Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space

SpaceX's Latest Starship Test Flight Ends With Another Explosion (npr.org) 275

SpaceX's eighth Starship test flight ended in failure after losing control and breaking apart shortly after launch, sending debris over Florida. "Starship didn't make it quite as high or as far" as the attempt nearly two months ago," notes NPR. That attempt ended with an explosion that sent flaming debris raining down on the Turks and Caicos. From the report: This time, wreckage from the latest explosion was seen streaming from the skies over Florida. It was not immediately known whether the spacecraft's self-destruct system had kicked in to blow it up. The 403-foot rocket blasted off from Texas. SpaceX caught the first-stage booster back at the pad with giant mechanical arms, but engines on the spacecraft on top started shutting down as it streaked eastward for what was supposed to be a controlled entry over the Indian Ocean, half a world away. Contact was lost as the spacecraft went into an out-of-control spin.

Starship reached nearly 90 miles in altitude before trouble struck and before four mock satellites could be deployed. It was not immediately clear where it came down, but images of flaming debris were captured from Florida, including near Cape Canaveral, and posted online. The space-skimming flight was supposed to last an hour. "Unfortunately this happened last time too, so we have some practice at this now," SpaceX flight commentator Dan Huot said from the launch site. SpaceX later confirmed that the spacecraft experienced "a rapid unscheduled disassembly" during the ascent engine firing. "Our team immediately began coordination with safety officials to implement pre-planned contingency responses," the company said in a statement posted online.
You can watch a recorded livestream of the launch on X.

SpaceX's Latest Starship Test Flight Ends With Another Explosion

Comments Filter:
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday March 07, 2025 @02:03AM (#65217097)

    SpaceX's eighth Starship test flight ended in failure

    No, it ended in data.

    Which can lead to full success when you keep trying.

    Catching the booster alone was a big deal because that had not been done before, only second stage.

    The important thing is how fast they can iterate based on whatever data they gather, and it seems like they can iterate rapidly now.

    • by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Friday March 07, 2025 @02:21AM (#65217113) Homepage
      Very expensive data!
      • by gargleblast ( 683147 ) on Friday March 07, 2025 @04:32AM (#65217267)
        Not that I could afford it. But compared to a Starliner or SLS test? It's a bargain.
      • by monkeyxpress ( 4016725 ) on Friday March 07, 2025 @08:11AM (#65217517)

        I don't think the data they would have gotten was that great either. They really need to test heat shield performance and the flap design changes made to starship. They need the results from this to inform the next step in starship design. What they really need, if they want to be able to iterate on the design quickly, is to have starships coming back to the launch tower so they can inspect them.

        But they are not making progress towards this goal. They still need to have an orbital flight, and I doubt they will want to do this until they have had at least two V2 designs perform sub-orbital flights without issue. Starship is massive. Having it stuck in orbit, to re-enter at a time that they can't control, would be a serious safety issue.

        I guess the problem is that they have a very full development program - if everything went well, they would be pushed to get a starship return to launch within the year. After that they still need to make the stack reusable, then rapidly reusable and then deal with things like orbital refuelling and figuring out how to land on mars/moon. There is a lot of work, and if at each point they are going to have setbacks due to items they have already tested, then it is going to slow the design massively.

        To be honest, this is really one of the flaws with their 'agile' approach. Moving quickly works well when you have only a few probabilities stacking up (e.g. testing belly flop landing and things like that), but as your system becomes more and more complicated, you get hammered by even small failure probabilities in parts that you aren't trying to test. This seems to be the case with these two flights, and it will just get worse and worse as they try to add capability to starship. It could very well get to the point where they are better off sitting down and doing meticulous bench design and testing of parts, rather than spending $100million per launch to find out that there are unexpected tolerances in some valve body etc that didn't appear before.

    • by DamnOregonian ( 963763 ) on Friday March 07, 2025 @03:16AM (#65217175)

      No, it ended in data.

      Sweet! You've just redefined every rocket failure in history to data!
      I love these rules.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by blahabl ( 7651114 )

        No, it ended in data.

        Sweet! You've just redefined every rocket failure in history to data! I love these rules.

        No, that's the difference between "test flight" and "flight". What Challenger did was a failure. What Columbia did was a failure. What Apollo 1 did was a failure (though arguably it was meant as a test, but they did run it so badly that it ended in a failure rather than just data). This was not. You know, you can tell, as these flights are announced beforehand as "test" flights, tend to carry mass simulators (or apparently cars), instead of actual satellites (and definitely not people!), and tend not to aim

        • by Kitkoan ( 1719118 ) on Friday March 07, 2025 @05:38AM (#65217357)
          It was supposed to fly to the Indian Ocean for a controlled re-entry, half the world away. Instead it exploded shortly after takeoff over Florida. It didn't even get close to what it was supposed to test. Tests are supposed to test certain parameters, not explode randomly at the start. This makes it a failure.

