[5] The mission's primary objectives were for the vehicle to hot stage—a new addition to Starship's flight profile—followed by the second stage attaining a near-orbital trajectory with a controlled reentry over the Pacific Ocean, while the booster does a boostback burn with a propulsive splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico.

[3] Towards the end of the second stage burn the Ship vented excess liquid oxygen, resulting in a fire in its aft section and loss of the vehicle.

[9] The Federal Aviation Administration issued a statement confirming that an anomaly had occurred and that there were no reports of public property damage or injuries.

[10] The Federal Communications Commission considered the launch as a failure and used this as a rationale for rejecting SpaceX's Starlink service as eligible for large US rural broadband internet subsidies.

[18] In the same statement, FAA officials emphasized that "The closure of the mishap investigation does not signal an immediate resumption of Starship launches at Boca Chica.

[17][30] The FAA also announced that the full investigatory report would not be released due to confidential contents including export control information.

[30] Prior to Starship's second flight, SpaceX's vice president and ex-NASA engineer Bill Gerstenmaier made statements at the U.S. Senate on the importance of innovation in light of "strategic competition from state actors like China".

[citation needed] William H. Gerstenmaier, SpaceX's Vice President of Build and Flight Reliability, called on the FAA to increase licensing staff.

[14] Ship 25 was rolled to the suborbital launch site in May 2023 and underwent spin prime and static fire testing ahead of flight.

[44] Once that was completed, Booster 9 was rolled to the launch site to undergo cryogenic proof testing, spin primes and static fires of its set of engines.

[46] SpaceX replaced the hydraulic systems of Super Heavy Raptor engines with thrust vector control driven by electric motors, citing fewer potential points of failure and more energy efficiency.

[46] The spacecraft flight plan was to lift off from SpaceX's Starbase facility along the south Texas coast, then conduct a partial orbit around Earth.

[12] Following stage separation, Super Heavy initiated its flip maneuver, and then its boostback burn: the flight computers sent commands to 13 of the vehicle’s 33 Raptor engines to propel the rocket toward its intended landing location.

[58] According to astronomer Jonathan McDowell, at his predicted re-entry point, NOAA weather radar picked up a debris cloud a few hundred miles north of the Virgin Islands.

[55] In January 2024, SpaceX said that because Starship carried no payload, they planned to vent excess liquid oxygen from the second stage near the end of the burn.

"[9] Upon the FAA's closure of the investigation on February 26, SpaceX elaborated on the cause of the accident thusly: At vehicle separation, Starship’s upper stage lit all six Raptor engines and flew a normal ascent until approximately seven minutes into the flight, when a planned vent of excess liquid oxygen propellant began.

[12] In December 2023 the Federal Communications Commission issued final denial of an $885 million Starlink subsidy because all attempted Starship launches "have failed".

Based on Starlink’s previous assertions about its plans to launch its second-generation satellites via Starship, and the information that was available at the time, the [Wireline Competition] Bureau necessarily considered Starlink’s continuing inability to successfully launch the Starship rocket when making predictive judgment about its ability to meet its RDOF obligations.

[46] Following the flight test, SpaceX said it had led the investigation efforts with oversight from the FAA and participation from NASA, and the National Transportation Safety Board.