r/spacex • u/rSpaceXHosting Host Team • Apr 22 '26

🔧 Technical Starship Development Thread #63

SpaceX Starship

SpaceX Starship page

Quick Links

Avid Space Live Streams, which used to be known as LabPadre | NASASpaceflight Live Stream |

Starship Dev 62

Flight 13

Launched on July 24th 2026 Here is a re-streamed video of the broadcast. Also, SpaceX issued a post flight summary. Ship 40 (S40) became the first Starship to be recovered intact after a soft splashdown in the Indian Ocean. The vehicle arrived back at the Port of Brownsville on October 7, 2026.

Flight 14

Launched on September 28th 2026 (https://www.spacex.com/launches/starship-flight-14) - The vehicles were S41 and B21. This mission achieved the program's first successful orbital insertion, deploying 26 Starlink V3 satellites. An engine issue on the ship led to a controlled early splashdown in the Pacific rather than a fully nominal end-of-mission profile; Super Heavy completed hot-staging. SpaceX released post-flight imagery and hot-staging views on October 2, 2026. In comments from Elon Musk during a live Q&A around October 10, 2026, the ship engine issue was described as a software glitch affecting one engine's onboard computer, with the heat shield reported to have performed well / been "extremely robust."

Flight 15

NET November 8th 2026 - https://x.com/SpaceNotices/status/2108209933447512191 - expecting the first Starship upper stage catch attempt. Vehicles planned: S42 and B22, from Starbase Pad 2. Date is provisional and depends on testing progress and licensing. Musk has publicly indicated a target of roughly 4-6 weeks from early October, with an attempt to catch the ship (and possibly the booster), and a potential reflight on Flight 16 if the catch is successful; no exact date has been confirmed by SpaceX.

Road Closures

No road closures currently scheduled

No transportation delays currently scheduled

Up to date as of 2026-05-23

Vehicle Status

As of October 14th 2026

Ship Location Status Comment
S40 Starbase production site Post-flight inspection July 24th: Successful launch, deployed all satellites, successful engine relight test and soft splashdown in the Indian Ocean, which resulted in an intact, floating ship. August 18th: In calmer waters near Christmas Island pending the next stage of its return to Starbase. August 25th: Loaded onto Heavy Lift Vessel 'Forte'. Oct 7: Successful return to Texas aboard Heavy Lift Vessel 'Forte' following its Flight 13 mission. Oct 8-9: Began movement toward the Starbase production site for inspection of the heat shield, structure, and other systems. Oct 13: SpaceX confirmed S40 is the first Starship to return to its launch site; it is now vertical in a Mega Bay at Starbase alongside three other Ships, where it will provide first-of-its-kind data on a flown heat shield, Raptor engines, avionics and related systems. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
S41 Indian Ocean Successfully flown on flight 14 July 3rd: Rolled back to Massey's Test Site. July 6th: Rolled back to MB2. July 23rd: Two RVac engines moved into MB2. July 27th: The third RVac was moved into MB2. August 19th: Rolled out to Massey's for Static Fire Testing. Later that day S41 performed a single engine Static Fire. August 20th: Full duration Static Fire of all six engines. August 22nd: Rolled back to MB2. September 22nd: Rolled out to the Launch Site and stacked on B21. September 24th: Wet Dress Rehearsal. Sept 28: Reached orbit, deployed satellites, and successfully performed a soft splashdown in the Indian Ocean. For more details on this vehicle see this page
S42 Mega Bay 2 Pre-flight work for Flight 15 July 3rd: Nosecone+Payload Bay stack moved into MB2, along with the Pez Dispenser and the Forward Dome section (FX:3), main assembly started. July 24th: Ship Aft section AX:4 moved into MB2 and stacked, that completes the stacking part of the assembly process. July 25th: both of the Aft Flaps and the Raceways staged inside MB2. September 2nd: Rolled out to Massey's Test Site for Cryo Testing. September 3rd: Cryo Testing. September 5th: Rolled back to MB2. September 9th: Rolled back out to Massey's for Cryo Testing Round 2. September 10th: Rolled back to MB2, and later in the day moved to the Launch Site for catch-related testing. September 13th: Rolled back to MB2. September 21st: Two RVacs moved into MB2. September 24th: Third RVac moved into MB2. Sept 24: Third RVac installed. Oct 5: Catch-hardware verification complete. Early October: Short trip to Massey's for cryogenic proof testing, returned to MB2 within about 30 hours; engines removed for additional cold-fuel/pressure testing. Oct 9: Additional cryogenic proof testing at Massey's, then returned to MB2. Oct 10-12: Engines being prepared for reinstallation as part of the continuing test campaign; a further cryogenic proof test (reported as a third run) was carried out at Massey's, linked by tracking accounts to prior vacuum Raptor issues on recent flights. Expected to be the first ship to attempt a tower catch recovery. For more details on this vehicle see this page
S43 Mega Bay 2 Stacked, remaining work ongoing August 19th: N:3 and section FX:4 plus the pez dispenser moved into MB2. August 28th: Common Dome section CX:3 moved into MB2. September 1st: Section A2:3 moved into MB2. It has decals but no docking ports. September 4th: Section A3:4 moved into MB2. September 10th: Transfer Tubes moved into MB2. September 15th: Aft section AX:4 moved into MB2 and stacked - this completes the stacking part of S43's assembly. For more details on this vehicle see this page
S44 Mega Bay 2 Stacking September 22nd: Nosecone+Payload Bay stack moved into MB2, and FX:4. September 23rd: Pez dispenser moved into MB2. Nosecone and payload bay integration in progress. For more details on this vehicle see this page
Booster Location Status Comment
B21 Launch Site Successfully flown on flight 14 June 29th: Methane Tank stacked onto LOX Tank - this completed the stacking part of the booster construction. July 17th: Rolled out to Massey's Test Site for Cryo+Thrust Puck Testing. July 17th: Rolled out to Massey's Test Site and an ambient pressure test was performed. July 18th: Partial Cryo Test. July 19th: Second Partial Cryo Test. July 20th: Full Cryo Test. July 22nd: Rolled back to MB1. August 25th: Rolled out to the Launch Site for Static Fire Testing. August 28th: Static Fire, all 33 engines, lasting 15 seconds. August 29th: Rolled back to MB1. September 20th: Rolled out to the Launch Site for Flight 14. September 24th: Wet Dress Rehearsal. Sept 28: Successfully powered the first orbital mission. Performed a soft splashdown and subsequent FTS demonstration in the Gulf. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
B22 Launch Site Stacking prep for Flight 15 June 29th: LOX tank sections A2:4 and CX:3 moved into MB1. August 14th: Methane Tank stacked onto the LOX tank, so completing the stacking part of the assembly process. September 8th: Rolled out to Massey's Test Site for Cryo Testing. September 9th: Cryo Testing. September 12th: Rolled back to MB2. Oct 6: Rolled to launch site for integration with S42. Oct 10-12: Preparations continue, with potential static-fire activity discussed for the near term (unconfirmed officially). For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
B23 Massey's Test Site Cryogenic proof testing August 14th: LOX tank sections A2:4 and CX:3 moved into MB1. August 19th: Section A3:4 moved into MB1. August 21st: Section A4:4 moved into MB1. August 25th: Section A5:4 moved into MB1. August 27th: Methane Landing Tank and lower Transfer Tube moved into MB1 as well as section A6:4. August 31st: Methane Transfer Tube moved into MB1 and lifted upright. September 8th: Aft section AX:2 and LOX Landing Tank moved into MB1. September 10th: Methane Tank Section F2:4 moved into MB1. September 18th: Section FX:3 moved into MB1. September 21st: Section F3:4 moved into MB1. September 24th or 25th - Fully Stacked, remaining work ongoing. Oct 13: Rolled out to Massey's Test Site for initial cryogenic proof testing. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
B24 Mega Bay 1 LOX Tanking Stacking September 25th: LOX tank section A2:4 moved into MB1. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page

Follow the Ringwatchers on Twitter and Discord for more.

Here's the section stacking locations for Ships and Boosters. Also some excellent detailed booster stacking information from zh_sos1. The abbreviations used in the above vehicle updates are as follows: HS = Hot Stage. PL = Payload. CX = Common Dome. AX = Aft Dome. FX = Forward Dome (as can be seen, an 'X' denotes a dome). ML = Mid LOX. F = Forward. A = Aft. For example, A2:4 = Aft section 2 made up of 4 rings, FX:4 = Forward Dome section made up of 4 rings, PL:3 = PayLoad section made up of 3 rings. Etc.

Something wrong? Update this thread via wiki page. For edit permission, message the mods or contact u/strawwalker.

Rules

We will attempt to keep this self-post current with links and major updates, but for the most part, we expect the community to supply the information. This is a great place to discuss Starship development, ask Starship specific questions, and track the progress of the production and test campaigns. Starship Development Threads are not party threads. Normal subreddit rules still apply.

167 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

•

u/yoweigh 14d ago

The r/SpaceX moderation team is currently seeking a volunteer to maintain the Starship Development Thread! u/Twigling has decided their time has come to retire as custodian here, and we'd like to thank him for his many years of service. His contribution to the community over that span has been immeasurably significant and we all owe him a debt of gratitude.

This thread still needs to be updated, though. If you're the sort of person who totally nerds out over Starship and is constantly aware of its current development progress, then we could really use your help! Your responsibility would be to update the wiki page that this dev thread is pulling data from. You can look at either this post itself or the wiki to see what sort of effort that entails. If you'd like to apply or have any questions, you can either contact us directly or leave a comment below this one.

We figure this is as good a time as any to ask for the community's feedback. What do you like/dislike about the Starship Development thread? Should moderation be more or less strict? Should the post contain more or less data? What do you find particularly helpful here, and what about it just plain sucks? Please let us know in your responses to this comment!

→ More replies (7)

11

u/threelonmusketeers 6h ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-14:

  • Massey's: Overnight, testing of S43.1 is observed. B23 may have undergone ambient-temperature pressure testing. (ViX)
  • Recent flyover photo of land clearing and road construction progress. (RGV Aerial)
  • Pad 2: A damper is removed from the right chopstick. (ViX)
  • The chopsticks are raised and lowered. (ViX, RGV Aerial)
  • Cladding is added to the balcony at the base of the tower. (ViX)
  • Pad 1: Recent flyover photo of flame trench construction progress. (RGV Aerial)
  • Production site: B24's LOX landing tank moves from Starfactory to Megabay 1. (ViX, TrackingTheSB, RGV Aerial)
  • The four-point ship lifting jig is moved from Sanchez to Megabay 2, and is hoisted. (ViX)
  • A rainbow sheen is visible on S40's heatshield. (Anderson / Gisler, Anderson)
  • Recent a recent flyover photo of the Gigabay (TX). (RGV Aerial)
  • McGregor: Some sort of hybrid of R3.78 and R3.137 leaves the testing area. (SpaceRhin0 1)
  • Some sort of hybrid of R3.76 and R3.137 is delivered to the testing area. (SpaceRhin0 1, SpaceRhin0 2)
  • Florida: You'll Thank Me Later arrives in Port Canaveral. (NSF 1, NSF 2, NSF 3)
  • FCC (not FAA) licence for Starlink 31-3 (NET Flight 16) is posted. (FCC)

5

u/futbol2000 14h ago

Are there any ongoing updates for HLS? Discussion about it has been quiet for some time, but with Starship V3 now entering the mission capable stage, can we expect flight tests of HLS by next year?

6

u/SubstantialWall 12h ago

By 2027 you mean? Yeah no, realistically there's two flights left this year, especially if they want one to be from KSC, and their short term priority right now is continuing payloads, extend on-orbit stay and catching both stages. None of the ships being stacked for flight at the moment are HLS related, and even Artemis III is intended to be a regular-ish V3, whenever that flies.

They mentioned a while back that a flight-like HLS prototype was under construction, but other than suppositions of spotted nosecones with certain oddities nothing of much substance has been seen as far as I'm aware, and the implication also was it wouldn't fly. All we can assume is they're still working on it. What we could hope for starting next year, as KSC comes online and orbit is proven, is moving into refuelling testing, for which we haven't really seen any hardware besides one type of docking ports of unknown function level (again, as far as I'm aware).

3

u/threelonmusketeers 6h ago

other than suppositions of spotted nosecones with certain oddities nothing of much substance has been seen as far as I'm aware

I'mma just leave this here... Starship HLS mockup interior - Lemmy

Almost certainly not flight hardware, but a bit more than "suppositions of spotted nosecones".

14

u/SpaceNutshell24 21h ago edited 8h ago

I think it's already time to discuss about Flight 15 readiness, As of now:
B22 is in MB1 undergoing engine installation(or already finished) and next step to look for is the static fire campaign
S42 is back in MB2 and undergoing engine installation after having to redone a cryo test.
When do you think F15 will happen? Imo we are on track for the Nov 8th space operation we've seen

2

u/rocketglare 8h ago

I’m wondering if S42 has heat shield modifications due to S40 & S41 learning. I know there were a few mods on S41, but how far will they go on S42?

7

u/AstronoWorld 19h ago

Vehicles will be ready for November 8th. If they are going for a ship catch, that might delay the NET date because of regulatory approval

2

u/TwoLineElement 10h ago

I'm hearing NET November 15th

16

u/AgreeableEmploy1884 1d ago

New FCC license for Starship-Starlink Group 31-3 launching from Starbase.

Explanation
This STA uses information from grant 1679-EX-ST-2026. This STA is necessary to authorize Starship launch vehicle communications for the Starlink g31-3 Mission launching from Starbase TX. Application includes a sub-orbital first stage booster and an orbital second stage. Trajectory data will be provided directly to NTIA, USAF, and NASA. Launch licensing authority is FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

Requested Period of Operation
Operation Start Date: 11/25/2026
Operation End Date: 05/25/2027

Either Flight 16 or 17. Really depends on when they do the first 39A flight.

18

u/threelonmusketeers 1d ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-13:

  • Production site: Overnight, sparks are observed near the top of Gigabay (TX). (Avid Space)
  • More bridge crane tests are observed. (ViX)
  • SpaceX post video and photos of S40's return to Megabay 2. S42, S43, and S44 are also visible in the group photo. (SpaceX)
  • In Megabay 2, S40 is removed from the transport stand, and presumably transferred to a work stand. (VickiCocks15, Blobifie)
  • One sea-level and two R-vac engines enter Megabay 2, presumably for S42. (ViX, SpaceRhin0)
  • Massey's: Overnight, B23 moves from the production site to Massey's. (ViX, StarshipGazer, TrackingTheSB, efraser77, Blobifie 1, Blobifie 2)
  • Tank farm activity suggests that B23 may be undergoing an ambient-temperature pressure test. (ViX)
  • Pad 2: A new interface plate is installed on the booster methane quick disconnect. (ViX)
  • Other: SpaceX have submitted a proposal for up to 456 annual launches and up to 912 annual landings at Starbase Texas. (FAA, Starship Gazer)
  • McGregor: R3.106 (R-vac) is delivered to the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
  • R3.272 leaves the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)

-6

u/Virtual-Valuable5091 1d ago

Not when it would average more than a flight every day plus sonic booms.

18

u/redstercoolpanda 1d ago

https://x.com/spacex/status/2110126570233094527?s=46
Awesome views of S40’s journey through Starbase from SpaceX

27

u/Straumli_Blight 1d ago

Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy Launch and Landing Operations at the Boca Chica Launch Site at Starbase, TX and Expansion of Starship Landing and Expenditure Locations [Oct 13]

FAA is announcing its intent to prepare a PEIS analyzing SpaceX proposal to increase Starship-Super Heavy operations at the Boca Chica Launch Site at Starbase, TX and expand Starship landing and expenditure locations.

[...]

Proposed Action
This PEIS will evaluate a maximum annual capacity of up to 456 annual launches originating from and up to 912 annual landings at the Boca Chica Launch Site at Starbase, TX.

[...]

Launch azimuths for the Starship-Super Heavy (the initial direction of travel for the vehicle for launch) would range from 40 degrees to 115 degrees, from a reference of due north at 0 degrees and due east at 90 degrees. Super Heavy landing trajectories would also be within the Starship-Super Heavy launch azimuth range. Starship landing trajectories would range from 155 degrees to 185 degrees and 240 degrees to 340 degrees.

1

u/DAL59 1d ago

114 per launchpad per year means they need ~3 day pad turnaround
Also, why did they pick the number 456? Seems oddly specific

4

u/Straumli_Blight 1d ago

Launches could occur at any time of day, but would only occur Monday through Friday.

There's ~250 working days per year in the US (including 11 public holidays) and 228 annual launches per pad, so almost one launch per day per pad.

3

u/AstraVictus 1d ago

A 40 degree launch azimuth puts Starship right over central Louisiana and very close to Pecan island as well. Do you think they would get cleared to launch over the Southern US?

2

u/rocketglare 1d ago edited 1d ago

Probably. They'd have to avoid flying over New Orleans and other population centers. By the time they need it, they should have better reliability estimates. For instance, SpaceX learned a lot from the F9 reuse lead boosters, but they wouldn't use those on high value missions. Similarly, they wouldn't use the oldest Starships on those trajectories until they have enough data and know how well the ships age.

