Elon Musk Revealed Root Cause 'COPV Failure' on Booster 18 V3 After Inspection! Weird Explosion [10:29]

YouTube ^ | November 22, 2025 | SpaceX Community

[SunkenCiv]

[snip] On November 21st, Superheavy booster 18, the first next generation block 3 Superheavy, suffered a catastrophic structural rupture during ground testing at the Massiey's outpost. Intended to fly alongside ship 39 for Starship flight 12, the vehicle experienced an energetic failure in the opening phase of its proof campaign. The event immediately ended booster 18's qualification path and pushed flight 12 several months beyond SpaceX's original target. [/snip] 

Elon Musk Revealed Root Cause 'COPV Failure' on Booster 18 V3 
After Inspection! Weird Explosion | 10:29 
SpaceX Community | 69.2K subscribers | 5,114 views | November 22, 2025

---

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Science; Travel
KEYWORDS: rud; spacex; starship; superheavybooster

[SunkenCiv]

[snip] To understand what happened, we need to go frame by frame and examine what the event reveals and what it rules out. The fully stacked booster 18 carrying a long list of block 3 upgrades rolled out to Massie's early Thursday to begin its pre-launch test program.

The plan was to verify the redesigned propellant systems and evaluate structural strength under pressurization loads. After arriving at the stand, the vehicle was instrumented, connected, and prepared for cryogenic tests.

Early Friday morning, venting activity began around the tank farm. At this stage of the campaign, the booster was undergoing an ambient pressure test prior to any cryogenic loading. Ambient pressure testing is a standard qualification step in which the tanks and associated plumbing are pressurized at normal temperatures using inert gases, typically gaseous nitrogen.

The purpose is to verify structural integrity, confirm leak tightness, validate plumbing routes, and ensure that venting systems function correctly before subjecting the vehicle to the far more demanding conditions of cryogenic proof. Minutes after the test began, the anomaly occurred.

A violent rupture tore open the lower liquid oxygen tank, peeling a large longitudinal section outward like a tin can and releasing gas from the lower region. The booster remained standing and the methane tank above continued to be fully supported. Slow motion analysis indicates a sudden internal over pressure or a rapid pressure differential that exceeded the structural margin of the oxygen tank wall.

SpaceX later issued a brief statement acknowledging the anomaly, confirming that the booster failed during a gas system pressure test conducted before structural proof testing. They emphasized that no propellants were loaded, no engines were installed, and all personnel were kept at a safe distance, preventing injuries.

The company noted that teams now need time to investigate the failure before determining the root cause. Although the root cause remains uncertain, multiple plausible explanations exist with a few emerging as stronger possibilities.

Because this was the first block 3 Superheavy, booster 18 introduced significant upgrades. These include a new integrated hot stage ring, a reinforced forward dome designed for more violent stage separation dynamics, larger grid fins, new aft section plumbing, and a redesigned methane downcomer.

As soon as the rupture became visible, attention naturally shifted to the transfer tube, which passes through the affected region.

Elon Musk previously confirmed that this tube is not simply a feed line, but a header tank integrated system that stores propellant for return to launch site maneuvers. He also described it as being under extreme loads and stated that a single leak would be game over. However, the transfer tube is not responsible for this failure. [/snip]

[SunkenCiv]

My channel started as a way to keep people up to date on the world of SpaceX's Starlink, the satellite internet service. The channel has grown to include the broader Elon Musk universe. 

SpaceX's New V3 Booster Heavily Damaged During Prelaunch Testing | 9:57 
Ellie in Space | 213K subscribers | 11,626 views | November 22, 2025

[PAR35]

energetic failure

Creative phrase there.

[SunkenCiv]

Successful failure, now *that* was a creative phrase.

[House Atreides]

It actually WAS successful … at identifying problem area(s) that needed to be addressed. That’s what testing is for. IMHO, of course.

[markman46]

that is pretty much what i was hearing yesterday afternoon.

[Paul R.]

It was “EF’d”.

(One can have a lot of fun with acronyms.)

[know.your.why]

Is this Elon Musk or what?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uFnoKD-4cpM

[Redleg Duke]

Yes, it was a successful test for the reasons you gave. However, our pathetic society has been programmed to expect a project to be bi-state…either totally successful or totally failure.

I am glad that SpaceX understands the concept of testing and learning.

[SunkenCiv]

I wholeheartedly agree. The main reason the Falcon 9 launches and landings have become so routine (and a little boring) is that without early failures there will be no later success.

Becoming routine and boring is a good sign that they're doing their job right.

And actually, the main reason is, SpaceX is privately capitalized, instead of the way the welfare rocket industry operates.

[SunkenCiv]

What.

[PIF]

With that failure, SpaceX’s time line to become the lunar lander, has reached a point where it was nearly impossible now is impossible to achieve all the major milestones needed to become man-rated in time to launch to the Moon by 2029.

NASA will now be forced to look elsewhere for a lander. Possibilities are the Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Pathfinder, or another look at Alpaca, or will Lockheed bring their Mars-Precursor Lunar Lander out into the open?

[SunkenCiv]

Blah, blah, blah.

[PIF]

Blah, blah, blah.

—
Very cogent reply.