Another Starship on Fire: Why Are Elon Musk's Rockets Exploding? Are His Plans in Danger?

The explosion of Starship 36 during a static test, which occurred at six o'clock in the morning (Spanish peninsular time), is a new setback for SpaceX, adding to three previous ones. It not only jeopardizes its plans to deploy the entire Starlink constellation (12,000 satellites, of which half have already been launched), but also impacts the program to return astronauts to the Moon .

Starship is the second stage of Elon Musk's mega-rocket. The first stage, the Super Heavy booster with 33 Raptor engines, already seems quite reliable; it's the second stage, the section that must enter orbit with its payload of satellites or astronauts, that is causing serious problems, primarily due to its propulsion system.

What happened to the ship?

Starship is powered by six engines: three optimized for operation during ascent, within the atmosphere (takeoff and landing braking), and three for operation in space. So far, recent flight failures have been due to catastrophic failures in this section: structural vibrations, propellant leaks that resulted in fires, and a series of other anomalies that have not yet been fully corrected.

The static test that ended badly on Thursday simply consisted of firing the ship's thrusters while it remained anchored to the ground. The goal was to verify that the new measures implemented, such as the heat shield over the engine block and the reinforcement of the fuel lines, were fulfilling their purpose.

There wasn't even a chance to begin testing. Although the exact cause is still undetermined, it appears that a pressure spike or a seal failure in the tanks caused the ship's structure to rupture, followed by a large fireball and significant damage to the test platform. The engines hadn't even been ignited.

What have we learned since?

The test was being filmed on video with high-speed cameras. A frame-by-frame analysis clearly shows that the gas leak—not an explosion—occurred on the upper side of the rocket, where the payload compartment corresponded, not in the methane (middle) or oxygen (lower) tanks. The structure immediately collapsed, followed by the collapse of the central body and the immediate deflagration.

The cargo bay contains only a pair of relatively small tanks, one for methane and one for oxygen. They are located right in the nose of the craft. They were a last-minute addition to ensure that the engines would receive enough propellant during landing to ignite despite all the twists and turns required to go from a horizontal to a vertical descent.

Therefore, in the absence of further information, what seems clear is that the accident was caused by a leak in one of these auxiliary tanks or in the pipes that carry the fluid to the propellants, passing through the center of the cargo hold. It was not, therefore, an explosion in the literal sense, nor did it create a destructive shock wave; the fireball was the result of instantaneous combustion induced by a spark in the mixture of thousands of liters of methane and oxygen. The result, however, was equally catastrophic. The Starship was completely destroyed, with fragments flying in all directions.

Are so many explosions normal?

Such incidents are not unusual in the Starship program, which follows a rapid development philosophy based on iterations and learning from failure. Following the destruction of Starship 36 , the planned tenth test flight mission will be assumed by the next prototype, Starship 37 .

Although each failed launch costs a few million dollars, the lessons learned are worth even more. SpaceX adapts its designs after each incident: changing algorithms, reinforcing structures, redesigning Raptor engine components.

For example, after the ninth flight failure , which resulted in a loss of pressure in internal tanks, the passive pressurization system was modified. After the failed separation incident, a new direct ignition separation technique was adopted.

Since SpaceX is a private company, it can use the trial-and-error method as often as it deems appropriate. NASA, whose programs have been approved by a congressional committee, must be much more cautious. A failure could mean the cancellation of the entire project or, at best, delay it for years until it receives funding again.

Does it put your future in doubt?

Starship's journey is still fraught with uncertainty, but every step is rigorously documented and analyzed in detail. The goal remains unchanged: to create a reliable, reusable system capable of revolutionizing space transportation, both for cargo and astronauts.

Aside from its importance as a vehicle for launching hundreds of satellites simultaneously, NASA has adopted a modified version of Starship as its lunar descent module. The expected launch is expected around 2027, although this date seems increasingly unlikely.

During the upcoming Artemis 3 mission, the HLS would be launched uncrewed, with the goal of orbiting Earth. Naturally, this means it would arrive there with its fuel tanks empty. It would need to be refueled with more methane and liquid oxygen so it could boost toward the Moon and then land.

That would require launching at least five more Starship tankers. Each would have to dock automatically with the main ship and transfer the necessary fuel. The operation must be carried out quickly to minimize methane and oxygen losses due to evaporation. That's why there are two launch towers at Boca Chica (and another at Kennedy), which allow these super-rockets to be fired at very short intervals.

None of these critical operations have yet been carried out. In fact, the latest Starships barely made it into orbit before developing fatal problems.

Will Starship reach the Moon?

According to the original schedule, once refueled, the HLS would launch into lunar orbit, where it would await the arrival of an Orion capsule with four astronauts. Once the two ships were docked, two would transfer to the descent vehicle and descend to the Moon.

The NASA contract requires SpaceX to conduct at least one automatic lunar landing demonstration before risking lives. Although the Boca Chica factory produces rockets at a spectacular pace (after all, the Super Heavy is little more than a stainless steel cylinder propelled by engines manufactured at a rate of one every 48 hours), what seems clear is that the Artemis 3 launch date is slipping further and further away.

And China? Well, it continues its preparations with the same goal: the Moon by 2030. Just a couple of days ago, it successfully carried out a test of the rescue system for the Mengzou spacecraft, the equivalent of the American Orion . Its lunar module, called Lanyue , has not yet flown, and the Chinese agency has not yet announced when its first test will be. The only thing that is known is that it will be a joint flight with the main module to test the rendezvous and assembly maneuver of both.

NASA's current situation is one of absolute bewilderment . With a drastically cut budget, the abandonment of several high-interest scientific programs, and Trump's veto of Jared Isaacman , his own proposed candidate for administrator, the agency's immediate future appears to rest solely on two private contractors: SpaceX and Blue Origin. And neither are progressing as planned. The nightmare—more and more recurrent every day—is seeing that the next flag flying on the Moon will be red with five gold stars.