Because the blow up is a distraction. Dropping rocket engines that were just running into cold water is bad... That outcome was expected but those that don't understand will only focus on it. Don't forget, the reason they are sharing the videos with us is marketing. They also stopped the booster several hundred feet up - it needed a bigger drop to get a proper 'boom'. Last time it didn't break up enough, which created a headache. The 'boom' was quite spectacular this time! Recovering large chunks is a pain
Watching this video and comments about intentional creating possible points of failure, I was thinking if any other rocket program flys/flew hardware with the intention inducing possible failure in order to gather data for hardware two generation in the future. Seems like all others were testing the final design from the beginning optimizing for no failure. If true, I think it takes a leader with Elon type crazy to give permission to run a program with this attitude. (If that makes sense)
Why not leave that part in and explain it? Makes no reason when they will show everything, but the actual end and explain it was planned. Especially when these rockets have been blowing up so often.
It seems to me that SpaceX might benefit by taking a page out of their Falcon 9 program and build a disposable upper stage for the Starship. That way, they could start revenue flights quickly and build up their fleet of boosters, while simultaneously developing the upper stage. The booster would be proven and SpaceX would have the monster rocket that nobody could call anything but a complete success. 100+ tons to orbit isn't something to sneer at. Strip out all the reentry hardware and maybe they could squeeze another 25 tons out of it.
Probably because he is getting enough revenue from Falcon 9 launches and Star Link...Elon likely doesn't want any diversion of resources from V3>V4 development and has a fixation on Mars launch windows.
The main reason is because it costs so much to throw all those heavy components away. If it makes economic sense to throw the upper stage away (higher mass fraction and much heavier payload and testing), then they will do it. But when you can reuse components dozens of times, it makes much more sense to launch two times and get all your hardware back than to throw that expensive component away for a single heavier payload. Then all you are paying for is propellant and refurbishment. Guess it shows that I worked on RLVs, especially TSTO RLVs, for nearly 30 years, and this is the closest we have come to realizing that dream. And we could not afford anywhere near the scale Musk is attempting. STS was nowhere near a TSTO RLV, too many expensive parts dumped into the ocean. NASA wanted to do a TSTO RLV instead of STS, but could never afford to do it.
SpaceX’s lesson from last Starship flight? “We need to seal the tiles.” https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/09/spacexs-lesson-from-last-starship-flight-we-need-to-seal-the-tiles/ ***** Interesting flight sumary.
