SpaceX Starship exploded again. What's next for Elon Musk's company after latest setback?
SpaceX's massive Starship exploded in a spectacular fiery blaze during a routine engine test in Texas – raising questions about what's next for Elon Musk's spaceflight company.
The dramatic explosion marked the latest setback for SpaceX, which billionaire Musk founded in 2002, after Starship has failed to repeat the successes of previous missions in its first three test flights of 2025. This time, the mishap didn't occur during a launch, but rather during a test to prepare the rocket for its 10th overall flight since 2023.
The spacecraft, standing nearly 400 feet tall when fully stacked, did not injure or endanger anyone when it exploded in a fireball that could be seen for miles, SpaceX said. Musk, whose public rift with President Donald Trump recently cast into doubt the future of the U.S. spaceflight program, appeared to initially make light of the mishap – saying "Just a scratch" in a post on social media site X, which he owns.
Here's what to know about the latest Starship explosion, and what could be next for a vehicle critical to both NASA and Musk's plans for human spaceflights in the years ahead.
Starship is regarded as the world's largest and most powerful launch vehicle ever developed.
At more than 400 total feet in height, Starship towers over SpaceX's famous Falcon 9 rocket – one of the world's most active – which stands at nearly 230 feet.
The launch vehicle is composed of both a 232-foot Super Heavy rocket and the 171-foot upper stage spacecraft, or capsule where crew and cargo would ride.
Super Heavy alone is powered by 33 of SpaceX's Raptor engines that give the initial burst of thrust at liftoff. The upper section, also called Starship or Ship for short, is the upper stage powered by six Raptor engines that will ultimately travel in orbit.
SpaceX is developing Starship to be a fully reusable transportation system, meaning both the rocket and vehicle can return to the ground for additional missions. In the years ahead, Starship is intended to carry both cargo and humans to Earth's orbit and deeper into the cosmos.
NASA's lunar exploration plans, which appear to be in jeopardy under President Donald Trump's proposed budget, call for Artemis III astronauts aboard the Orion capsule to board the Starship while in orbit for a ride to the moon's surface.
The explosion occurred around 11 p.m. local time Wednesday, June 18, while SpaceX was preparing for Starship's upcoming flight test, known as Flight 10, from Starbase – the company town in South Texas near the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Starship spacecraft was standing alone on the test stand prior to being mounted on top of the booster when it blew up.
The company attributed it to a "major anomaly,' and said all personnel were safe.
SpaceX test-fires the engines on the Starship before it is mated with Super Heavy. In this case, the Starship vehicle had already undergone a single-engine fire earlier in the week and SpaceX was preparing to test all six when the explosion occurred.
The mishap, which SpaceX later referred to on its website as "a sudden energetic event," completely destroyed the spacecraft and ignited several fires that caused damage in the area surrounding the test stand.
While SpaceX is investigating the mishap, Musk said in a post on X that preliminary data suggests that a pressurized tank failed at the top of the rocket.
'If further investigation confirms that this is what happened, it is the first time ever for this design,' Musk added.
Musk has aggressively sought for his commercial spaceflight company to develop its Starship spacecraft to fulfill his ambitious dream of sending the first humans to Mars.
In a video SpaceX shared Thursday, May 29, after the most recent Starship test flight, Musk told his employees that he still believes it's feasible to send the first uncrewed Starship to Mars by the end of 2026. Under his vision, human expeditions aboard the Starship could then follow in the years after
But Starship still has a long way to go in its development before it's ready to take humans to the moon or Mars.
It does not appear as if the Federal Aviation Administration will not conduct an investigation into the latest explosion since "the activity and anomaly were not associated with licensed activity," the agency said Friday, June 20, in an email to the USA TODAY Network.
But in addition to simply being able to fly safely – in other words, without exploding – Starship also needs to be capable of refueling in orbit. The maneuver would be an especially difficult one that's never before been accomplished.
SpaceX is planning to increase the number of Starship launches after receiving key regulatory approval to conduct 25 flight tests a year. Just four Starship test missions were conducted in 2024.
Following the latest Starship launch in late-May, Musk had previously said the next three test flights would occur in quicker succession, with a Starship launch taking place every three to four weeks.
The previous three missions have fallen far short of previous Starship flight tests. For three tests between June and November 2024, Starship flew halfway around the world before reentering Earth's atmosphere and splashing down as planned in the Indian Ocean.
In its most recent demonstration May 27, Starship spun out of control roughly halfway through its flight and disintegrated in a fireball before achieving some of its most important objectives. Still, the distance the vehicle traveled far surpassed the previous 2025 flights in January and March, when Starship exploded within minutes.