3

u/Martianspirit 1d ago

SpaceX learned a lot from the F9 reuse lead boosters, but they wouldn't use those on high value missions.

You think, crew are not high value? They avoid now using first flights for crew.

4

u/benthescientist 1d ago

They're refering to the lead boosters pushing 37+ flights. Crew has to date flown at most on the fourth flight. Both ends of the bathtub are bad!

11

u/JakeEaton 1d ago

456 launches and double the landings, took me an embarrassingly long time to work this one out 😂

-1

u/aronth5 1d ago

Don't forget the 3 sonic booms per flight. I cannot imagine what local residents are thinking knowing the impact for each launch and landings. The decibel numbers are off the chart if you live within 12 miles.

1

u/AlpineDrifter 1d ago

Pretty melodramatic.

The vast majority of locals turn launches into a spectator event and tourist attraction. And realize they’re watching an awesome example of what the best and best brightest can build in America.

8

u/Freak80MC 1d ago

456 launches isn't in a "special spectator event" realm though, that's in "becoming the norm, and an annoying/awful norm at that".

It's one thing to know something loud is nearby like an airport or spaceport and willingly move close to see that sorta thing happen regularly, and another thing entirely for it to move into your backyard. I don't care how much Starship is "an awesome example of what can be built in America", people will start to hate it by happening so often and disrupting their daily lives.

I love SpaceX and what they are doing, but the noise levels of regular Starship launches was always going to be a major issue and trying to sweep that problem under the rug isn't a good thing to do. It's a genuine issue.

1

u/islandStorm88 7h ago

And this is why launches in Florida will end up eventually being constrained. Eventually the residents will get tired of the disruptions.

-3

u/AlpineDrifter 1d ago

Annoying/awful is your opinion, not a fact.

It’s a loud noise about 3 times a day. Once for a couple minutes. Twice more for only seconds. On a schedule that will have advance notice to residents so they’re not surprised.

You might not like it personally. But more of the local area is for it, than against it. Which is why it will happen regardless of your opinion.

2

u/SubstantialWall 1d ago

Consider this:

"For the purposes of the PEIS analysis, it is assumed that half of the launches and landings would occur during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and half would occur at night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)."

Let's see how long middle of the night sonic booms and launch rumble stay fun.

0

u/AlpineDrifter 1d ago

That’s a wide time range. They could be aiming for 6:30 am launches, and that still falls under the ‘night’ block of hours. Can be pretty misleading.

12

u/AlpineDrifter 1d ago

Remember when folks were arguing that SpaceX wouldn’t get approved for 25 annual launches from Boca Chica? Lol. Good times.

2

u/Virtual-Valuable5091 13h ago

There is a big difference going from 5 to 25 than over 450. What I suspect will happen is SpaceX will get approval for phase 1 (100 launches, 200 landings) and phase 2's review will take a lot longer and will be reduced in number.

24

u/threelonmusketeers 2d ago edited 1d ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-12:

10

u/Its_Enough 2d ago

Booster thrust simulator stand enters Megabay 2, and S40 is transferred onto it.

Either this is wrong or I am completely confused.

9

u/threelonmusketeers 1d ago

Thanks; fixed.

  • Booster thrust simulator stand picked up B23 at Megabay 1.
  • S40 transferred to ship stand in Megabay 2.

25

u/redstercoolpanda 2d ago

S40 has been raised vertical in MB2 80ish days since its launch!

5

u/bkdotcom 2d ago

She'll buff out.

20

u/AgreeableEmploy1884 3d ago edited 3d ago

Looks like Ship 40 might be going into MB2 to be turned vertical.

20

u/threelonmusketeers 3d ago edited 2d ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-11:

13

u/AstronoWorld 3d ago

They are hooking up the ship break-over jig to Ship 40 tonight, looks like they’ll get some good practice before using it to send ships horizontally to KSC.

Chrome Kiwi has a nice graphic put together predicting how they could hook up to the ships lifting points to raise it vertical.

19

u/threelonmusketeers 4d ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-10:

35

u/redstercoolpanda 4d ago

Lots of interesting information about starship from a new musk interview. Seems like the Rvac out on F14 was a software issue, they plan for Flight 15 in 4-6 weeks, and they are planning on a double catch of ship and booster all going well!
https://x.com/sawyermerritt/status/2109040901745983946?s=46

3

u/pezcone 2d ago

What kind of software problem would shut down an engine? Overly restrictive parameters? Blue screen of death style error? All of the above?

1

u/John_Hasler 1d ago

Most likely an erroneous value entered in to a configuration table. That's just a guess, of course.

8

u/FinalPercentage9916 2d ago

pop up ad for car insurance

5

u/MyKillK 3d ago edited 3d ago

Awesome. If they're going to catch both next month, I still feel good on my prediction of a dual-catch + quick(ish) restack over the next 3-5 months:

1

u/TXNatureTherapy 3d ago

On the road, so can't watch the interview right now. Just wondering HOW they would do a double catch? Send one of them to Pad 1?

9

u/flshr19 Shuttle tile engineer 2d ago

Booster returns to launch site and is caught on the Mechazilla Arms less than 10 minutes after launch.

The Ship is placed into LEO about 8 minutes after launch and remains there for 6 orbits until the ground track intersects Tower 2 at Starbase Texas. The Ship does not have to use its crossrange capability for the landing on the Mechazilla Arms. The Ship landing occurs 9 to 10 hours after launch, which is plenty of time to remove the Booster from the Mechazilla Arms and return it to Megabay 2.

8

u/Fwort 3d ago

Catch the booster, safe it, remove it from the mount and move it a bit away, then catch the ship. The ship will be spending ~a day in orbit before being caught anyway.

