Ron_Wanttaja
Three more and the Jewish Space Laser will be an ace! 
Three more and the Jewish Space Laser will be an ace!
Going to be tough for the FAA to investigate this and keep Elon happy at the same time.
Let’s hope Musk’s plan to massively gut the VA and the Trump team’s declaration that fired veterans “weren’t fit to hold their jobs” explode and crash into the Caribbean next. Trump to ‘Take Care’ of Veterans by Firing 80,000 From VA
1 reply
Sec DoT and head of the FAA will convene an investigation. DOGE is gonna save taxpayers’ dollars and insist the NTSB sit this investigation out. A statement will be issued… “Oops… stuff happens. Nothing to see.”. Then a resounding thumbs up will be given for the next launch attempt. What can possibly go wrong? Another “Unintentional Disassembly” over heavily populated location? Airport ground stops? Harm to the innocents in the air and ground? No big deal…
1 reply
Déjà-vu
Where are these treehugging vegan evironmentally hyper- sensitive, super forward thinking last generation Greta Thunberg desciples? Whaaat about the environment?!
I can basically hear my grandmothers voice, watching us do stupid stuff as kids, saying: “Yeah boys! This all gonna be fun, until one of you clowns is bleeding!”
Is Elon going to have to kill innocent people who had every right to expect not to be hit by a billionaires expensive space-toy debries - before someone hits the freeze button?
Yes but that was prior to all the present day chainsaw style anarchy by you know who.
As a product of the traditional space development process, I normally enjoy SpaceX’s approach…push forward, instrument the bejesus out of the vehicles, solve today’s problem and push on with another test.
This was a bit disquieting, though. This failure, on the surface, seems to be the same as the last one. Under their process, the cause of the previous failure should have been found and corrected.
1 reply
Getting into space is very hard. If one goes back to review any major system development, there were many failures. the STS lost four full engine sets prior to a successful Flight readiness test. Minuteman, nike, Redstone, Atlas, Centaur, the Delta Series ALL had several failures. While Space X tends to push the safety envelope a bit in the PUBLICS mind, knowing some of the lead engineers, they are NOT cutting corners. This is just plain hard.As for the political stuff. All of us have a right to free speech. No everyone LIKE what everyone says (that would be boring) but until a persons rights are infringed upon then free speech is the way of this nation. like it or not.
At that time we didn’t have Elon Musk actively trying to cripple the federal agencies tasked with regulating Spacex activities.
Musk’s big ideas are starting to look a lot like Icarus. Arrogant reckless and pushing limits too far. In the old myth Icarus ignored warnings flew too close to the sun and paid the price when his wax wings melted. The difference is when Icarus fell he only took himself down.
I love one commenter’s remarks on a YT video regarding the “mishap”. Space X now should stand for Space Explosions!
That is absolutely utterly untrue.
These rockets do not fly over heavily populated areas for safety reasons. So you can chill - they’ve already thought these things through.
1 reply
SpaceX discussed this on their livestreams and in the flight information on their website.
TLDR; They believed that had found and resolved the issue.
Except that civilian passenger carrying aircraft had to hold to avoid aircraft hazard area and debris response area airspace. No need for lectures on chilling from you. After a plethora of falling and burning space junk events in the name of R&D, it’s become a nasty habit. Someone we all know needs basic airspace sharing potty training and you’re covering for him.
This SpaceX rocket exploded about nine minutes after launch from Boca Chica, Texas, scattering debris from South Florida to the Bahamas. Some fragments, traveling at speeds over 500 mph, landed roughly 1,400 miles away. The FAA issued temporary ground stops at major Florida airports, including Miami and Fort Lauderdale, affecting 240 flights. They also held 40 airborne flights for an average of 22 minutes to avoid potential collisions. While no injuries were reported, the falling debris underscored the risk to people and property. A tragedy feels inevitable, and history shows it wouldn’t be the first, as past incidents have caused damage and injuries.
"SpaceX discussed this on their livestreams and in the flight information on their website.
TLDR; They believed that had found and resolved the issue."
So there are two potential situations here.
