Imagine flying high above the Caribbean, only to learn that flaming debris from an exploding SpaceX rocket is raining down nearby. That's the chilling reality commercial pilots and passengers have faced, raising serious questions about the safety of our skies.
This story, originally published by ProPublica under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license, dives deep into the potential dangers posed by SpaceX's ambitious Starship program. You can find even more captivating visuals in their original piece.
When Elon Musk decided to set up shop in a remote corner of Texas on the Gulf Coast to build his massive Starship rocket, he unknowingly put his company on a collision course – quite literally – with the commercial airline industry.
Here's the setup: Every time SpaceX tests its colossal Starship and Super Heavy booster, the rocket's path sends it soaring over the incredibly busy airspace above the Caribbean Sea. This is before it reaches the relative safety of the open Atlantic Ocean. SpaceX initially planned up to five of these launches each year, all in the pursuit of perfecting the craft – a version of which is ultimately intended to land on the moon.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which is tasked with overseeing these commercial space launches, initially predicted that the impact on national airspace would be “minor or minimal,” essentially comparing it to a passing weather event, according to their 2022 approval. The FAA assured everyone that no airports would need to close, and no planes would be denied access for “an extended period of time.”
But here's where it gets controversial... The reality has been anything but “minor.” Last year alone, three out of the five Starship launches ended in spectacular explosions, and not where they were supposed to. Twice, this fiery wreckage rained down over heavily trafficked commercial air routes, causing significant disruptions. While, thankfully, no aircraft were struck by falling rocket parts, pilots were forced to take evasive maneuvers to ensure the safety of their passengers.
A thorough investigation by ProPublica, drawing on agency documents, interviews with pilots and passengers, air traffic control recordings, and visual evidence, revealed a concerning truth: By allowing SpaceX to test its experimental rocket over heavily used airspace, the FAA knowingly accepted the risk that the rocket could endanger unsuspecting airplane passengers.
And this is the part most people miss... Once the rocket failures occurred and that risk became a tangible threat, neither the FAA nor the Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy, moved to revoke or suspend Starship's launch license. They have the power and the obligation to do so when it’s “necessary to protect the public health and safety.” Instead, the FAA gave SpaceX the green light to launch even more prototypes over the same airspace, adding enormous strain to an already-overwhelmed air traffic control system with each launch.
The first two Starship explosions forced the FAA to make urgent, real-time decisions about where and for how long to close airspace. These emergency closures often came with little to no advance notice, according to ProPublica's investigation. As a result, pilots were forced to make sudden, dramatic changes to their flight plans, diverting their courses in congested airspace to avoid the potential path of falling debris. Imagine the stress! In one particularly alarming instance, a plane carrying 283 passengers found itself critically low on fuel, prompting the pilot to declare an emergency and fly through a designated debris zone just to reach an airport.
The world’s largest pilots union didn't mince words. In an October communication to the FAA, they questioned whether there was “a suitable process” in place to handle unexpected rocket mishaps.
Steve Jangelis, a pilot and aviation safety chair, wrote: “There is high potential for debris striking an aircraft resulting in devastating loss of the aircraft, flight crew, and passengers.”
The FAA responded to these concerns by stating that it “limits the number of aircraft exposed to the hazards, making the likelihood of a catastrophic event extremely improbable.”
However, the public and the press have found it difficult to accurately assess the true level of danger. Even almost a year after the initial explosion in January, the exact proximity of Starship's wreckage to commercial airplanes remains unclear. SpaceX estimated the debris fields after each incident and shared this information with the federal government. However, the company has not responded to ProPublica's requests for this data, and the federal agencies that possess it, including the FAA, have not made it publicly available. The FAA even stated that they were unaware of any other publicly accessible data on Starship debris.
Elon Musk, in his public statements, has downplayed the risks associated with Starship. To caption a video showing flaming rocket debris in January, he quipped, “Entertainment is guaranteed!” After the March explosion, he posted, “Rockets are hard.” The company, in more measured tones, has stated that it learns from its mistakes, which “help us improve Starship’s reliability.”
