Guess they really do believe in ‘failure is not an option’, it’s a requirement for progress!
magus-21 on
For anyone keeping track, SpaceX has spent $10 billion on a rocket that has now failed 10 tests or test flights.
Imagine if that statement was “NASA has spent $10 billion on a rocket that has failed 10 test flights.”
rip1980 on
That was a little more static fire than they planned for, so SUCCESS!
pr06lefs on
That’s gonna set em back a bit, having to rebuild stage 0.
jadebenn on
The hate you would’ve gotten 5 years ago if you said the Artemis 2 SLS was probably going to launch humans around the Moon before Starship completes one full orbit around the Earth…
CocaColai on
I know rocketry is incredibly complicated but SpaceX can’t seem to get out the rut they’re in at the moment. Starship failing is one thing but now the boosters are going up in flames too. Weird, especially after the start they had to the program.
It’s also been happening more since a certain someone decided to enter (and exit) politics. But that would be crazy…
gplfalt on
Perhaps giving contracts to the kinda folks known for a “fail quickly and break stuff” montra *isn’t* more efficient than it simply being done by NASA.
deadcowww on
I wonder if the high turnover rate is finally getting to them.
metsfanapk on
I’m a newb at space stuff but I don’t think that is supposed to happen?
DougOsborne on
I love this for Elon. Tell you what: let’s tax billionaires like we did before Kennedy and do it ourselves, again.
McGondy on
What is their change control process, seriously!?
H0vis on
Very important science was done this day. We learned that space ship go boom and fire hot.
And they also just blew up their test stand too. Lovely…
Idk why but Post Falcon Heavy space X has really just not been killing it in the development department.
Infuriates me that we’re cancelling SLS when this thing can’t seem to survive static test fires this late into development.
Move fast and break things isn’t really paying off.
I mean with all the Falcon 9 landing stuff they at least got their payloads to orbit first. This thing hasn’t even had a single successful flight and we’re not seeing many noticeable improvements imo.
OftheSorrowfulFace on
I read that the explosion happened *before* they had started the static fire test, so they didn’t even get useful data out of it.
ephikles on
spacex somehow feels like they’re rolling the dice so many times until the right number comes up by pure chance. i would not trust them to be able to roll that number more than once in a row.
JamesLahey08 on
Was that a starship ornw falcon pocket rocket?
ryneches on
At this point, I am starting to wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong with the Starship design. Some kind of brittle failure of the steel? Or hydrodynamic instabilities due to the scale?
Fluids like liquid oxygen has a lower viscosity than qater, and liquid methane has a much, much lower viscosity than water. Big tubes and big tanks mean that all the plumbing must have a weirdly high Reynolds number for a rocket. That’s probably not good.
Hypervisory on
I went from cheering for their successes to cheering for their failures. Thanks Elon.
Jesus Christ V2 is cursed. Starship V1 was doing so well each launch doing better than the last and V2 has been nothing but misery.
mdog9624 on
This is the third video I’ve seen of the wrong video edited with white instead of the full explosion that makes it look targeted by something in the top left here’s the full video https://x.com/IntelPointAlert/status/1935550776304156932
It could be something going that direction … but why edit it?
RowFlySail on
Is there a particular reason they are doing a static fire at midnight?
Carbon-Base on
After the success of the Falcon Heavy, Starship continues to do everything but follow in it’s predecessor’s trajectory. Clearly, bigger does not mean better. After 10 rapid disassemble incidents, you’d think they would go back to the planning and development stage.
Physical-Draw-3683 on
If SLS and Starship were both to be axed, would we have any feasible path for returning to the moon?
Decronym on
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|[BFR](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl89zt “Last usage”)|Big Falcon Rocket (2018 rebiggened edition)|
| |Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you’re not the first to notice|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[FAA](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl9bwm “Last usage”)|Federal Aviation Administration|
|[GAO](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl0l31 “Last usage”)|(US) Government Accountability Office|
|[HLS](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl7ngn “Last usage”)|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|[JWST](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl3tl5 “Last usage”)|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope|
|[KSP](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl7mz3 “Last usage”)|*Kerbal Space Program*, the rocketry simulator|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl5b7f “Last usage”)|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[LIDAR](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl0a0d “Last usage”)|[Light Detection and Ranging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar)|
|[N1](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl714f “Last usage”)|Raketa Nositel-1, Soviet super-heavy-lift (“Russian Saturn V”)|
|[RUD](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl62qm “Last usage”)|Rapid Unplanned Disassembly|
| |Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly|
| |Rapid Unintended Disassembly|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl8e3v “Last usage”)|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[TLI](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl30xr “Last usage”)|Trans-Lunar Injection maneuver|
|[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl60tk “Last usage”)|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
Isn’t it about time that the USA president goes up to inaugurate the ISS? I kind of think it’s way overdue, especially on one of USA’s highest funded successful projects. The USA president can enjoy the view of the Gulf of America from up there. One of USA’s highest funded unsuccessful project was [the $21,000,000,000 hole in Texas](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xSUwgg1L4g).