The obvious one is that they missed the true cause of the previous blowup. This makes you wonder whether there’s a lack in the downlinked data that prevented them from proper diagnosis. But, of course, there can also be human error here. Hopefully, if there’s anyone left in the space section of the FAA, they’ll get the inside information.
The other issue…well, there’s more than one thing that’ll blow up a rocket, and maybe this case is something entirely new. Again, one hopes the telemetry will help chase this down.
1 reply
I’m not familiar with the airspace closures related to space launches, but always assumed the closure area included the potential debris areas if the booster goes blooey.
But part of the problem I see is SpaceX’s decision to launch from Texas. It’s tough to set up an ascent profile to miss all the land masses to east and southeast. They have to “thread the needle” just for the launch itself, but if the rocket explodes, that really frays the thread…can’t get it into the eye of the needle anymore.
Because they’re so restricted on launch azimuths, I wonder if SpaceX doesn’t leave a lot of leeway.
This is a REALLY old diagram (from the '60s) showing the launch restrictions from Cape Canaveral. Heading out into the open ocean, for the most part.
Tuck your launch site into the Texas coast, and you’ve got a lot of land masses downrange.
1 reply
Makes me wonder, too: Who handles Range Safety for SpaceX out of Texas?
Like all launch vehicles, Starship is equipped with flight termination systems to allow ground controllers to blow up the vehicle if it goes off-track. You launch out of Canaveral, and it’s a NASA employee with their sweaty thumb over the button.
Who does it out of Boca Chica? I’m guessing it’s a SpaceX employee…who might get fired if they actually press the button. Sounds like a major conflict of interest.
In the '90s, there was the launch of a new vehicle that started to go awry during ascent. The range safety officer was calling for destruct, but the corporate head of the activity felt that the vehicle would recover and jammed the command to destruct. As it happened, he was right…the vehicle did recover. Needless to say, though NASA was P.O.'d.
1 reply
Used to be that way, not anymore. It’s automated using an approved system.
There is a limited restricted area, and a further area that is ready but only activated if necessary - which is what happened these last two launches.
It would seriously inconvenience a lot of flights if the entire corridor had to be clear for the entire launch window.
There’s tons of waste in all facets of the government. You could shoot a shotgun off in any direction every thirty seconds at night with your eyes closed for a year and you’d be guaranteed to hit waste and fraud every time.
2 replies
Ah yes, the ol’ I can figure it out if you just let ME do it. Well, look at what is happening when we do just that - absolute anarchy, COI galore, and destroying lives without so much as a blink.
I too can be a version of “Chainsaw Al” while I sit at the top of a very large pile of money and dictate how lives should go without remorse, but only if I’m a malignant narcissist or neurodivergent overcompensating dingleberry. I couldn’t hurt people like that without very good cause rather than just for political effect.
I guess Space Xplosion father of the year will have to just do the (sith) Lord’s work without my approval. Good luck to all the players.
According to AI calculations, had the explosion occurred 200–300 miles earlier, debris could have fallen over the Florida Panhandle, Mobile, Alabama, or the Gulf of Mexico near Louisiana. Estimated at ~600–700 miles from Boca Chica, this position aligns with latitudes 27°N to 28.5°N and longitudes -85° to -88°, at an altitude of roughly 70–80 miles (370,000–420,000 feet).
This region sits beneath major east-west air corridors, increasing the risk to airborne traffic. Additionally, populated areas like Pensacola, Mobile, and Panama City, along with vital infrastructure such as oil platforms and refineries, would have been vulnerable. Such a scenario would have significantly raised the potential for injuries, property damage, and air traffic incidents.
1 reply
No you wouldn’t until recently when a major supplier to the government is also the one running it.
You are correct JoeDB. This situation is a mix of regulatory pressure, corporate influence, and safety. The FAA’s job is to keep the skies safe, but if staff fear losing their jobs for questioning SpaceX, then we in a heap of trouble (The Independent).
The recent Starship explosion may not be tied to this, but it’s a sharp reminder that SpaceX’s “move fast, fix later” approach is risky business. Rushed approvals and overlooked concerns could lead to disaster (Reuters).
