I was worried the milkstool was knocked out of alignment.

Hot staging ring here
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/08/starship-booster-9-critical-testing-phase/

I have a different take on this. The upper stage, Starship, also took forty seconds or so to rapidly disassemble itself. Venting had been seen at locations where the termination system should have worked, so it is thought that the tanks had been breached but that they didn’t ignite until much later. Although Super Heavy was mostly empty, Starship was still full, yet it didn’t explode right away, either but took just as long as the nearly empty Super Heavy booster.

Doubting Thomas mentioned that some people are concerned that SpaceX added some water to the surrounding swamp. I would be concerned about that, too, except that wet is the natural state of many swamps (not the DC swamp, for example). It seems that those who are concerned with this water in the swamp are unaware of the natural state — and they may be the same ones who complain when someone wants to drain the swamp. Water or no water, they are so hard to please.

Doubting Thomas: My thought stems from Musk’s track record. He does not like to sit on his hands. If someone else is delaying him in one area, he always appears to find real work that can be done in the interim in other areas.

First, from a Texas perspective 400+ miles from the launch pad. The latest kefuffle that SpaceX has in Boca Chica involves their deluge test. They apparently have run afoul of Federal and Texas run off control regulations in their test.

Much shouting by Federal EPA appointees in the Southwest about “dangerous uncontrolled run-off” impacting local wetlands and “Actions to be taken!!” Texas regulators (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TECQ)) are more circumspect saying that regulations appeared to be violated but doubting much damage to environment occurred and that mitigation can be put in place relatively easily. Watch this kerfuffle for more delays at Boca Chica involving more concrete pouring and pipe / catch tank installation.

Secondly to MDN comments about Starship being a 5,000 ton bomb.

I am not a propulsion or explosives engineer, although I led aerospace teams in government and industry that had them on the team. The statement that a fueled rocket is the equivalent to a bomb of the same weight is often made and is not correct. That is not to say that they are not destructive. The following link gives you a qualitative response to MDN statement based on studies NASA did in preparation for Saturn 5 launches.

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/591/1

Bottom line on this issue: More likely that Starship stack yields about a tenth of that “bomb capability” or about 550 tons. Not to be trifled with but much, much less than a 5,000 ton bomb. Musk has enough on his plate without coming up with non-existent problems.

Thirdly to Roberts comment about hot staging. A point that I never considered. Lots of ground testing could be done while waiting for all the strap hanger kerfuffles to be resolved and could still get real progress made. Key to our initial space future is efficiently maximizing mass to LEO.

Thanks
Doubting Thomas

** Analysis to support yield conclusions follow for those inclined. **

Key points: 1) Fully fueled S5 weighed 5.5 million pounds; 2) Equivalent Starship 11 million pounds (about double).

Study referenced at link concluded following:

1) Based on existing data, the study’s authors felt that it was unlikely that all of the fuel in the Saturn 5 would be consumed in an explosion. In previous on-pad explosions of other liquid-fueled rockets such as the Atlas and Titan, significant amounts of fuel fell to the ground and burned long after the initial explosion.

2) Due to this, the study’s authors suggested that the likely yield of a S5 explosion was probably only around 400 tons (800,000 pounds). Rocco Petrone, the Saturn launch director, estimated that the real figure was more likely to be 300–400 tons. This is a ratio of 11% to 15%.

3) Therefore by simple ratio analysis, Starship equivalent would be about same giving a yield equivalent of 550 to 750 tons or 1.2 to 1.6 million pounds of TNT.

MDN: I had a thought while reading your post. I suspect Musk added Hot Staging because he recognized that the FAA was going to stall him. Why not make some other improvements while he waited? This supposition fits the pattern SpaceX has followed in the past two years, since the Biden administration took over and test flights became difficult to get approved.

Beyond that Elon always sets aggressive schedules, and to be honest I am duly impressed with how quickly the Stage 0 re-engineering has come together. However, he also just threw Hot Staging into the mix and we only see the first physical test articles for structural validation just this past week. This is the real long pole in the tent I expect, and gates the Next Launch window out into October to November IMHO. I could be wrong and would be glad to see it earlier, but this is a non-trivial change that involves a lot of new uhgknowns to work through.

All that said I will guess Q4 CY2023 and believe a more specific date is to infer precision that is simply not possible given all of the variables and uncertainty in play.

John Hare: SpaceX never claimed it would be ready to fly again in June or July. When Musk finally hinted at a target schedule, he said August, based on the engineering and technical work that needed to be done.

None of that really matters, as the real obstacle to launch remains the oppressive federal bureaucracy.