SpaceX's Starship explodes on test stand in yet another setback

A SpaceX Starship rocket exploded on a test stand in Texas, adding to a series of setbacks to Elon Musk's space ambitions that include return trips to Mars.
Article content
The huge blast enveloped the craft as it stood upright at Starbase, before massive plumes of flames and smoke mushroomed into the night sky, video footage of the incident late Wednesday showed. The incident shook windows and rattled dishes, according to local media reports.
Article content
Article content
Article content
The rocket appeared to be undergoing a routine 'static fire test' of its engines. A static fire test is a pre-launch procedure in which a rocket's engines are fired while the rocket remains securely held down on the launch pad — essentially a rehearsal for the real launch, allowing engineers to test the rocket's systems without actually sending it into space.
Article content
Article content
In a statement, SpaceX said the Starship 'experienced a major anomaly' during preparations for a 10th flight test. No one was injured and local residents aren't at risk, the company said.
Article content
The apparent destruction of the rocket extends the string of mishaps for a spaceship program that's central to NASA's plans to put American boots back on the moon — and also to Musk's grander ambitions to send cargo and people to Mars. The incident comes at a moment when Musk's business empire faces falling demand for Tesla Inc.'s electric vehicles, and after Musk engaged in a public feud with President Donald Trump.
Article content
Article content
SpaceX holds contracts with NASA worth around US$4 billion to land the agency's astronauts on the moon using Starship, the world's largest and most powerful launch system.
Article content
Article content
Last month, SpaceX's colossal Starship disintegrated mid-flight after spinning out of control. That loss was its third consecutive setback after flights in January and March were cut short just minutes after takeoff when the spacecraft exploded over the Gulf of Mexico, sending debris raining down from the sky and disrupting air travel.
Article content
January's explosion was caused by a propellant leak while the March failure was triggered by a hardware problem with one of Starship's Raptor engines, according to SpaceX.
Article content
Starship 10 hadn't been assigned an official launch date, and it's now unclear when the next flight will take place. Following the failure of the ninth launch, SpaceX said it would carry out a data review and make improvements to the rocket system before the next test.
Article content
Aside from the failures, SpaceX celebrated some key achievements last year when Starship's booster was first caught at the launchpad using large mechanical arms, referred to as 'chopsticks.' Designed to be reusable, Starship is meant to serve as the primary spacecraft for carrying humans to Mars and then bringing them back to Earth.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CBC

39 minutes ago

• CBC

The U.S. is cutting billions from science. Canadian researchers say it's time to step up

