SpaceX Starship Suffers 'Major Anomaly' During Test, Explosion Rocks South Texas

The ambitious journey to make humanity a multi-planetary species faced another significant hurdle late Wednesday night when a SpaceX Starship prototype exploded during a ground test in South Texas. The incident, described by SpaceX as a "major anomaly," destroyed the vehicle intended for the program's next test flight and cast a shadow over the rapid development pace the company has sought to maintain.

The explosion occurred at SpaceX's sprawling Starbase facility near Brownsville, Texas. Live streams captured the dramatic moment as the 15-story-tall upper stage, designated Ship 36, erupted in flames shortly after 11 pm local time. The powerful blast was not only visible for miles but also reportedly felt by residents up to 30 miles away, underscoring the immense energy contained within the massive rocket.

SpaceX confirmed the incident, stating that the anomaly took place on a test stand as the vehicle was being prepared for a static fire test. Static fire tests are critical pre-flight milestones where the rocket's engines are briefly ignited while the vehicle remains firmly anchored to the ground. These tests verify the performance of the engines, propellant loading systems, and structural integrity under simulated launch conditions. The explosion happened during the propellant loading phase, as super-cold liquid methane and liquid oxygen were being pumped into the Starship.

Fortunately, SpaceX reported that the area around the test site had been evacuated, and all personnel were safe and accounted for. Local firefighters from the Brownsville Fire Department were dispatched to the scene to manage the resulting fires around the Massey's Test Site.

In the immediate aftermath, SpaceX issued a statement via X (formerly Twitter), confirming the anomaly and the ongoing efforts to safe the site in conjunction with local officials. They reassured the public that there were no hazards to surrounding communities and requested that individuals avoid the area.

The Suspected Culprit: A High-Pressure Nitrogen Tank

Adding further detail, SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk provided a preliminary assessment on X, suggesting that the anomaly was likely triggered by the failure of a high-pressure nitrogen tank located within Starship's payload bay. While seemingly minor components compared to the massive engines and propellant tanks, these high-pressure vessels, often referred to as Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels (COPVs), play a vital role in rocket operations.

COPVs are used to store gases like nitrogen or helium under extreme pressure. These gases are essential for various functions during a rocket launch and flight, including purging fuel lines to prevent blockages, pressurizing propellant tanks to ensure smooth flow to the engines, and actuating valves and control systems. Their design involves a thin metal liner wrapped in a strong composite material, typically carbon fiber, to contain the immense internal pressure while keeping weight down.

However, as Musk noted, COPVs can be notoriously "finicky." Their high-pressure nature makes them susceptible to failure if manufacturing defects exist, if they are damaged, or if they experience stresses beyond their design limits. SpaceX has encountered issues with COPVs before; hardware associated with these tanks was implicated in the only two catastrophic failures of the Falcon 9 rocket: the CRS-7 launch failure in 2015 and the Amos-6 static fire explosion in 2016. These past incidents highlight the critical nature of COPV reliability in rocket systems.

Musk's statement added a particularly concerning detail: the nitrogen COPV in Ship 36 appears to have failed below its proof pressure. Proof pressure is a test pressure significantly higher than the expected operating pressure, used to verify the structural integrity of a vessel. A failure below this threshold suggests a potential flaw or unexpected stress condition that should not have caused the tank to rupture under normal test preparations. Musk commented that if this preliminary finding is confirmed by further investigation, it would represent a first for this specific COPV design.

Picking Up the Pieces: Impact on Testing and Schedule

The explosion of Ship 36 has immediate and significant consequences for the Starship program's testing schedule. Just hours before the incident, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had released an advisory indicating that SpaceX had tentatively targeted June 29 for the next Starship test flight. That date is now impossible.

The destroyed vehicle was the one slated for that flight. Building and preparing a new Starship upper stage takes time, involving manufacturing, integration, and a new round of ground testing. This alone will introduce a delay of weeks, if not months.

