
SpaceX cleared to launch first Starship test flight after two explosive failures
Federal regulators have given SpaceX the green light for another test flight of Starship, the most powerful launch vehicle ever constructed, after two explosive mishaps earlier this year rained debris near islands in the Caribbean and Atlantic oceans.
The Federal Aviation Administration, which licenses commercial rocket launches, said Thursday that SpaceX can move forward with its next launch attempt while an investigation into the vehicle's most recent failure, during which it exploded near the Bahamas, is ongoing, the agency confirmed to CNN.
Regulators decided to allow the company to move forward with another test mission, referred to as Flight 9, after determining that SpaceX has met 'all of the rigorous safety, environmental and other licensing requirements.'
The update from the FAA comes after the agency issued a launch license on May 15 for the upcoming test flight.
That license approval was a significant milestone and win for SpaceX because it marked the final step in a long-awaited approval process. The company had for years sought to expand the maximum number of launches it can carry out annually from its facilities in South Texas — home to Starship manufacturing and operations facilities.
'The FAA approved license modifications for the SpaceX Starship Flight 9 mission,' the FAA said in a May 15 statement. 'The approval includes final action allowing SpaceX to increase Starship operations from five up to 25 per year at Boca Chica, Texas.'
At the time, the FAA also noted that it would expand the size of the hazard zones — or keep-out areas for aircraft — that will be locked down during the next Starship flight.
The agency said it made the change in response to the two prior mishaps, Flight 7 in January and Flight 8 in March, which signaled 'a greater probability of failure' in the FAA's calculations.
SpaceX for the first time also intends to attempt to reuse a Super Heavy rocket booster on Flight 9. Super Heavy is the largest piece of the Starship launch system and consists of a 232-foot (71-meter) steel cylinder, fuel tanks, and all 33 rocket engines that give the initial burst of thrust at liftoff.
SpaceX has so far safely recovered three Super Heavy boosters after launch with the goal of refurbishing and reusing the rocket parts to drive down costs.
Expanding hazard areas
The FAA said it would expand the size of the Starship hazard area — which is intended to keep aircraft and other vehicles out of the launch system's flight path — from 885 nautical miles (1,018 miles) mapped out in earlier documents to 1,600 nautical miles (1,841 miles) for the Flight 9 test launch.
The expanded keep-out zone is expected to affect as many as 175 flights, with an expected average delay time of 40 minutes, according to the FAA. The agency estimates such delays cost travelers about $50 per hour and cost passenger airlines as much as $100.80 per minute, or $6,048.00 per hour per delayed flight.
'To minimize disruption,' the document states, 'the launch window has been scheduled outside peak transit periods.'
SpaceX has not yet publicly announced a target launch time for Flight 9.
Falling debris risks
The FAA also maps out debris response areas where it believes pieces of the vehicle might land if it explodes midflight.
SpaceX said after both the Flight 7 and Flight 8 mishaps that debris mostly stayed within such areas.
But in January, pieces of the failed Starship vehicle from Flight 7 notably wound up strewn across the islands of Turks and Caicos. There was also one report of property damage: A piece of debris struck a car on the island of South Caicos, the FAA confirmed at the time.
Debris from the failed March test flight also landed near the Bahamas.
'The FAA is in close contact and collaboration with the United Kingdom, Turks & Caicos Islands, Bahamas, Mexico, and Cuba as the agency continues to monitor SpaceX's compliance with all public safety and other regulatory requirements,' the agency said in a Thursday statement.
'SpaceX is required to update its Flight Safety Analysis to account for all outcomes of previously flown flights including mishap events and to calculate and establish hazards areas,' the statement reads.
There have been no reports of injuries related to Starship's prior mishaps.
In a January statement to CNN, the FAA said that it requires SpaceX to map out 'hazard areas sufficient to ensure that the probability of casualty to a member of the public on land or on board a maritime vessel does not exceed one in one million.'