          I know, it's hard, but you can learn.
          • right. if my rocket is supposed to test some newfangled satellite release system and instead it blows up on the launchpad, i can't handwave it away as 'a test'. it's clearly a failure.

          • I also think this is a step back and not a good sign, but to add some detail: SpaceX are now on the second major version of their upper stage. The first version worked great with multiple successful reentries some including soft landings on the water. The problem is that most of the major changes were supposed to be related to re-entry, NOT ascent. There are some ascent-related changes, but not very big ones I didn't think. They now are zero for two on ascent for the new version of the second stage and
        • I've been following SpaceX enough to know this was a failure. You could hear it in their voices and see it on their faces. They need to be working on orbital and reentry. This is a step back.
        • No, it ended in data.

          Sweet! You've just redefined every rocket failure in history to data! I love these rules.

          No, that's the difference between "test flight" and "flight". What Challenger did was a failure.

          To the contrary, the Challenger failure resulted in valuable data that showed a problem. It was an expensive way to get data, but they addressed the problem, fixed it, and demonstrated that it was fixed with a hundred more flights. It was a failure that we learned from.

          What Columbia did was a failure. What Apollo 1 did was a failure

          Again, failures we learned from that showed problems that we are now aware of and have addressed.

          It can be an expensive way to learn, but it is a way to learn. Quoting Samuel Beckett:
          “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fa

    • by jeremyp ( 130771 ) on Friday March 07, 2025 @04:11AM (#65217233) Homepage Journal

      They'd have much ore data if it hadn't gone bang.

      At some point you really do have to acknowledge that Starship is currently failing. Yes, they'll probably turn it round unless they run out of money, but they re years late.

      • this is a fantastic point. It seems Starship was just not designed well in the first place. How could the greatest genius in history let this happen??? it is a little weird to me that someone can get all the kudos for what was supposed to change civilization forever, but then not receive any criticism when it is fairly apparent that they failed.
        hey, can you pass me some special K? I... Have not had breakfast yet.

      • Years late, and the money spent on it so far is starting to raise eyebrows.
        While an individual launch remains fairly cheap (all things considered), they're up to about half of the total SLS spending, and the SLS has successfully sent a modern Apollo around the moon and back home.
    • Uhm, catching the booster had been done twice before this flight. And yeah it was data, but this time it sure was a failure as for starship most if the items they wanted to check off weren't met.
    • No, it ended in data.

      There are many ways to fail so data that tells you one way to avoid failing is much less valuable that data telling you one way to achieve success. So, even looked at from the data perspective, it's still a failure.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      One data point: apparently the debris got very close to commercial aircraft; the exclusion zone was too small.

      That's one of the points that the former head of the FAA was making. But now that Musk got him fired, we're apparently just going to ignore that data point.

    • No, it ended in data.

      And the data says failure.

    • Catching the booster alone was a big deal because that had not been done before, only second stage.

      This was the third time they recovered the booster, not the first.

    • We would be a lot more excited if it were public data and nasa was doing this. Itâ(TM)s a lot less fun when public money is being burnt for private profit.

    • big, huge fireballs of data!

    • SpaceX's eighth Starship test flight ended in failure

      No, it ended in data.

      Which can lead to full success when you keep trying.

      Catching the booster alone was a big deal because that had not been done before, only second stage.

      The important thing is how fast they can iterate based on whatever data they gather, and it seems like they can iterate rapidly now.

      DOGE can shut down the part of the FAA that keeps stalling out when needing to sign the launch papers. GO GO CORRUPTION JUNCTION! It's like Conjunction Junction's barely functional cousin, in the form of a government agency designed specifically to streamline life for the billionaires. I LOVE AMERICA! (<-Imagine that screamed like it was in the Fear Factory tune where he lists all the murder and rape stats for our country.)

    • That's some strong copium you've got there.

    • by mspohr ( 589790 )

      They do the same thing with their "full self driving" cars.
      Users are beta testers and when they crash, Tesla gets lots of good data.

  • Good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by doozethe ( 2508702 ) on Friday March 07, 2025 @02:39AM (#65217125)
    Until this launch I watched every Starship launch live in sheer admiration of what the engineers there have accomplished. Then Musk went full nazi. Nobody wants space nazis. Nobody. Hope every launch explodes until he's bankrupt. I just feel sorry for the poor engineers working for that tyrant.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by greytree ( 7124971 )
      I feel the same, and wonder how many of Spacex's very hard-working engineers do too, and are consequently not giving it 110% (sic) any more.

