocket Lab are all developing new heavy-lift vehicles. New Glenn, Vulcan, and Neutron, respectively. As they increase their launch cadence and enter more competitive commercial markets, they too will be subject to the rising costs imposed by this fee schedule. One of the biggest questions that remains is how NASA will respond. The agency increasingly relies on commercial providers for crucial missions. Will NASA advocate on behalf of its partners, or will it align with broader government efforts to expand FAA resources? That remains to be seen. In any case, this has been Kevin with Great SpaceX. Don't forget to like the video and subscribe if you haven't already to stay up to date with yours truly on the latest milestones in SpaceX's journey. Thank you so much for watching and always remember, curiosity, imagination, and inspiration will follow you so long as you keep looking up.