Elon Musk's stunning three-word reaction to SpaceX Starship exploding in fireball
Elon Musk shared a stunning three-word reaction after his SpaceX rocket exploded into a massive fireball while being tested Wednesday night in Texas.
The SpaceX owner seemed to joke about the failed test, writing, 'Just a scratch' on X after the Starship suffered a 'major anomaly' and shot up into flames, ruining yet another test for the space company.
While SpaceX hopes their Starship will one day carry humans to the Moon and Mars, test flights in May, March, and January also ended in failures. The Starship program, SpaceX's central project and the most powerful rocket to date, is also crucial to NASA's Artemis program.
Meanwhile, SpaceX chalked the explosion up to the rocket experiencing 'a major anomaly' just ahead of its flight test.
'A safety clear area around the site was maintained throughout the operation and all personnel are safe and accounted for,' the company said.
SpaceX said that there are no hazards to residents in the surrounding areas; however, people are being asked to avoid the site.
The company said it is working with local officials to respond to the explosion.
Footage captured the 36 rocket, which was undergoing a static fire test, abruptly exploding into a dramatic fireball around 11 p.m. Wednesday night.
Video from NASASpaceflight.com shows the rocket standing in the dock before exploding without warning, sending a wave of flames toward the cameras.
It's not the first time Musk has downplayed his company's shortcomings. Following the SpaceX explosion in May, he said, 'Success is uncertain, but entertainment is guaranteed!'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
12 minutes ago
Astrophysicist reacts to SpaceX rocket exploding during testing in Texas
Astrophysicist Dr. Hakeem Oluseyi on SpaceX's Starship 36 exploding during a routine static fire test just after 11 p.m. local time on Wednesday night in Texas. June 19, 2025
WebMD
36 minutes ago
- WebMD
FDA Approves First Twice-Yearly Shot to Prevent HIV
June 19, 2025 – The FDA has approved the first twice-yearly shot to reduce the risk of HIV infections. Originally approved in 2012, the drug – known as lenacapavir but sold under the name Yeztugo – offers a new way to protect against this life-threatening infection that affects more than a million people in the U.S. and has no cure. The shot is given before potential exposure to the virus. HIV spreads through unprotected sex and shared needles (including dirty needles from tattoos and body piercings). It weakens the immune system, and in its advanced stage, the body can no longer fight off infections, leading to acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Only about a third of eligible people in the U.S. use available HIV prevention, with especially low use among women, Black/African American and Hispanic communities, and people in the South. This is mainly due to stigma, low awareness about existing options, and challenges with daily pills or frequent shots. Carlos del Rio, MD, a distinguished professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Emory University School of Medicine, said that getting a shot just twice a year could make it easier for people to stick with prevention. "Yeztugo could be the transformative PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] option we've been waiting for – offering the potential to boost PrEP uptake and persistence and adding a powerful new tool in our mission to end the HIV epidemic," said del Rio, who is also co-director of the Emory Center for AIDS Research in Atlanta. Gilead, the drug's maker, said the FDA approved Yeztugo based on two major studies, which showed that it worked better than taking a daily pill form of PrEP in preventing HIV with a nearly 100% success rate. In one trial, none of the 2,134 women who received Yeztugo got HIV, while in the other, only two out of 2,179 people did. It was well tolerated with no new safety concerns, which led the academic journal Science to name lenacapavir as its 2024 "Breakthrough of the Year." Yeztugo attacks a protective shell that HIV needs to stay alive, which helps stop the virus from growing and spreading. Most HIV drugs only work at one part of the virus's life cycle, but Yeztugo works at several points. It also still works even if other HIV drugs have stopped working. It is given as a shot under the skin and is only for people who test negative for HIV. Before starting Yeztugo and before each shot, your provider will test for HIV to prevent the virus from developing resistance to the medication. The treatment begins with two shots and two tablets, followed by two more tablets the next day – then continues with one shot every six months. If a shot is delayed by over two weeks, a weekly pill can be used for up to six months. If over 28 weeks pass with no treatment, patients may need to restart. If a patient gets HIV while on Yeztugo, they'll need full HIV treatment, as Yeztugo alone isn't enough. Yeztugo helps lower the risk of HIV when taken as prescribed, along with safe sex practices like using condoms.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Plastic bag fees and bans help limit coastal litter, study finds
Plastic bag fees and bans are effective in limiting debris on U.S. shorelines, a new study reports, but even places with bag policies are seeing a greater prevalence of plastic bags on beaches and riverbanks. The study, published Thursday in the peer-reviewed journal Science, analyzed the relationship between policies on plastic bags and the litter collected in more than 45,000 shoreline cleanups. In communities with policies in place, the prevalence of plastic bags in the trash was 25 percent to 47 percent lower than in places without regulations. But plastic bags increased as a share of litter both in communities with policies and those without, the researchers noted. The policies appeared to contain that growth but not stop or reverse it. Measures targeting plastic bags aren't eliminating the problem, just slowing its growth, said Kimberly Oremus, one of the study's authors and an associate professor at the University of Delaware's School of Marine Science and Policy. The impact of the policies has been somewhat limited, Oremus said, because they can be patchy in what they regulate and are themselves a patchwork, with rules and enforcement varying from place to place. 'Most of these bans and fees don't cover every type of plastic bag,' she said. 'There's a lot of exceptions to them. It really depends on the state.' The goal of all these policies is the same: to limit the use of plastic bags, which can take centuries to decompose and, in the interim, can entangle wildlife and release microplastics and toxic chemicals into waterways. Some places have imposed 'bag taxes' or fees on customers using plastic bags. Other places have experimented with bans — though they might prohibit thin plastic bags (which are most likely to blow away and become trash) while allowing thicker ones, or they might leave restaurant takeout bags unregulated. Erin Murphy, manager of ocean plastics research at Ocean Conservancy, said the new report was 'the first large-scale study to systematically assess how plastic bag policies reduce the amount of plastic bag pollution in our environment.' Murphy was not involved in the analysis, but the researchers used her nonprofit group's data from shoreline cleanups between 2016 and 2023. That data provided a way to measure litter before and after policies were enacted and do comparisons with measurements in places without any regulations. Lead author and environmental economist Anna Papp said one of the key findings was the difference between broad policies, which appeared to limit plastic litter, versus partial bans, which resulted in the smallest and least precise effects. There was also some evidence that bag fees could have a greater effect than bans. But the researchers said that fees are also much less common than bans and that more research is needed to assess their relative effectiveness. The study also found that state-level policies had a greater impact than town-level measures, Oremus said. Larger-scale policies tend to be more robust, she said, because 'litter can travel between borders.' The analysis also showed that the largest reductions in trash occurred in places with high amounts of plastic bag pollution. 'Are you a place that struggles with litter?' Oremus said. 'Then, this might be a policy to consider.' Erin Hass, senior director of strategic alliances with the Plastics Industry Association, noted that plastic bags represent a fairly small portion of litter that winds up along U.S. shorelines. 'Even the study itself acknowledges that the top sources of beach litter are cigarette butts, food wrappers, bottle caps and beverage bottles — not plastic bags,' Hass said. 'Why are regulators isolating a single product while overlooking far more prominent contributors?' Bans could 'create unintended consequences,' Hass said. She noted that after the implementation of a bag ban in New Jersey, for example, thin plastic bags disappeared, but overall plastic consumption appeared to increase because of a switch to heavier reusable bags, which tended to be tossed after minimal use. 'If the goal is reducing marine debris and advancing sustainability, the smarter approach is to invest in scalable recycling systems, not sweeping bans that shift the problem rather than solve it,' she said.
