SpaceX Starship launch under FAA investigation after raining potentially hazardous debris on homes and beaches

SpaceX's Starship has been grounded by the U.S. government following claims that the rocket's explosive first launch spread plumes of potentially hazardous debris over homes and the habitats of endangered animals.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) — the U.S. civil aviation regulator — has stopped SpaceX from conducting any further launches until it has concluded a "mishap investigation" into Starship's April 20 test launch. The massive rocket’s dramatic flight began by punching a crater into the concrete beneath the launchpad and ended when the giant rocket exploded in mid-air around 4 minutes later.

"The FAA will oversee the mishap investigation of the Starship/Super Heavy test mission," FAA officials wrote in a statement on April 20. "A return to flight of the Starship/Super Heavy vehicle is based on the FAA determining that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety. This is standard practice for all mishap investigations."

Dust and debris from the test reportedly rained down on residents in Port Isabel, Texas — a town roughly 6 miles (10 kilometers) from the launchpad — and across Boca Chica's beaches, which are nesting grounds for endangered animals, including birds and sea turtles. 

Related: Geomagnetic storm sends 40 SpaceX satellites plummeting to Earth

Debris surrounding Starship's launch pad at Boca Chica, Texas. (Image credit: Patrick Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

Dave Cortez, a chapter director for the Sierra Club environmental advocacy group, said that Port Isabel residents reported broken windows in their businesses and ash-like particles covering their homes and schools. 

SpaceX's launchpad was also left with extensive damage that includes charred, twisted metal and shattered concrete. The force from the rocket's engines blew a hole in the launchpad and created a crater beneath it. "Concrete shot out into the ocean," Cortez told CNBC, creating shrapnel that "risked hitting the fuel storage tanks which are these silos adjacent to the launch pad." 

SpaceX's first integrated Starship and Super Heavy launch into the sky from Starbase at Boca Chica, Texas on April 20, 2023.  (Image credit: SpaceX)

Unlike other launch sites for large rockets, SpaceX’s Boca Chica site lacks both a deluge system, which floods pads with shockwave-suppressing water or foam, and a flame trench to safely channel burning exhaust away.

"Aspiring to have no flame diverter in Boca, but this could turn out to be a mistake," SpaceX founder Elon Musk wrote in an October 2020 tweet.

The FAA's mishap investigation is standard practice when rockets go astray. The FAA’s investigation will need to conclude that Starship does not affect public safety before it can launch again. As debris spread far further than anticipated, the FAA's "anomaly response plan" has also come into force, meaning SpaceX must complete extra "environmental mitigations" before reapplying for its launch license.

Musk wrote on Twitter that SpaceX began work on "a massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount" three months prior to the launch, but it wasn't ready in time.

"Looks like we can be ready to launch again in 1 to 2 months," he added.

Standing at 394 feet (120 meters) tall and propelled by a record-breaking 16.5 million pounds (7.5 million kilograms) of thrust, SpaceX's Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built. Able to carry 10 times the payload of SpaceX's current Falcon 9 rockets, Starship was designed to transport crew members, spacecraft, satellites and cargo to locations in the solar system.

After blasting off from its launchpad at Boca Chica, Starship climbed to a maximum altitude of 24 miles (39 km) before problems with as many as eight of the rocket's 33 Raptor 2 engines caused Starship to flip and roll, leading SpaceX to order the rocket to self-destruct.

Despite the rocket's unexpectedly messy takeoff and fiery demise, SpaceX and Musk have hailed the test as a success that enabled engineers to gather essential data for the next launch. On April 16, four days before the test, Musk lowered expectations, warning in a Twitter discussion that if any of the rocket's engines went wrong "it's like having a box of grenades, really big grenades."

"This is really kind of the sort of first step in a very long journey that will require many, many flights," Musk said. "For those that have followed the history of Falcon 9, and Falcon 1 actually, and our attempts at reusability, I think it might have been close to 20 attempts before we actually recovered a stage. And then it took many more flights before we had reusability that was meaningful, where we didn't have to rebuild the whole rocket."

This story was provided by Live Science.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Ben Turner
Live Science Staff Writer

Ben Turner is a U.K. based staff writer at Live Science. He covers physics and astronomy, among other topics like weird animals and climate change. He graduated from University College London with a degree in particle physics before training as a journalist. When he's not writing, Ben enjoys reading literature, playing the guitar and embarrassing himself with chess.

