How Starship can stay on schedule for Musk and NASA's ambitions

The Hill

7 hours ago

On June 18, SpaceX rolled out the latest iteration of its Starship spacecraft to the test stand for a static fire test in preparation for a test flight scheduled for June 29. Then, around 11 pm Central Standard Time, the spacecraft exploded in a fireball, taking itself and the test stand out in a spectacular conflagration.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's initial reaction was an attempt at humor when he posted on X, 'Just a scratch,' channeling a line from Monty Python.
Later, in a more serious post, Musk revealed the likely cause of the explosion: 'Preliminary data suggests that a nitrogen [composite overwrapped pressure vessel] in the payload bay failed below its proof pressure.'
Peter Hague, an astrophysicist and a follower of space commercialization, notes that the failure stemmed from quality control issues with the specific component and not, as some suggest, an inherent design flaw in the Starship vehicle. If so, the problem should be easy to fix.
What happens next? When will SpaceX test another Starship? How does the accident affect NASA's Artemis program to return to the moon and Musk's ambitions to found a settlement on Mars?
SpaceX will have to repair the test stand and surrounding infrastructure before proceeding with another test flight with a new version of Starship, unless it intends to skip the static fire test, a risky move. It will also have to make the next Starship ready for flight.
Finally, it will have to satisfy the Federal Aviation Administration and other regulatory agencies that it understands the root cause of the accident and can proceed.
Opinions vary about how long those tasks will take, but most guesses range from one month to two months. However, the accident on the test stand is just the latest in a string of failures that have bedeviled the Starship test program.
Hague opines, 'Make no mistake though; this is a serious setback. A failure of this kind should not be happening at this stage in the program, and it's no good glossing over it with references to 'fail fast.'' He said the company 'needs to get Starship back on track — but based on past performance, we can expect that they will.'
Indeed, SpaceX has suffered a number of failures during its early years, from which it has bounced back. The Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy are the cheapest, most reliable launch vehicles in the world. But that quality was bought by failures that proved to be the parents of success in the long run. So, it will likely be for Starship.
The question of Starship becoming an operational vehicle has not been an if but a when proposition. When Starship is available depends on how quickly SpaceX can recover from the latest accident and how soon it can rack up a series of successful tests.
Musk would like to send the Starship to Mars during the next transit window, which lasts from November 2026 through January 2027. The flights (Musk plans on sending several Starships) would be uncrewed, perhaps carrying robots such as the humanoid Optimus. If SpaceX misses the window, the next one occurs 26 months later.
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter if we see boots on Martian soil 26 months later than Musk's current timeline. Not so the return to the moon.
Currently, the Artemis III moon landing is scheduled for 2027. Even before the Starship accident, that date was very much in doubt.
Still, if Americans could return to the moon in 2028, the event would not only be well in advance of a potential Chinese moon landing but also during the Trump presidency. President Trump, always on the lookout for a legacy enhancer, would love to ring out his presidency with Americans on the lunar surface. The Starship accident puts that prospect in jeopardy.
Wouldn't it be nice if NASA had a permanent administrator, respected by the aerospace community, experienced in space flight, who could make decisions for the Artemis program that could account for the schedule disruption wrought by the Starship accident?
Trump may well have committed the most heinous act of self-sabotage in political history by pulling the nomination of Jared Isaacman for NASA administrator at the last minute. He did so without a replacement nominee ready.
Musk and his engineering team could still recover from disaster. They have done it before. But a lot has to happen before Starship is ready to open up the moon, Mars and beyond to human exploration.
Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.