Social Sharing Scientists in Canada are scrambling. Over the past few months, the U.S. government has cut billions of dollars in funding from scientific research as part of sweeping cost-cutting measures. "It's really shocking. It's really like this big cloud over science," Kate Moran, CEO of Ocean Networks Canada, told Quirks & Quarks. Ocean Networks Canada participates in a project called the Argo system, an international program that collects information from on and under the ocean using a fleet of robotic instruments that drift with the ocean currents. But that program, which is led by researchers in the U.S., could be at risk. Many Canadian research groups rely heavily on U.S. partners for support and data. But since Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, that support has taken a massive hit. The New York Times reported in March that the administration plans to reduce the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) workforce by up to 20 per cent, which Moran says could have a direct impact on their work. Some of those staffing cuts at the NOAA have already happened. "Because the U.S. is such a big player, I'm not sure we could step up and be like the U.S.," said Moran. And cuts are happening across the board. The administration terminated $1 billion US in cuts to the National Institutes of Health, a move ruled "void and illegal" and blocked by a district judge earlier this month. The government has also been in a battle with Harvard University, putting billions of dollars of potential funding in jeopardy. Layoffs across a number of government agencies have been put on hold by a federal judge in California. In an executive order issued by the White House in May, Trump said that "over the last 5 years, confidence that scientists act in the best interests of the public has fallen significantly." "My Administration is committed to restoring a gold standard for science to ensure that federally funded research is transparent, rigorous, and impactful, and that Federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available." Environment and Climate Change Canada told CBC in a statement it "has a long-standing relationship with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on operational and research activities related to weather, climate, satellites, and water monitoring," and that the "department has not been formally informed of any changes to its collaboration with NOAA." The trickle-down effect of cuts has left Canadian researchers trying to figure out how to adapt to these uncertain times, while others say it's now Canada's responsibility to step up. Targeting climate science Environmental science and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts seem to be a direct target of the Trump administration's cuts. More than 1,000 scientists and other employees are set to be laid-off from the Environmental Protection Agency's research office. The effects have been felt in Canada. Researchers here filling out forms for U.S. government grants have had to answer questions such as "Can you confirm this is not a climate or 'environmental justice' project or include such elements?" and "Can you confirm that this is no DEI project or DEI elements of the project?" The political climate has Deborah Wench on edge. She relies heavily on information from long-term monitoring projects to fuel her research into the carbon cycle. Wench studies how carbon flows between different climates. To do that, she needs long-term data sets collected from satellites. Wench says the U.S. operates a lot of the satellites used in her research. "I'm not really sure how to express this. It's mostly, for me, a sense of impending doom," said Wench, an associate professor at the University of Toronto. "It's taken decades and the careers of thousands of people to build up these measurement records, and it looks like it will take months to destroy them." Though she didn't want to specify which specific instruments she uses, she says she's concerned it's on the chopping block in the U.S., which would mean a loss of long-term monitoring. Then there's HAWC, a project that will use three Canadian-built instruments to measure the amount of aerosols, water vapour and thin ice clouds in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. The information could be used to improve future climate projects, assuming it continues to receive NASA support. Trump's 2026 budget, released in May, proposed a $6 billion US funding cut to the space agency, amounting to 24 per cent of NASA's current budget. WATCH | Canadian scientists trying to keep world's ocean sensors afloat: Canadian scientists trying to keep world's ocean sensors afloat 12 minutes ago Duration 1:32 These robot scientists dive deep into the ocean to measure the vital signs of planet Earth. But proposed funding cuts in the U.S. could mean critical climate data is on the chopping block. "Much of it is just so speculative, right?" said Chris Fletcher, an associate professor at the University of Waterloo. "We're still kind of on the descent.... So it's unclear yet exactly how all of this will shake out, and it's quite unsettling." One of the HAWC instruments was supposed to be attached to a NASA satellite. But Fletcher says that's now in question. "I'm confident from the Canadian side that because of this tremendous investment that Canada has made, that our instruments will fly. The question is about which components of the proposed NASA mission will fly," said Fletcher. CBC reached out to the Canadian Space Agency, but did not recieve a comment before publication. What happens next Canada's Department of Innovation, Science and Industry did not provide an interview or comment to CBC about how Canada plans to respond to funding cuts in the U.S. Frédéric Bouchard says the turmoil in the U.S. means a greater responsibility for Canada to assert its scientific sovereignty. He was part of the federally funded Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System, which, in 2023, took a deep dive into how Canada could better support scientific research. "It's our own responsibility to make sure that we have a strong and generous science capacity so we have access to the experts we need, when we need them," said Bouchard, a philosopher of science and dean of the faculty of arts and sciences at the Université de Montréal. "We shouldn't wait for other countries to do all the hard work and hope that we can benefit from it." He says that as American scientists leave the United States, Canada could welcome some of those researchers. He also said it will be important to invest in the future, including support for graduate students both in Canada and abroad in the United States, to make sure they're able to continue work in their field. Even so, Bouchard says, what's happening in the U.S. is going to have an impact — there's no stopping that. "What's happening is destabilizing science across the world," said Bouchard. "We need to make sure we play a larger role and that we build our own muscle mass, if you will, to be able to withstand more of the disruption." Moran says Ocean Networks Canada, and other organizations like it, are ready to do so. She says they are prepared to do simple things, such as download data to protect the long-term data sets. And if there are more cuts in the U.S., she says she's prepared to make the case to the Canadian government and request more funding. "We're talking about what we could do to fill those gaps," said Moran. "Canada has all the skills and knowledge and scientists." Politically-driven chaos is disrupting U.S. scientific institutions and creating challenges for science in Canada. Science is a global endeavour and collaborations with the U.S. are routine. In this special episode of Quirks & Quarks, we explore what Canadian scientists are doing to preserve their work to assert scientific sovereignty in the face of this unprecedented destabilization. Canadian climate scientists brace for cuts to climate science infrastructure and data U.S. President Donald Trump's attacks on climate science are putting our Earth observing systems, in the oceans and in orbit, at risk. Canadian scientists who rely on U.S. led climate data infrastructure worry about losing long-term data that would affect our ability to understand our changing climate. With: Kate Moran, the president and CEO of Ocean Networks Canada and Emeritus Professor of Oceanography at the University of Victoria Debra Wunch, Physicist at the University of TorontoChris Fletcher, Department of Geography and Environmental Management at the University of Waterloo U.S. cuts to Great Lakes science and monitoring threaten our shared freshwater resourceU.S. budget and staffing cuts are jeopardizing the long-standing collaboration with our southern neighbour to maintain the health of the Great Lakes, our shared resource and the largest freshwater system in the world. With: Jérôme Marty, executive director of the International Association for Great Lakes Research and part-time professor at the University of OttawaGreg McClinchey, policy and legislative director with the Great Lakes Fishery CommissionMichael Wilkie, Biologist at Wilfred Laurier UniversityBrittney Borowiec, research associate in the Wilkie Lab at Wilfred Laurier UniversityAaron Fisk, Ecologist and Canada Research Chair at the University of Windsor Unexpected ways U.S. culture war policies are affecting Canadian scientists One of the first things President Trump did after taking office was to sign an executive order eliminating all DEI policies in the federal government. This is having far-reaching consequences for Canadian scientists as they navigate the new reality of our frequent research partner's hostility against so-called 'woke science.'With:Dr. Sofia Ahmed, Clinician scientist, and academic lead for the Women and Children's Health Research Institute at the University of Alberta Angela Kaida, professor of health sciences and Canada Research Chair at Simon Fraser University in VancouverDawn Bowdish, professor of immunology, the executive director of the Firestone Institute for Respiratory Health and Canada Research Chair at McMaster UniversityKevin Zhao, MD/PhD student in immunology in the Bowdish Lab at McMaster UniversityJérôme Marty, executive director of the International Association for Great Lakes Research Canada has a 'responsibility' to step up and assert scientific sovereigntyA 2023 report on how to strengthen our federal research support system could be our roadmap to more robust scientific sovereignty. The Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System made recommendations to the federal government for how we could reform our funding landscape. The intent was to allow us to quickly respond to national research priorities and to make Canada a more enticing research partner in world science. With: Frédéric Bouchard, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and professor of philosophy of science at the Université de Montreal. Chair of the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System.

