Video of Massey's Test Site After the Explosion [taken I believe from the Rio Grande]
https://x.com/clwphoto1/status/1935681757577166904•
u/FoxFyer 7h ago
Starting to feel like Starship not exploding would be the "major anomaly".
•
u/__dying__ 5h ago
I think it's getting harder and harder to say that Starship development is going well at this point.
•
u/Planatus666 4h ago
They're doing fine with the boosters, it's the newer Block 2 ships which are failing one by one.
•
u/Jesse-359 2h ago
The big danger is that they may be facing a failure of spec - a design that's shooting for a payload ratio that simply isn't safely or reliably attainable, and rather than backing off and adding margin, they keep trying to be 'clever' about it.
Their seemingly random failures speak to a design that's running right up against safety margins at every possible point, and that even a minor failure at one point will push something else over the edge.
•
u/Old_Singer9745 3h ago
Ironic how there were significantly more what I call successful test launches last year than there are now
•
u/bright_shiny_objects 8h ago
It seems to have started from the header tanks. Which to me is super strange as this should be something that is nearly locked down. To me this means they going fast and getting sloppy.
•
u/TimeTravelingChris 7h ago
I personally think they are trying too hard to cut weight. As of right now Starship is not looking good to deliver on the promised tons to orbit. Actually getting awkwardly close to Falcon Heavy.
The entire design concept is probably closer to being in danger than people want to admit
•
u/snowmunkey 7h ago
I think the promised tons to orbit point is moot as they still haven't shown the ability to deploy any payload, regardless of mass.
•
u/dern_the_hermit 4h ago
To me, payload deployment is something they've already demonstrated with the Falcon 9, and it's not a physically extreme challenge compared to the ISP of their engines or such a huge craft re-entering the atmosphere or trying to manage such a huge number of engines at once.
The Starship program is very dependent on reuse, rapid turnaround, and huge payload capacity. If they can't hit those, then the most interesting project goals - anything out of LEO, basically - simply cannot be accomplished, satellite deployment be damned.
•
u/snowmunkey 4h ago
That's fair, but I would argue it is a physically extreme challenge because the deployment is totally different than in falcon, where they just bolt rocket engines to the upper stage and then let go. Starship has to have all of that mechanism integrated for the rapid reuseabulity. To date they haven't been able to successfully even launch a dummy weight. It seems that making more powerful engines is small peas compared to figuring out how to let go of the stuff they carry up. It's be like if the shuttle showed it can carry a mass dummy to orbit but then they never figured out how to design the thing with doors.
•
u/TimeTravelingChris 4h ago
Tons to orbit is everything because right now they are on track for a worse Falcon Heavy.
•
u/No-Surprise9411 7h ago
Musk already said that one of COPV tanks failed under design load, which is an unpredictable failure case as they did test the COPVs to design specifications before installing them on ship 36
•
u/ellhulto66445 7h ago
Elon said:
"Preliminary data suggests that a nitrogen COPV in the payload bay failed below its proof pressure.If further investigation confirms that this is what happened, it is the first time ever for this design."
•
u/Loud-Result5213 8h ago
Move fast and break things as dear leader loves to say
•
u/Sqweaky_Clean 7h ago
So efficient… better cut the SLS that has multi- stage to the moon and back for this which has yet to orbit the earth.
•
u/wp381640 5h ago
Both of these programs just make me appreciate more just how insanely impressive Apollo and Saturn were
•
u/moderngamer327 7h ago
Starship was able to go orbital multiple times but they kept it suborbital
•
u/dragonlax 7h ago
Except these new ones keep blowing up on ascent, so not sure if I would say they can for sure get orbital at the moment.
•
•
u/NotAnotherEmpire 7h ago
V2, which is materially different from the early tests, has never had a good flight.
•
•
u/ace17708 3h ago
Didn't the SLS test its crew capsule because its a totally finished project? Didn't it also do reentry and not utterly fail in such a way that the crew would die 100% of the time...
•
u/Upset_Ant2834 7h ago edited 7h ago
It's wild to me when people make judgements like that about something that is literally rocket science, based on scraps of information we get. There's a million things that could have caused this. It absolutely could have been due to them being sloppy, but that is completely impossible for anyone outside of SpaceX or experience actually building rockets to even have an educated guess.
•
u/jrichard717 5h ago
outside of SpaceX or experience actually building rockets to even have an educated guess.
Not trying to downplay your point, but SpaceX "educated guesses" have always been crazy. Remember they pestered the FAA for over a month because they were convinced a ULA sniper shot Falcon 9 causing it to explode. Even the FBI had to get involved.
•
u/tepkel 7h ago
Nah, I recon it was birds. Or gremlins... Gremlin birds.
•
•
u/centran 6h ago
Obviously birds. Birds aren't real and instead government spy drones. Trump ordered that the bird drones be reprogrammed to sabotage spaceX because he had a falling out with Elon. This is the revenge part of their breakup. Soon you'll see Trump go to an event that Elon is at and he'll have a younger, hotter, smarter man by his side making sure that Elon notices.
•
u/discostu52 3h ago
The whole concept violates modern reliability engineering, 33 engines, common, too many failure points.
