SpaceX flight testing in South Texas

[meleagertoo]

Originally Posted by ORAC

VideopaceX showing no signs of slowing down, and are busy already preparing for flight 8, with ship 34 undergoing its first Cryo test at the Masseys Outpost Test Site.

Well, all that's rather in the hands of the FAA now. I rather suspect not only they but the airlines too will take a pretty dim view of showering airways with debris in such spectacular style, especially as it resulted in numerous aircraft holding en route and some diverting.
Any future date for Flight 8 will depend entirely on how quickly the FAA conduct the enquiry and implement doubtless numerous new conditions, restrictions and standards, something I suspect they'll not wish to hurry over regardless of how much their ultimate boss is in Spacex's bosses pocket.

[Sam W]

Easy to see why we use Cape Canaveral as a launch site. Using Boca Chica is a colossal blunder as there is so much “clutter” down range at risk from falling debris as 7 showed. If the FAA still has public safety as a mandate they should suspend future Starship launches from Boca and force Musk to use a more suitable launch site. (I know that they have a site being built at the Cape, but there are concerns it is too close to other facilities if a fully loaded Starship goes up.)

[ORAC]

The FTS destroyed the Starship within the NOTAM’d warning area due to premature engine shutdown. The cause of the engine failure is known.

I don’t expect any delay to launch 8.

[51bravo]

ATC recordings on VASAviation

You Tube

Looks like there was a bit of surprise factor everywhere, I mean where and how long the debris will rain down from above ... supervisors had a hard time to determine holding duration estimates from space command etc. No wonder airports around in the area became busy. Phenomenal work done by the controllers !

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by Sam W

Easy to see why we use Cape Canaveral as a launch site. Using Boca Chica is a colossal blunder as there is so much “clutter” down range at risk from falling debris as 7 showed. If the FAA still has public safety as a mandate they should suspend future Starship launches from Boca and force Musk to use a more suitable launch site. (I know that they have a site being built at the Cape, but there are concerns it is too close to other facilities if a fully loaded Starship goes up.)

I think a lot will depend on how the debris fall matched (or didn’t) any assumptions made by the FAA when granting the required permissions, and the NOTAMs on the day.

If the actual debris footprint is outside of either then IMHO there’s going to have be a rethink,

Back in the day on one occasion I was airborne, downrange and and what looked pretty much under the ground track of an (unannounced by Russian ATC) night Soyuz launch. Fortunately that thing held together but it wasn’t a comfortable experience and I would expect the FAA to be somewhat more restrictive than their Russian counterparts.

[kit344]

Originally Posted by ORAC

The FTS destroyed the Starship within the NOTAM’d warning area due to premature engine shutdown. The cause of the engine failure is known.

I don’t expect any delay to launch 8.

The profile for Flight 8 will certainly be repeating what was planned for Flight 7, and Musk has already said that modifications will be needed to the engine bay & firewall.
There was also some skin peeling in the vicinity of the payload doors (Pez).
So whatever was previously planned for Flight 8, e.g. even a possible Ship catch will be delayed to a future flight. I'm sure lots of useful data was collected from S33, but a lot will still need to be repeated.

[kit344]

NSF forums in 2013

If you are a NASAspaceflight Forum member, then this Forum thread from 2013 now makes interesting reading: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28585.msg1024764#msg1024764

At least one poster there foresaw the risk of launches affecting the eastern Caribbean, and specifically the Turks & Caicos Islands !

[wiggy]

There are also grumbles (some of which I see have made the NASAspaceflight forum) starting to come out of Oz about the way the airspace closures due to the planned fall of second stage debris, the increased pace of testing and then the on the day delays are screwing with routings across the southern Indian Ocean, specifically the SYD-JNB services.