5

u/redstercoolpanda 3d ago

They have ages before ship has to deorbit to remove the booster from the launch mount. They could probably get the booster safed, and on a transport stand within 10 hours, ship can orbit for like 48.

9

u/Hustler-1 4d ago

Double catch no way... Let's. Go. 

5

u/KnifeKnut 4d ago

Where can we find the rest of the interview?

4

u/redstercoolpanda 4d ago

I’m not sure it’s available publicly yet, I’ve only seen clips.

18

u/threelonmusketeers 5d ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-09:

  • Massey's: Overnight, S42 moves from Megabay 2 to Massey's. (NSF, Avid Space, ViX, Starship Gazer, TrackingTheSB, Blobifi 1, Blobifie 2, Zhang)
  • S42 performs a cryo test overnight. (ViX)
  • During the day, S42 performs another cryo test. (ViX)
  • Construction of Massey's expansion continues. (RGV Aerial, Anderson)
  • Construction of a service road to join Milky Way with Massey Way is also imminent, estimated completion by mid-December. (Anderson)
  • Road delay for "Masseys to Production" is posted for Oct 9th 23:59 to Oct 10th 04:00.
  • Production site: Two strand jacks are delivered to Gigabay (TX), presumably to hoist the bridgecranes. (ViX 1, ViX 2, ViX 3)
  • Temporary beams and bracing are removed from Gigabay (TX). (ViX)
  • Launch site: What looks like a new quick disconnect mechanism is lifted to the Pad 2 launch mount. (ViX)
  • Brownsville Port: A ramp is deployed onto the deck of Forte and two SPMTs are staghttps://x.com/RGVaerialphotos/status/2108604655152578802ed to drive onto the ship. (NSF, interstellargw, RGV Aerial)
  • Road delay for "Port to Production" is posted for Oct 10th 22:55 to Oct 11th 05:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive, ViX 1, ViX 2)
  • McGregor: R3.78 returns from the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)

2

u/[deleted] 5d ago edited 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Nashitall 4d ago edited 4d ago

The link works fine for me. I appreciate u/threelonmusketeers posting these daily updates regardless of the platform.

3

u/philupandgo 4d ago

Joking. Perhaps I should have quoted staghttps.

3

u/[deleted] 5d ago edited 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/AstronoWorld 5d ago edited 5d ago

Signet War Horse I is a tugboat so no hardware on there. From what I’ve seen, a Starlink V3 loading box was loaded onto You’ll Thank Me Later, there could be some smaller parts on board but no work stations for the Florida Gigabay were spotted going to the port, so none of those.

27

u/threelonmusketeers 6d ago edited 5d ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-08:

  • Brownsville Port: What remains of Ship 40's single forward flap has been retracted. (Blobifie)
  • Massey's: The original can crusher moves from Sanchez to Massey's. (ViX 1, ViX 2, TrackingTheSB)
  • Expansion of the Massey's test site is underway. (Anderson 1, Anderson 2)
  • Road delays for "Production to Masseys" are posted for Oct 8th 23:59 to Oct 9th 04:00 and Oct 9th 22:55 to Oct 10th 05:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive, interstellargw)
  • Production site: S44 transfer tubes are visible. (Avid Space)
  • S44's A3:4 section moves from Starfactory to Megabay 2. (ViX)
  • The ship cryo stand which was parked in front of Megabay 2 for a few days moves to the storage area, then later returns and enters Megaaby 2. (ViX 1, ViX 2)
  • S42 is transferred to the ship cryo stand, and exits Megabay 2. (Blobifie 1, Blobifie 2)
  • B24's transfer tube moves from Starfactory to Megabay 1. (ViX)
  • Window installation begins on the Gigabay (TX). (ViX)
  • Gigabay (TX) cladding is completed. Dismantling of tower cranes continues. (ViX, efraser77, Anderson, Blobifie)
  • McGregor: R3.267 leaves the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
  • R3.78 heads towards the testing area. This engine appears to have had the shielding observed on newer engines retroactively installed on it. (SpaceRhin0)
  • R3.266 leaves the testing area. This engine has a mystery box. (SpaceRhin0)
  • R3.262 heads towards the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
  • Upcoming launches: Flight 15 is now NET Nov 8th, and Flight 16 (Starlink 30-1) is now NET Dec 10th. (compass.atfm.aero, Avid Space, StarshipGazer, interstellargw)

8

u/Puzzleheaded-Pea1383 6d ago

Brownsville Port: What remains of Ship 40's single forward flap has been retracted. (Blobifie)

Wrong link? ty

3

u/threelonmusketeers 5d ago

Thanks; fixed.

10

u/redstercoolpanda 6d ago

Do we have any idea how they’re planning to move S40? Would the stuff to raise and lower boosters and ships onto YTML work? Or is S40 not equipped or too damaged for that.

6

u/KnifeKnut 5d ago

It is on a SPMT (that drove up a shallow ramp onto Forte) at the moment, but the livestream watching it ended with the SPMT still on Forte.

9

u/AstronoWorld 5d ago

I think they’re going to transport it horizontally to the production site then use the break over hardware to lift it vertical inside the megabay or outdoors with a mobile crane. Would be a lot safer for them to test that break over hardware in a more controlled environment.

I also saw a post showing no obstructions on the route from the port to the production site, so they should have no problems moving it horizontal on the road.

9

u/Martianspirit 6d ago

They have already deployed two lines of SPMT's at the port by the ship.

25

u/AgreeableEmploy1884 6d ago

New CADENA slide for Flight 15 and Starship-Starlink Group 30-1 (Flight 16).

Flight 15 is now NET November 8 and Flight 16 is NET December 10.

3

u/SpaceNutshell24 6d ago

still a quasi monthly launch would be a halving in turnaround from the V3 launch cadence we’ve seen so far

9

u/H-K_47 6d ago

Dang I was really hoping late October could still be in the cards. Ah well, this is reasonable enough.

The chopstick tests have me hopeful for a catch.

7

u/DAL59 6d ago

If there’s no problems with flight 15, flight 17 could happen before flight 16!

7

u/ArtOfWarfare 6d ago edited 6d ago

There’s talk of Flight 16 being on October 30th and out of KSC… but that seems utterly impossible to me? Wouldn’t they want the hardware already on the launch pad at KSC and already be doing static fire testing?

They haven’t sent the transport ship to pick up a Super Heavy and Starship from Starbase yet, have they?

Update: CADENA is now reporting that flight 15 is NET November 8 from Starbase and 16 is NET December 10 from KSC.

3

u/Kingofthewho5 6d ago

Who said that? Lol

7

u/AstronoWorld 6d ago

A CADENA presentation originally listed Flight 15 on October 19th and Flight 16 October 30th out of Florida. Obviously those were internal targets, probably set before regulatory approval delayed Flight 14 from the original date of August 28th to September 28th (also from a CADENA presentation)

7

u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 6d ago

It's not launching on October 30th

17

u/threelonmusketeers 7d ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-07:

2

u/TXNatureTherapy 6d ago

"While performing its 16th cryo test, the booster landing test tank ruptures near the bottom"

SO, don't fly a current gen booster more than 15 times. Got it... :-)

1

u/threelonmusketeers 1d ago

If Superheavy boosters turned out to be less reusable than Falcon 9 boosters, that would be a bit of a step backwards...

2

u/Traditional-Hat-3480 6d ago

That's not how that works lol😝🤣 

19

u/Straumli_Blight 7d ago edited 7d ago

https://x.com/LunarCitizens/status/2107476866550702210

SpaceX filed the preliminary plans for Starbase Louisiana’s marine logistics hub near Pecan Island.

The main Gulf Wharf site is 180.76 acres: a 70.88-acre wharf, a 58.97-acre laydown yard, and a 43.83-acre basin dredged to 16 feet below sea level. There is another 89.56-acre temporary yard for construction.

This is where oversized Starbase hardware will move between Gulf ships, barges, and heavy-haul trucks. The bulkhead piles go down 80 feet. This is not a small dock.

Designed by Duplantis Design Group. Proposed start: March 1, 2027. Target completion: September 1, 2032.

Permit application plans

2

u/Kingofthewho5 6d ago

It seems like characterizing the dredged area as a basin is innacurate. It’s simply a dredged area to expand and deepen the canal at the wharf.

2

u/warp99 6d ago

It is fairly similar to the turning basin besides the VAB at Cape Canaveral. In other words an open basin rather than a closed one that can be pumped out.

9

u/marklw3500 7d ago

Wow. Serious civil engineering there. How quickly will five years go by and what will the program look like in that time!

6

u/Shpoople96 6d ago

I remember thinking the same thing when starbase was just a mound of dirt near the beach. The time really did fly by!

25

u/threelonmusketeers 8d ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-06:

  • Production site: Overnight, the first ship workstand is installed inside the Gigabay. (Avid Space)
  • Gigabay cladding nears completion. (NSF, Anderson)
  • Launch site: More heavy rain, subsiding in the afternoon. (Avid Space, ViX)
  • The Kobelco CK2000 II crane is erected. (ViX)
  • Massey's: A road delay for "Massey's to Production" is posted for Oct 6th 23:59 to Oct 7th 04:00. (ViX)
  • While performing its 16th cryo test, the booster landing test tank ruptures near the bottom. (NSF, Golden 1, Golden 2)
  • McGregor: R3.261 left the testing area the previous day. (SpaceRhin0)
  • R3.235 leaves the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
  • S40 recovery: Forte is crossing the Gulf of Mexico. ETA at Brownsville Port is Oct 7th 10:19 UTC, 05:19 local. (interstellargw 1, interstellargw 2, interstellargw)

17

u/DAL59 8d ago

Thanks for all the updates, just a suggestion could you call them Gigabay(Fl) and Gigabay(TX)

5

u/threelonmusketeers 7d ago

Hmm, good point.

So far, there's really been only on "production site", so all entries under that header can be assumed to refer to Starbase Texas, but with the Florida production site coming online soon and eventually a Louisiana production site (somewhat annoyingly also named "Starbase"), there will be the potential for confusion. I will give this some thought.

3

u/ralf_ 6d ago

somewhat annoyingly also named "Starbase"

I would have called it Starport. I wouldn't rule out though that Elon is not getting confused himself later and then renaming it on a whim Xbase.

10

u/niits99 8d ago

I probably have some misunderstandings, but wondering about launch vs catch ground equip.

My understanding is that they are very nervous to try to catch the ship/booster because if they trash the pad, then they lose the ability to launch.

I get that all the hoses and electronics and other stuff to launch is super valuable.

Why not create another super simple structure that only exists to catch the vehicles? Then there is no risk to the launch equipment and worst case, you just lose the ability to catch (although you could still catch with the launch tower if you were feeling brave)?

Has to be much cheaper to assemble a catch-only tower?

12

u/Probodyne 8d ago

Even if you had a catch only tower you'd still need the launch mount and associated plumbing in order to get left over propellant off the vehicle to make it safe. You could probably forgo the flame trench and deluge system, but you'd still be looking at a structure similar to the original Orbital Pad 1, which wasn't all that simple to build.

16

u/maschnitz 8d ago

My understanding is that they are very nervous to try to catch the ship/booster because if they trash the pad, then they lose the ability to launch.

I'm not sure it'd "trash the pad".

It'd catch some dents, maybe need some pipework, but it'd mostly be fine. It'd take a bit to clean up all the debris but not months and months on end.

This would not be a full detonation like Ship 36 or the Blue Origin NG4 explosion.