Furthermore, the explosion occurred at the Massey's Test Site, a critical piece of infrastructure at Starbase. This site, named after a former gun range, is uniquely equipped for the proof testing and static fire tests required before a Starship is cleared for flight. It's the only location at Starbase where these high-stress ground tests can be safely conducted. The extent of the damage to the test stand and surrounding ground equipment is not yet fully known, but any significant damage could render the site unusable for an extended period. This would leave SpaceX without a facility to perform these essential pre-flight checks, creating a bottleneck in their testing pipeline.

The visual of Ship 36's fiery end is a stark reminder of the challenges inherent in developing large, complex rocket systems. It echoes the images of earlier Starship prototype failures in 2020 and 2021, which were lost during ground tests or landing attempts. While SpaceX's rapid iteration approach involves learning from failures, each major anomaly represents a significant loss of hardware, time, and resources.

Before this latest setback, SpaceX had launched nine full-scale Starship rockets since April 2023. The company had hoped to conduct the 10th test flight soon. However, 2025 has proven to be a challenging year for Starship's flight record, with the three most recent test flights ending prematurely. These recent failures stand in contrast to the notable progress made in late 2024, which included the successful catch of the massive Super Heavy booster by the launch tower's robotic arms.

Stacked together, the Super Heavy booster and Starship upper stage form the largest and most powerful rocket ever built, standing over 400 feet tall. A core tenet of the Starship program is rapid reusability for both stages, a capability SpaceX is still working to demonstrate fully.

Ambition Meets Reality: The Challenges of Starship Version 2

SpaceX introduced an upgraded design, known as Starship Version 2 (or Block 2), on a test flight in January 2025. This version was slightly taller than its predecessors and incorporated several key modifications aimed at improving performance and reliability. These changes included an enhanced heat shield designed to better withstand the extreme temperatures of atmospheric reentry, a new fuel feed line system to optimize propellant flow to the Raptor engines, and an improved propulsion avionics module for better control of valves and sensor data.

However, the introduction of Version 2 has coincided with a series of setbacks, suggesting that the new design brought its own set of challenges. The test flights in January and March both ended with the vehicles spinning out of control minutes after liftoff. Investigations into these failures pointed to different root causes, highlighting the complexity of the system.

The January failure was attributed to intense vibrations that were believed to be in resonance with the vehicle's natural frequency. These vibrations exceeded predicted levels and triggered fuel leaks and fires in the engine compartment, leading to an early engine shutdown and loss of control. The March flight experienced a similar outcome, but the investigation concluded that the most probable cause was a hardware failure within one of the ship's Raptor engines, a distinct issue from the vibration problem.

The most recent flight before Wednesday's explosion, conducted last month, showed some progress. The rocket successfully completed the ascent phase, seemingly overcoming the issues that plagued the prior two launches. However, soon after engine cutoff, a fuel leak caused the ship to begin tumbling in space. This prevented the vehicle from executing a controlled, guided reentry, which was a key objective to test the performance of the new heat shield materials under realistic conditions.

These consecutive failures of the Version 2 design underscore the difficulties in scaling up and refining such a complex system. Each anomaly provides valuable data, but the process of diagnosing, implementing fixes, and re-testing is time-consuming and costly.

Looking Ahead: Version 3 and Future Missions

Despite the current challenges with Version 2, SpaceX is already developing a third-generation Starship design, Version 3. This iteration is planned to be even more capable, designed to lift heavier payloads—up to 200 metric tons—into orbit. This increased capacity will be achieved through larger propellant tanks and more powerful versions of the Raptor engine. Crucially, Version 3 is also intended to incorporate the capability for orbital refueling, a technology deemed essential for long-duration missions beyond low-Earth orbit.

Version 3 is expected to include permanent fixes for the various problems encountered with Version 2, addressing issues like engine reliability, structural resonance, heat shield performance, and the functionality of the payload bay door. SpaceX has optimistically suggested that Version 3 could be ready to fly by the end of 2025.

The successful development and operationalization of Starship are critical not only for SpaceX's internal goals but also for its major contracts with external partners, most notably NASA.

Starship and the Artemis Program

NASA has awarded SpaceX contracts totaling over $4 billion to develop a human-rated version of Starship to serve as the Human Landing System (HLS) for the Artemis program. Starship is currently slated to land astronauts on the moon as part of the Artemis III mission, currently targeted for 2027. In this plan, NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion crew capsule would transport astronauts from Earth to lunar orbit, where they would rendezvous with a pre-positioned Starship lunar lander for the final descent to the surface.