  • Spuwho
    The article is misleading. *ALL* failed launches are investigated. Even the failed Falcon 1 launch at Kwajalein was investigated by the FAA and NASA. And they always look at everything. When the Falcon 9 blew its top on the pad during fueling, they also looked at the debri field. The media is making it sound like a crisis of epic proportion when in fact it is normal standard operating procedure. Please media, move on to your next crisis and let everyone involved get back to work.
    Reply
  • fredgarv
    bryant said:
    Why the extra scrutiny? Over 550 days before the FAA finally approved the plan for the premier test flight of a major global gamechanger. With very little time to get this system up and running, Mr. Nelson needs to get the Biden Adminstration up to speed, otherwise it will be decades and most of us older folks want to see a set of boots on Mars before we depart to the heavens.
    You just know the FAA will drag their feet and the enviromentalists will say how dangerous it is to have some dust falling on endangered sea turtles and it will drag out for the rest of this year. I hope I'm wrong but we know the government and how they work. Plus I think that even though musk is partnering with nasa, there are elements within the current administration that hate musk. I saw a "news" article headlined something like "a disastrous week for elon musk" they want' him to fail as they drive his tesla's everywhere and enjoy his starlink internet but they don't like his politics which is simply just questioning the status quo and seeing reality
    Reply
  • BobAchgill
    All the talk from Elon worrying about what will happen to the launch tower if a launchpad mishap, but there is no possible failure mode accounted for in the licence to what will happen to the public if there is a launchpad explosion.

    My research shows that a 1K ton of TNT equivalent explosion will send a shockwave that 5 miles out will be 170db. This is equivalent to 1/16 of Nagasaki. Its roughly the same as the Texas City port blast. Or twice the blast of a Saturn 5. Think instant hearing loss, organ and brain damage for folks at the 5 mile "safe" perimeter. And, possible surface max earthquake of 3-5. Are the high rises of South Padre Island ready for that?

    The failed launch last week was very close to being a launchpad explosion had a few more engines shutdown due to flying debris... and the Starship gracefully sunk back to the launchpad crushing the fuel tanks.

    The sound pressure level assessment provided for the license only accounts for what the public will encounter in a nominal launch.

    Cape Canaveral has 4x more distance to surrounding public homes than Boca Chica, but the Starship with Super Heavy Booster is twice has blast potential than Saturn 5, the rocket that put man on the moon. Seems like there is a story to write about as to why Elon does not launch his Starship with Super Heavy Booster from the "safer" location.

    Hopefully, this new license will include the launchpad explosion scenario and the public can finally see the numbers of what to be prepared for in sound level and anticipated property damage. This is many times louder than rock concert if 170db? Yeah, the animals are going to really get organ damage that are within the 5 mile zone.

    The licensing process last time included letting the public ask questions. There were no questions about what happens in a launchpad explosion. The public did not know to ask that question because they assume the government is looking out for them?
    Reply
  • vitiral
    BobAchgill said:
    My research shows that a 1K ton of TNT equivalent explosion will send a shockwave that 5 miles out will be 170db. This is equivalent to 1/16 of Nagasaki. Its roughly the same as the Texas City port blast. Or twice the blast of a Saturn 5. Think instant hearing loss, organ and brain damage for folks at the 5 mile "safe" perimeter. And, possible surface max earthquake of 3-5. Are the high rises of South Padre Island ready for that?

    https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1104981.pdf
    The chart in 3.1 seems to indicate about a 10% mapping of fuel weight to TNT yield. So a 1k ton of rocket fuel would be 100 ton TNT explosion.

    Not small, but also not 1/21 of Nagasaki, which FYI was 21kT not 16kT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man). LittleBoy/Hiroshima was 15kT
    Reply
  • Marcd2k
    Spuwho said:
    The article is misleading. *ALL* failed launches are investigated. Even the failed Falcon 1 launch at Kwajalein was investigated by the FAA and NASA. And they always look at everything. When the Falcon 9 blew its top on the pad during fueling, they also looked at the debri field. The media is making it sound like a crisis of epic proportion when in fact it is normal standard operating procedure. Please media, move on to your next crisis and let everyone involved get back to work.

    Who is being misleading here? This is directly from the above article:
    "The FAA will oversee the mishap investigation of the Starship/Super Heavy test mission," FAA officials wrote in a statement on April 20(opens in new tab). "A return to flight of the Starship/Super Heavy vehicle is based on the FAA determining that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety. This is standard practice for all mishap investigations."

