From Bloomberg News and iHeartRadio. It's the big tick. I'm west Kasova today after the Starship launch fell short. What's next for SpaceX and for the goal of putting Americans back on the Moon.
The SpaceX is that you rocket the biggest and most powerful ever built, that's blasted off on its first test light, the Starship.
Of super Heavy and a gift of the Starsick engines. When STARSIP sufferates, we light up six hungines in a staggered sequence. That all goes well, those six engines will burn for almost six and a.
Half but just about four minutes after you can see Starship sort of spinning out.
Of controlsion of the biggest rocket ever moments after it launch.
Just this morning, Massa of course is counting on that rocket made by SpaceX to carry astronauts to the Moon's surface and potentially eventually Mars.
Fortunately no one was on board.
It was a test flight and the FAA is now investigating. In the days since the dramatic mid flight explosion of the SpaceX Starship, the company and the Federal Aviation Administration had been working to figure out exactly what went wrong and how to fix it. For the next test launch. The super heavy rocket also scattered pulverized concrete more than six miles from the launch pad in Boca Chica, Texas, and now environmental groups and a Native American tribe are
suing the FAA. They say the agency approved the launch too hastily and should have done a more thorough environmental review. So what happens now. Bloomberg's intrepid space reporter Lauren Grush is back today to tell us, Lauren, do we have any idea yet why this launch failed?
Well, we kind of got some indications at the very beginning if you looked at pictures or watched the live stream at all.
Right now, it looks like we saw the start of the flip. But obviously we're seeing from the ground cameras the entire starship stack continuing to rotate. We should have had separation by now. Obviously this does not appear to be a nominal situation.
Yeah, it does appear to be spinning.
But I do want to remind everyone that everything after clearing the tower was icing on the cake. You could see that some of the engines had gone out.
So there's thirty three engines raptor engines at.
The base of this vehicle, and not all of them were working throughout the entire flight. But you know, SpaceX has said before that they can still get to orbit with one or two out, so you know, that wasn't a clear indication that anything was super wrong.
I think what really.
Started to indicate there was something going on with at the point of a process called stage separation. So about two and a half to three minutes into the flight, the super heavy booster which is needed to loft the starship component the top of the vehicle into space, are supposed to separate, and that process just didn't happen, and then the vehicle, the entire vehicle just started spinning out of control in a weird way, and we were all kind of waiting for a stage separation to happen, but
that just didn't happen. And then eventually the rocket blew up, and we learned later that SpaceX had actually intentionally blown up the rocket with its flight termination system.
It's a matter of public safety.
They obviously didn't want that rocket, you know, swirling back onto land and hurting anybody, so they made the decision.
To get rid of it.
And is there any indication about why it failed, like why that super heavy booster didn't separate.
I really don't want to speculate. There's all sorts of ideas running around. Maybe it didn't get enough thrust because of the engines that had flamed out. You know, it's unclear exactly why it didn't separate, why did.
It start spending like that. I'm sure we'll learn all the details.
In due time, but as of now, it's still an open question.
So it's not just SpaceX that's trying to get the answers, but the federal government, right, the Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA, is also doing an investigation.
Right. They're overseeing a mishap investigation. It's actually a pretty standard type of investigation they do whenever a rocket fails in flight or has an issue like this. So I'll be working with SpaceX on it, and Starship won't fly until they figure out what happened and you know, determined that the appropriate mitigation measures are in place.
For it to fly again.
One other thing that happened is when the rocket took off, it really wreaked havoc on the whole launch area, I mean just destroyed it. And there's a few chunks of concrete being thrown off. Was that supposed to happen or is that something that took them by surprise.
I don't think SpaceX wanted that to happen, but I think there were some concerns ahead of the launch that that might happen. So essentially there was a big slab of concrete underneath the launch pad. Now the launch mount, which you know holds the rocket and where the rocket launches from, was raised above the ground, So that was supposed to help with you know, once they knighted those engines, but unfortunately, I mean, like I said, it's thirty three engines.
