Elon Musk promises more risky launches after the failure of the sixth spaceship

When you buy through links on our articles, future and its syndication partners can earn a committee.

This article was originally published on The conversation. The publication has contributed the article to Space.com’s Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

This was the ninth test flight for the rocket and the third catastrophic failure in a row, just this year.

Is this what we have to expect from the ship, some count on people to take people further than we have ever been to the solar system? Or does this malfunction point deeper worries within the wider program?

A decade of development

The Starship program of the space technology company of Elon Musk, SpaceX, has been developing for more than a decade and has undergone many iterations in its general design and goals.

The Starship concept is based on the SpaceX Raptor engines that are used in a multi -stage system. In a multistage railing system there are often two or three separate blocks with their own motor and fuel reserves. These are especially important for leaving the orbit of the earth and traveling to the moon, Mars and beyond.

With spaceship, the key factor is the possibility to land and use huge amounts of the rocket stages time and time again. The Falcon 9 vehicles of the company, which used this model, were fantastic successful.

The first tests of the spaceship started in 2018 with two flights at low height that show early success. Subsequent flights have been confronted with countless challenges with now four full failures, two partial failures and three successes in general.

Only two days ago, during the latest failed attempt, I looked together with more than 200 other experts in the room -industry on the Australian Space Summit in Sydney. Live broadcast on a gigantic screen, the launch generated an excited buzz – which soon turned into a reserved mutter.

Of course, designing and launching rockets is difficult, and failures are to be expected. However, a third catastrophic failure within six months requires a break for reflection.

During this specific test flight, because the starry positioned itself for atmospheric Reintry, one of the 13 engines could not ignite. Shortly thereafter, a booster seemed to explode, which led to a complete loss of control. The rocket eventually broke apart over the Indian Ocean, who will now call tons of rubble home.

Polluting earth in the pursuit of space

We do not know the exact financial costs of each test flight. But Musk has said earlier that it is around US $ 50-100 million.

The exact environmental costs of the Starship program – and the repeated failures – are even more difficult to quantify.

A failed test flight in 2023, for example, left the city of Port Isabel, Texas, which is located next to the launch site, shaking and covered with a thick cloud of dirt. Debris of the exploded rocket broken cars. Residents told the New York Times that they were terrified. They also had to clean up the mess of the flight.

Subsequently, SpaceX was a fine of the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in September 2024 for 14 separate incidents since 2022, where the launching facilities have been contaminated water in Texas Waterways. Musk denied these claims.

That same month, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed a fine of US $ 633.009 for civil fines to SpaceX. This was based on the use of a non -good -approved launch control room and other violations in 2023. Musk also denied these claims and threatened to resist the FAA for “regulatory overall”.

It is unclear whether this court case was ever submitted.

Two other failed launches in January and March this year also rained rocket waste over the Caribbean, and disrupted hundreds of commercial flights, including 80 who had to be diverted and more than 400 who required delayed take off to ensure that they entered a safe air room.

Success of different space programs

Until last year, the FAA allowed SpaceX to launch up to five spaceship for a year. This month the figure was raised to 25.

A lot can go wrong during a launch of a vehicle to space. And there is still a long way to go until we can properly assess whether Starship has successfully achieved mission goals.

However, we can look at earlier programs to understand typical success rates that are seen in various rocketry programs.

The Saturn V Rocket, the workhorse of the Apollo era, had a total of 13 launches, with only one partial failure. It underwent three full soil tests for the flight.

SpaceX’s own Falcon 9 rocket has had more than 478 successful launches, only two in flight errors, one partial failure and one destruction before flight.

The Antares Rocket, by Orbital Sciences Corporation (later Orbital ATK and Northrop Grumman) launched a total of 18 times, with one failure.

The Soyuz Rocket, originally a Soviet -replaceable carrier rocket designed in the 1960s, launched a total of 32 times, with two failures.

Related stories

– ‘Starship in Space’: see great photos of SpaceX Megarocket’s Flight 9 Test Mission’s Test Mission

—FAA requires SpaceX to investigate Starship Flight 9 accident

– SpaceX reveals why his Starship Flight 8 -Schip exploded, traced failure to ‘flash’ in the rocket engines

No sign of caution

Of course we cannot compare all other rockets with the spaceship. The goals are certainly new as a reusable rocket with a heavy class.

But the latter failure raises some questions. Will the Starship program ever see success – and if so when? And what are the limits of our tolerance as a society to the pollution of the earth when pursuing the goal of having space?

For a rocketry program that moves so quickly, develops novel and complex technology and experiences various repeated failures, many people can be careful from now on. However, Musk has other plans.

Shortly after the most recent malfunction of the spaceship, he announced on X (formerly Twitter) that the following test flights would take place at a faster pace: one every three to four weeks.

This article has been re -published from The conversation Under a Creative Commons license. Read the Original article.