At the end of the day, it’s a tug-of-war between ambition and accountability, and right now reckless speed seems to be the driver at the expense of caution, safety, or proper procedure.
Go look at the velocity of the ship at the point of failure. Now consider the energy input to get it moving at that rate. Now consider how much energy it would take to completely cancel that velocity, then add it back at 90deg to the previous path. In a vacuum!
The people who calculate the restricted / danger areas are not idiots.
1 reply
Facts matter, opiions abound. This summary is based by AI on factual information drawn from credible reports, official FAA statements, and calculated trajectory data.
Explosion Distance: ~923 miles from Boca Chica, Texas
Explosion Altitude: ~90 miles (475,000 feet)
Trajectory: ~88° azimuth, consistent with a path between South Florida and Cuba
Debris Reports: Confirmed in South Florida, The Bahamas, and the Turks and Caicos Islands
FAA Response: Grounded ~240 flights at major Florida airports, with airborne traffic also delayed for safety reasons
The conclusion that the explosion and debris spread followed this pattern is supported by available data, official reports, and calculated trajectory assessments.
1 reply
All of which contradicts your previous assertions about the dangers to Alabama and the panhandle.
Be careful about trusting AI too much.
“It’s not a possibility until it happens… and by then, it’s too late to wish you’d taken it seriously.”
A more catastrophic scenario would have involved the explosion occurring closer to land, at a lower altitude, and within the vicinity of heavily populated areas or key air traffic corridors.
1. Distance from Boca Chica:
A failure at ~200–300 miles from the launch site would have placed the rocket over the Texas Gulf Coast, Louisiana, or the Florida Panhandle — regions sitting beneath major air traffic corridors and packed with population centers.
2. Altitude:
A failure at 30–50 miles (160,000–260,000 feet) altitude would have been far worse than at 90 miles because:
3. Proximity to Air Traffic:
This area is directly beneath major airways like J-79, a busy east-west jet corridor.
4. Potential Ground Damage:
5. Environmental Impact:
Such a scenario could have resulted in:
“It’s not a possibility until it happens… and when it does, the difference between a warning and a disaster comes down to how seriously the risks were taken beforehand.”
In short, while the actual Starship explosion caused disruptions and raised concerns, a failure closer to shore, at a lower altitude, could have triggered a far more serious chain of events — one that aviation regulators, emergency responders, and Gulf Coast residents hope they never have to face.
The research and calculations provided are based on AI analysis (ChatGPT), but prompts, opinions are my own.
2 replies
That AI is feeding you nonsense. I’m not going to argue further - anyone who really thinks Starship is a threat to Houston isn’t reckoning with reality.
Man, that is a narrow launch corridor. If the azimuth varies by just a little bit, they might be sending a few tons of red-hot metal across the length of Cuba.
One thing that occurred to me, looking at this, is how little utility the Starship has…for anything related to Earth science. The available launch azimuths mean the vehicle can’t reach any orbital inclinations that’ll take it above ~35 degrees latitude unless they’re going to spend a LOT of propellant on doglegs.
I’m sure it’ll work fine for Lunar or Mars missions, though.
1 reply
I agree, Ron. That narrow launch corridor leaves little room for error even a slight azimuth change could send debris across Cuba. Your shotgun analogy nails it-- a scattered spread could cause more unpredictable damage than a concentrated hit.
The Chinese space launch center is well away from the coasts, and they don’t have any troub… well, maybe a LITTLE trouble…
But I guess we’ll have to update “buying the farm” to “buying the island…” Fortunately, Musk can afford it.
1. Distance from Boca Chica:
A failure at ~200–300 miles from the launch site would have placed the rocket over the Texas Gulf Coast , Louisiana , or the Florida Panhandle
What do you base this on? As near as I can tell, the trajectory runs around 250 to 300 miles south of the targets that you quoted - in fact, it looks like a failure at ~200–300 miles would be nicely centered in the Gulf of Mexico. </politics>
How in hell could it even come close? It would have self destructed long before it veered that far off course . . .