Not all of them ignited, but a lot of them did. And that is just an intense, insane amount of pressure and forces all concentrated in one flat surface, and by all indications, it looked as if it just shattered the concrete underneath the pad, sent chunks flying. I mean, the US Fish and Wildlife essentially confirmed that chunks of concrete and metal just went everywhere.
And so that retaboc on the infrastructu.
Sure could get a sense of just how much is being invested in this starship that immediately after the failure, you started to see congratulations coming in including from the head of NASA saying, you know, no one gets it right the first time, but this is a great sign of the future. Is that just putting the best face on this or are they right?
No?
I mean, I think this is essentially how SpaceX tests, right. They are not afraid to fail very publicly, and I wouldn't even use the term failure because they wouldn't use the term failure. You know, elon before this launch very much caution that this was a test launch, this is still very experimental rocket and that if they cleared the launchpad that would be considered success for them, And that's
essentially what happened. They cleared the launch pad. Now the launch pad's not in the best of shape at the moment, but they didn't completely destroy it, so I guess that's a win. But yes, you know, they really just needed to see this vehicle fly because they have seeing the entire vehicle working together in the air before, so to them that is valuable data that they'll just apply to the next flight.
And we were out in South padre after the launch and the mood was extremely positive.
They ultimately see any kind of tests and moving forward in this program as a good sign and you know, others might feel differently, but for SpaceX, this is just part of their culture and how they get to space.
And so in that way, I guess you really could say that this isn't spin that it was a success, because even though the mission itself wasn't completed as hoped, the thing did get pretty high in the sky.
Right And presumably during the next launch they'll get a little farther, and then then one after that they'll get a little farther than that. And one of the big points of this program is that they are going to launch a bunch and that's part of the starship architecture. This vehicle really needs to fly back to back with increasing frequency if it's really going to work as designs.
So, yes, this launch.
Got a lot of fanfare, as it should have, but this is by far not the last time we're going to see this rocket launch. So we're probably going to see a lot of failures, but we're also going to see a lot of launches, and so this was just the beginning of what's really going to hopefully ramp up over the next few years.
And in fact, not long after this test flight, Must said he thinks we're going to have another one on the launch pad this year, given the condition of the launchpad and what heaven do you think that's realistic?
You know, I never want to make predictions. In fact, SpaceX's gwynshot Wall always says, you know, I don't like to make predictions.
It makes a liar out of me.
And Elan is notorious for making very bold, very aspirational predictions for timelines. But given the state of the launchpad and the extensive repairs they're going to have to do to their infrastructure, also presume they're going to have to make some changes. There are a lot of questions about why there wasn't a better flame diversion system for those engines, and Elon mentioned a steel plate that they were hoping to put under the launch pad before this flight with
water running through it. Perhaps they'll put that in for future flights. There's still some questions that that will work. But all that's going to take time. It's going to take money. I don't know how much time. I don't know how much money. They do work fast. But I think maybe Elon's prediction of one to two months, which he said on Twitter, might be a little ambitious.
Does he have a hangar full of these things waiting around that they could roll out there or do they have to build another one from sprat.
So that is one thing that is extremely oppressive about the starship program is that they are popping these things out pretty fast.
I don't know the exact.
Count of what is in the hangars over at Starbase their launch facility in Bokachika, but I did get a.
Glimpse swallows down there.
There's definitely vehicles in the production line that are being built, and some are stored in those tents, so I don't know how ready they are, but that is part of the starship architecture.
They are constantly building new vehicles.
And sometimes they work so fast and iterate so quickly that they'll build a vehicle and then it won't be long before that vehicle is obsolete and a new vehicle has been built that's better designed and ready to go. And so it's very possible that their starship hardware is ready or will be ready soon.
It might be the launch pad that's the ultimate.
Issue after the break, What does this setback mean for NASA's ambitious plans to return people to the Moon.
