Connect with us

News

SpaceX Starship booster survives explosion

Super Heavy Booster 7 appeared to narrowly avoid catastrophe on July 11th, surviving an accidental explosion. (NASASpaceflight Starbase Live)

Published

on

A SpaceX Super Heavy booster was rocked by a substantial explosion and subjected to multiple fires at the launch pad during the rocket’s latest round of testing.

As of 9 pm CDT, July 11th, the fate of the upgraded Super Heavy – known as Booster 7 or B7 – is leaning towards survival but and it won’t be certain until the rocket is drained of all cryogenic propellant and potentially flammable gas and safe for SpaceX employees to approach. The incident began around 4:20 pm CDT, when Super Heavy Booster 7 (or its launch mount) unintentionally ignited a cloud of flammable gas produced during flow test involving most or all of its 33 Raptor engines. In the past, SpaceX has performed “spin prime” tests with Raptors installed on Starship prototypes, flowing high-pressure gas through the engines’ turbines to get them up to operating speeds and pressures. Booster 7’s test ended a bit differently.

When the resulting cloud of well-mixed methane and oxygen gas was accidentally ignited, it functioned like a small fuel-air bomb, rapidly combusting to produce a violent explosion and shockwave. After the initial explosion, the fire also expanded to burn as much of the resulting gas as possible, producing a fireball that briefly reached 80-90 meters (~260-300 ft) in height. CEO Elon Musk – apparently not directly participating in the test – initially stated that the explosion and fire was planned, implying that it was more or less a nominal outcome. Virtually everyone with experience observing Starship testing felt otherwise, however.

To preserve the safety of the few local residents still living at Boca Chica Village, SpaceX is required to issue printed safety warnings well in advance of Starship tests that could create a shockwave capable of shattering glass and injuring locals. SpaceX has never intentionally performed such a test without distributing those warnings and did not distribute a warning before July 11th, all but guaranteeing that no ignition event was planned. A few hours later, Musk deleted his original tweet and posted a different one, confirming that the explosion was “actually not good” and that SpaceX is “assessing the damage.”

For the most part, Booster 7 and the Starbase Orbital Launch Site (OLS) exceeded viewers’ expectations of their sturdiness, exhibiting very little off-nominal behavior after being subjected to a unexpected explosion, shockwave, and fire. Immediately after the event, B7 quickly depressurized its propellant tanks and appeared to leave those vents open, reducing the chances of the booster destroying itself if SpaceX were to lose control. SpaceX also appeared to intentionally avoid using the orbital launch mount’s (OLM) umbilical mechanism to remove propellant from the Super Heavy’s tanks, perhaps concerned that the shockwave might have weakened its connection to B7.

Advertisement
Starship SN4 demonstrates one possible outcome of attempting to use a leaky pad umbilical to detank.

About an hour after the explosion, Booster 7 dumped a large amount of cryogenic liquid out of a new vent located on its aft end, producing a flood that spread around the adjacent pad. It’s unclear if that liquid was nitrogen or oxygen but either way, the emergency propellant dump appeared to cause a fire to start about 100 feet (~30m) from the booster and launch mount. That fire proceeded to burn intermittently for the next two hours, all the while posing a clear and present danger to the rest of the pad and booster if it were to spread in the wrong direction or breach the wrong underground pipe. Instead, SpaceX got lucky and the fire eventually self-extinguished.

In a worst-case scenario, Super Heavy’s engine section and 33 Raptor engines could have been seriously damaged, while the subsequent pad fire(s) could have also significantly damaged crucial pad systems, requiring weeks of repairs. The booster could even be beyond repair. More optimistically, given that SpaceX appears to have gotten lucky enough to avoid a total loss of vehicle, Booster 7 may be fine after some inspections and moderate repairs. The pad damage could also be limited to a single isolated, non-critical piece of equipment catching fire and burning to a crisp

Regardless, SpaceX will need to figure out what exactly caused the explosion and make sure that that failure mode does not appear again. In the meantime, the company recently finished stacking Super Heavy Booster 8, and Starship S24 – installed on a nearby suborbital test stand – is ready to begin its own static fire test campaign in the near future.

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Supercharger vandalized with frozen cables and anti-Musk imagery amid Sweden union dispute

The incident comes amid Tesla’s ongoing labor dispute with IF Metall.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Charging/X

Tesla’s Supercharger site in Vansbro, Sweden, was vandalized during peak winter travel weeks. Images shared to local media showed frozen charging cables and a banner reading “Go home Elon,” which was complete with a graphic of Musk’s controversial gesture. 

The incident comes amid Tesla’s ongoing labor dispute with IF Metall, which has been striking against the company for more than two years over collective bargaining agreements, as noted in a report from Expressen.

Local resident Stefan Jakobsson said he arrived at the Vansbro charging station to find a board criticizing Elon Musk and accusing Tesla of strikebreaking. He also found the charging cables frozen after someone seemingly poured water over them.

“I laughed a little and it was pretty nicely drawn. But it was a bit unnecessary,” Jakobsson said. “They don’t have to do vandalism because they’re angry at Elon Musk.”

Advertisement

The site has seen heavy traffic during Sweden’s winter sports holidays, with travelers heading toward Sälen and other mountain destinations. Jakobsson said long lines formed last weekend, with roughly 50 Teslas and other EVs waiting to charge.

