With yet another failed Starship test this week, in which the ambitious heavy rocket exploded once again, you might reasonably suspect that luck has finally run out for SpaceX.

But this degree of failure during a development process isn’t actually unusual, according to Wendy Whitman Cobb, a space policy expert with the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, especially when you’re testing new space technology as complex as a large rocket. However, the Starship tests are meaningfully different from the slow, steady pace of development that we’ve come to expect from the space sector.

“The reason a lot of people perceive this to be unusual is that this is not the typical way that we have historically tested rockets,” Whitman Cobb says.

Historically speaking, space agencies like NASA or legacy aerospace companies like United Launch Alliance (ULA) have taken their time with rocket development and have not tested until they were confident in a successful outcome. That’s still the case today with major NASA projects like the development of the Space Launch System (SLS), which has now dragged on for over a decade. “They will take as long as they need to to make sure that the rocket is going to work and that a launch is going to be successful,” Whitman Cobb says.

SpaceX has chosen a different path, in which it tests, fails, and iterates frequently. That process has been at the heart of its success, allowing the company to make developments like the reusable Falcon 9 rocket at a rapid pace. However, it also means frequent and very public failures, which have generated complaints about environmental damage in the local area around the launch site and have caused the company to butt heads with regulatory agencies. There are also significant concerns about the political ties of CEO Elon Musk to the Trump administration and his undemocratic influence over federal regulation of SpaceX’s work.

Even within the context of SpaceX’s move-fast-and-break-things approach, though, the development of the Starship has appeared chaotic. Compared to the development of the Falcon 9 rocket, which had plenty of failures but a generally clear forward path from failing often to failing less and less as time went on, Starship has a much more spotty record.

Previous development was more incremental, first demonstrating that the rocket was sound before moving onto more complex issues like reusability of the booster or first stage. The company didn’t even attempt to save the booster of a Falcon 9 and reuse it until several years into testing.

Starship isn’t like that. “They are trying to do everything at once with Starship,” Whitman Cobb says, as the company is trying to debut an entirely new rocket with new engines and make it reusable all at once. “It really is a very difficult engineering challenge.”

The Raptor engines that power the Starship are a particularly tough engineering nut to crack, as there are a lot of them — 33 per Starship, all clustered together — and they need to be able to perform the tricky feat of reigniting in space. The relighting of engines has been successful on some of the previous Starship test flights, but it has also been a point of failure.

Why, then, is SpaceX pushing for so much, so fast? It’s because Musk is laser-focused on getting to Mars. And while it would theoretically be possible to send a mission to Mars using existing rockets like the Falcon 9, the sheer volume of equipment, supplies, and people needed for a Mars mission has a very large mass. To make Mars missions even remotely affordable, you need to be able to move a lot of mass in one launch — hence the need for a much larger rocket like the Starship or NASA’s SLS.

NASA has previously been hedging its bets by developing its own heavy launch rocket as well as supporting the development of Starship. But with recent funding cuts, it’s looking more and more likely that the SLS will get axed — leaving SpaceX as the only player in town to facilitate NASA’s Mars plans.

But there’s still an awful lot of work to do to get Starship to a place where serious plans for crewed missions can even be made.

Will a Starship test to Mars happen by 2026, with a crewed test to follow as soon as 2028, as Musk said this week he’s aiming for? “I think it’s completely delusional,” Whitman Cobb says, pointing out that SpaceX has not appeared to be seriously considering issues like adding life support to the Starship or making concrete plans for Mars habitats, launch and landing pads, or infrastructure.

“I don’t see SpaceX as putting its money where its mouth is,” Whitman Cobb says. “If they do make the launch window next year, it’s going to be uncrewed. There’s no way that they’re putting people on that right now. And I seriously doubt whether they will make it.”

That doesn’t mean Starship will never make it to Mars, of course. “I believe SpaceX will engineer their way out of it. I believe their engineering is good enough that they will make Starship work,” Whitman Cobb says. But getting an uncrewed rocket to Mars within the next decade is a lot more realistic than next year.

