SpaceX's Starship explodes during preparations for 10th test flight

telcodad · 2025-06-19T12:07:47+00:00

SpaceX’s Starship “suffered a catastrophic failure and exploded” during a routine test at the Starbase facility: Next Starship explodes on test stand Spaceflight Now - June 19, 2025 https://spaceflightnow.com/2025/06/19/next-starship-explodes-on-test-stand/ SpaceX’s next Starship vehicle was destroyed in a catastrophic explosion shortly after 11 p.m. CT (0400 UTC) Wednesday as it was being readied for a static fire test at the company’s Massey facility, near Starbase, Texas. The bullet-shaped, stainless-steel Ship 36 was ripped apart in a giant fireball as liquid methane and liquid oxygen were being loaded for an expected test firing of the vehicle’s six Raptor rocket engines. It was unclear how much damage was inflicted to the test stand and other facilities at the Massey site. “The Starship preparing for the tenth flight test experienced a major anomaly while on a test stand at Starbase,” SpaceX said in a social media post. “A safety clear area around the site was maintained throughout the operation and all personnel are safe and accounted for. Our Starbase team is actively working to safe the test site and the immediate surrounding area in conjunction with local officials.” ….

MacLeech

Bobcat00 Spacex uses the same second stage for both rockets. It had a “misfire” and was grounded last year while they poked around to patch the problem. I call that a failure.

The payload (Crew 9) made it to orbit and the space station just fine. The “misfire” was during a 2nd stage deorbit burn that made little difference to the successful outcome to the mission. The booster was still deorbited, just a few days later.

That Crew 9 included the other astronauts, added to Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams launched on Starliner, who lived on the ISS for several months and were all brought down safely on that same SpaceX Dragon capsule.

Many other companies would love to have such a successful “failure”. Falcon 9 was grounded 3 days for that “misfire”. It had zero effect on any Falcon Heavy launches. It also had zero to do with the 9 to 27 engines of the first stage boosters of the Falcons.

telcodad

MacLeech Bobcat00 Nasa launches plenty of rockets right now that provide better capabilities than Starshit.

Bobcat00 MacLeech Name one.

Atlas.

MacLeech Bobcat00 Atlas

The retired rocket? Hard for NASA to launch that rocket “right now” since they aren’t available anymore.

I guess you mean the Atlas V, which has all of its remaining launches now sold:

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

In August 2021, ULA announced that Atlas V would be retired and all remaining launches had been sold. As of April 2025, 14 launches remain. Production of the rocket ended in 2024. Future ULA missions will use the Vulcan Centaur launch vehicle, which was designed in part to comply with a Congressional mandate to phase out use of the Russian-made RD-180 engine.

Bobcat00

MacLeech The retired rocket? Hard for NASA to launch that rocket “right now” since they aren’t available anymore.

Ya sure buddy. Aren’t available anymore?

Google found a scheduled Atlas 5 to launch in the near future.

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

Atlas 5 • Kuiper 2

Launch time: TBD
Launch site: SLC-41, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida

A United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket, in a 551 configuration, will launch the second batch of 27 Project Kuiper satellites for Amazon. The mission is referred to as Kuiper Atlas 02 (KA-02) by Amazon. Delayed from June 13. Scrubbed on June 16 due to an issue connected to the gaseous nitrogen purge line for the RD-180 engine on the booster.

MacLeech

Bobcat00 That is because of budget cuts. We could do what we used to do the way we used to do it if they didn’t keep raiding Nasa’s budget and giving the money to friends of the administration.

Those budget cuts occurred LONG before SpaceX was on the scene. NASA first contracted with SpaceX in 2006 as a way to save money and keep ISS launch capability in the US vs sending it to Russia after the Space Shuttle was retired. NASA also contracted with Boeing (who received even more NASA money) and others to do the same. SpaceX was the successful one.

Bobcat00 Thru a cloud of orbiting debris. Imagine if that stuff was not obstructing our view. It’s orbital pollution.

Much of that orbiting debris is not from SpaceX. Astronomers found ways to deal with those “obstructions” long before SpaceX started launching Starlink satellites. It’s orbital pollution if it’s not useful and Starlink is useful.

MacLeech

Bobcat00 Ya sure buddy. Aren’t available anymore?

ALL private launches. Most for Blue Origin Kuiper (oh no more space pollution), and NONE available for NASA. Unless you count Starliner flights contracted by Boeing to the ISS, if they ever launch again.

The last Atlas flight contracted by NASA was June 2024 and ULA isn’t selling any more Atlas launches. ULA can’t afford to, since SpaceX brought down launch prices with more capable Falcon rockets.

ULA is another commercial launch provider like SpaceX. They were contracted by NASA for launches, just like SpaceX. They aren’t NASA. It’s not a NASA rocket any more than an ESA Ariane rocket (which launched JWST) is.

