Starship Flight 9 booster explodes on impact [video]

What Happened in Flight 9

• Booster and Starship separated successfully; this was the first reflight of a full Super Heavy booster and a “used” configuration was intentionally stressed.
• The booster was never intended to be caught; it was to splash down after an aggressive re‑entry and landing‑burn test.
• Starship reached engine cutoff (“SECO”), achieving near‑orbital speed on a suborbital trajectory, further than the prior two flights.

Booster Loss: Expected Experiment vs Premature Failure

• Multiple commenters stress that “explosion” was within the test envelope: they were pushing control authority, angle of attack, and engine‑out scenarios to find limits.
• However, several note the commentary and timing suggest it failed earlier than expected, at or just after landing‑burn ignition, not on water impact.
• Lack of good re‑entry video fuels uncertainty; “exploded on impact” in the headline is called out as likely inaccurate or at least unproven.

Starship Upper Stage Performance and Issues

• Key progress: first Block 2 Starship to complete SECO and reach planned suborbital velocity.
• Soon after SECO, observers saw debris shedding (inside and outside) and apparent leaks; tumbling grew worse over time.
• The payload bay (“pez‑dispenser” door) failed to open, mock Starlink deployment was not attempted, and re‑entry was uncontrolled with no engine relight.
• Some argue SECO isn’t a full success if shutdown‑induced shocks caused the subsequent leak/failure.

Development Approach and Pace

• One camp sees rapid, hardware‑rich iteration (“fly it until it breaks”) as appropriate and historically successful for SpaceX, despite bad optics.
• Others argue Starship has been in development long enough that persistent upper‑stage issues point to management, scope, or process problems.
• Heated comparisons are made to Saturn V and the Space Shuttle timelines; participants disagree whether Starship is “fast” or “behind” given its ambition.

Economics, Use Cases, and Reuse Concerns

• Skeptics question what problem Starship solves beyond Starlink and a Mars vision many consider speculative, given Falcon 9/Havy already dominate LEO.
• Strong concern centers on the second stage: complex, multi‑engine, heavy, and needing a robust, rapid‑turnaround thermal protection system that “no one has yet.”
• Some fear Starship becomes a money pit if the upper stage cannot be made cheaply, rapidly reusable; others counter that Starlink and possible government/defense demand can justify it.

Debate Over Musk and SpaceX’s Direction

• Discussion splits between those crediting Musk’s high‑risk decisions (stainless steel, tower “chopstick” catches, Starlink, reusability) and those arguing SpaceX thrives despite him.
• Broader criticism touches on Musk’s political actions and alleged humanitarian harms, with some saying these outweigh any “benefit to humanity” from Starship.
• Several participants lament that polarized views on Musk make neutral engineering discussion difficult; some explicitly root for Starship while disliking its CEO.

Broader Significance and Public Perception

• Many emphasize that Starship attempts something unprecedented: fully reusable, super‑heavy lift with airline‑like turnaround, implying a long, failure‑rich path.
• Fans highlight SpaceX’s track record: prior “impossible” goals (booster reuse, Falcon Heavy, Starlink scale, tower catches) eventually achieved.
• Skeptics respond that prior Falcon 9 success doesn’t guarantee Starship’s economics or technical feasibility, especially for second‑stage reuse and Mars ambitions.