Starship and the big picture
While the company has faced backlash for its recent test flight failures and over CEO Elon Musk's ties to the current presidential administration, the Starship vehicle's eventual success is considered crucial to NASA's goals.
The space agency has already agreed to pay SpaceX up to $4 billion to carry astronauts down to the lunar surface on as many as two moon landing missions slated for later this decade.
SpaceX's partnership with NASA could also expand if the agency decides to do away with its own Space Launch System rocket, or SLS, as the Trump administration has suggested. The SLS has long elicited criticism due to its price tag, which could be between $2 billion and $4 billion per launch, according to a 2023 government accountability report.
The White House's preliminary budget document, which was issued May 2, recommended doing away with the SLS rocket after three flights.
Phasing out the SLS rocket would likely leave Starship as the only option for getting astronauts into deep space — whether to the moon or Mars, which is the destination of choice for Musk and Jared Isaacman, a Musk confidant who Trump tapped to lead NASA. (The space agency is still awaiting the Senate's final confirmation for Isaacman's nomination.)
Starship's future
SpaceX has long advertised Starship as offering game-changing affordability for its size.
Musk has said the price per test flight has been about $50 million to $100 million. The prototypes flown so far, however, have only traveled on a suborbital trajectory, and they have not been equipped with some features that will be necessary for crewed missions, such as life support systems.
SpaceX must also hash out how to refuel the vehicle as it sits in orbit around Earth, a procedure that will be necessary for journeys that travel deeper into space.
Starship's development process has sparked controversy in part because the company is employing an engineering approach it refers to as 'rapid iterative development.'
The philosophy emphasizes launching relatively cheap prototypes during the development process, aiming to quickly pinpoint and fix design issues. The method stands in contrast to the one NASA embraced for SLS, for example, which focused on extensive ground testing that all but guarantees success on the first launch attempt.
Because of its unique development approach, SpaceX has been known to embrace fiery mishaps, while emphasizing that even failed test flights help engineers improve Starship's design — perhaps quicker and more cheaply than if the company employed alternative engineering approaches.
'With a test like this, success comes from what we learn,' the company has frequently said in statements issued after Starship flight failures.
Such rapid and frequent testing, however, has led to high-profile, explosive failures throughout the company's history that have long served as a rallying cry for detractors.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.


Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
An AI Film Festival And The Multiverse Engine
In the glassy confines of Alice Tully Hall on Thursday, the third annual Runway AI Film Festival celebrated an entirely new art form. The winning film, Total Pixel Space, was not made in the traditional sense. It was conjured by Jacob Adler, a composer and educator from Arizona State University, stitched together from image generators, synthetic voices, and video animation tools — most notably Runway's Gen-3, the company's text-to-video model (Runway Gen-4 was released in March). Video generation technology emerged in public in 2022 with Meta's crude video of a flying Corgi wearing a red cape and sunglasses. Since then, it has fundamentally transformed filmmaking, dramatically lowering barriers to entry and enabling new forms of creative expression. Independent creators and established filmmakers alike now have access to powerful AI tools such as Runway that can generate realistic video scenes, animate storyboards, and even produce entire short films from simple text prompts or reference images. As a result, production costs and timelines are shrinking, making it possible for filmmakers with limited resources to achieve professional-quality results and bring ambitious visions to life. The democratization of content creation is expanding far beyond traditional studio constraints, empowering anyone with patience and a rich imagination. Adler's inspiration came from Jorge Luis Borges' celebrated short story The Library of Babel, which imagines a universe where every conceivable book exists in an endless repository. Adler found a parallel in the capabilities of modern generative machine learning models, which can produce an unfathomable variety of images from noise (random variations in pixel values much like the 'snow' on an old television set) and text prompts. 'How many images can possibly exist,' the dreamy narrator begins as fantastical AI-generated video plays on the screen: a floating, exploding building; a human-sized housecat curled on a woman's lap. 