In both January and March 2025, the vehicles used in the tests instead met their demise in dramatic explosions that sent cascades of fiery debris streaking across the sky in Caribbean countries and Florida – disrupting air traffic.
In both cases, the upper stage, the vehicle where astronauts and cargo would ride, came apart mere minutes into its flight during the ascent.
While both explosions occurred at about the same point in the flight, the causes were 'distinctly different,' SpaceX said in an update May 22. In the latest fiery mishap in March, it wasn't a fire in the attic, but rather a "flash" closer to the bottom section that caused "an energetic event" that led the vehicle to shut down, lose communication and trigger its own self destruction, SpaceX determined.
Contributing: Reuters
Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@gannett.com
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Starship rocket explodes again in Texas. What's next for SpaceX, Musk?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investors should consider this growth stock… it's SpaceX's competition
Rocket Lab (NASDAQ:RKLB) is a US-listed growth stock that gives investors rare access to the commercial space sector. As a vertically integrated launch and space systems provider, Rocket Lab is often compared to SpaceX in its ambition and capabilities. But there's one crucial difference: you can actually buy shares in Rocket Lab, while SpaceX remains private. Rocket Lab delivers launch services, builds small and medium-class rockets, and manufactures spacecraft components for a range of commercial, government, and defense customers. With rapid revenue growth, an impressive order book, and expansion into new markets, Rocket Lab offers public market investors a way to participate in the booming space economy. It targets many of the same opportunities as its more famous, privately held peer. Rocket Lab and SpaceX operate in the same commercial space sector but differ significantly in scale, maturity, and valuation. Rocket Lab's market cap is currently $12.85bn, with trailing 12 months (TTM) revenue of approximately $460m. Despite strong growth — revenue nearly doubled from $240m in 2023 — Rocket Lab remains a smaller, earlier-stage player focused on small to medium launch vehicles and spacecraft manufacturing. Its valuation multiples are extremely high, with a forward price-to-sales ratio of 22.3 times, reflecting investor optimism. SpaceX, by contrast, is a far more mature private company valued at about $350bn. It's projected to generate $15.5bn in revenue in 2025. This is driven by its dominant Falcon 9 launch services and rapidly growing Starlink satellite internet business. SpaceX's valuation implies roughly a 22.5 times multiple on forward revenue. This is broadly in line with Rocket Lab. Focusing on Rocket Lab, the company is projected to deliver rapid revenue growth over the next several years, with estimates rising from $573m in 2025 to $889 in 2026, $1.2bn in 2027, and $1.69bn in 2028. This represents annual growth rates consistently above 30%, and even a jump of nearly 77% in 2030. However, the number of analysts providing forecasts declines sharply after 2027, dropping from 11–14 analysts in the near term to just two or one by 2028 and 2030. The one analyst projecting as far as 2030 sees $4bn in revenue for the year. I had the chance to buy Rocket Lab shares at $15 just two months ago. I missed out as unfortunately my attention had been diverted elsewhere. However, I found another entry point. And personally, I see this as an investment to hold for a very long period. The space industry is still in its early innings, with enormous potential as satellite launches, lunar missions, and in-orbit services become increasingly mainstream. And like any investment, there are risks. Rocket Lab remains loss-making. It's expected to turn a profit in 2026, when it will trade at 620 times earnings. And while this moderates to 140 times in 2027, it's still expensive and introduces plenty of execution risk. However, I certainly believe UK investors should consider this one. It could be a real winner going forward. The post Investors should consider this growth stock… it's SpaceX's competition appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool James Fox has positions in Rocket Lab. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025 Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Strange signals detected from Antarctic ice seem to defy laws of physics. Scientists are searching for an answer
Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more. Scientists are trying to solve a decade-long mystery by determining the identity of anomalous signals detected from below ice in Antarctica. The strange radio waves emerged during a search for another unusual phenomenon: high-energy cosmic particles known as neutrinos. Arriving at Earth from the far reaches of the cosmos, neutrinos are often called 'ghostly' because they are extremely volatile, or vaporous, and can go through any kind of matter without changing. Over the past decade, researchers have conducted multiple experiments using vast expanses of water and ice that are designed to search for neutrinos, which could shed light on mysterious cosmic rays, the most highly energetic particles in the universe. One of these projects was NASA's Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna, or ANITA, experiment, which flew balloons carrying instruments above Antarctica between 2006 and 2016. It was during this hunt that ANITA picked up anomalous radio waves that didn't seem to be neutrinos. The signals came from below the horizon, suggesting they had passed through thousands of miles of rock before reaching the detector. But the radio waves should have been absorbed by the rock. The ANITA team believed these anomalous signals could not be explained by the current understanding of particle physics. Follow-up observations and analyses with other instruments, including one recently conducted by the Pierre Auger Observatory in Argentina, have not been able to find the same signals. The results of the Pierre Auger Collaboration were published in the journal Physical Review Letters in March. The origin of the anomalous signals remains unclear, said study coauthor Stephanie Wissel, associate professor of physics, astronomy and astrophysics at the Pennsylvania State University. 