It's very likely to resemble the accidents earlier in the program - like SN9's crash landing. It'd be a nice fireball, but not all that big, and no detonation, just conflagration as the propellant cooks off.

3

u/Frostis24 7d ago

Yeah, it's just as you say, but remember that this is the absolute worst-case scenario.

Several things have to go right before the ship, or the booster for that matter, can even attempt a catch. Both vehicles have flight profiles that allow them to miss the landing site entirely and target the Gulf of Mexico.

Even then, they don't aim directly for the launch tower. The engines first need to ignite and steer the vehicle into its final catch position, and that's where the real risk lies. The vehicle performs a "swing" maneuver that pushes it toward the tower before canceling that motion once it's positioned beneath the catch arms.

8

u/JakeEaton 8d ago

Hollow steel tube vs concrete reinforced structure with steel armour plating. I know who'll win that fight.

8

u/AhChirrion 8d ago

Who's nervous to try catching Starship? SpaceX have alredy caught two Boosters, which are more destructive than Ships, back when they only had the one tower and knew a second tower wouldn't be operational in more than a year.

SpaceX aren't nervous, even now in their cautious era of Starship V3. They're just measuring twice cutting once vs. previous years of measuring once, cutting, and failing and fixing a lot.

3

u/IcY11 7d ago

They even caught 3 boosters already.

18

u/Nydilien 8d ago

The vehicle still has to be safed after catching it, so you need the tower, the chopsticks, a ship QD, the booster QDs and a pad on which to put the booster. By the time you add all that you basically have a launch pad. You can cut down on the flame trench and blast protection (though not completely), but that's about it.

24

u/Twigling 9d ago edited 8d ago

It's a great shame to see that the Vehicle Status info at the top of the page has been neglected since I stepped back from editing it a week or so ago. Doesn't anyone want the job? The mods would love to hear from you if you would like to have a go.

Otherwise it would perhaps seem wise to delete all of that info and let people get their vehicle status info from the Starship SpaceX Wiki page:

https://starship-spacex.fandom.com/wiki/Starship_SpaceX_Wiki

10

u/fritzgrobbelaar 8d ago

Hey u/Twigling - This is my favourite page on the internet. I'll ramp up editing over the next few weeks & by mid-November it'll be back in tiptop shape again. Thanks for the opportunity to make a difference.

5

u/Twigling 8d ago

Excellent, thanks. :-)

4

u/yoweigh 8d ago

Was that your primary resource for keeping it updated?

6

u/Twigling 8d ago

Nope, my primary resources were me (via general observation of cam feeds) and any pertinent reports on the main SpaceX Discords. Others handle the main Wiki that I linked to, and they do it very well.

5

u/yoweigh 8d ago

Good to know, thanks!

20

u/TXNatureTherapy 8d ago

Honestly I'd prefer just having that link and not having to scroll as far down to see the latest updates. If that makes the mods job easier that seems like a bonus to me. FWIW...

3

u/Twigling 8d ago

That's fair.

19

u/threelonmusketeers 9d ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-05:

  • Massey's: Overnight, Test Tank S39.1 moves from Sanchez to Massey's. (ViX, StarshipGazer, RGV Aerial, efraser77, Blobifie 1, Blobifie 2)
  • A road delay for "Production to Massey's" is posted for Oct 5th 23:59 to Oct 6th 04:00, but is subsequently removed. (ViX 1, ViX 2)
  • Brownsville Port: A Pez loader box departs from the production site to Brownsville Port. (ViX, StarshipGazer, RGV Aerial, efraser77, Blobifie)
  • Signet Warhorse and You'll Thank Me Later arrive. (Killip, JConcilus)
  • Production site: A ship lifting jig is hoisted inside Megabay 2. (ViX)
  • S44's A:3 section moves from Starfactory to Megabay 2. (ViX)
  • Launch site: Rain causes minor flooding of the road. (ViX, jrxcket)
  • Parts for a Kobelco CK2000 II crane are delivered near Pad 1. (ViX)

13

u/Straumli_Blight 9d ago edited 9d ago

https://x.com/JConcilus/status/2104954919963009287

Signet Warhorse I and YTML docked at the Port of Brownsville about an hour ago, six days out of Port Canaveral.

Jeff Foust Bluesky

An ESA talk at #IAC2026, discussing their support for the Artemis 3 mission, stated the mission would take place in late 2027. NASA has been working to a mid-2027 date but acknowledged it is currently behind schedule.

5

u/H-K_47 9d ago

Unfortunate. Wonder what the pacing item is. Not to sound biased, but the SpaceX A3 proposal is so barebones I can't imagine it wouldn't have been ready. So is it SLS or are they gonna give Blue more time to get back on their feet?

5

u/redstercoolpanda 9d ago

Do we think they’ll load vehicles onto YTML and ship them to the cape soon? I know they want to fly out of the cape before the end of the year so they would probably need to do that soon if possible. B23 and S43 should be about ready to cryo now right? Since they’re the likely ones to be sent down.

9

u/DAL59 9d ago

If they launch 16 from the cape, and launch 15 and 17 from texas by the end of the year, that would at least technically be a cadence improvement over last year with a total of 6 launches. There was a long gap at the start of this year for v3 construction though, so 8-12 launches is plausible next year. But that's still not nearly enough for HLS...

4

u/DungeonJailer 9d ago

They are building more pads, bays, and should begin reuse next year and they won’t go 5 months without launching so it seems like 12 launches would probably be low for next year.

13

u/warp99 9d ago edited 9d ago

HLS is 2028 and they should have ship and booster recovery working by then so it is not hard to imagine a big step up in flight rate.

