SpaceX discloses cause of Starship anomalies as it clears an FAA hurdle
SpaceX’s latest Starship test failures are framed less as setbacks and more as expected steps in a “hardware‑rich” rapid-iteration program, with the FAA now closing its mishap inquiry after identifying issues like a clogged liquid oxygen filter and defining 17 corrective actions. Commenters highlight how quickly the investigation wrapped compared to the first flight and argue that even expendable Starship launches could undercut existing rockets on cost, potentially transforming everything from satellite deployment to deep-space probes. Alongside enthusiasm about cheaper access to orbit and future space industry, there is skepticism about suborbital passenger travel, concern over safety and regulation, and debate over Elon Musk’s outsized influence on both the company’s success and public perception.
Starship Progress, Costs, and Impact
- Commenters note fewer corrective actions and faster FAA closure vs. Flight 1, expecting orbit in 2024 and rapid iteration thereafter.
- Many see Starship as a potential cost revolution: targets of “a few dollars per pound” could be 10–15x cheaper than Falcon Heavy and far below Shuttle-era costs, enabling massive constellations, more probes, big telescopes, and broader commercialization of space.
- Some argue expendable Starship stacks may already beat Falcon 9 per-kg; others question optimistic cost assumptions and note that current “reusable” Falcon 9 is still pricier than Soyuz.
Suborbital Transport and Military Uses
- Enthusiasts imagine 1–2 hour global passenger flights, elite tourism, and rapid military deployment.
- Skeptics highlight: 3+ g sustained acceleration, safety standards, insurance, distant offshore pads, booster logistics, and regulatory / overflight constraints.
- Military use is seen as tactically impressive but strategically dubious due to visibility, ICBM confusion risk, and cheaper alternatives (forward deployment).
Future Space Economy
- Ideas include space factories, asteroid mining, and using in-space materials to avoid lifting mass from Earth.
- Some see near-Earth asteroid mining for metals as highly promising; others call “Psyche gold” narratives nonsense and stress economic and logistical realities.
- Space-based industry is widely viewed as contingent on launch costs plummeting.
Failure Analysis, Filters, and Telemetry
- The LOX filter blockage is discussed in depth: why filters exist, contamination sources (plumbing, trucks, ice), and the trade-off between strict cleanliness vs. robust filtration.
- Commenters describe heavy sensor instrumentation, high-rate telemetry, pressure sensors, cameras, and even acoustic triangulation to reconstruct failures.
- Rocket engines’ sensitivity to debris is explained (injectors, turbopumps, regenerative cooling), with anecdotes about deliberately testing for foreign object robustness.
“RUD” and Rocket Culture
- “Rapid unscheduled disassembly” and phrases like “energetic engine failure” and “engine-rich exhaust” are seen as longstanding in-jokes that help morale and distinguish test failures from operational disasters.
- Some worry terms will eventually acquire the same negative connotation as “exploded”; others see them as harmless euphemism and tradition.
NASA vs. Commercial and Leadership Debates
- Thread contrasts NASA’s risk-averse, politically constrained role with commercial firms’ “fail fast” approach, while noting trade-offs in deep understanding of failure modes.
- There is sharp disagreement over how much Starship’s success depends on a single visionary leader vs. large engineering teams and NASA contracts, and intense disagreement over that leader’s public behavior and politics.
Predictions and Public Excitement
- Forecast platforms are cited as giving high odds of orbit in 2024; participants debate how reliable such crowd predictions are.
- Many express renewed excitement about spaceflight, noting that routine Falcon 9 launches and landings have become “boring,” while Starship tests are must-watch events.