'Our new study indicates that such (signals) have not been seen by an experiment … like the Pierre Auger Observatory,' Wissel said. 'So, it does not indicate that there is new physics, but rather more information to add to the story.' Larger, more sensitive detectors may be able to solve the mystery, or ultimately prove whether the anomalous signals were a fluke, while continuing the search for enigmatic neutrinos and their sources, scientists say. Detecting neutrinos on Earth allows researchers to trace them back to their sources, which scientists believe are primarily cosmic rays that strike our planet's atmosphere. The most highly energetic particles in the universe, cosmic rays are made up mostly of protons or atomic nuclei, and they are unleashed across the universe because whatever produces them is such a powerful particle accelerator that it dwarfs the capabilities of the Large Hadron Collider. Neutrinos could help astronomers better understand cosmic rays and what launches them across the cosmos. But neutrinos are difficult to find because they have almost no mass and can pass through the most extreme environments, like stars and entire galaxies, unchanged. They do, however, interact with water and ice. ANITA was designed to search for the highest energy neutrinos in the universe, at higher energies than have yet been detected, said Justin Vandenbroucke, an associate professor of physics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The experiment's radio antennae search for a short pulse of radio waves produced when a neutrino collides with an atom in the Antarctic ice, leading to a shower of lower-energy particles, he said. During its flights, ANITA found high-energy fountains of particles coming from the ice, a kind of upside-down shower of cosmic rays. The detector is also sensitive to ultrahigh energy cosmic rays that rain down on Earth and create a radio burst that acts like a flashlight beam of radio waves. When ANITA watches a cosmic ray, the flashlight beam is really a burst of radio waves one-billionth of a second long that can be mapped like a wave to show how it reflects off the ice. Twice in their data from ANITA flights, the experiment's original team spotted signals coming up through the ice at a much sharper angle than ever predicted by any models, making it impossible to trace the signals to their original sources. 'The radio waves that we detected nearly a decade ago were at really steep angles, like 30 degrees below the surface of the ice,' Wissel said. Neutrinos can travel through a lot of matter, but not all the way through the Earth, Vandenbroucke said. 'They are expected to arrive from slightly below the horizon, where there is not much Earth for them to be absorbed,' he wrote in an email. 'The ANITA anomalous events are intriguing because they appear to come from well below the horizon, so the neutrinos would have to travel through much of the Earth. This is not possible according to the Standard Model of particle physics.' The Pierre Auger Collaboration, which includes hundreds of scientists around the world, analyzed more than a decade's worth of data to try to understand the anomalous signals detected by ANITA. The team also used their observatory to try to find the same signals. The Auger Observatory is a hybrid detector that uses two methods to find and study cosmic rays. One method relies on finding high-energy particles as they interact with water in tanks on Earth's surface, and the other tracks potential interactions with ultraviolet light high in our planet's atmosphere. 'The Auger Observatory uses a very different technique to observe ultrahigh energy cosmic ray air showers, using the secondary glow of charged particles as they traverse the atmosphere to determine the direction of the cosmic ray that initiated it,' said Peter Gorham, a professor of physics at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa. 'By using computer simulations of what such a shower of particles would look like if it had behaved like the ANITA anomalous events, they are able to generate a kind of template for similar events and then search their data to see if anything like that appears.' Gorham, who was not involved with the new research, designed the ANITA experiment and has conducted other research to understand more about the anomalous signals. While the Auger Observatory was designed to measure downward-going particle showers produced in the atmosphere by ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, the team redesigned their data analysis to search for upward-going air showers, Vandenbroucke said. Vandenbroucke did not work on the new study, but he peer-reviewed it prior to publication. 'Auger has an enormous collecting area for such events, larger than ANITA,' he said. 'If the ANITA anomalous events are produced by any particle traveling through the Earth and then producing upward-going showers, then Auger should have detected many of them, and it did not.' A separate follow-up study using the IceCube Experiment, which has sensors embedded deep in the Antarctic ice, also searched for the anomalous signals. 'Because IceCube is very sensitive, if the ANITA anomalous events were neutrinos then we would have detected them,' wrote Vandenbroucke, who served as colead of the IceCube Neutrino Sources working group between 2019 and 2022. 