ViriditasBiologia on
The defense squad is here, don’t worry guys, we’re totally getting manned flights by Elon’s 2026 date. What a clownshow. China will be on the moon by 2030, and we’ll be here still funneling money into this grift. Hey clowns guess what? Saturn V was infinitely more capable than starship will ever be, do you know why? It’s because everybody with even a basic understanding of orbital logistics knows that Starship is a purely ego driven design.
Hagoromo-san on
Looks like the pressure tank in the upper section of the rocket had a critical failure and ruptured, and then found an ignition source immediately after. Frame by frame from the live stream.
Ccbm2208 on
I so desperately want to believe in Starship, but this is a bad look. Trial and errors can only go so far until some progress is desperately needed.
mrkesh on
Was downvoted last time, might be again but I don’t see Starship becoming what is expected of it anytime soon.
1. How does the data collected help in any way Starships that are already assembled?
2. Can a plan that requires 12-15 launches in order to get 1 fully loaded Starship be sustainable and successful? It requires everything to go well (weather, launches, in-orbit refueling) as well as the ability to launch quickly.
3. How much money has been spent on Starship so far?
4. What happens to the contract they were awarded to land on the Moon? That had a deadline that will 100% not be met
5. Later down the road, but how would this get crew rated? Would it need to go another big iteration and multiple tests?
Falcon 9 has been extremely successful but Starship….I don’t know, I have reservations from what I have seen
Mr_Lumbergh on
At a certain point you have to admit that a platform has fundamental flaws and go back to the drawing board with a fresh sheet of paper.
kenypowa on
LOL this sub is full of sour grapes.
Back in the 1800s these people would have laughed at Edison for failing 1000x at making the light bulb.
the_fungible_man on
That’s one reason why you do static fire tests, no?
fzr600dave on
Are the engineers purposefully making starship worse or are they just bad engineers left as the good ones have probably jumped ship
CantAffordzUsername on
Who wants to go to space riding In one of these…any takers?
36 Comments
Guess they really do believe in ‘failure is not an option’, it’s a requirement for progress!
For anyone keeping track, SpaceX has spent $10 billion on a rocket that has now failed 10 tests or test flights.
Imagine if that statement was “NASA has spent $10 billion on a rocket that has failed 10 test flights.”
That was a little more static fire than they planned for, so SUCCESS!
That’s gonna set em back a bit, having to rebuild stage 0.
The hate you would’ve gotten 5 years ago if you said the Artemis 2 SLS was probably going to launch humans around the Moon before Starship completes one full orbit around the Earth…
I know rocketry is incredibly complicated but SpaceX can’t seem to get out the rut they’re in at the moment. Starship failing is one thing but now the boosters are going up in flames too. Weird, especially after the start they had to the program.
It’s also been happening more since a certain someone decided to enter (and exit) politics. But that would be crazy…
Perhaps giving contracts to the kinda folks known for a “fail quickly and break stuff” montra *isn’t* more efficient than it simply being done by NASA.
I wonder if the high turnover rate is finally getting to them.
I’m a newb at space stuff but I don’t think that is supposed to happen?
I love this for Elon. Tell you what: let’s tax billionaires like we did before Kennedy and do it ourselves, again.
What is their change control process, seriously!?
Very important science was done this day. We learned that space ship go boom and fire hot.
Sounds like infrastructure near the static firing pad [was likely caught in the aftermath](https://bsky.app/profile/punkey.org/post/3lrwprwoh3c2l)
And they also just blew up their test stand too. Lovely…
Idk why but Post Falcon Heavy space X has really just not been killing it in the development department.
Infuriates me that we’re cancelling SLS when this thing can’t seem to survive static test fires this late into development.
Move fast and break things isn’t really paying off.
I mean with all the Falcon 9 landing stuff they at least got their payloads to orbit first. This thing hasn’t even had a single successful flight and we’re not seeing many noticeable improvements imo.
I read that the explosion happened *before* they had started the static fire test, so they didn’t even get useful data out of it.
spacex somehow feels like they’re rolling the dice so many times until the right number comes up by pure chance. i would not trust them to be able to roll that number more than once in a row.
Was that a starship ornw falcon pocket rocket?
At this point, I am starting to wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong with the Starship design. Some kind of brittle failure of the steel? Or hydrodynamic instabilities due to the scale?