Tesla Superchargers in Sweden are typically open to other electric vehicle brands, making them a reliable option for all EV owners. 

Tesla installed a generator at the location after sympathy strikes from other unions disrupted power supply to some stations. The generator itself was reportedly not working on the morning of the incident, though it is unclear whether that was connected to the protest.

The dispute between Tesla and IF Metall centers on the company’s refusal to sign a collective agreement covering Swedish workers. The strike has drawn support from other unions, including Seko, which has taken steps affecting electricity supply to certain Tesla facilities. Tesla Sweden, for its part, has insisted that its workers are already fairly compensated and it does not need a collective agreement,

Advertisement

Jesper Pettersson, press spokesperson for IF Metall, criticized Tesla’s use of generators to keep charging stations running. Still, IF Metall emphasized that it strongly distances itself from the vandalism incident at the Vansbro Supercharger.

“We think it is remarkable that instead of taking the easy route and signing a collective agreement for our members, they are choosing to use every possible means to get around the strike,” Pettersson said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Cybertruck owner credits FSD for saving life after freeway medical emergency

The incident was shared by the Tesla owner on social media platform X, where it caught the attention of numerous users, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

A Tesla Cybertruck owner has credited Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised for saving his life after he experienced a medical emergency on the freeway.

The incident was shared by the Tesla owner on social media platform X, where it caught the attention of numerous users, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

In a post on X, Cybertruck owner Rishi Vohra wrote that he had unintentionally fasted for 17 hours, taken medication, and experienced what he described as a severe allergic reaction while driving.

“What started as a normal drive turned terrifying fast. My body shut down. I passed out while driving on the freeway, mid-conversation with my wife on the phone,” he wrote.

Advertisement

Vohra stated that his Tesla was operating with FSD Supervised engaged at the time. According to his account, the Cybertruck detected that he had lost consciousness using its driver monitoring system, slowed down, activated hazard lights, and safely pulled over to the shoulder.

“Thank God my Tesla had Full Self-Driving engaged. It detected I lost consciousness (thanks to the driver monitoring system), immediately slowed, activated hazards, and safely pulled over to the shoulder. No crash. No danger to anyone else on the road,” Vohra wrote.

The Cybertruck owner added that his wife used Life360 to alert emergency services after hearing him go silent during their call. He said responders located him within five minutes. After being attended to, Vohra stated that the vehicle then drove him to the emergency room after he refused to leave his truck on the freeway.

“So the Tesla autonomously drove me the rest of the way to the ER. I walked in, got admitted, and they stabilized me overnight,” he wrote.

Advertisement

He later posted that he was being discharged and thanked Tesla and Elon Musk. Musk replied to the post, writing, “Glad you’re ok!” The official Tesla X account also reposted Vohra’s story with a heart emoji. 

Tesla recently published updated safety data of vehicles operating with FSD (Supervised) engaged. As per Tesla’s latest North America figures, vehicles operating with FSD (Supervised) engaged recorded one major collision every 5,300,676 miles. The U.S. average is one major collision every 660,164 miles. 

Considering the experience of the Cybertruck owner, Tesla’s safety data does seem to hold a lot of water. A vehicle that is manually driven would have likely crashed or caused a pileup if its driver lost consciousness in the middle of the freeway, after all. 

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Cyberbeast price drops to less than $100k but loses Luxe package with FSD

The change adjusts the truck’s positioning in the high-performance premium EV pickup truck segment, where several rivals now command six-figure price tags.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has reduced the price of the Cyberbeast to below $99,990, but the update also removes a compelling feature set from the vehicle.

The change adjusts the truck’s positioning in the high-performance premium EV pickup truck segment, where several rivals now command six-figure price tags.

Prior to its price adjustment, the Cyberbeast was listed for $114,990. However, the vehicle’s prior configuration included a Luxe package that bundled features such as Full Self-Driving Supervised and other premium inclusions. That package is no longer listed as part of the Cyberbeast.

For its sub $100,000 price, the Cyberbeast offers 325 miles of estimated range, a 0-60 mph time of 2.6 seconds, a payload capacity of 2,271 lbs with the Cyber Wheel, and Powershare.

Advertisement

Interestingly enough, the Cyberbeast now undercuts some of its most powerful competitors with its updated price. The Rivian R1T Quad, for example, starts at $116,900, though the R1T has more range at 374 miles per charge, and it is also a bit faster with a 0-60 mph time of 2.5 seconds. 

Other rivals include the GMC Hummer EV 3X Omega Edition Truck, which has a starting MSRP of approximately $148,000 before dealer markups, the Chevy Silverado EV LT Max Range, which starts at over $91,000 before dealer markups, and the GMC Sierra EV Denali Max, which starts at about $101,000. 

Considering that rivals like the Rivian R1T Quad, Chevy Silverado EV LT Max Range, and GMC Sierra EV Denali Max outgun the Cyberbeast in raw range, the Cyberbeast’s competitiveness will likely rely on its Full Self Driving Supervised system, which allows it to navigate inner city streets and highways. 

For $99 per month, the Cyberbeast practically becomes a self-driving vehicle, and that is something that its rivals cannot match, at least for now. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading