SpaceX Raptor engine explodes!! Will the FAA delay the next flight of Starship?

In McGregor TX, the Raptor test program just experienced a violent explosion. Will this impact Starship OFT-4?
#space #nasa #spacex
Please support my channel! AS LITTLE AS 10 CENTS A DAY!!
DISCORD MEMBERSHIP, EXCLUSIVE CONTENT AND EARLY RELEASES PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
/ angryastronaut
www.paypal.com/paypalme/Angry...
Follow me on twitter:
/ astro_angry

[@panxerox01]

When you test the upper limits of your engine....sometimes you find them.

[@mandygershon8603]

Worked that way for me driving cars .... ;)

[@hydrorix1]

A bit disingenuous saying they still don't have a flame trench when you know damn well they're in the process of building one.

[@fox_3591]

Raptors at McGregor are usually tested at beyond 100% power meaning they have alot of potential for being destroyed while firing. In flights on ships these engines do not reach such insane power levels, they are only pushed to these limits to certify them for the standards that it needs to meet.

[@saumyacow4435]

Sure, its being tested, but we don't know if its being tested for a new design feature and being pushed, or just a regular production item that wasn't expected to fail. Also the real world results speak volumes about Raptor's fragility.

[@fox_3591]

@@saumyacow4435 also givin the size of the explosion, this is not really seen at McGregor. Could have just have been a leak that formed. But givin how new raptors are somewhat, it should be expected to experience anomalies, even merlins werent perfect, but now their one of the most reliable rocket engines in the world.

[@BBBrasil]

Pointing out the obvious, this is not about the Raptor engine but about Raptor engines production line. SpaceX is not in the business of making perfect rockets, the main goal is to produce a thousand perfect ships and tens of thousands perfect rocket engines. This is what's been tested. This is the Model T of rocket history. Nobody has ever even dreamt about the amount of production SpaceX is aiming.

[@angryhairpeice]

What will they learn when that happens to an engine connected to a ship on the launchpad? How far away would be too close?

[@ronnie-being-ronnie]

Shuttle engines at takeoff were at or beyond 100%. If an engine blows up, that is not normal, nor excusable. Yes…tests are meant to prove the product, and it is not uncommon to find faults, which is why tests are necessary. However, a test to prove a product means it is expected to pass the test; versus destructive testing, which is meant to find safe limits of function, or quality of materials and products. For example, nondestructive tests of wiring repair are ohms, voltage, current, and functional system tests. A destructive test uses wire and crimp samples mechanically pulled until the sample breaks, which proves the crimp tool is properly crimping on the correct wire type and size. The engine components are tested to find their limits, and the engine is designed with parts with failure points that exceed required use. So, if you have an engine that is designed to achieve X force, and then you want to use for Y force, you wouldn’t just throw the engine in the test stand to see if it fails…you’d look at all the components and see if their specs can handle the new requirements. This isn’t the old days when no one knew what would happen. Engineers are running around with slide rules in their pockets. But parts do fail. A turbine can come apart, a line can freeze up and blow out, insulation failure can allow fire where it shouldn’t have gone. So that means an investigation happens. Data and parts are examined, records are analyzed…everything is looked at. And once you determine the part that failed, you have to look at every one of those parts on other engines, or in stock for building engines. To go back to the crimp test example, the samples are inspected to find the failure…did the wire 1. pull out of the crimp, 2. break at the crimp because of wire damage caused by the crimp, or 3. did the wire itself pull apart at point away from the crimp? 1 and 2 are failures. So you keep track of those failures and discover it isn’t that tool, it’s any tool…that means the crimp splice has an issue. So you now you have to take those splices out stock, and every splice made from them has to be examined. Was it a bad batch from manufacturing? Did the manufacturer change tooling or the source of their metal? You have to look at all the splices that come from that manufacturer, too, now…was it that one product line or all of them? Now multiply this work by the thousands of parts that make up an engine. The subassemblies, too. This is why investigations are long and tedious, and why there are so many rules about testing every step of the way…because Murphy is the Emperor of Earth.

[@Mike-fs3bv]

You have zero knowledge of what was being tested. They may have been testing a different configuration to failure. There can be 1000 different reasons it failed and none related to current production engines.

[@autisticboi2992]

nah this is an immense failure spacex is done now fr this time musk is just gonna tear down everything and scrap all his rockets then go back to south africa

[@verypleasantguy]

It is a *_spectacular success_*_ !!!_

[@martinw245]

Exactly.