'What lies in the space between order and chaos?' Adler's brilliant script is a fascinating thought experiment that attempts to calculate the total number of possible images, unfurling the endless possibilities of the AI-aided human imagination. 'Pixels are the building blocks of digital images, tiny tiles forming a mosaic,' continues the voice, which was generated using ElevenLabs. 'Each pixel is defined by numbers representing color and position. Therefore, any digital image can be represented as a sequence of numbers,' the narration continues, the voice itself a sequence of numbers that describe air pressure changes over time. 'Therefore, every photograph that could ever be taken exists as coordinates. Every frame of every possible film exists as coordinates.' Winners at the 3rd Annual International AIFF 2025 Runway was founded in 2018 by Cristóbal Valenzuela, Alejandro Matamala, and Anastasis Germanidis, after they met at New York University Tisch School of the Arts. Valenzuela, who serves as CEO, says he fell in love with neural networks in 2015, and couldn't stop thinking about how they might be used by people who create. Today, it's a multi-million-user platform, used by filmmakers, musicians, advertisers, and artists, and has been joined by other platforms, including OpenAI's Sora, and Google's Veo 3. What separates Runway from many of its competitors is that it builds from scratch. Its research team — which comprises most of the company — develops its own models, which can now generate up to about 20 seconds of video. The result, as seen in the works submitted to the AI Film Festival, is what Valenzuela calls 'a new kind of media.' The word film may soon no longer apply. Nor, perhaps, will filmmaker. 'The Tisches of tomorrow will teach something that doesn't yet have a name,' he said during opening remarks at the festival. Indeed, Adler is not a filmmaker by training, but a classically trained composer, a pipe organist, and a theorist of microtonality. 'The process of composing music and editing film,' he told me, 'are both about orchestrating change through time.' He used the image generation platform Midjourney to generate thousands of images, then used Runway to animate them. He used ElevenLabs to synthesize the narrator's voice. The script he wrote himself, drawing from the ideas of Borges, combinatorics, and the sheer mind-bending number of possible images that can exist at a given resolution. He edited it all together in DaVinci Resolve. The result? A ten-minute film that feels as philosophical as it is visual. It's tempting to frame all this as the next step in a long evolution; from the Lumière brothers to CGI, from Technicolor to TikTok. But what we're witnessing isn't a continuation. It's a rupture. 'Artists used to be gatekept by cameras, studios, budgets,' Valenzuela said. 'Now, a kid with a thought can press a button and generate a dream.' At the Runway Film Festival, the lights dimmed, and the films came in waves of animated hallucinations, synthetic voices, and impossible perspectives. Some were rough. Some were polished. All were unlike anything seen before. This isn't about replacing filmmakers. It's about unleashing them. 'When photography first came around — actually, when daguerreotypes were first invented — people just didn't have the word to describe it,' Valenzuela said during his opening remarks at the festival. 'They used this idea of a mirror with a memory because they'd never seen anything like that. … I think that's pretty close to where we are right now.' Valenzuela was invoking Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.'s phrase to convey how photography could capture and preserve images of reality, allowing those images to be revisited and remembered long after the moment had passed. Just as photography once astonished and unsettled, generative media now invites a similar rethinking of what creativity means. When you see it — when you watch Jacob Adler's film unfold — it's hard not to feel that the mirror is starting to show us something deeper. AI video generation is a kind of multiverse engine, enabling creators to explore and visualize an endless spectrum of alternate realities, all within the digital realm. 'Evolution itself becomes not a process of creation, but of discovery,' his film concludes. 'Each possible path of life's development … is but one thread in a colossal tapestry of possibility.'
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ARK CEO Cathie Wood Weighs In on the Trump-Musk Feud
Tesla CEO Elon Musk and investors are beginning to understand more how much the U.S. government has control over the companies that Musk's running, said Cathie Wood, CEO of asset management firm ARK Investment Management, in a video published late Friday. Wood's comments come after Musk departed the Department of Government Efficiency. On Tuesday, Musk criticized Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' saying it would increase the national deficit and undermine DOGE's cost-cutting efforts.