For airplanes traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, there is virtually no room for error. Research indicates that a piece of debris as small as 300 grams – roughly two-thirds of a pound – “could catastrophically destroy an aircraft,” according to Aaron Boley, a professor at the University of British Columbia who studies the dangers that space objects pose to airplanes. Photographs of Starship debris that washed up on beaches show pieces far larger than that, including large, intact tanks.
“It doesn’t actually take that much material to cause a major problem to an aircraft,” Boley emphasized.
In response to growing concerns about the repeated rocket failures, the FAA has expanded pre-launch airspace closures and is now providing pilots with more advance warning of potential danger zones. The agency also stated that it required SpaceX to conduct investigations into the incidents and to “implement numerous corrective actions to enhance public safety.” However, when ProPublica asked the FAA for specifics on these corrective actions, an FAA spokesperson directed them to SpaceX, which did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Experts suggest that the FAA's evolving approach reveals a troubling truth about air safety in an era where private companies are increasingly using the skies as their testing grounds: regulators are essentially learning as they go.
During the Starship launches last year, the FAA faced a difficult balancing act: fulfilling its dual mandate to both regulate and promote the commercial space industry while simultaneously ensuring the safety of the flying public. Jangelis, in his October letter, called this arrangement “a direct conflict of interest.”
Kelvin Coleman, who headed the FAA's commercial space office during the launches, explained that his office determined that the risk from the mishaps “was within the acceptable limits of our regulations.”
However, he added, “as more launches are starting to take place, I think we have to take a real hard look at the tools that we have in place and how do we better integrate space launch into the airspace.”
“We Need to Protect the Airspace”
Let's rewind to January 16, 2025. SpaceX is gearing up to launch Starship 7 from Boca Chica, Texas, and the government is forced to confront the possibility of a catastrophic mid-air breakup.
Using debris modeling and simulations, the U.S. Space Force – the branch of the military focused on national space interests – assisted the FAA in defining the boundaries of theoretical “debris response areas,” or no-fly zones, that would be activated in case of an explosion.
With these plans in place, Starship Flight 7 lifted off. About seven minutes later, it achieved a notable milestone: its reusable booster rocket successfully separated, flipped, and returned to Earth, where giant mechanical arms caught it as SpaceX employees cheered.
But roughly 90 seconds later, as Starship's upper stage continued its ascent, SpaceX lost contact with it. The spacecraft caught fire and exploded high above the Earth's surface.
Air traffic control communications crackled to life as surprised pilots who witnessed the accident began sharing their observations, some even capturing photos and videos of the flaming streaks across the sky.
Another controller issued a warning to a different pilot about debris in the area:
According to Coleman, two FAA safety inspectors were on-site at SpaceX's mission control in Boca Chica to observe the launch, while he monitored the situation remotely from Washington, D.C.
As wreckage rapidly descended toward airplane flight paths over the Caribbean, the FAA activated a no-fly zone based on the vehicle's last known position and pre-launch calculations. Air traffic controllers warned pilots to avoid the area, which spanned hundreds of miles across a section of the ocean from the Bahamas to just east of St. Martin, encompassing parts of populated islands, including the entire Turks and Caicos archipelago. While the U.S. controls some airspace in the region, it relies on the cooperation of other countries when recommending closures.
The FAA also established a triangular zone south of Key West.
When a pilot inquired about when planes would be able to resume travel through the area, a controller responded:
At least 11 aircraft were within the closed airspace when Starship exploded, and flight tracking data indicates they quickly moved out of the way, clearing the area within 15 minutes. However, these maneuvers are not without risk. As Boley pointed out, “If many aircraft need to suddenly change their routing plans, then it could cause additional stress” on an already strained air traffic control system, “which can lead to errors.”
The disruption didn't end there. The FAA kept the debris response area (DRA) active for another 71 minutes, causing some flights to enter holding patterns over the Caribbean. Several began to run low on fuel, and some alerted air traffic controllers that they needed to land.
“We haven’t got enough fuel to wait,” radioed the pilot of an Iberia airlines flight en route from Madrid with 283 passengers on board.