[@Dervraka]

Or at least that's what I would tell the FAA the reason was if I was SpaceX (wink). Yep, tested to failure, nothing to see here....

[@fractalelf7760]

@@DervrakaThey aren’t Boeing…😅

[@Logoseum]

Push to failure is a common test on hardware. Delay flight 4? No, why would it?

[@camojoe83]

Why would the FAA care about what happens on a test stand at all?

[@erwina4738]

Because they’re stupid and have too much of an overreach

[@thehexedcoin1517]

Because if one engine fails, others could as well, and last time multiple engines failed, well, i think we all know what happened to test flight 1.

[@camojoe83]

@@thehexedcoin1517 do you understand what goes on at the test stand?

[@camojoe83]

@@thehexedcoin1517 test flight one was destroyed by pad debris. No amount of regulation on the rocket could have prevented that.

[@khel9505]

​@@thehexedcoin1517spacex are just pushing the raptor to its limits

[@davidhanna8470]

Alright, as a retired engineer, there is a reason we stress test.

[@markrichardson2508]

I’ll tell you exactly how the 3 emails went. nasa “was that a production raptor” spacex “nah tested something hectic” nasa “all good see you at IFT 4”

[@davidbate6346]

what ever the rocket engine is, it has to be tested.

[@undertow2142]

It would be weird if they weren’t exploding raptors from time to time. The point of testing is to push limits and find failure points, what works/what doesn’t. Raptor is ultra high power for its size. Massive explosions are expected when it pushing close to 300 tons of thrust.

[@julianfp1952]

I agree but I'd go a lot further than "weird", I'd say profoundly disturbing if they weren’t exploding raptors from time to time. If you don't periodically test to destruction then how do you know how far away from failure you are when running under nominal conditions? If I was on a crewed Starship with the Raptors at full rated thrust for the launch I would certainly want to know whether that was 2% or 20% away from the point at which the engine was expected to explode and I would want that failure point to have been found through real life experiments not just computer modelling.

[@Hykje]

If FAA put a flight ban on Starship every time a Raptor explodes on the test stand, IFT1 would still be standing on the ground.

[@tie014]

Unlikely to cause any problems as it could be a raptor 3 so you would expect a failure even with it being rather energetic as they are really pushing the limits with raptor in terms of chamber pressure and cooling even if its raptor 2 I don’t think it was running under what would be described as standard conditions

[@just_archan]

I rather think that was next gen raptor than 3. Judging by explosion they are testing max pressure on chamber. Raptor 3 are I think nearly production stage (they started tests of raptor 3 almost a year ago) and because we already see on Boca Chica parts for block 2 ships/boosters, that are designed for Raptor 3, I think this is beginning of tests of engines for engines that will be used in block 3. I don't yet call it raptor 4, as we don't know if they will be named that. Maybe they will call it "raptor 3.5" as changes will be not as significant as between full previous generations, or they will return to name of 1337

[@jhill4874]

When the Navy asked Lockheed to make a longer range SLBM than the existing Poseidon SLBM, but fit into the same launch tube as the Poseidon, Lockheed came up with the Trident I. Two stage, fewer warheads. The big difference was that instead of solid rocket propellent, Lockheed used a reformulation of an explosive. At the first test firing of the full sized rocket engine, the thing exploded and took out the entire test stand. The submariners there to witness the test essentially said "That was interesting. No thank you."|

[@Tinman_56]

Masseys is in the process of installing a flame trench for testing Starships.

[@davidswan4083]

Raptors are exploding all the time at McGregors, SpaceX routinely test them to destruction

[@pierre.a.larsen]

It could have been a version 3 engine with the incredibly high pressure. They are at the bleeding edge of material science and rocket tech with that one. It they make it (and they usually do) it will be epic. I am not worried. Their philosophy is agile development and testing to failure; they have proven this method works. SpaceX does more than entire nations, even superpowers, and unions like the EU are able to do. It is stunning - perhaps Elon Musk is alien.

[@micahwhite1246]

I’m worried about the reliability of the starship vehicle. It needs an escape system.

[@mr.ackermann807]

​@@micahwhite1246 I agree, but untill its human rated, not really necessary at the time. One possible abort would be to have a dragon capsule inside and have the nose cone spilt apart like fairings with detenation cord and use rockets to blow it clear for a safe and clear escape. I doubt they will think of something like that, but its still fun to think of these things.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

@micahwhite1246, for what does a cargo rocket need an escape system? Or are you refering to HLS? But that one is also a cargo ship, untill Gateway, where the landing crew boards it. Gateway has a very elliptic orbit. Now, if the lander has a landing problem, they are f@¢d. What good is an escape system there? It is only more weight, added complexity, and an extensiv source for more failure. If HLS were to abort the landing, the crew is f@¢d. They could not reach Gateway, because of its strange orbit. Launch, start, and landing have well defined precalculated times called "windows". Perhaps you've heared someone say that before. Now the crewed Starship. What does a resque system do? OK? Why would a Starship then need anything more? 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@mr.ackermann807]

@MichaelWinter-ss6lx it wasn't really meant for the moon, just in atmosphere take offs. As I said before, it's just fun to think of these things. If they don't want them or see them as necessary, then that is how they want to do it.

[@micahwhite1246]

@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx It seems like the most dangerous time is ascent, although on many occasions a failure in orbit/transfer happens too. You cant see all ends, but not having an escape system during ascent is remis IMO.

[@chadlynch1551]

"This is my BOOM STICK!"

[@StevePemberton2]

I think how the FAA is accepting SpaceX's IFT-4 request to launch before IFT-3 mishap is completed shows that if something similar happens on IFT-4, i.e. coming down where the booster and ship are supposed to but coming down harder than they were supposed to, will require a mishap investigation but likely not significantly delay the next test flight. Also it should be noted that SpaceX only recently requested the go ahead for IFT-4, showing that they really weren't ready to launch until now, dispelling the common complaints about the FAA holding up progress.

[@keithallsop]

That's why you do devlopment and testing, to find the weaknesses and make improvements. We have had 3 integrated flights, and assuming all the engne issues of the first were caused by flying concrete, approx. 100 engines have performed in flight and worked well. Every launch has been better than the last, and it may not always be that way, but the trend is going in the right direction.

[@charlesblithfield6182]

If there’s a QC issue developing as they accelerate the Raptor production line while trying to keep a lid on costs or even reduce costs, I mean they are trying to pound out many engines for the test schedule, it is a high risk situation - 33 on the booster that have to not explode.

[@shaung949]

They are also testing new versions raptor 3 is in development, need to see how well that works before strapping that to a rocket.

[@El_drewskii]

Nice click bait

[@tonyug113]

Its one engine in HUNDREDS , its on a TEST stand , when we dont know the test. if it was on a tested starship that would be different. So not even a blip.... and yeah, they have built a test stand at masseys with a flame trench (test pads at launch site no more) to maunly avoid tile breakage on test (we hope). Bur if for Vulcan say where there are only a handful of engines (10s at most) it would be more of an issue, depending on the test regime.

[@ericfielding2540]

Glad to hear that the FAA is effective in answering questions from the public and is continuing to do their job of protecting the public.

[@samfrank4976]

I wouldn't read too much into this. They could be testing the upper limits of chamber pressure, or some other parameters. Destructive testing allows you to know more accurately where to calibrate your 'redline' so to speak. Cant do this with computer simulations.

[@CorvusABray]

All failure that results on a test stand is a successful test. This means that an unknown was found and can be determined if it is consistent or not. Can it be found in the other productions. I see this as an absolute win.

[@verypleasantguy]

*_SUCCESS_* !!!

[@saumyacow4435]

Unless you're not pushing the limits in the test and you're simply testing a production item to normal limits...We don't know. And SpaceX is giving us the mushroom treatment.

[@fractalelf7760]

@@saumyacow4435Give it time young padawan…

[@davidlewis9068]

That very well could be a version Three Raptor.

[@bobthebomb1596]

Hard to speculate on what impact a test stand failure could have as we know so little about the test itself. There are many variables: Was it a simple test firing of a new Raptor? Was it a test of a modified Raptor? Was it a test to failure? Was it a failure of the test stand rather than the engine? Just have to accept the wait on this one while the company looks at their data. Having worked on explosives field trials I can understand why a company would be reluctant to speculate early doors.

[@lezbriddon]

weeding out weak. improving ship safety. well done team

[@shadowcaster111]

These explosions happen all the time

[@crankyoldman860]

This might not have been an R2 failure, as you stated the blast occurred after shutdown so it could have been a leaky connection to stage 0 that was vibration or human error caused. And Elon has said they are trying to push the limits on chamber pressure to 350 Bar and beyond. That may cause secondary problems with a number of systems and connections. And also no one at SpaceX has said it was an R2, it could have been an R3.

[@Spherical_Cow]

No, the blast did not occur after shutdown: rewatch it - the initial explosion happens during the engine firing; then a secondary explosion damages the top of the test stand (causing cryogenic fluid to spill out, subsequently, from at least one of the tanks), a couple of seconds later.