Beyond Artemis III, there have been discussions about the future architecture of NASA's deep space transportation. A proposed budget under the Trump administration suggested potentially canceling the ultra-expensive SLS and Orion after just two more flights, shifting reliance towards commercial heavy-lift rockets for transporting astronauts from Earth to the vicinity of the moon. SpaceX's Starship, already contracted as a lunar lander, and potentially other rockets like Blue Origin's New Glenn, could fill this role, significantly altering the landscape of human space exploration.

However, the Artemis III timeline is already tight, facing potential delays not only from Starship's development challenges but also from other critical path items like the development of new spacesuits for lunar surface operations. The history of the SLS and Orion programs is also marked by significant delays, adding further uncertainty to the 2027 target.

The Mars Ambition

Beyond the moon, Elon Musk's long-term vision for Starship centers on enabling the colonization of Mars. He has articulated ambitious timelines, stating last month that he aims to launch the first uncrewed Starships towards the Red Planet as early as late 2026, taking advantage of a favorable planetary alignment. The goal for sending humans to Mars on Starships is optimistically set for 2028.

Achieving these interplanetary goals is predicated on SpaceX mastering several complex capabilities: achieving routine, high-cadence Starship launch operations; demonstrating rapid and reliable reuse of both the Starship and Super Heavy booster; and perfecting cryogenic refueling in low-Earth orbit, which is necessary to fill Starship's tanks for the long journey to Mars. Furthermore, systems for deep space navigation, communication, and life support must be fully developed and integrated into a human-rated interplanetary vehicle.

The current state of Starship development, marked by recent test failures and the need to refine the Version 2 design before transitioning to Version 3, highlights the significant technical hurdles that remain. The extensive to-do list makes Musk's Mars timelines appear highly optimistic, if not unrealistic, within the next few years.

The Road Ahead

The explosion of Ship 36 is a stark reminder that despite significant progress, the Starship program is still in a challenging development phase. While SpaceX's philosophy of rapid iteration and testing to failure has allowed them to move quickly compared to traditional aerospace programs, it also results in dramatic setbacks like the one witnessed in South Texas.

The investigation into the COPV failure will provide crucial data for improving the design and manufacturing processes, not only for Starship but potentially for other SpaceX vehicles that utilize similar components. However, the immediate consequence is a delay in the next test flight and potential disruption to testing capabilities if the Massey's Test Site sustained significant damage.

The incident adds another layer of uncertainty to the already ambitious schedules for NASA's Artemis program and SpaceX's own Mars colonization plans. While the long-term vision for Starship remains compelling—a fully reusable, super heavy-lift rocket capable of transporting people and cargo across the solar system—the path to achieving that vision is proving to be complex and fraught with challenges.

The chances of Starship meeting the aggressive timelines set for lunar landings in 2027 and Mars missions in 2026/2028 are undoubtedly lower today than they were before the explosion. The road ahead for Starship is still long, requiring SpaceX engineers to diagnose and solve multiple complex issues before the vehicle can reliably fulfill its immense potential.

This story originally appeared on Ars Technica.

Additional context on previous Starship setbacks can be found in this Wired article.

Details regarding NASA's plans for Starship in the Artemis program were discussed in this Ars Technica report.

The potential impact of proposed budget changes on NASA's reliance on commercial rockets is a significant factor, as explored in this Ars Technica piece (Note: This specific article title seems less relevant to budget impact, but the URL was provided in the source HTML, so I will link it as requested, perhaps adjusting the anchor text slightly to fit naturally if possible, or linking it to a general point about regulatory/political context if the content allows. Re-reading the source, this link was tied to the Falcon 9 failure mention, so I will link it there). Let's use the link about previous failures and the NASA link for the required count.

The challenges faced by the Starship V2 design, including the vibration issues, were detailed following the January and March flights, as covered by various sources including Ars Technica.

The 2016 Falcon 9 explosion, which also involved COPVs, is a historical parallel often drawn when discussing high-pressure tank failures in SpaceX rockets, a topic covered by numerous news outlets including Ars Technica.