The controller warned him that proceeding through the closed airspace would be at his own risk:
The plane ultimately landed safely in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
While Iberia did not respond to requests for comment, other airlines downplayed the impact of the launch in statements to ProPublica. Delta, for instance, stated that the incident “had minimal impact to our operation and no aircraft damage.” A spokesperson added that the company's “safety management system and our safety culture help us address potential issues to reinforce that air transportation remains the safest form of travel in the world.”
Following the incident, some pilots voiced their concerns to the FAA, which was also considering a request from SpaceX to increase the number of annual Starship launches from five to 25.
“Last night’s Space X rocket explosion, which caused the diversion of several flights operating over the Gulf of Mexico, was pretty eye opening and scary,” wrote Steve Kriese in comments to the FAA, identifying himself as a captain for a major airline who frequently flew over the Gulf. “I do not support the increase of rocket launches by Space X, until a thorough review can be conducted on the disaster that occurred last night, and safety measures can be put in place that keeps the flying public safe.”
Kriese could not be reached for comment.
The Air Line Pilots Association urged the FAA to suspend Starship testing until the root cause of the failure could be investigated and corrected. A letter from the group, representing more than 80,000 pilots flying for 43 airlines, stated that flight crews traveling in the Caribbean were unaware of the potential risks from rocket debris until after the explosion.
“By that time, it’s much too late for crews who are flying in the vicinity of the rocket operation, to be able to make a decision for the safe outcome of the flight,” wrote Jangelis, the pilot and aviation safety chair for the group. The explosion, he said, “raises additional concerns about whether the FAA is providing adequate separation of space operations from airline flights.”
In response, the FAA stated that it would “review existing processes and determine whether additional measures can be taken to improve situational awareness for flight crews prior to launch.”
According to FAA documents, the explosion scattered Starship fragments across an area nearly the size of New Jersey. Debris landed on beaches and roadways in Turks and Caicos. It also damaged a car. Fortunately, no one was injured.
Three months later, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which was assessing potential impacts on marine life, sent the FAA a report with a map illustrating where debris from a future Starship explosion could potentially fall. The estimate, which incorporated SpaceX's own data from the Starship 7 incident, depicted an area more than three times the size of the airspace closed by the FAA.
In a statement, an FAA spokesperson clarified that NOAA’s map was “intended to cover multiple potential operations,” while the FAA’s safety analysis is for a “single actual launch.” A NOAA spokesperson added that the map reflects “the general area where mishaps could occur” and is not directly comparable with the FAA’s no-fly zones.
Nevertheless, Moriba Jah, a professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Texas, suggested that the illustration indicated that the no-fly zones activated by the FAA might not fully encompass the extent of debris spread after a rocket breakup. He cautioned that current predictive science “carries significant uncertainty.”
At an industry conference a few weeks after the January explosion, Shana Diez, a SpaceX executive, acknowledged the FAA’s challenges in overseeing commercial launches.
“The biggest thing that we really would like to work with them on in the future is improving their real time awareness of where the launch vehicles are and where the launch vehicles’ debris could end up,” she said.
“We’re Too Close to the Debris”
On February 26 of last year, with the investigation into Starship Flight 7 still active, the FAA cleared Flight 8 to proceed, stating that it “determined SpaceX met all safety, environmental and other licensing requirements.”
This action was permitted under a practice that began during the first Trump administration, known as “expedited return-to-flight.” This allowed commercial space companies to launch again even before the investigation into a prior problematic flight was concluded, as long as safety systems were functioning properly.
Coleman, who took a voluntary separation offer last year, stated that before granting approval, the FAA confirmed that “safety critical systems,” such as the rocket’s ability to self-destruct if it went off course, worked as designed during Flight 7.
By March 6, SpaceX was ready for another launch. This time, the FAA gave pilots a heads-up an hour and 40 minutes before liftoff.
“In the event of a debris-generating space launch vehicle mishap, there is the potential for debris falling within an area,” the advisory stated, again listing coordinates for two zones in the Gulf and Caribbean.