And here we go. Hydrogen burnoff the Nighters, initiate seven six five four stage Agent start three two one boosters a Magician, and lift off of Artamus one. We rise together back to the boon and beyond all four.
Lauren, you say, how Elon Musk is very willing to spend a lot of money iterating and failing again and again until they get it right, and NASA is certainly hoping that he gets it right pretty soon, because they've met a lot on this spacecraft being the thing that returns the US to the Moon.
Absolutely, you know, before that partnership was announced, Starship was really more or less Elon Musk's pet project. He started SpaceX to take people to deep space and to start a settlement on Mars, and Starship was ultimately kind of the key to that vision.
But yes, a few.
Years back, NASA partnered with SpaceX on the Starship program and gave them a nearly three billion dollar contract to develop the vehicle into a lander that could take the agency's astronauts to and from the.
Surface of the Moon.
So that significantly raised the stakes for the program and also made it a government funded program in the process, and so there's now a lot more writing on it. Than just Elon's dream of starting a.
Mars settlement, and here we are in twenty twenty three. NASA has this goal of returning to the Moon by twenty twenty five. So that's a pretty ambitious timeline.
That is very ambitious, and I think motht reporters that have been following this that you'll talk to will tell.
You that no one really believes that that's going to happen.
I would not be surprised if we heard very soon that twenty twenty six becomes the new deadline.
I think they're mostly setting it.
As a goalpost and ambitious goalposts and trying to work towards that to motivate everyone to work with urgency.
But at the same time time that is also a recipe for.
Launch fever, and we've seen that not play out well when it comes to accidents and tragic outcomes.
What exactly is NASA's goal when it comes to the Moon, because there's a couple different pieces to it, right.
So this time they are focusing on sustainability.
Right.
So with the Apollo program back in the nineteen sixties and seventies, we really just went for these quick trips and we planted flags we gathered samples and then we left. So ultimately, what they're hoping to do with this program called the Artemis.
Program is to set us up for a path where we.
Can be living and working on the Moon for extended periods of time.
So that will include maybe a base on the Moon at some point.
There's plans to build a station around the mood called the Gateway. So the idea is kind of to make the Moon like we've done with Low Earth Orbit and the International Space Station, where we can send astronauts for extended periods of time. They can work, do research, and then come home after long stays.
And there's a lot involved in that that's beyond just the successful mission of this starship. That requires a lot of very technical, sort of very complicated things to go, right.
Sure, yes, the architecture to get to the Moon for the first time, a mission called.
Artemis three is definitely very wonky.
Starship is just the lander portion of the entire process. NASA has its own deep space rocket that it is built in partnership with Boeing called the Space Launch System or SLS, and that is used to boost a crew capsule called Orion made by Lockey Martin The way it'll work is that first Starship is going to launch, and because Starship is so massive, it gobbles up a lot of propellent. In order for it to get all the way to the Moon, it's going to have to fill
up essentially like a car at the gas station. So SpaceX plans to launch a bunch of tankers to space where they'll fill up a Starship depot, you know, like you're filling up a gas can. Then they'll launch the lander portion and just to go back. It's unclear how many tankers they need to launch, right it could be over a dozen.
That's a lot. Then they'll launch the Lander, which will fill up its tanks from that depot, and then it will go all the way to.
Lunar orbit and essentially park there waiting for the next step.
Then we launch the people who will.
Be on the SLS, the Space Launch System riding inside of Orion on top of the vehicle. Oriyan will then launch the deep space meet up with Starship and lunar orbit dock with Starship.
Two of the four.
Astronauts on there will transfer over to Starship.
Then Starship will take them down to the Moon.
They'll land, they'll don their spacesuits and you walk around to take samples, do what they need to do, get back into Starship, leave the surface, redock with Orian, they'll transfer into Orion again, and then Orian will leave lunar orbit and take them back to the Earth.
Well, they'll land under parachutes. Does it sound like an intense process.
Yes, But ultimately this is the plan for getting humans.