'It's an interesting problem because we still don't actually have an explanation for what those anomalies are, but what we do know is that they're most likely not representing neutrinos,' Wissel said. Oddly enough, a different kind of neutrino, called a tau neutrino, is one hypothesis that some scientists have put forth as the cause of the anomalous signals. Tau neutrinos can regenerate. When they decay at high energies, they produce another tau neutrino, as well as a particle called a tau lepton — similar to an electron, but much heavier. But what makes the tau neutrino scenario very unlikely is the steepness of the angle connected to the signal, Wissel said. 'You expect all these tau neutrinos to be very, very close to the horizon, like maybe one to five degrees below the horizon,' Wissel said. 'These are 30 degrees below the horizon. There's just too much material. They really would actually lose quite a bit of energy and not be detectable.' At the end of the day, Gorham and the other scientists have no idea what the origin of the anomalous ANITA events are. So far, no interpretations match up with the signals, which is what keeps drawing scientists back to try to solve the mystery. The answer may be in sight, however. Wissel is also working on a new detector, the Payload for Ultra-High Energy Observations or PUEO, that will fly over Antarctica for a month beginning in December. Larger and 10 times more sensitive than ANITA, PUEO could reveal more information on what is causing the anomalous signals detected by ANITA, Wissel said. 'Right now, it's one of these long-standing mysteries,' Wissel said. 'I'm excited that when we fly PUEO, we'll have better sensitivity. In principle, we should be able to better understand these anomalies which will go a long way to understanding our backgrounds and ultimately detecting neutrinos in the future.' Gorham said that PUEO, an acronym that references the Hawaiian owl, should have the sensitivity to capture many anomalous signals and help scientists find an answer. 'Sometimes you just have to go back to the drawing board and really figure out what these things are,' Wissel said. 'The most likely scenario is that it's some mundane physics that can be explained, but we're sort of knocking on all the doors to try to figure out what those are.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Musk Savages ‘Snake' Trump Aide as Their White House Feud Erupts
Elon Musk publicly ripped into a top White House aide who fueled his falling out with President Donald Trump. Tensions had already been building between Musk and Trump before the SpaceX chief left the White House. Things got ugly, however, after Sergio Gor, the director of the presidential personnel office, encouraged Trump to rescind his nomination for Jared Isaacman—Musk's personal friend—to lead NASA. The New York Post revealed this week that even though Gor is in charge of vetting thousands of executive branch employees, he himself hasn't been fully vetted. Five months into the second Trump administration, he hasn't even submitted the paperwork for his own permanent security clearance. 'He's a snake,' Musk wrote on his social media platform X late Wednesday in response to the Post's report. According to the Post, Gor, 38, developed a grudge against Musk, 53, after the Tesla chief—who as head of the government cost-cutting task force DOGE was a de facto member of Trump's Cabinet—'humiliated' him in front of other Cabinet members for not staffing the administration quickly enough. 'Sergio was upset about Elon dressing him down at the meeting and said he was going to 'get him,'' a source told the paper. At the time, Musk and Trump were still on friendly terms, but Gor was openly gleeful whenever Tesla stock plunged, according to the report. After Musk's special government employee status expired, forcing him to leave the White House, Gor reportedly got his revenge on Musk by convincing Trump to pull Isaacman's nomination just days before the Senate was scheduled to vote on the appointment. The administration blamed the move on Isaacman's previous donations to Democrats, but the billionaire financial technology executive said he didn't think that was the real reason, considering his donation history had long been in the public domain. After the nomination was pulled, Musk—who poured more than $250 million into the president's re-election campaign—began publicly trying to tank the president's flagship 'big beautiful' budget bill. Surprisingly little is known about Gor, including his birthplace, according to the Post. He declined to tell the paper where he was born, except to say that it wasn't Russia. It's previously been reported that he was born in Malta, but an official there couldn't confirm that information, the paper said. Together with Donald Trump Jr., Gor co-founded a publishing company that published several of Trump's books following the end of President Trump's first term, according to the New York Times. In a statement to the Daily Beast, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, 'Sergio Gor is a trusted adviser to President Trump and he has played a critical role in helping President Trump staff the most talented administration in history.' Gor's office is responsible for assessing candidates for about 4,000 political appointees, including handling security clearances and conflicts of interest. Gor, however, has yet to turn in Standard Form 86, the 100-page background investigation form required for a security clearance, according to the Post. The form covers citizenship, employment history, relatives, foreign contacts and travel, financial activities, drug use, and more. Despite three sources saying otherwise, a White House official claimed Gor had completed the SF-86 form and noted that he has an interim security clearance, which is given while background checks are completed. Leavitt accused the Post of 'engaging in baseless gossip.'