Plenty of other companies have been awarded similar NASA and DoD contracts, often with better funding, than SpaceX. It’s just that SpaceX has been wildly successful in their endeavors compared to the others. SpaceX is an outlier in the history of the space industry.

Astyanax

MacLeech ULA is another commercial launch provider like SpaceX. They were contracted by NASA for launches, just like SpaceX. They aren’t NASA. It’s not a NASA rocket any more then a ESA Ariane rocket (which launched JWST) is.

Thank you for explaining this sparing me from doing so.

NASA stopped launching their own rockets with the Space Shuttle (unless you want to count that one Artemis 1 test launch 🙄)

MacLeech

Interesting video by Scott Manley with slow motion shots showing it high pressure gases “unzipping” the heat shield side from the area above the fuel tanks before the explosion. He made this video before SpaceX said a COPV tank failed.

The “Massey” test site where the explosion occurred is across highway 4 from the launch towers. The launch towers were not affected.

WalterDnes

Bobcat00 I’ll just say that he bullied his way into the launch business and created a monopoly for himself.

He “created a monopoly for himself” by undercutting everybody else on cost. If you ran an airline that used an airplane once, and scrapped it after 1 trip, it would be bleeping expensive. Re-using boosters is like keeping an airplane running for years. A 2016 article https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/ula-executive-admits-company-cannot-compete-with-spacex-on-launch-costs/

As far as those costs, Tobey said SpaceX was able to offer launch services as low as $60 million per flight, whereas the lowest ULA could offer was $125 million.

Bobcat00

WalterDnes I read your link and the person you quoted did not represent the position of the company and was forced out for making questionable statements out of school.

Musk created a monopoly by artificially underbidding the competition to drive everyone else out of the space business. Once he solidifies his position with the help of his friends in government he will jack up his prices being the only game in town. Space launch services will become much more expensive and Nasa will be his toy to play with. We will be funding his unsafe fireworks shows and he will get richer from spacex.

Musk is already well on the way in doing this with his starlink internet system. It’s a flashy loss leader operation to kill off other satellite internet providers. The prices for starlink will shoot up exponentially once it becomes dominant. This is how “free enterprise” works when you cut out the government guardrails and let industry privatize the profits while socializing the losses. SMH.

MacLeech

Bobcat00 I’ll just say that he bullied his way into the launch business

SpaceX sued the federal government in 2014 because ULA had previously been awarded a monopoly to launch military payloads. Nobody else was allowed to participate. SpaceX was fighting for the chance to sell the government access to a cheaper, more responsive rocket launch system. Who is the bully in the situation?

NASA and others invited SpaceX to compete for launch contracts.

MacLeech

Bobcat00 SpaceX doesn’t have a monopoly and that possibility is getting further away as Blue Origin New Glen and ULA Vulcan start launching regularly. That’s besides American launchers Antares, Firefly, Rocket Lab, and Relativity Space. NASA and the federal government absolutely does NOT want to be limited to a single launch provider, and they have paid more to keep other launch providers available. They learned that lesson after the Challenger disaster.

“With the help of his friends in government”? Which ones are those? Trump? The one he had a very public falling out with and threatened to cut off all SpaceX funding, after Musk left government service, after Trump nixed his Issacman recommendation for NASA administrator? Did you mean the 3 presidents before him who approved of support for various SpaceX projects but aren’t in office anymore? You have to be more specific.

Starlink is in a similar situation, with Globstar, Iridium, and Inmarsat, not to mention competitors OneWeb and Blue Origin creating their satellite constellations. The last two are running behind because of the slow New Glenn and Vulcan rocket development and no access to Russian launches by the ESA for OneWeb after their bankruptcy, but both are getting assistance through SpaceX Falcon launches. Either way satellite provided internet services are becoming more competitive the last few years, not less.

It’s amazing that SpaceX hasn’t gone bankrupt while “artificially underbidding their competition” and saving his customers’ money for hundreds of launches over the last 15 years. It’s almost like reusing rocket boosters 20 times saves lots of money, as in even though they sell launches for less than all their competition, they could charge 10s of millions less per launch and still make money. Tory Bruno, CEO of ULA has also said they can’t launch for prices as low as SpaceX. This is even on the new ULA Vulcan rockets, which should halve the launch costs compared to their older Delta and Atlas rockets due to planned reuse of the Vulcan engine section. Recycling pays off BIG.

You really have to start reading more about the history of the whole situation and stop taking sensational click-bait headlines about Musk as the gospel. Your hate for Musk is preventing you from seeing the accomplishments of SpaceX. It’s obvious since you don’t refer to other space providers by the name of their CEO or leader, except SpaceX. 😏

MacLeech

Picture of the test stand aftermath

Astyanax

WalterDnes

WalterDnes As far as those costs, Tobey said SpaceX was able to offer launch services as low as $60 million per flight, whereas the lowest ULA could offer was $125 million.