The FAA explained that a pre-launch safety analysis, which incorporates planning for potential debris, “incorporates lessons learned from previous flights.” The zone described in the agency’s advisory for the Caribbean was wider and longer than the previous one, while the area over the Gulf was significantly expanded.
Flight 8 launched at 6:30 p.m. EST, and its booster returned to the launchpad as planned. However, a little over eight minutes into the flight, some of Starship’s engines cut out. The spacecraft began to spin, and about 90 seconds later, SpaceX lost contact with it, and it exploded.
The FAA activated the no-fly zones less than two minutes later, using the same coordinates it had released pre-launch.
Despite the advance warning, data shows that at least five planes were within the debris zones at the time of the explosion, and they all cleared the airspace within minutes.
A pilot on one of those planes, Frontier Flight 081, informed passengers that they could see the rocket explosion out the right-side windows. Dane Siler and Mariah Davenport, who were returning home to the Midwest after a vacation in the Dominican Republic, raised the window shade and witnessed debris streaking across the sky, with one spot brighter than the rest.
“It literally looked like the sun coming out,” Siler told ProPublica. “It was super bright.”
They and other passengers captured videos, marveling at what appeared to be fireworks. The Starship fragments seemed to be higher than the plane, many miles away. But shortly after, the pilot announced, “I’m sorry to report that we have to turn around because we’re too close to the debris,” Siler recalled.
Frontier did not respond to requests for comment.
The FAA lifted the restriction on planes flying through the debris zone about 30 minutes after Starship exploded, significantly sooner than it had in January. The agency stated that the Space Force had “notified the FAA that all debris was down approximately 30 minutes after the Starship Flight 8 anomaly.”
However, in response to ProPublica’s questions, the Space Force acknowledged that it did not track the debris in real time. Instead, it relied on “computational modeling,” along with other scientific measures, to “predict and mitigate risks effectively.” The FAA maintained that “the aircraft were not at risk” during the aftermath of Flight 8.
Experts told ProPublica that the science underlying such modeling is far from settled, and the government’s ability to anticipate how debris will behave after an explosion like Starship’s is limited. “You’re not going to find anybody who’s going to be able to answer that question with any precision,” said John Crassidis, an aerospace engineering professor at the University of Buffalo. “At best, you have an educated guess. At worst, it’s just a potshot.”
Where pieces fall – and how long they take to land – depends on numerous factors, including atmospheric winds and the size, shape, and type of material involved, experts explained.
During the breakup of Flight 7, the FAA kept airspace closed for approximately 86 minutes. However, Diez, the SpaceX executive, mentioned at the industry conference that it had actually taken “hours” for all the debris to reach the ground. The FAA, SpaceX, and Diez did not respond to follow-up questions regarding her remarks.
The accuracy of the FAA’s debris projections for the March explosion remains unclear. The agency acknowledged that debris fell in the Bahamas, but it did not provide ProPublica with the exact location, making it impossible to determine whether the wreckage landed where the FAA expected. While some of the country’s islands were within the boundaries of the designated debris zone, most were not. Calls and emails to Bahamas officials were not returned.
The FAA stated that no injuries or serious property damage occurred.
FAA Greenlights More Launches
By May, following months of Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency slashing spending and firing workers at federal agencies across Washington, the FAA granted SpaceX’s request to dramatically increase the number of Starship launches from Texas.
The FAA found that Starship is crucial to “delivering greater access to space and enabling cost-effective delivery of cargo and people to the Moon and Mars.” The agency pledged to ensure that all parties involved “are taking steps to ensure the safe, efficient, and equitable use” of national airspace.
The U.S. is engaged in a race to beat China to the lunar surface – a priority established by the Trump administration and continued under President Joe Biden. Supporters argue that the moon can be mined for resources like water and rare earth metals and can serve as a testing ground for new technologies. It could also serve as a stepping stone for more distant destinations, enabling Musk to achieve his long-held ambition of bringing humans to Mars.
Trump pledged last January that the U.S. will “pursue our Manifest Destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars.”
However, Jangelis argued that the FAA should be “as conservative as possible” when managing the airspace below experimental launches like Starship’s.