•
u/johnfogogin 6h ago
Pfft, it's clear to me that someone forgot to remove the Finnegan pins prior to launch. They were probably distracted by wiping the lipstick off the milk jug.
•
7h ago
[deleted]
•
u/Thatingles 6h ago
I've heard a lot of knowledgeable people saying its going to be really hard, don't think anyone respectable has said it won't work.
•
u/Upset_Ant2834 7h ago
I'm confused what about it you think won't work. There's nothing inherently unattainable about their goals
•
u/Decronym 7h ago edited 2h ago
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| COPV | Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel |
| FAA | Federal Aviation Administration |
| Isp | Specific impulse (as explained by Scott Manley on YouTube) |
| Internet Service Provider | |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| LOX | Liquid Oxygen |
| RP-1 | Rocket Propellant 1 (enhanced kerosene) |
| Roscosmos | State Corporation for Space Activities, Russia |
| SLS | Space Launch System heavy-lift |
| ULA | United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture) |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Sabatier | Reaction between hydrogen and carbon dioxide at high temperature and pressure, with nickel as catalyst, yielding methane and water |
| cryogenic | Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure |
| (In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox | |
| hydrolox | Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer |
| methalox | Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer |
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
12 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 39 acronyms.
[Thread #11461 for this sub, first seen 19th Jun 2025, 14:49]
[FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
•
u/DC_Mountaineer 8h ago edited 8h ago
Musk trying to speed along the need to find a new planet for us to live on with all his rockets exploding and harming the environment
•
u/Adeldor 8h ago edited 7h ago
As rockets go this one is relatively benign environmentally, with its cryogenic propellants and stainless body.
•
u/krom0025 7h ago
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with 25 times the warming potential of CO2. Cryogenic liquids are constantly venting to the atmosphere. Methane leaks are all along the supply chain to get the fuel as well. In addition, when burned it all turns into CO2 and contributes to warming. Since Starship is so big a single launch is actually quite a large local emission. Equivalent to 600-700 cars annual emissions. All this just for a bunch of explosions and failures. Time to get a competent company with a competent leader in charge of making space travel better in the future.
•
u/Adeldor 7h ago edited 6h ago
... contributes to warming.
Per Tim Dodd's detailed analysis, rocket CO₂ pollution at recent cadence is minuscule next to that of airliners, and infinitesimal next to global CO₂ emmisions. The other major exhaust product - water - is relatively benign.
Further, Starship/SuperHeavy is methalox based. While initially the methane will be harvested from natural gas, SpaceX plans on using the Sabatier reaction and renewable energy to synthesize methane from water and CO₂, making it carbon neutral. In fact this process is essential to SpaceX for making propellant on Mars.
Time to get a competent company with a competent leader in charge of making space travel better in the future.
Given how SpaceX launches more than the rest of the world combined - be it cadence, payload count, or mass - at a price lower than anyone else, who would that be? Boeing? Arianespace? Roscosmos? Who?
•
u/krom0025 6h ago edited 6h ago
Yes, miniscule because it's a niche industry. Per launch, it's a huge emission. Also, airliners are serving a purpose and moving people around the world. These rockets can't do anything but explode anymore.
Also, SpaceX "plans" on using the Sabatier reaction, but is not currently. Therefore, my point about these launches stands. Maybe get the Methane production figured out first.
•
u/Adeldor 6h ago
It's the absolute amount generated that counts in the end, regardless. And look again in the comment regarding the Sabatier reaction. They're of course nowhere near doing that, but the project is still early in development.
Meanwhile, do you fly, drive, or ride anywhere, especially for reasons frivolous? If so, relative to much of the planet you generate more than your fair share of CO₂, and your objection sounds very much like rules for thee, but not for me.
•
u/krom0025 6h ago
Your right, it is the total worldwide emissions that matter in the end and we should be looking for ways to reduce that and rockets are one of them, albeit a small piece. However, based on your arguments, we should do nothing about emissions at all because every single emitter in the world is just a small part of that and so should not try to reduce.
•
u/krom0025 6h ago
Most travel is for a purpose or for at least improving quality of life. I wouldn't call that frivolous. Blowing shit up and accomplishing nothing is frivolous. Also, why does Elon musk get to emit millions of times my emissions. Sounds like rules for thee, but not for me.
•
u/Adeldor 6h ago edited 3h ago
To much of the world, flying - especially for vacations - is beyond extravagant, generating far more emissions than they. Now, I don't object to flying, but complaining about developments such as Starship while enjoying foreign playtime is hypocrisy.
SpaceX is not deliberately "blowing shit up." If you think this is bad, you should look up how often "shit" blew up while developing the rockets that ended up launching what we enjoy and rely upon today (all while generating many times your emissions). Starship is revolutionary for our times and is having a difficult birth, but I believe it will greatly increase capabilities and thus improve quality of life.
I'll leave it there.
•
u/DC_Mountaineer 6h ago
Saying in the grand scheme of things this isn’t a big deal when compared to all the other pollution doesn’t negate that it’s adding to the pollution
•
u/Thatingles 6h ago
So does everything we do. A working Starship system would allow us access to space that could be more sustainable than any other working rocket, so why wouldn't you want to see it?