Putting people on the rocket, though, is another matter entirely. “If they’re looking to build a large-scale human settlement? That’s decades,” Whitman Cobb says. “I don’t know that I will live to see that.”

Thanks to the legal discovery process, Google’s antitrust trial with the Department of Justice has provided a fascinating glimpse into the future of ChatGPT.

An internal OpenAI strategy document titled “ChatGPT: H1 2025 Strategy” describes the company’s aspiration to build an “AI super assistant that deeply understands you and is your interface to the internet.” Although the document is heavily redacted in parts, it reveals that OpenAI aims for ChatGPT to soon develop into much more than a chatbot.

“In the first half of next year, we’ll start evolving ChatGPT into a super-assistant: one that knows you, understands what you care about, and helps with any task that a smart, trustworthy, emotionally intelligent person with a computer could do,” reads the document from late 2024. “The timing is right. Models like 02 and 03 are finally smart enough to reliably perform agentic tasks, tools like computer use can boost ChatGPT’s ability to take action, and interaction paradigms like multimodality and generative UI allow both ChatGPT and users to express themselves in the best way for the task.”

The document goes on to describe a “super assistant” as “an intelligent entity with T-shaped skills” for both widely applicable and niche tasks. “The broad part is all about making life easier: answering a question, finding a home, contacting a lawyer, joining a gym, planning vacations, buying gifts, managing calendars, keeping track of todos, sending emails.” It mentions coding as an early example of a more niche task.

Even when reading around the redactions, it’s clear that OpenAI sees hardware as essential to its future, and that it wants people to think of ChatGPT as not just a tool, but a companion. This tracks with Sam Altman recently saying that young people are using ChatGPT like a “ life advisor.”

“Today, ChatGPT is in our lives through existing form factors — our website, phone, and desktop apps,” another part of the strategy document reads. “But our vision for ChatGPT is to help you with all of your life, no matter where you are. At home, it should help answer questions, play music, and suggest recipes. On the go, it should help you get to places, find the best restaurants, or catch up with friends. At work, it should help you take meeting notes, or prepare for the big presentation. And on solo walks, it should help you reflect and wind down.”

At the same time, OpenAI finds itself in a wobbly position. Its infrastructure isn’t able to handle ChatGPT’s rising usage, which explains Altman’s focus on building data centers. In a section of the document describing AI chatbot competition, the company writes that “we are leading here, but we can’t rest,” and that “growth and revenue won’t line up forever.”

It acknowledges that there are “powerful incumbents who will leverage their distribution to advantage their own products,” and states that OpenAI will advocate for regulation that requires other platforms to allow people to set ChatGPT as the default assistant. (Coincidentally, Apple is rumored to soon let iOS users also select Google’s Gemini for Siri queries. Meta AI just hit one billion users as well, thanks mostly to its many hooks in Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook.)

“We have what we need to win: one of the fastest-growing products of all time, a category-defining brand, a research lead (reasoning, multimodal), a compute lead, a world-class research team, and an increasing number of effective people with agency who are motivated to ship,” the OpenAI document states. “We don’t rely on ads, giving us flexibility on what to build. Our culture values speed, bold moves, and self-disruption. Maintaining these advantages is hard work but, if we do, they will last for a while.”

“The way we do ranking is sacrosanct to us.” – Google CEO Sundar Pichai on Decoder, explaining why the company’s search results won’t be changed for President Trump or anyone else.

“Compared to previous technology changes, I’m a little bit more worried about the labor impact… Yes, people will adapt, but they may not adapt fast enough.” – Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei on CNN raising the alarm about the technology he is developing.

“Meta is a very different company than it was nine years ago when they fired me.” – Anduril founder Palmer Luckey telling Ashlee Vance why he is linking up with Mark Zuckerberg to make headsets for the military.

If you haven’t already, don’t forget to subscribe to The Verge, which includes unlimited access to Command Line and all of our reporting.

As always, I welcome your feedback, especially if you have thoughts on this issue or a story idea to share. You can respond here or ping me securely on Signal.