[@zanelittlegray]

@@Spherical_Cow Good job on your part, but it still won't delay the launch....

[@armandomercado2248]

Very courteous and understanding comments regarding SX test programs. Not so much for anyone else.

[@user-zz8vn9qm5o]

it depends on what engine was being tested . if it's a raptor 3 then it's not a problem

[@PDLM1221]

That’s why they test test test at all levels, they push and push and as far as we know on all four flights none exploded , and maybe this is The #3 version still yet to fly , , we know they push these til they burst. It shouldn’t hurt current flights.

[@Asterra2]

I cannot imagine a scenario where they were testing Raptor V2 which is nearing retirement, vs. Raptor V3, especially to specifically figure out the chamber pressure limits. Why are we assuming this is a V2 engine? And yes, the FAA has already asked SpaceX to hold off a few more days to give Starliner some breathing room in the media. SpaceX will use that time for other things.

[@pdloder]

I wonder if it was an attempted shut off and restart? That might explain all the unburnt fuel that went on to ignite.

[@aleopardstail]

doubt its the same spec of engines, or under "nominal flight conditions". though it could be an older test to try and replicate OFT-1 issues. who knows? may make issues for the next iteration of flight engines, should have been sorted out by then

[@brentsmithline3423]

That is why you run them on test stand before you put them in rockets. If a large amounts of these engines that blew up I would say SpaceX had problems.

[@KMR1776]

Delays will not happen. In fact the explosion was a blessing in a surprising disguise.

[@scottymoondogjakubin4766]

Tested to failure for critical data ! Prob scared the crap out of the cows tho ! 🐂🐂

[@jesselomas8626]

Raptor.. All depends which variant given SpacEx are working on V3 and V4. All depends on chamber pressure...

[@juliancrooks3031]

Raptor is still in the development stage, with experiments in design sometimes they will blow up. That's how they learn how to build a reliable engine

[@jojo-ep2pp]

Are you talking about the nasa shuttle?

[@chris6770]

The type of Raptor tested? If it's development iteration then they're probably pushing it to the limit - and found it. Data is useful.

[@derekstarkjr5128]

Pretty serious one? Please that is what a test stand does and pushing things to there limits to see where they let lose is done also?

[@CaptainCrutch]

This is why they do qualification tests on every engine, if this even was a qualification article it’s more likely to be a defect in that engine in particular if every other engine passed with flying colors. And it may not even be a qualification test it could be a prototype Raptor 3 purposely tested to failure for all we know. Either way it’s not going to have any impact on the next test flight powered entirely by verified hardware.

[@tonyug113]

Imagine Wavefronts of mishap investigations interfering through the starship slit , giving minima and maxima of red tape fronts -- of leading to a red tape tsunami.

[@marierobbins6771]

Could have been an issue with the stand as well. Who knows. I will assume they were pushing the boundaries and went to far

[@CC-iq2pe]

What if SpaceX was trying to modify engines to make improvements and this one failed…I can see this not having any impact on the June flight whatsoever.

[@robertclark1734]

Good point.

[@saumyacow4435]

Might have been a special test. Might have been testing a regular production item intended for flight, to normal limits.

[@Smiles10130]

Could have been a manufacturing error.

[@khel9505]

This is not first time to explode the raptor engine way back on the frist raptor engine they push the limits to achieve the 230t of thrust for raptor 2

[@chris.eskimo]

Just loads of speculation. Likely NOTHING to be concerned about

[@captainbirdseye86]

This is SpaceX, exploding things is considered success! Now they will know why it did. As Elon once said, if you don't fail you are not trying hard enough.

[@Time2gojoe]

If it's at McGregor it has to be V3.. the ones on Ship 29 are v2. It's like downing the F18 for a new experimental version that shaves a little more fuel

[@Spherical_Cow]

There is no indication that SpaceX has stopped making v2 Raptors, yet. SpaceX has not announced, and people who watch these tests 24/7 have not observed, that Raptor 3 has entered production yet.

[@vensroofcat6415]

This is rather just Raptor development going on. SpaceX plans to have Raptor 3 at some point after all. And then probably 4, etc. Work in progress. As for IFT3 though there were signs it had limited control by SpaceX. Which is potential risk no matter how the trajectory was set at start.

[@VideoconferencingUSA]

Nice job

[@johnross6314]

Reports are this is prototype Raptor 3..