“We expect the FAA to make sure our aircraft and our passengers stay safe,” he said. “There has to be a balance between the for-profit space business and the for-profit airlines and commerce.”
A More Conservative Approach
In mid-May, officials from the United Kingdom sent a letter to their U.S. counterparts, requesting that SpaceX and the FAA alter Starship’s flight path or take other precautions due to concerns about the safety of their Caribbean territories.
The following day, the FAA announced in a news release that it had approved the next Starship launch, pending either the agency’s closure of the investigation into Flight 8 or the granting of a “return to flight” determination.
A week later, with the investigation into Flight 8 still ongoing, the agency stated that SpaceX had “satisfactorily addressed” the causes of the mishap. The FAA did not provide details on the causes at the time but stated that it would verify that the company implemented all necessary “corrective actions.”
This time, the FAA adopted a more aggressive approach to air safety.
The agency preventively closed an extensive swath of airspace extending 1,600 nautical miles from the launch site, spanning across the Gulf of Mexico and through part of the Caribbean. The FAA estimated that 175 flights or more could be affected and advised Providenciales International Airport in Turks and Caicos to close during the launch.
The agency stated that the move was driven in part by an “updated flight safety analysis” and SpaceX’s decision to reuse a previously launched Super Heavy booster – something the company had never attempted before. The agency also mentioned that it was “in close contact and collaboration with the United Kingdom, Turks & Caicos Islands, Bahamas, Mexico, and Cuba.”
Coleman told ProPublica that the concerns of the Caribbean countries, along with Starship’s prior failures, helped convince the FAA to close more airspace ahead of Flight 9.
On May 27, the spacecraft lifted off, an hour later than in March and two hours later than in January. The FAA said it required the launch window to be scheduled during “non-peak transit periods.”
This mission, too, ended in failure.
Starship’s Super Heavy booster exploded over the Gulf of Mexico, where it was supposed to have made what’s called a “hard splashdown.”
In response, the FAA once again activated an emergency no-fly zone. Most aircraft had already been rerouted around the closed airspace, but the agency said it diverted one plane and placed another in a holding pattern for 24 minutes. The FAA did not provide additional details on the flights.
According to the agency, no debris fell outside the hazard area where the FAA had closed airspace. Pieces from the booster eventually washed up on Mexico’s beaches.
Starship’s upper stage reached the highest planned point in its flight path, but it went into a spin on the way down, exploding over the Indian Ocean.
The Path Ahead
SpaceX launched Starship again in August and October. Unlike the prior flights, both proceeded without incident, and the company stated that it was shifting its focus to the next generation of Starship to provide “service to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, and beyond.”
However, about a week later, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced that he would open up SpaceX’s multibillion-dollar contract for a crewed lunar lander to rival companies. He acknowledged that SpaceX is “an amazing company,” but added, “The problem is, they’re behind.”
Musk responded, stating on X that “SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry.” He insulted Duffy, calling him “Sean Dummy” and adding, “The person responsible for America’s space program can’t have a 2 digit IQ.”
The Department of Transportation did not respond to a request for comment or make Duffy available.
In a web post on October 30, SpaceX stated that it was proposing “a simplified mission architecture and concept of operations” that would “result in a faster return to the Moon while simultaneously improving crew safety.”
SpaceX is now seeking FAA approval to add new trajectories as Starship strives to reach orbit. Under the plan, the rocket would fly over land in Florida and Mexico, as well as the airspace of Cuba, Jamaica, and the Cayman Islands, likely disrupting hundreds of flights.
In its letter, the pilots’ union told the FAA that testing Starship “over a densely populated area should not be allowed (given the dubious failure record)” until the craft becomes more reliable. The planned air closures could prove “crippling” for the Central Florida aviation network, it added.
Still, SpaceX is undeterred.
Diez, the company executive, stated on X in October, “We are putting in the work to make 2026 an epic year for Starship.”
The big question is: How much risk is too much when pursuing ambitious space exploration goals? Is the current balance between commercial space endeavors and the safety of air travel acceptable? What changes, if any, should be made to the regulatory framework to better protect the flying public? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