      There is a big difference ( for me for sure ) between working at something you have to do and working at something you really want to do well.

      Trouble is, this will affect Spacex's, and mankind's, amazing progress in space, but I fear it will do nothing to get Musk to reign back Trump and save the lives of Ukrainians and help stop global warming.
      • Re: Good (Score:4, Insightful)

        by zawarski ( 1381571 ) on Friday March 07, 2025 @03:04AM (#65217159)
        The people who worked on the last V2 knew exactly who they were working for.
        • Yeah, and thanks to those people the US actually has a space program. So stop being a hypocrite as a lot of todays technology and progress is thanx to nazi scientists.
          • Yeah put me on the side of not ever having Nazis would have been worth not gaving whatever the fuck the space program has been good for.
            • Of course. No sane person would trade 70 million lives for the space program.

              But what the space program that we did get is now good for is what Musk says - making intelligent life in the universe a little more likely to survive by helping make mankind multi-planetary.
              I see that as a duty of intelligent beings.
              • It just probably would've worked better if we'd not put the space program back in nazi hands, is all.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by greytree ( 7124971 )
          I like to think that clever people will support what is right when they have enough information to decide correctly. Otherwise there is no hope for the world.

          And no intelligent person can say that letting Russia invade Ukraine and keep the land it stole is right.

          No intelligent person can say that we do not have to limit global warming.
      • I've thought about this as well. When I was a young engineer working for a big corporate, the older people tended to keep their politics to themselves (wise advise ultimately), but us younger folk were a bit more outspoken. However the general company policy was to not discuss politics and everyone in leadership was quite careful about this. Thinking back now, this makes a lot of sense - I think I would have been horrified at some of the views fellow engineers had. I think the issue with places like SpaceX

    • Fucking space nazis. I knew Iron Sky was a documentary.
    • by RobinH ( 124750 )
      I have to agree. I've been following the Starship and Superheavy stuff very closely until now. I'm sick of it all.
    • Similar feeling. Problem is, take away the personality and the cult falls apart. Unpaid overtime doesn't just happen.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Then Musk went full nazi. Nobody wants space nazis. Nobody. Hope every launch explodes until he's bankrupt. I just feel sorry for the poor engineers working for that tyrant.

      Looks like the Nazi-Base on Mars is on hold for the time being.

  • Not launch. Boom goes the dynamite.
  • Finally... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sleeplesseye ( 113792 ) on Friday March 07, 2025 @02:53AM (#65217139) Homepage Journal
    It's nice to see Elon blow up $5 billion dollars worth of wasteful government subsidies to SpaceX!
    • This isn't a waste, it's our best chance at getting Elon off this world and abandoning these worthless rich arseholes on Mars.

    • by Tora ( 65882 )

      The government doesn't pay for this stuff.
      And SpaceX has done a great service for the government, driving down the cost of rocket launches so far that it's made the cartel that Boeing and Lockheed made to drive up the costs through a single bidder all but go out of business.
      Your comment shows how myopic your perspective is, and how emotional it is, not based in any logic.

      • The government doesn't pay for this stuff.

        Sure they do. HLS wasn't awarded for off-the-shelf services. Are they covering all the costs? Of course not. But they're absolutely contributing to development.

        You know who else paid for last night's launch? The airlines.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Friday March 07, 2025 @04:16AM (#65217235)

    Because then, hopefully, Elon Musk will emigrate to Mars!

  • We may want to hold on to ISS a little longer. If he says he'll get it operational in two years it may be a Trumpuan hyperbole. You know, for the good of the people.
  • Is data collection really the main concern here?
    Hopefully this time Elon will arrange a clean up of the tons of debris about to wash up on many foreign beaches.
    Is it about time he started spending some cash on simply fixing up this planet rather than hoping that a few of the mega-rich will get to escape another.
    (I write this on behalf of all the flora and fauna that donâ(TM)t have much of a voice on this planet we are rapidly fâ¦ing up. ;)

  • I have full confidence the FAA will ground future star ship launches until there is a thorough investigation and required design and procedural changes are fully implemented.

    https://www.the-independent.co... [the-independent.com]

  • by tsqr ( 808554 )

    rapid unscheduled disassembly

    George Carlin [youtube.com] is rolling over in his grave.

  • by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Friday March 07, 2025 @10:28AM (#65217857)

    The last two Starship launches were the first to use Starship Block 2. Seems likely there is a bad design change. Hot staging could be an issue too.
    Hopefully they can work the kinks out soon. The launch pace is pretty exciting.

"Nuclear war can ruin your whole compile." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...