SpaceX’s ambitious push toward a fully reusable Starship system hit a snag early Friday when its first Version 3 Super Heavy booster, known as Booster 18, suffered a significant anomaly during prelaunch testing at the company’s Starbase facility in South Texas. The incident, captured by live streamers monitoring the site, occurred during gas system pressure testing ahead of structural proof tests, forcing SpaceX to pause operations and investigate.

According to a statement from SpaceX posted on X, ‘Booster 18 suffered an anomaly during gas system pressure testing that we were conducting in advance of structural proof testing. No propellant was on the vehicle, and engines were not yet installed. The teams need time to investigate before we are confident of the cause. No one was hurt or nearby.’ The company emphasized safety, noting the test was conducted without hazardous materials onboard.

Testing the Limits of Version 3 Design

The Version 3 Starship represents a major evolution in SpaceX’s architecture, with the Super Heavy booster redesigned for enhanced propellant systems and structural integrity to support higher flight cadences and eventual Mars missions. Just a day prior, on November 20, SpaceX had announced on X that ‘Booster 18, the first Super Heavy V3, is beginning prelaunch testing. The first operations will test the booster’s redesigned propellant systems and its structural strength.’

TechCrunch reported that ‘It may not have been a massive fireball, but SpaceX now has more work to do before it can kick off this next-generation version of Starship’ ([TechCrunch](https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/21/spacexs-upgraded-starship-suffers-explosion-during-testing/)). Space.com detailed how the booster ‘buckles under pressure during initial tests,’ highlighting the visible deformation captured in videos from the Massey test site ([Space.com](https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/spacexs-1st-version-3-super-heavy-starship-booster-buckles-under-pressure-during-initial-tests)).

Ars Technica noted that ‘SpaceX had big plans for the upgraded Starship vehicle that failed on Friday morning,’ underscoring the booster’s role in upcoming flight tests aimed at rapid iteration ([Ars Technica](https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/11/newest-starship-booster-is-significantly-damaged-during-testing-early-friday/)). This event echoes prior anomalies, such as the June 2025 explosion of Ship 36 during static fire testing, but occurs at a critical juncture as SpaceX eyes regulatory approvals for more frequent launches.

Unpacking the Anomaly Dynamics

The pressure test was part of a sequence to validate the booster’s gas systems, which handle cryogenic propellants like liquid methane and oxygen under extreme conditions. No Raptor engines were installed, isolating the issue to structural or pressurization components. SpaceX’s post on X confirmed the absence of propellant, reducing risks but not the investigative burden.

Industry observers on X pointed to potential weaknesses in the redesigned tankage or composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs), drawing parallels to past failures. For instance, Elon Musk previously tweeted about a COPV failure in June 2025: ‘Preliminary data suggests that a nitrogen COPV in the payload bay failed below its proof pressure.’

Implications for Flight Cadence

This setback delays the debut of Starship V3, which boasts increased thrust and payload capacity essential for NASA’s Artemis program and SpaceX’s Starlink constellation expansion. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires thorough mishap investigations before clearing return-to-flight, a process that grounded Starship for months after earlier explosions.

SpaceX’s track record shows resilience; after the January 2025 Flight 7 anomaly, Musk stated on X: ‘Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall.’ Subsequent fixes enabled progress, with Flight 9 in May reaching engine cutoff successfully: ‘Starship made it to the scheduled ship engine cutoff, so big improvement over last flight!’

Broader Industry Ripples

For competitors like Blue Origin and Rocket Lab, the incident offers a momentary reprieve, though SpaceX’s iterative approach—’fail fast, learn faster’—has consistently outpaced rivals. KeepTrack’s X Report from November 14 noted SpaceX’s testing momentum even as Rocket Lab delays Neutron ([KeepTrack](https://keeptrack.space/x-report/spacex-brief-2025-11-14)).

Financially, each Starship loss costs tens of millions, per France 24 analysis of prior incidents, yet SpaceX’s $350 billion valuation reflects investor faith in Elon Musk’s vision. The company continues Falcon 9 operations unabated, with its 500th booster reflight on November 17 ([SpaceX on X](https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1990341918447001611)).

Path Forward Amid Adversity

SpaceX teams are now sifting through telemetry and wreckage to pinpoint the failure mode, likely involving overpressurization in the gas manifolds or tank bulkheads. Updates from Starbase livestreamers indicate the booster sustained visible buckling, necessitating repairs or rebuild.

Despite the blast, SpaceX reaffirmed commitment on X, mirroring past recoveries. As the company stated after earlier tests, rapid diagnosis and redesign keep the Mars timeline in sight, even if stretched.