Back to the Moon for the first time in over half a century.
Does it have to be this complicated?
You know, that is the ultimate question, and I think we could spend another podcast talking about it. But there is a lot of politics involved when it comes to the Space Launch System rocket, and there's been also a lot of questions of why the humans don't just ride in Starship and not do this docking. But you know, ultimately Starship is, as we've seen, still has quite a ways to.
Go in this development process.
You know, they haven't even started testing this propellant fuel up process that's going to be really key to their mission success. And meanwhile, the Space Launch System did launch on its first test flight successfully around the Moon in November.
Of last year.
Well, let me ask you. You said there's a lot of politics involved, what does that actually mean.
The Space Launch System has been a program that has been funded for a very long time. That particular rocket was in development for over a decade in one form or another, and they tried to cancel it because it was getting very costly and it was very delayed.
However, it has a lot of support in.
Congress because a lot of people in various states and in various communities work on that rocket and rely on that rocket, and so a lot of politicians have pushed to keep it alive. It gets a lot of generous funding, so that rocket has a lot of staying power.
In the meantime, you know, SpaceX, they were.
The underdog for a really long time and not a lot of people trusted that they could become this behemoth that they are now, and so SpaceX really ultimately had to prove to everyone that they were a serious contender, and so that also took a while. Took a similar amount of time that it took for the Space Launch
System to get developed. So now we're coinciding in a time where the SOLS is more or less ready it's starting to fly, and SpaceX is also at a point where they have proven that they are capable and so we're kind of in this hybrid approach of the old space way where we had these large government contracts with the likes of defense contractors like Boeing and Locking Martin, and we're also giving money to SpaceX with fixed price contracts.
So it's kind of like when the old way of doing things is criss crossing with the new way of doing things and they're kind of coming together at the same time.
Is there any criticism within the space community that they're trying to push these two things together just because they both exists, they both have supporters, rather than saying, Okay, what's the easiest, cleanest, most viable way to return people to the Moon.
Absolutely. Of course there's always criticism about.
How NASA pays for things and if it's pain too much, and if they're actually doing the more efficient process or what if they're doing the more politically advantageous process. But the one thing you have to consider is the way NASA is run. It's a government agency and they rely on government funding, and so they have to do things that get them the government funding that they need, and sometimes that is not always what is logically and most efficient.
It also has to be.
Politically advantageous as well, and so that factors into their decision making.
Sometimes, are the traditional defense contractors who are providing part of this mission and SpaceX working together or is their rivalry there?
There's definitely rivalry, but yes, they are now in an interesting position of being frenemies because they have to rely on each other for this mission to work. I truly love the concept that Starship is going to have to dock with Orion. You know, Lockheed is going to have to play nice with Starship in order for these two vehicles to work. Ultimately, this is one big, happy family now, and they're all gonna have to work together to get astronauts safely to the lunar surface.
When we come back between the Starship and NASA's Space Launch System, how soon before a Moon mission becomes a reality, we choose to go to the Moon and mistcate and do the other thing not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that gold.
I'm all.
Are bathlete, beautiful mic Earlier.
Lauren, you say that NASA's Space Launch System, the SLS, has had staying power. How much of that is? This is just the way NASA does things and always has.
Essentially, how it worked is the same contractors who are working on SLS are born of the contractors who worked on Shuttle, born of the contractors who worked on the
Apollo program. So one can argue that the effort to go to the Moon in the first time kind of created this like space industrial complex, and so people have relied on those contracts for a really long time, and so they were reluctant to give them up when they tried to cancel the SLS program, and so ultimately they got politicians involved, and that is why SLS has such staying power after all this time. But I think with Starship, the reason SOLS also was able to survive for so
long is because there really wasn't an alternative. We need a powerful deep space rocket to get to the Moon if we're going to do big, bold things in space.
And so you can criticize SLS.
All you want for being over budget and delayed, but until we have something else that works, then.
What else are you going to do?