Globe and Mail

an hour ago

• Globe and Mail

2 Cryptocurrencies to Buy Now Before They Soar 140% and 580%, According to a Wall Street Analyst

XRP (CRYPTO: XRP) and Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) advanced 565% and 410%, respectively, in the last three years. But certain Wall Street analysts expect the cryptocurrencies to climb even higher in the next few years: Geoffrey Kendrick at Standard Chartered says XRP will top Ethereum by 2028. At current prices, XRP must climb 140% to $5.10 to surpass Ethereum's market value of $302 billion. David Puell at Ark Invest expects Bitcoin to hit $710,000 by 2030. That implies about 580% upside from its current price of $104,000. Here's what investors should know about XRP and Bitcoin. XRP: 140% implied upside The investment thesis for XRP centers on its ability to facilitate fast and cheap cross-border transactions. It is the native digital asset on the XRP Ledger, a blockchain created by fintech company Ripple to disrupt SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications), the system banks generally use to send money internationally. XRP transactions settle in seconds and cost a fraction of a cent, but SWIFT transactions may not settle for days and often incur larger fees. Yet, very few financial institutions have adopted XRP as a bridge currency to facilitate cross-border payments. I doubt that will change in the future, because cryptocurrency prices are volatile. Why send money as XRP when its price could plunge in a very short period? However, fast and inexpensive transactions mean that the XRP Ledger is also ideal for tokenized assets, a market that will hit $19 trillion by 2030, according to Ripple. Tokenized assets are real-world assets represented as digital tokens on a blockchain. For instance, Guggenheim Treasury Service recently tapped the XRP Ledger to issue digital commercial paper, a fixed-income security. Greater adoption of the XRP Ledger increases demand for the native cryptocurrency, XRP, which could make the token more valuable over time. However, I see a bigger catalyst in the pending approval of several spot XRP ETFs. Bitcoin has gained 125% since the approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in 2024, and XRP could see similar price appreciation. Bitcoin: 580% implied upside The investment thesis for Bitcoin centers on its status as digital gold. Investors see the cryptocurrency as a hedge against inflation and the devaluation of fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar. In fact, the U.S. Dollar Index has declined 10% year to date, but Bitcoin has advanced 13%. That trend is likely to continue in the years ahead because, unlike fiat currencies, Bitcoin supply is limited. Importantly, institutional investors are increasingly comfortable owning Bitcoin. Forms 13F filed for the first quarter indicate that the number of large asset managers (with $100+ million in securities) with positions in the two most popular spot Bitcoin ETFs -- the iShares Bitcoin Trust and the Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund -- more than tripled in the past year. Meanwhile, many companies are adding Bitcoin to their balance sheets. Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) has essentially turned itself into a Bitcoin investment vehicle. It owns 582,000 BTC, purchased at an average price of $70,086, and it plans to invest another $56 billion through 2027. Other companies are following the same playbook, including Mara and Semler Scientific. Here's the bottom line: XRP and Bitcoin could be worth much more in the future due to the catalysts outlined above, But neither is a wise investment for anyone uncomfortable with extreme volatility, and investors should never anchor to price targets set by Wall Street. Finally, between the two, I would choose Bitcoin in a heartbeat because it has the distinct advantage of being the largest, most liquid, and best known cryptocurrency. Additionally, spot Bitcoin ETFs make it easy to get Bitcoin exposure. The same cannot be said (yet) about XRP. Should you invest $1,000 in XRP right now? Before you buy stock in XRP, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and XRP wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $659,171!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $891,722!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is995% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to172%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025