[@fractalelf7760]

Every failure is a question… but a failure in testing is the point.

[@JurassicJenkins]

0:16 - SpaceX to FAA. We pushed her a little to hard. 🚀 - FAA to SpaceX - Ok, cleared to flight.

[@phoenixmotorsport647]

Isnt this the whole point of testing?

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Authorized was testing of a new version of the Raptor engine and they were testing it to failure instead of it being a nonviolent failure it was a violent one... almost looked like everything failed at once which would be a good sign for engineering development that means all of their equipment is at the same spec

[@scupking]

No impact on the flight. They continue to push the limits on these test engines. This was probably a high-pressure version 3 Raptor.

[@AdrianBoyko]

They must be developing this one for Boeing

[@sailingonasummerbreeze7892]

Maybe they were pushing it to max performance.....to find out tolerance limits (destructive testing?)

[@NickNackpaddywhack]

Better during testing than on a starship!

[@sliceofheaven3026]

According to a article: "A qualification test of a Raptor 2 engine has resulted in a dramatic explosion at SpaceX’s McGregor facility. The company has yet to comment on the incident, but it’s unlikely to affect the upcoming fourth test launch of the Starship megarocket." Probably wise to delay the flight if they cant figure out the reason within a couple of weeks. Its better to have rocket exploding on earth than in space.

[@robertclark1734]

Well said.

[@CaptainCrutch]

What’s their source that it was a qualification test or even a Raptor 2? SpaceX often tests certain engine articles to failure to continually verify what the limits of that engine are. They’re also coming around to Raptor 3 and they’re going to want to blow a lot of those up to do the same upper limit testing. Only SpaceX knows what version that was, what they were testing, and what the expected result was. We don’t. So unless SpaceX themselves have said it the entire idea of “oh no a Raptor failed and we don’t know why they should delay a launch” is just pointless because it very well could have nothing to do with any flight activities happening this year let alone within a month.

[@Smiles10130]

They've hundreds of raptor 2s, each individually tested for hundreds of seconds. So if this wasn't a test to push its limit, it could be a manufacturing error. Which happen, and doesn't mean you pause testing/flying in all the other working engines.

[@Spherical_Cow]

​@@Smiles10130 it's not correct to say that each Raptor 2 is tested for hundreds of seconds. A select few indeed are, every now and then - but the vast majority of engine qualification test burns last less than a minute.

[@sliceofheaven3026]

Just google spacex raptor engine and it is all over the news. They probably got it from a press release meant for journalists or maybe from reporters following the testing closely. Also Tesla might have hundreds of these new rockets ready but the question is if this one is the only faulty one or do they have some kind of a issue with them in the manufacturing line for these new raptor 2 type rockets.

[@monkeyboy4746]

It was probably the reason the booster detonated on the last flight.

[@mikeburkart8028]

Probably was a raptor 3 and will have zero effect.

[@thumby8140]

This is good reporting! I think the recent Raptor test was just a test

[@morganoverbay8783]

Some people just cant be positive about anything. Must be a miserable life.

[@robertclark1734]

Er, they do call him “The Angry Astronaut”…

[@Chris-un4ns]

That was pretty fast, there was no throttling it up, it just blew up.

[@mamulcahy]

Did you know: if you’re a pilot and you need something from the FAA, you go right to the bottom of the list. They might get back to you in 6 months to a year.

[@njengakim]

Depends if they were testing it beyond parameters then there is no issue. if not there is cause for concern.

[@kurtisengle6256]

Have you done an 'in depth' on how those rocket motors get made? Might be a good topic for a slow news day. I want to see, so how about you show us?

[@tmuny1380]

That wasn't an explosion ! That was a R.U.D. )!

[@mahbriggs]

This was a different model of Raptor than the engines currently on Starship.

[@luislongoria6621]

R.U.D. seems to be the mantra for 3d printed Inconel. Porosity is great for heat shedding and weight savings. If only there was a way to add "organic" external support structures structures in addition to the removable internal support structures on 3d printed parts

[@wskinnyodden]

UK launch wise, I would love it if they'd just complete the god damned Skylon space plane project. It's not like it was not almost ready for testing of at least atmospheric flights... Specially with the "military" situation around the planet it's amazes me they do not even consider completing such a project that could definitely have dual purposes... So yes, ANGRY!

[@wskinnyodden]

Lift Off, Lift OFTen! :P

[@venturefanatic9262]

Then maybe SpaceX should slow their launch cadence to the level of the competition. It's not like it's leverage against FAA/NASA to ease up on slowing them down. Maybe they can focus more on Starship.