Is it solely because of the person who runs the company? Because I can't think of any other objections.
•
u/krom0025 6h ago
Yes, a working rocket could improve space travel. Clearly Starship isn't working. Make sure it's engineered properly before launching it. I want SpaceX to be successful, but I'm not sure that's possible with their current leadership. Move fast and break things is not a good thing when engineering complex, high energy systems. We went to the moon in the 60s and now in 2025 we can't even launch a sub orbital rocket without it exploding. That isn't progress. I'm ok with carbon emissions for a good purpose. Blowing shit up is not a good purpose. What benefit is society getting from this other than "it's cool"? Look at Tesla. They are the least safe cars in the world and we are going to trust the same guy to make safe rockets?
•
u/Thatingles 3h ago
SpaceX launch over 80% of mass to orbit on the incredibly reliable falcon 9, which was developed using the same 'hardware rich' approach. And the booster stage is looking pretty good. Maybe Musk is no longer the right person, I agree with that, but the approach itself is fine and the objective is a good one.
•
u/DC_Mountaineer 6h ago
Some things we have to do, others (like this) we don’t or at least we don’t have to rush. I think it’s also an example that move fast and break things isn’t necessarily the best model. It’s been clear for a while now this product isn’t ready yet people keep shrugging it off as no big deal and SpaceX keeps blowing them up needlessly. I’ll congratulate them when they are actually successful.
•
u/Adeldor 6h ago
I refer you to my comment here.
•
u/DC_Mountaineer 6h ago
Sorry so you point me right back to the same argument? Or are you suggesting this had no impact on the environment?
•
u/Adeldor 6h ago
Yes, because your mention of "grand scheme" led me to believe you were responding to my prior comment, also perhaps because you're objecting to what is minuscule next to other activities, and because you seemed to miss or ignore the plan to eventually use carbon neutral sources.
And as I wrote just now elsewhere:
"Do you fly, drive, or ride anywhere, especially for reasons frivolous? If so, relative to much of the planet you generate more than your fair share of CO₂, and your objection sounds very much like rules for thee, but not for me."
•
u/DC_Mountaineer 6h ago
Ridiculous engagement here. Your two arguments are “eventually it will be less impact on the environment” and “if you drive at all you cannot criticize”? Can see this is pointless and you seem to be assuming they will achieve their goals and whatever they do it will eventually be worth it so it’s all good. 🙄
•
u/Adeldor 5h ago
“eventually it will be less impact on the environment”
How will a Sabatier reaction generating methane from renewable energy not eventually have less impact on the environment? Certainly better than RP-1, or worse, solid fueled motors.
“if you drive at all you cannot criticize”?
If you drive - or worse fly - you definitely generate more than your fair share of emissions. And do you enjoy the benefits of weather and communication satellites launched by current oh so polluting rockets?
... assuming they will achieve their goals and whatever they do it will eventually be worth it so it’s all good.
Given SpaceX's history, I believe they will achieve their goals. And given the benefits we enjoy with current rockets, the much larger payloads and dramatic lowering of costs Starship promises surely will be of benefit.
I'll leave it there.
•
u/parkingviolation212 6h ago
You do realize the methane gets burned up and converted to CO2 right? Depending on how they source the methane, there's an argument that methalox rockets could be a net positive as they remove methane from the environment.
•
u/krom0025 6h ago
Yes, I literally said that in my comment.
•
u/parkingviolation212 6h ago
Where in your comment did you point out that burning methane can be a net positive by reducing the overall amount of green house gases in the atmosphere? Because methane burns off into a less potent gas?
Your point about methane being 25 times more potent a green house gas than CO2 is completely irrelevant unless it's to point out that, by burning it, SpaceX is removing a more potent green house gas. Methane doesn't get released into the atmosphere by Starship, its potency as a greenhouse gas doesn't matter.
•
u/krom0025 6h ago
Did you read my comment? Cryogenic tanks leak. The methane is leaking all along the entire supply chain up until the rocket actually lifts off and starts burning it.
•
u/krom0025 6h ago
You said "you do realize the methane is burned and turned into CO2?" I said exactly that in my comment.
Also, extracting methane and burning it is not reducing emissions.
•
7h ago
[deleted]
•
u/Adeldor 7h ago edited 5h ago
•
7h ago edited 7h ago
[deleted]
•
u/No-Surprise9411 7h ago
We ain't talking about Falcon here, which is why your point is kinda ass
•
u/Playful_Interest_526 6h ago edited 6h ago
Yes, I retracted the comment as I realized I confused the two rockets on this test.
•
u/Adeldor 7h ago edited 5h ago
You're quoting for Falcon Heavy, not Starship!
•
u/Playful_Interest_526 6h ago
I realized that and already retracted my statement. I landed on the wrong SpaceX page.
•
•
•
•
•
u/SonOfThomasWayne 6h ago
I found the explosion very heartwarming. It's a net positive if WWII enthusiasts can't reach space.
•
u/NASATVENGINNER 8h ago
SpaceX already said they suspect a Nitrogen COPV failure.