[7] The launch was part of SpaceX's Starship development program, which follows an iterative and incremental approach involving frequent, and often destructive, test flights of prototype vehicles.

[10][11] It was planned for the Starship spacecraft to complete nearly one orbit around the Earth before reentering the atmosphere, performing a controlled descent and splashing down in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii.

[12] The Super Heavy booster was to have performed a similar landing in the Gulf of Mexico, about 20 mi (30 km) off the Texas coast about 8 minutes after liftoff.

[17][16] After the test, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded the launch program pending results of a standard “mishap investigation” overseen by the agency and performed by SpaceX.

[6] Both of Starship's stages are designed to perform controlled landings at the launch site enabling them to fly multiple times.

In 2021, SpaceX filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission in which it described the planned first flight test of the Starship-Super Heavy booster stack.

[35] Before the launch, 27 organizations including the Sierra Club, South Texas Environmental Justice Network, Another Gulf is Possible, Voces Unidas, and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe signed a letter expressing their concerns and opposition to it.

They cited gentrification and overpolicing of the area, wildlife habitat and native ceremony disruption, and risk of methane-emitting accidents, among others.

Due to the valves exhibited low responsiveness, SpaceX changed the scheduled flight to a wet dress rehearsal that ended at T−40 seconds.

[53] Eighty-five seconds into the launch, SpaceX lost thrust vector control of the 13 central engines and thus the ability to steer the rocket.

[50] The vehicle rose to about 39 km (24 mi) before losing altitude and entering a spin,[54] after which its AFTS (autonomous flight termination system) was activated.

[10][55][56] A variety of public officials and figures congratulated SpaceX on the outcome of the test flight, including NASA administrator Bill Nelson,[10] European Space Agency Director General Josef Aschbacher,[11] retired Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield,[45] and executive director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Dan Dumbacher.

[4] University of Chicago space historian Jordan Brimm said that "it fell somewhere between a small step and their hoped-for giant leap, but it still represents significant progress toward a reusable super-heavy lift rocket".

[57][65] Representatives of Another Gulf is Possible,[66] the Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity expressed concerns that the particulate matter might harm Port Isabel residents and nearby endangered species, The latter two groups' representatives also said the blast's damage to roads had kept wildlife biologists from investigating the launch site until April 22, two days after the launch.

Fish and Wildlife Service's Texas Division reported that the launch scattered debris across 385 acres (156 ha) on SpaceX property and Boca Chica State Park.

[67] Olivier de Weck, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets and a MIT professor, said that much of the dust and debris could have been better contained by flame trenches diverting the engine blast underground or a "pipeline...bring[ing] seawater" to the launch site.

[23] The heat and pressure went through fresh cracks in the launch pad, causing an eruption that propelled sand six miles to Port Isabel.

Though large amounts of dust measuring between 1 and 10 microns can be harmful to breathe, the researchers did not find them in enough quantity and concluded that the sand was not a health hazard.

[70] Biologist David Newstead suggested that the delay in conducting a survey may have skewed the result, noting, for example, that predators would be likely to consume a "dead bird on the flats" within an hour.

[71] Justin LeClaire, a biologist who was allowed into the area 54 hours after launch, said that SpaceX has "altered a habitat on a wildlife refuge", and that it would take time to understand the effects.

[71] On May 1, 2023, ten days after the launch, four environmental groups—the Center for Biological Diversity, Surfrider Foundation, American Bird Conservancy, and Save Rio Grande Valley (Save RGV)—and the Carrizo Comecrudo Nation of Texas jointly sued the FAA for having granted SpaceX a launch license.

[77] The agency grounded Starship flights during the investigation, also a standard practice,[18][78] and said that "a return to flight of the Starship/Super Heavy vehicle is based on the FAA determining that any system, process or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety" and that there were no reports of injuries or public property damage.

The primary focus of this review was to ensure [...] the identification of root cause(s) and implementation of corrective actions to avoid a recurrence of the event.

[83][84] In the same statement, FAA officials emphasized that "The closure of the mishap investigation does not signal an immediate resumption of Starship launches at Boca Chica.

[83][22] The FAA also announced that the full investigatory report would not be released due to confidential contents including export control information.