The air force even pays ULA an $800 million annual allowance for “capability” (which SpaceX does not get) so they can launch on demand which ratchets up ULA’s launch costs to $200 million/each.

From your article:

However, he added, that did not include an $800 million “capability contract” that the military pays ULA annually to guarantee readiness and the ability to essentially launch on demand. If you factor in these funds, which SpaceX does not receive, the lowest cost launches that ULA can offer are about $200 million.

Reminds me of that old Hall & Oates lyric from Rich Girl: “You can rely on the old man’s money…”

GeekGirl1

MacLeech Interesting video by Scott Manley with slow motion shots showing it high pressure gases “unzipping” the heat shield side from the area above the fuel tanks before the explosion. He made this video before SpaceX said a COPV tank failed.

Fascinating, thanks!

InternetJeff

Astyanax The air force even pays ULA an $800 million annual allowance for “capability” (which SpaceX does not get) so they can launch on demand which ratchets up ULA’s launch costs to $200 million/each.

SpaceX should probably get that capability allowance so that they can be ready to rescue astronauts standed in space by another launch provider.

WalterDnes

Astyanax The air force even pays ULA an $800 million annual allowance for “capability” (which SpaceX does not get) so they can launch on demand which ratchets up ULA’s launch costs to $200 million/each.

I noticed that, but didn’t mention it. SpaceX doesn’t have an “on demand” clause. I wanted to make it a strict “apples-to-apples comparison”. BTW, they launched 134 times in 2024, so it’s not like they’d have to run around in a panic. Swap in a Crew Dragon capsule in place of a batch of Starlink satellites and launch to ISS instead.

Actually, SpaceX has stepped in as “Plan B” at least once already… and saved NASA $3 billion in the process https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/10/europa-clipper-launch/

However, Europa Clipper was not initially expected to fly atop Falcon Heavy and instead was planned to launch on NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) super-heavy lift rocket after the U.S. Congress mandated the spacecraft use the rocket for launch.

…snip…

In July 2021, NASA announced that SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy had been selected to launch Europa Clipper, citing launch costs, SLS availability, and shaking/vibrations during launch as their main motives for selecting Falcon Heavy. Though moving from SLS to Falcon Heavy meant adding more than 2.5 years to the mission’s overall timeline and coast phase, the move also allowed teams to save around $2 billion in launch costs alone. What’s more, the cost of redesigning Europa Clipper for the immense vibratory environment created by SLS’s solid rocket boosters would have cost around $1 billion.

MacLeech

WalterDnes It’s a bit more complicated for manned missions as NASA has stricter rules and ~~only the SpaceX launch tower at LC-39a~~ is currently setup for manned SpaceX launches. Never mind SLC-40 was upgraded in late 2024 for crewed launches too and it’s where Crew-9 was launched from.

On the other hand, SpaceX has taken over multiple payload deliveries from other providers who were already paid more than SpaceX would’ve been, but couldn’t perform in time. That does include replacement of multiple Boeing Starliner launches of crews to ISS who were initially awarded 6 and haven’t fulfilled any of them yet after 3 test flights that all had issues. The most recent launch change is the GPSIII launch at the end of May 2025 that was taken away from a ULA Vulcan launch that wasn’t going to be ready after the launch problem of their maiden flight:
https://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-latest-gps-iii-satellite-for-u-s-military/

Space is hard and depending on any single provider is a bad idea.

telcodad

Yeah, as stated before it appears to be a failure of the COPV:

SpaceX traces Starship test-stand explosion to failure of pressurized nitrogen tank
“Initial analysis indicates the potential failure of a pressurized tank known as a COPV.”
By Mike Wall, Space.com - June 20, 2025
https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/spacex-traces-starship-test-stand-explosion-to-failure-of-pressurized-nitrogen-tank

… “Initial analysis indicates the potential failure of a pressurized tank known as a COPV, or composite overwrapped pressure vessel, containing gaseous nitrogen in Starship’s nosecone area, but the full data review is ongoing,” the company wrote in an update on Thursday (June 19).

“There is no commonality between the COPVs used on Starship and SpaceX’s Falcon rockets,” the company added. So, launches of the workhorse Falcon 9, which has already flown 75 times in 2025, should not be affected.

“Previous independent tests conducted on materials inside Starship, including toxicity analyses, confirm they pose no chemical, biological, or toxicological risks,” the company wrote. “SpaceX is coordinating with local, state, and federal agencies, as appropriate, on matters concerning environmental and safety impacts.”

“The explosion ignited several fires at the test site which remains clear of personnel and will be assessed once it has been determined to be safe to approach,” SpaceX wrote in the update. “Individuals should not attempt to approach the area while safing operations continue.” …

Astyanax

telcodad “SpaceX is coordinating with local, state, and federal agencies, as appropriate, on matters concerning environmental and safety impacts.”

Even I would admit that explosion had to have contributed to global warming. 😄

« Previous Page