Richard M: Though I really am unqualified to analyze the explosion, these overhead pictures confirm precisely what the first ground pictures suggested. One side of the rocket on its lower half blew out. The initial pictures were from the undamaged side, but they showed the expanded edges of that blown out section. I don’t see the damage as “worse” than initially released. I see it as exactly what I expected.

Nonetheless, it was a big boom. Needs understanding before the next flight.

What is truly astonishing is intact the booster is, considering what happened.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=63923.msg2737091#msg2737091

Someone on X noted that “there appears to be a hole punched in the transfer tube near the base. That strongly implies an energetic explosion from outside the tank.” Scott Manley thought enough of the observation to re-tweet it.

It’s not clear if a COPV actually *caused* the accident, initially, but it now seems likely to be the source of the higher energy event that destroyed B18.

SLS is a dead end and should have been killed years ago. Solids have more in common with fireworks than rocketry and should never be used when humans are to fly on a launch vehicle.

It’s really deranged that NASA continues to insist on sticking its astronauts on a launcher with huge honking solid rocket boosters. But the Utah congressional delegation always gets a vote.

Apparently there weren’t even any cryogenics involved. This anomaly occurred during an ambient temperature pressure test using gaseous nitrogen as the pressurant.

https://youtu.be/2mYXI6WRwqI

Or this LFBs
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/90-and-230-270-tonnes-jpg.47102/

But space privatizers would likely have opposed funding those too. Shuttle was to be a VTOHL TSTO, before solids were foisted on it BY cost cutters…and the Air Farce.

https://www.google.com/search?q=renfield+laugh+giggle&rlz=1C1GCEW_enUS1189US1189&oq=renfield+laugh+giggle&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDg0MjlqMGo5qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:5287f41f,vid:PYVXNgNdRKE,st:0

NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket withstood Hurricane Nicole in November 2022, as it was designed to endure strong winds up to 85 mph (74.4 knots) at the 60-foot level, with additional structural margin. Although winds at the pad reached 100 mph (160 kph) gusts, the rocket’s design limits were not exceeded and its launch was only delayed by a few days.

Worry not–I suffer the same affliction as SuperHeavy–and I know just the fix:
https://comfort-truss.com/products/power-t-strap-for-comfort-truss-hernia-support-belt

“Oh, uh.. that’s my rather elaborate network of trusses. I will need your help with a couple of these. I got the old hernia truss here.. and I got a spleen truss, it opens up with a couple of snaps here in the back…”

Fred Garvin: Male Prostitute

“So, probably a 6-8 week delay here.”

Yeah it sucks but compared to the old way of Rocketry – back in the stone knives and bearskin days that Artemis has rekindled – it would have been years.

Cute.

Jeff Wright

Why do I get the idea your giggling.

The shuttle ET was even more impressive, having to support the dead weight of a fully laden orbiter off to the side. For in-line use, maybe they can get away with composites.

I dare Elon and his Bocans to even try to build something like that.

I am not *too* surprised at this. It isn’t Atlas balloon tank–but it isn’t R-7 either. It might be that Musk was trying to increase Starship’s payload by shaving a tad too much off.

Holding something by a top rim means no legs and less weight.

Also, the V3 SH has a MUCH larger internal methane downcomer with associated piping, but I have a hard time with the physics that provide an overpressure of that component without damaging the methane tank at the top, also.

But, we should not rule out a failure of the GSE equipment on the test stand, since that was completely rebuilt after the S36 failure, and this was it’s first use, as well. An overpressure due to a failed test or pressure-relief valve would be a possible root cause.

One thing’s for sure: SpaceX will be all over it, and back to testing very quickly.

So, probably a 6-8 week delay here. Which sucks, but it’s not really that much in the grand scheme of things. Had it blown up stuff at Masseys again, that delay would be longer.

The company needs to identify and fix the issue before it can proceed.

To put it mildly!

Super Heavy in version 3 hasn’t undergone quite as much revision as Starship, so this is somewhat of a surprise.

I think the general consensus is that Booster 18 is a write-off, though no doubt components of it could be salvaged. The good news is, no equipment or infrastructure at Massey’s seems to have damaged by this!

This incident will likely delay the next orbital Starship/Superheavy test flight, but not significantly. SpaceX has more prototype Superheavys in the queue.

I was curious where things stood in the pipeline, and NSF has an update on that in its writeup this morning:

As for what this means for the program, SpaceX currently has zero completed flight boosters and will have to switch gears to Booster 19. Currently, Booster 19 hasn’t even started its stacking process in Mega Bay 1, and even if it were to start today, barring any investigation and modification time, the booster wouldn’t be ready for cryogenic proof testing until at least the end of January.

This is certainly not the start to the Block 3 era that SpaceX would’ve wanted, but it’s a good thing this happened during proof testing at Masseys and not during a 33-engine static fire attempt on Pad 2. As for what was to be its other half, Ship 39 is now stacked in Mega Bay 2 and will be outfitted after finishing stacking on Nov 15, 2025. It will be a bit before this vehicle can head out to Masseys for testing, as the Ship Cryo Thrust Stand is currently in use by S39.1.

Link: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2025/11/booster-18-anomaly-proof-testing/