    Where is the misleading part in the article? I'll tell you where the misleading part is, it is Elon Musk / SpaceX stating any damage resulting from a mishap would be limited to within 1-square mile of the launch site. When in fact, there is damage /debris/toxicity spread over 6-square miles from the launch site. Did you see the damage to the fuel tanks near the site? This came very close to being a catastrophe.
    Reply
  • Marcd2k
    fredgarv said:
    You just know the FAA will drag their feet and the enviromentalists will say how dangerous it is to have some dust falling on endangered sea turtles and it will drag out for the rest of this year. I hope I'm wrong but we know the government and how they work. Plus I think that even though musk is partnering with nasa, there are elements within the current administration that hate musk. I saw a "news" article headlined something like "a disastrous week for elon musk" they want' him to fail as they drive his tesla's everywhere and enjoy his starlink internet but they don't like his politics which is simply just questioning the status quo and seeing reality

    "SpaceX could have prevented the damage, but it disregarded building better launch infrastructure, says Eric Roesch. He is an environmental compliance specialist who blogs about SpaceX. For one, he says, the company did not invest in proven launch infrastructure, like a flame trench, which diverts most of the thrust of the rocket."

    "It sure seemed like the decision to not do these very basic channels or flame protection or systems that you see everywhere else was a matter of convenience."

    "Roesch says SpaceX was too eager to launch its largest rocket. CEO Elon Musk said a steel plate was supposed to go under the launch pad, but it wasn't ready in time. SpaceX thought the concrete would hold based on the static fire test held in February, but that test was only at 50% thrust. Roesch says that the environmental review SpaceX gave to the FAA underestimated Starship's power. What the company called a successful launch actually caused as much damage it had predicted for a full-on explosion on the launchpad."

    "Besides grounding the Starship program, the FAA has activated its mishap response plan. It requires SpaceX to work with state and federal agencies to remove the debris and survey the damage. In a statement, the agency says it will make sure SpaceX complies with environmental regulations."

    All because Musk lies about every project he is working on, from his Boring company, to Tesla and SpaceX. He feels he is above everyone and does not have to follow the rules / laws everyone else does.
    Reply
  • Papamurphdog
    For simplicity, the "BFR" made a BFM and moved a lot of BFD as it lifted off, slowly, from the pad (that should have had blast trenches. Was surprised to see there were none). Legend: Big F---ing Mess and Big F---ing Debris. I was amazed to see how much debris was cleared by the BFR. That's a whole bunch of thrust and no one thought it was going to toss boulders like pebbles? Watch the footage from down range and you can see a bunch of really big stuff hitting the water, along with all the small stuff. Will be interesting to see how this all unfolds before next launch.
    Reply
  • saychoss
    The author says: "Problems with as many as eight of the rocket's 33 Raptor 2 engines caused Starship to flip and roll".

    I thought it was clear from the launch attempt that a flip was expected as part of separating from the booster. Now it's because of problems with some of the engines?
    Reply
  • saychoss
    If Musk always did what others expected of him, there would be no Tesla company, there would be no vertically landing Falcon 9, and there would be no Starlink. I think it's amazing that he dreams big accomplishes incredible feats that nobody else has dared to try. It's ok for Musk to try new things, so chill a little bit.
    Reply
  • StarmanG10
    TL;DR: SpaceX were the ones who started the investigation, FAA is currently helping them.
    I would like to acknowledge that SpaceX were the people who started the investigation. Because of the fact that nobody (or things) pubicly were harmed, the FAA legally cannot file an investigation. However, SpaceX DID ask the FAA to help with the(ir) investigation. Liscence for the OFT expires in 5 years, so we still have awhile until they can't launch.

    The newer booster version is much more dated than B7 (O7). The entire reason why B7 lost control was because the HPU exploded. The HPU were the little "shields" in between the chimes. Those helped control the engines so they could steer. Without them, they couldn't steer. B9 does not have an HPU, and its engines are controlled electrically, not hydraulically, like B7.

    Because of the changes, the next IFT attempt will have a higher chance of succeeding.
    Although the FAA has grounded starship, that doesn't mean its because they are grounding it because they want it to be grounded. Although we do have innacurate elon time (tm), repairs for the OLM+Testing B9 would take about 6-10 months or 1 year.
    Reply