Story is QF retime the SYD-JNB to avoid trying to route through the NOTAM’d block at the time the area is deemed to be at risk, then the launch get slipped and QF suffer further delays…

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...?ocid=msedgntp

[visibility3miles]

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/0...is-from-space/

Edited to add that this article gives a good very early analysis of what went wrong, namely a fire breaking out where it shouldn’t have, leading to failure…

"Initial data indicates a fire developed in the aft section of the ship, leading to a rapid unscheduled disassembly with debris falling into the Atlantic Ocean within the predefined hazard areas,"

​​​​​​​




This map shared by FlightRadar24 shows multiple commercial airplanes in holding patterns outside of closed airspace near Starship's flight path. Credit: FlightRadar24

[Sam W]

Originally Posted by kit344

At least one poster there foresaw the risk of launches affecting the eastern Caribbean, and specifically the Turks & Caicos Islands !

Has that poster recently been active? Would not be surprised if the poster has not been permanently silenced by Musk.

[ORAC]

Well, listening to Trump’s inauguration speech - next stop Mars…..

[ORAC]

Video report.

https://x.com/esherifftv/status/1882516124765696169

NTSB Investigator Weighs In: Should SpaceX Bring Down Starship in One Piece Versus Exploding It?

Recap: The debate around SpaceX's Starship Flight 7 launch involves:
.

• Safety vs. Debris: Whether to explode or land Starship in emergencies, considering safety and debris risks.

• Termination Concerns: Questions about the method and control of the flight termination system.

• Risk to Aviation: Significant concerns about debris impacting commercial flights and coastal regions.

• Safety Measures: Need for updated safety protocols and possibly dynamic safety zones.

• Learning and Adaptation: Emphasis on SpaceX learning from these incidents to enhance future launch safety.

[what next]

Originally Posted by ORAC

Video report. NTSB Investigator Weighs In....

The investigator is certainly right with everything he said, but nonetheless, the NTSB promptly replied:
@NTSB_Newsroom
"FOR CLARIFICATION: The comments of a former NTSB employee recently interviewed about the Starship Flight 7 launch did not constitute an official NTSB statement on the mishap. Per our normal procedures, the NTSB has two investigators observing the mishap investigation. Because the NTSB is not leading this investigation, all official investigative information will be released by the FAA."

But I guess that the FAA will have very similar views. And yes, letting it reenter in one piece seems to be more sensible than blowing it to pieces as long as it comes down within it's assigned corridor.

[MostlyHarmless]

All good points, but a bit unfair to single out Starship as these considerations apply to _every_ launch vehicle. Suppose it's been alright until relatively recently when there were only a hundred or so launches globally a year. Big sky theory works fine when the sky is uncluttered

[what next]

Originally Posted by MostlyHarmless

All good points, but a bit unfair to single out Starship as these considerations apply to _every_ launch vehicle.

The differences are that Starship is a lot bigger than most other launch vehicles and that the launch trajectory from Boca Chica is over inhabited islands and across busy airways. They need to find a solution for these issues. And not on the back of airlines, holidaymakers and inhabitants of Caribbean islands!

[MostlyHarmless]

As I understand it, they're only following this path for integration tests due to the huge sea track. Once they move to orbital and payload delivery, it'll look somewhat different and I'd imagine they'll be moving the lion's share of operational flights to the Cape when they hit "Production". Everything worked as planned, risk minimised etc, but agree it'd be better for SpaceX to launch when potential disruption minimised and would be nice for them to compensate those impacted (no pun) by IFT7

[ORAC]

https://x.com/mcrs987/status/1886386447478816849?s=61

Starship's 7th flight test resulted in an untimely demise of the Starship upper stage.

Through days of analysis and consulting several people on the matter I believe I have pieced together the majority of the timeline of exactly what happened to @SpaceX's Starship S33.​​​​​​​

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...aign=topunroll

You Tube

[meleagertoo]

That is an exceptionally well made, lucid and coherent piece of work. It fills in a lot of questions in a very rational and convincing manner.
Bravo Zulu.

[B Fraser]

Does anyone have the date of the next attempt ? We live in an age of science fiction miracles becoming a reality, great times !

[ORAC]

Next flight reported to be aiming for 24th Feb….

https://x.com/nasaspaceflight/status...530370463?s=61

Starship Flight 8: SpaceX just performed a nitrogen purge of the Booster QD (Quick Disconnect) and Raptor QDs on Pad A for the first time since Flight 7.

This usually means that the pad is nearly ready to host a static fire for Booster 15, so we should be on the lookout for rollout closures soon.