But now what people are pointing to is Starship is kind of slowly edging into that role of being that cheaper alternative and that more efficient alternative.
Problem is it needs.
To fly and prove itself before you can actually make the case that SOLS shouldn't be flying at all and shouldn't be funded anymore.
So until Starship can prove itself, I don't think SLS has much to worry about.
Do you think if the Starship program actually starts to show success that ultimately it could just take over the whole mission?
That is the prediction from some folks. The way that.
Elon advertises Starship sounds really enticing. So it's supposed to be fully reusable, which is supposed to lower costs, and supposed.
To make it easier to launch back to back.
They're talking about doing like one hundred flights a year, crazy stuff like that, which all sounds really great. And so the idea is that once they show that, why would you continue flying a rocket like SLS. It's so expensive and only flies like once a year. I'm skeptical that Starship will kill SLS because, like I said, it has a lot of supporters at very high places, and it does provide a lot of jobs for folks, and that is really a powerful aspect of the program.
So, Lauren, you're covering this every day, what are you looking for? What comes next for this program?
I have a saying that launch is only the beginning.
Even if they were to get it into orbit, there is still quite a lot to do in order to really mature the system into what SpaceX has advertised it to be. So remember I talked about the challenge of how to fuel this thing up.
You know, they need to test that process. They haven't even gotten.
To space yet, so they can't do an in space test of that yet, and that's going to be a key part of the development program. And then beyond testing the fueling up, they have to demonstrate that starship can actually land on the Moon.
And you know, I think people think it's maybe I wouldn't say easy to land.
On the Moon, but because we've done it before, you know, we can just do it again.
But that's not the case.
Just recently, a Japanese company, I Space tried to become the first to land a mostly privately funded robotic lunar.
Lander on the surface and.
They came into fast and they crashed, and that title still hasn't been claimed. So, you know, a company that hasn't put in a substantial amount of its own money has yet to land on the Moon.
Itself intact, and the ice space Lander was just a small robotic lander.
Starship is massive, and so to get that on the surface of the Moon intact is going to be.
An impressive feat. Then they also have to.
Take off from the Moon again, they have to demonstrate that they can take off from the Moon. And then for artemis Iree, Starship does not have to return the humans all the way to Earth.
That will be Orion.
However, in the future, SpaceX is promising rides to tourists around the Moon on Starship, and so for those rides, people will board Starship, fly.
Around the Moon and come home no oriyon component.
And for those rides they will have to come back
to Earth in Starship. And coming back to Earth from deep space is also extremely technically challenging, and that's why if you look at the surface of Starship really closely, you'll see all of these tiles that the company has adhere to the surface, and those are essentially heat shield because when you come in from deep space, you're going to be coming in very hot and very fast, and so they need to ensure that the vehicle won't burn up on reentry, and so they'll need to test that.
Process out before they put humans.
On it too, So there's quite a lot standing in the way of a successful launch and seeing people coming.
To and from deep space on Starship safely.
One thing I will say is to never count SpaceX out. There's a lot of things that they have said that they will do, and a lot of critics have been quick to say they won't do them. I will never say that SpaceX can't do something. However, their timelines just might not match up with the timelines they're publicly saying. These are all engineering problems. You know that we can engineer and overcome, and I will never doubt SpaceX to do that.
But I just have zero concept of how long it's going to take.
Lauren Grush, thanks for coming on the show, Thanks for having me, Thanks for listening to us here at The Big Take. It's a daily podcast from Bloomberg and iHeartRadio. For more shows from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and we'd love to hear from you. Email us questions or comments to Big Take at Bloomberg dot net. The supervising producer of The Big Take is Vicky Bergalina. Our senior producer is Catherine Fink Federica Romanello
is our producer. Our associate producer is Zeneb Sidiki. Raphael i'm seley is our engineer. Our original music was composed by Leo Sidrin i'm wes Kasova. We'll be back on Monday with another big take. Have a great weekend.