[@rocroc]

What "engine" and configuration was being tested? There are so many variable here there is nothing to compare it to. SX makes no secret of engine failures and sometimes pushes to the upper limits of the rocket. Better luck next time.

[@Thedeepseanomad]

Would sure be good not bring limited to combustion for propulsion.

[@garylester3976]

Depends.... Unknown factors too many for us to guess, but if it was an R-2, its an obsolete engine design, and at best maybe learn something to assist in R-3 & R-4 developement.... On the next launch, I'd guess a 50/50 chance of making it past the thick air friction. Depends on their flight profile... how much can be sutracted before hitting the dense stuff. Basically the atmosphere gets thin fast with altitude. So more time in thin air is less friction heat. And if extended far enough you'd get a velocity reduction before getting critical heat build up. Not sure what happened last time, but it took a tumble, and then got locked backwards, and seemed to dig in pretty fast, rather than gradual drop. Best would be as much glide ratio as possible on top of a long ballistic parabola. But, its their project... And sure they have their own ideas... I dont have much faith in the tiles, they are too fragile, and come off in serious numbers. anything over one or two per flight is no go.... Hopefully this flight gets Starship back into the gulf, and able to be towed in for study. really until they can do that, learning is limited.

[@NGM.I.G.]

Today I will be mostly wearing, Nipple Clamps! 😝🤟

[@GreenPatriot2024]

Sometimes SpaceX will test their engines to failure.

[@625ozy]

Green didn't mean GO

[@zanelittlegray]

"SpaceX Raptor engine explodes!! Will the FAA delay the next flight of Starship?" Let's answer that question with a question: Did the FAA delay the Vulcan launch after a Blue Origin BE-4 engine exploded pre-launch? Fill in the blank line: Answer: ________

[@charlesvandenburgh5295]

No matter the cause, the effect would be catastrophic.

[@Crispy_Mofo_]

why would this affect the oft-4 launch? This was on a test stand and you have no f'n idea what they were testing.

[@ukar69]

Flight 4 not before the 5th. SpaceX website details what went wrong and they’ve made the necessary modifications.

[@gregedmand9939]

Absolutely no impact. The version of engines on the next Starship launch have long past certification. Could there be a flaw in a batch of engines or a mistake in assembly? Sure. That's why every engine is tested. Multiple times. Then there are power limit tests on new upgrades. Some of those will explode. Then there are tests to discover failure points, something every engine ever made has.

[@wildstar1063]

Was this the Raptor II, or the Raptor III with the much higher chamber pressures?

[@plark7323]

One of the best space news channels right here. Thank you for giving us good info.

[@Coasterlocity]

Remember that time Dragon exploded? Its fine im sure.

[@Mitsoxfan]

Cybertruck. Twitter (X). Tesla in general. SpaceX. Interviews. Meet Elon Musk, the worlds most self-proclaimed genius.

[@MrGeneralScar]

I dont think this has any bearing at all on IFT-4. Until Elon or SpaceX release an official statement (if they choose to), no-one other than SpaceX personnel could know what parameters were used. It could have been that they were pushing the limits and found one. SpaceX is forever trying to get more out of the Raptors, pushing designs and refining things.

[@Pegaroo_]

No they won't

[@danwelsh6706]

Settle down and enjoy the fireworks ka boom 💥

[@brisk_gift]

Beter on the ground than in the air, tho a major oversight at least

[@alvermillioncranky8360]

N/G had to shut the vid down. How much pollution did they put out with that SRB?

[@PedigreeMongrel]

At a guess they were running an engine flood test to destruction you can't know the limitations if you don't reach them. Not really concerned about engine failures on test stands I would be more concerned if none happened.

[@TheSouthernorycle]

Lots of UAP news coming out but haven’t seen anything from you. Have you stepped aside from the matter or did I miss the uploads?

[@BBBrasil]

Pointing out the obvious, this is not about the Raptor engine but about Raptor engines production line. SpaceX is not in the business of making perfect rockets, the main goal is to produce a thousand perfect ships and tens of thousands perfect rocket engines. This is what's been tested. This is the Model T of rocket history. Nobody has ever even dreamt about the amount of production SpaceX is aiming.

[@johnpublicprofile6261]

Raptor explosion may have NO RELEVANCE... As in no relevance to the safety or reliability of upcoming launch: - it may have been a test to destruction test - it may have been a newer version of Raptor 2 design - it may have been a fuel input pressure test Or some other test of the engine not relevant to current configuration.