News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains Starship’s ‘transpiring’ steel heat shield in Q&A
Speaking in a late-December 2018 interview with Popular Mechanics’ editor-in-chief, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk shared considerable insight into the thought processes that ultimately led him to – in his own words – “convince” his team that the company’s BFR rocket (now Starship and Super Heavy) should pivot from an advanced composite structure to a relatively common form of stainless steel.
Aside from steel’s relative ease of manipulation and affordability, Musk delved into the technical solution he arrived at for an advanced, ultra-reusable heat shield for Starship – build it out of steel and use water (or liquid methane) to wick reentry heat away.
When going to ~1750 Kelvin, specific heat is more important than latent heat of vaporization, which is why cryogenic fuel is a slightly better choice than water
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 22, 2019
Although there has been some successful experimental research done on “transpirational” heat shields (relying on the heat capacity of vaporizing liquids or gases to soak up thermal energy during orbital rocket reentries), Musk is by no means wrong when he says that a stainless steel sandwich-hulled spaceship regeneratively cooled by microscopic holes and liquid water or propellant “has never been proposed before”. While the basic concept probably arose somewhere over the last 50-100 years, it does not appear that any serious theoretical or experimental research has been conducted to explore transpiration-cooled metallic heat shields, where metallic thermal protection systems (TPS) are already fairly exotic and unproven in the realm of modern aerospace.
“Very easy to work with steel. Oh, and I forgot to mention: [SpaceX’s high-quality] carbon fiber is $135 a kilogram, 35 percent scrap, so you’re starting to approach almost $200 a kilogram. [301] steel is $3 a kilogram.” – Elon Musk
While Musk’s solution could dramatically simplify what is needed for Starship’s high-performance heat shield, a stainless steel sandwich on half of Starship offers another huge benefit: the spacecraft can still gain many of the mass ratio benefits of stainless steel balloon tanks (metal tanks so thin that they collapse without positive pressure) while retaining structural rigidity even when depressurized. At the end of the day, Musk very well might be correct when he states that a stainless steel Starship can ultimately be more mass-efficient (“lighter”) than a Starship built out of advanced carbon composites, a characteristic he rightly describes as “counterintuitive”.
-
- Starhopper and SpaceX’s spartan assembly facilities are pictured here, showing the inside of the aft section and a completed tank dome. (Austin Barnard)
-
- Starship has been shown with actuating fins and canard wings since SpaceX’s September 2018 update. (SpaceX)
What does Science™ have to say?
Based on research done in the 2010s by German space agency (DLR), a porous thermal protection material called Procelit 170 (P170) – 91% aluminum oxide and 9% silicon oxide – was cooled from a peak heat of ~1750 C (3200 F) to ~25 C (75 F) during wind tunnel testing, demonstrating that an average of 0.065 kg (~2.3 oz) of water per second would be needed to cool a square meter of P170 to the same degree, assuming a heating rate of around 200 kW/m^2. Given that 300-series stainless steels have a comparatively huge capacity for radiating heat at high temperatures, will be dramatically thinner than Procelit in any given Starship use-case, and will not need to be cooled all the way to 25C/75F during hot operations, the DLR-derived number is barely relevant without another round of wind tunnel tests focused on metallic thermal protection systems. Still, it allows for the creation of a sort of worst-case scenario for BFS/Starship’s water-cooled shield.
Assuming that the windward side of Starship’s regeneratively cooled heat shield has roughly the same surface area as half of a cylinder, 800 m^2 (8600 ft^2) will have to be actively cooled with water, translating to a water consumption rate of approximately 52 kg/s (115 lb/s) if the entire surface is being subjected to temperatures around ~1750 C. That is, of course, a grossly inaccurate generalization, as aerodynamic surfaces dramatically shape, dissipate, and concentrate airflows (and thus heat from friction) in complex and highly specific ways. Much like NASA’s Space Shuttle or DLR’s theoretical SpaceLiner, the reality of reentry heating is that that heat typically ends up being focused at leading edges and control surfaces, which thus require uniquely capable versions of thermal protection (TPS). Shuttle used fragile reinforced carbon-carbon tiles at those hotspots, while DLR was exploring water cooling as a viable and safer alternative for SpaceLiner.
-
- Starship’s first full-scale prototype is being rapidly assembled in South Texas. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
-
- Starship’s first full-scale prototype is being rapidly assembled in South Texas. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
-
- Meanwhile, giant 9m-diameter tank domes are being assembled and welded together a few hundred feet away from Starhopper. (NSF – bocachicagal)
-
- SpaceX’s Starhopper seen in a January render and a January photo. (SpaceX/Elon Musk)
-
- BFS seen standing vertically on the pads of its tripod fins. (SpaceX)
-
- A NASA team—via a US Navy aircraft—captured high-resolution, calibrated infrared imagery of Space Shuttle Discovery’s lower surface in addition to discrete instrumentation on the wing, downstream, and on the Boundary Layer Transition Flight Experiment protuberance. In the image, the red regions represent higher surface temperatures. (NASA)
Aside from heat flux, it’s also unclear when or how long the cooling system will need to be supplied with water during potential Starship reentries. At worst, the spacecraft would need to supply a constant 50+ kg/s throughout a 5+ minute (600+ second) regime of high-velocity, high-drag reentry conditions. Assuming that Starship will need to rely heavily on aerobraking to maintain efficient interplanetary operations, it might have to perform 2+ active-cooling cycles per reentry, potentially requiring a minimum of 15 tons of water per reentry. Given that SpaceX intends (at least as of September 2018) for Starship to be able to land more than 100 tons on the surface of Mars, 15t of water would cut drastically into payload margins and is thus likely an unfeasibly large mass reserve or any given interplanetary mission.
“You just need, essentially, [a stainless-steel sandwich]. You flow either fuel or water in between the sandwich layer, and then you have [very tiny] perforations on the outside and you essentially bleed water [or fuel] through them … to cool the windward side of the rocket.” – SpaceX CEO Elon Musk (Popular Mechanics, December 2018)
The assumptions needed for the above calculations do mean that 30T is an absolute worst-case scenario for a regeneratively-cooled Starship reentry, given that SpaceX may only have to vigorously cool a small fraction of its windward surface and will likely be able to cut more than half of the water needed by allowing Starship’s steel skin to heat quite a lot while still staying well below its melting point (likely around 800C/1500F or higher). This also fails to account for the fact that a regeneratively-cooled stainless steel heat shield would effectively let SpaceX do away with what would otherwise be a massive and heavy ablative heat shield and mounting mechanism. Perhaps the benefits of stainless steel might ultimately mean that carrying around 10-30T of coolant is actually performance-neutral or a minimal burden when all costs and benefits are properly accounted for.
Probability at 60% & rising rapidly due to new architecture
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 27, 2018
Musk clearly believes with almost zero doubt that a stainless steel Starship and booster (Super Heavy) is the way forward for the company’s BFR program, and he has now twice indicated that the switch away from advanced carbon composites will actually “accelerate” the rocket’s development schedule. For now, all we can do is watch as the first Starship prototype – meant to perform short hop tests ASAP – gradually comes into being in South Texas.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