Winnipeg Free Press

2 hours ago

• Winnipeg Free Press

Pulling the levers behind artificial intelligence

Opinion Sometimes, artificial intelligence looks downright stupid. Other times, it just looks dangerous. A rather famous recent AI mistake/mashup involved both Meta AI and Google being asked about the time zone in Cape Breton, N.S., and both telling users that the area was 12 minutes ahead of Atlantic Standard Time and 18 minutes behind Newfoundland time. It isn't. The AI systems had merely sampled all they could find on the topic of Cape Breton and time zones — a satirical piece on the comedy site The Beaverton — and presented it as fact. As the old saying about computers goes, garbage in, garbage out FILE Elon Musk AI is getting better, especially in areas where it can sample a large variety of sources of information, but there are still cases where AI has simply invented sources. For that reason, there's a lot at stake if AI answers are accepted at face value, and if people aren't willing to go further to verify the sources of material the AI devices are using. Because many are doing just that, taking an AI one-and-done approach to 'proof.' So much so that, on social media sites like X (formerly Twitter), users regularly go to that site's Grok AI to try to establish whether things cited as fact on the site are actually true, or whether images posted by other users are accurate. It's certainly better than just accepting everything you see on social media, but it's become such an accepted form of proof that users happily post Grok's answers, and even say that Grok was their one and only source. (In unintended hilarity, Grok's owner, Elon Musk was labelled a 'top misinformation spreader' by Grok itself, a position Grok seems to have mysteriously mellowed on since then, arguing that Musk is both a spreader of misinformation and a target of those who don't like Musk's self-claimed free speech absolutism.) But think about the following situation. Elon Musk posted that 'the far left is murderously violent' after two Democrat politicians and members of their families were shot in Minnesota and the alleged shooter was misidentified at first as a Democrat supporter. When X users, responding to the post, asked Grok, 'Who commits more domestic terrorism? The 'far-left' or the 'far-right?', it responded, 'Data consistently shows far-right groups commit more domestic terrorism in the U.S. than far-left groups, both in frequency and lethality.' Musk then replied, 'Major fail, as this is objectively false. Grok is parroting legacy media. Working on it.' Working on what? Grok cited sources from the U.S. Government Accountability Office to the Department of Homeland Security to the FBI to the University of Maryland, all saying that far-right terrorism easily outstrips far-left terrorism. Only two of 15 sources were even from the media — and they were reporting on other studies. Weekday Mornings A quick glance at the news for the upcoming day. Clearly, Musk was letting his own beliefs dictate what was objectively true or objectively false — which he's welcome to do, because that's how personal opinions tend to work. You believe things to be true if you agree with them, and doubt their veracity if you don't. But 'working on it' suggests a new — and real — concern about depending on AI to determine 'truth.' Because the machine is only as accurate as its programmer wants it to be. And that leaves the possibility of a thumb on the scales. In the next few weeks, a Grok 'tweak' may well change its position on just who leads the way in domestic terrorism in the U.S. If, at the end of the day, AI is only as accurate as the rich person standing behind the machine wants it to be, we're in deep, deep trouble.