Fluids like liquid oxygen has a lower viscosity than qater, and liquid methane has a much, much lower viscosity than water. Big tubes and big tanks mean that all the plumbing must have a weirdly high Reynolds number for a rocket. That’s probably not good.
I went from cheering for their successes to cheering for their failures. Thanks Elon.
Another recording of this impressive explosion:
[https://imgur.com/f49PWKg](https://imgur.com/f49PWKg)
Jesus Christ V2 is cursed. Starship V1 was doing so well each launch doing better than the last and V2 has been nothing but misery.
This is the third video I’ve seen of the wrong video edited with white instead of the full explosion that makes it look targeted by something in the top left here’s the full video https://x.com/IntelPointAlert/status/1935550776304156932
It could be something going that direction … but why edit it?
Is there a particular reason they are doing a static fire at midnight?
After the success of the Falcon Heavy, Starship continues to do everything but follow in it’s predecessor’s trajectory. Clearly, bigger does not mean better. After 10 rapid disassemble incidents, you’d think they would go back to the planning and development stage.
If SLS and Starship were both to be axed, would we have any feasible path for returning to the moon?
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|[BFR](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl89zt “Last usage”)|Big Falcon Rocket (2018 rebiggened edition)|
| |Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you’re not the first to notice|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[FAA](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl9bwm “Last usage”)|Federal Aviation Administration|
|[GAO](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl0l31 “Last usage”)|(US) Government Accountability Office|
|[HLS](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl7ngn “Last usage”)|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|[JWST](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl3tl5 “Last usage”)|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope|
|[KSP](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl7mz3 “Last usage”)|*Kerbal Space Program*, the rocketry simulator|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl5b7f “Last usage”)|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[LIDAR](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl0a0d “Last usage”)|[Light Detection and Ranging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar)|
|[N1](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl714f “Last usage”)|Raketa Nositel-1, Soviet super-heavy-lift (“Russian Saturn V”)|
|[RUD](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl62qm “Last usage”)|Rapid Unplanned Disassembly|
| |Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly|
| |Rapid Unintended Disassembly|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl8e3v “Last usage”)|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[TLI](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl30xr “Last usage”)|Trans-Lunar Injection maneuver|
|[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl60tk “Last usage”)|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|——-|———|—|
|[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl6jcf “Last usage”)|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
|[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl90w3 “Last usage”)|SpaceX’s world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
|[hydrolox](/r/Space/comments/1lf2b5u/stub/myl0fbm “Last usage”)|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen 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.
—————-
^(16 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1lel7lh)^( has 19 acronyms.)
^([Thread #11459 for this sub, first seen 19th Jun 2025, 06:01])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Isn’t it about time that the USA president goes up to inaugurate the ISS? I kind of think it’s way overdue, especially on one of USA’s highest funded successful projects. The USA president can enjoy the view of the Gulf of America from up there. One of USA’s highest funded unsuccessful project was [the $21,000,000,000 hole in Texas](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xSUwgg1L4g).
The defense squad is here, don’t worry guys, we’re totally getting manned flights by Elon’s 2026 date. What a clownshow. China will be on the moon by 2030, and we’ll be here still funneling money into this grift. Hey clowns guess what? Saturn V was infinitely more capable than starship will ever be, do you know why? It’s because everybody with even a basic understanding of orbital logistics knows that Starship is a purely ego driven design.
Looks like the pressure tank in the upper section of the rocket had a critical failure and ruptured, and then found an ignition source immediately after. Frame by frame from the live stream.
I so desperately want to believe in Starship, but this is a bad look. Trial and errors can only go so far until some progress is desperately needed.
Was downvoted last time, might be again but I don’t see Starship becoming what is expected of it anytime soon.
1. How does the data collected help in any way Starships that are already assembled?
2. Can a plan that requires 12-15 launches in order to get 1 fully loaded Starship be sustainable and successful? It requires everything to go well (weather, launches, in-orbit refueling) as well as the ability to launch quickly.
3. How much money has been spent on Starship so far?
4. What happens to the contract they were awarded to land on the Moon? That had a deadline that will 100% not be met
5. Later down the road, but how would this get crew rated? Would it need to go another big iteration and multiple tests?
Falcon 9 has been extremely successful but Starship….I don’t know, I have reservations from what I have seen
At a certain point you have to admit that a platform has fundamental flaws and go back to the drawing board with a fresh sheet of paper.
LOL this sub is full of sour grapes.
Back in the 1800s these people would have laughed at Edison for failing 1000x at making the light bulb.
That’s one reason why you do static fire tests, no?
Are the engineers purposefully making starship worse or are they just bad engineers left as the good ones have probably jumped ship
Who wants to go to space riding In one of these…any takers?