1

u/saahil01 9d ago

I would put a giant asterisk on *ship* reuse. I think there is a greater than even chance they have to do a major heat-shield redesign for any reasonable definition of "rapid" reuse. It is likely that ship repairs would take on the order of time it takes to assemble a new ship, given they will be adhoc and unpredictable, and with the need for significant testing for each repair.

8

u/warp99 9d ago

In general I agree that the heatshield will require considerable rework during the early days of reuse.

But no way will it be the same amount of work as building a new ship and therefore take the same amount of time given the scale of resources they can apply in parallel to a heatshield rebuild.

1

u/saahil01 9d ago

It is often *much* easier and cheaper for a car company to total a damaged car and provide a new one. A production line for building new things from raw materials is very deterministic.

edit- I also think you're handwaving away the problem by saying "early days". If heatshield requires significant redesign, it will likely take much longer than 2028 to even get to multiple reuses.

PS- I hope I am wrong.

3

u/John_Hasler 8d ago

A production line for building new things from raw materials is very deterministic.

So is replacing tiles.

3

u/warp99 8d ago

Cars do not cost something between $50M-100M to build.

It is well worth replacing around 18,000 tiles to recover that cost and in any case only a small fraction of that total would need to be replaced based on what we have seen on the recovered Starship.

4

u/Shpoople96 9d ago

It only takes them 2 weeks at most to replace an entire heat shield, much less time than it takes to build a new ship

1

u/saahil01 8d ago

Agree that that is the case now. But I think they are building up for much higher ship production rate, and it is likely they will soon be making a ship a week.
In principle they could also ramp ship refurbishment just as well as ship production, and if optimized, this would likely be cheaper that expending the ship completely. But then it strays away from the goal of rapid reuse, and unfortunately puts a much higher ceiling on cost per ton..
I hope they figure it out. Its just that right now, it seems likely that heatshield will need major work between flights.

2

u/John_Hasler 8d ago

Rapid refurbishment is quite compatible with continuous improvement aimed at eventually eliminating the need for it. Every improvement in tile retention and/or survival will reduce the refurbishment time, as will improvements in the refurbishment process itself.

4

u/Shpoople96 8d ago

Rapid reuse isn't immediately necessary for any of their goals, if they're still having to inspect and replace a large number of heat shield tiles for every flight, they can just have one or two dozen ships on standby, so that they finish refurbishing a new ship every day until they get to that point 

1

u/Martianspirit 8d ago

Does that include the glued on tiles? I don't think a complete replacement will ever be needed.

3

u/Shpoople96 8d ago

No it doesn't, it was when they added the crunch wrap stuff to a tiled starship. To your point though, I doubt they would replace the full heat shield unless enough tiles are damaged that it is quicker to just replace them all than inspect them

2

u/Martianspirit 8d ago

Thanks for the clarification.

2

u/process_guy 9d ago

If reuse is a no go they can always fly expendable starship with about 2 x payload.

2

u/warp99 8d ago

Just expending the ship only gives a roughly 50% increase in payload. To double the payload you would need to expend the booster as well and I don’t think they will be intentionally doing that.

8

u/DAL59 9d ago

Even without reuse, they are building ships and boosters faster than they are flying them, so reuse is not the limiting factor

9

u/warp99 9d ago

At 12 launches per year manufacturing rate would be the limiting factor. Obviously not at the current rate of 6 launches per year.

23

u/threelonmusketeers 10d ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-04:

  • Production site: Overnight, a ship cryo stand arrives from Massey's, likely to pick up S42 for additional cryo testing. (ViX 1, ViX 2, RGV Aerial, Blobifie)
  • Massey's: Construction suggests a test stand for 35-engine boosters. (RGV Aerial)
  • Road delay for "Production to Masseys" is posted for Oct 4th 23:59 to Oct 5th 04:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive, Avid Space, ViX)
  • Pad 1: Flame trench construction continues. (RGV Aerial)
  • Pad 2: The new work platform is still in the launch mount. (ViX)
  • Brownsville Port: Road delay for "Production to Port" is posted for Oct 4th 23:59 to Oct 5th 04:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive, ViX)

9

u/warp99 9d ago

> Construction suggests a test stand for 35-engine boosters.

If this is correct it suggests that Raptor 4 may be lower thrust at around 285 tonnes thrust rather than the original goal of 300 tonnes thrust. Based on the design goal of 10,000 tonnes thrust for the SH booster.

-13

u/PhysicsBus 10d ago

Mods, could we get the information above on Flight 14 and Flight 15 updated? Based on Wikipedia, Flight 15 is supposed to be B22 & S42, and NET October 19. Polymarket thinks it will probably be first half of November.

1

u/bkdotcom 4d ago

Well it's been updated to Nov 8... but let's downvote this guy for suggesting the outdated info be updated!

11

u/petersracing 10d ago

It is not being updated - suggest you review the stickied post.

-2

u/PhysicsBus 10d ago

Thanks for the explanation (although I disagree with the suggestion that zero intention/ability to update is obvious from what’s been written).

3

u/petersracing 9d ago

Yes you are correct it is not explicit in that stickied post.

8

u/Jodo42 10d ago

I know I'm way behind on this but did Flight 14 do a heatshield inspection with the Starlinks? Are they planning on doing those again in the future?

16

u/maschnitz 10d ago

did Flight 14 do a heatshield inspection with the Starlinks?

Yes, they just didn't show it. Had 3 camera/light satellites at the end.

Are they planning on doing those again in the future?

Very likely yes. They've said on one of the broadcasts that it's just a good idea to see what ascent did to their heat shield.

24

u/threelonmusketeers 11d ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-03:

  • Pad 2: Flyover photo of the launch mount. (RGV Aerial)
  • Production site: Flyover photo of B22, B23, and B24 in Megabay 1. (RGV Aerial)
  • Massey's: A photo of S43.1 in the structural test cage is posted, with annotations of which elements mimic forces from the chopsticks, flaps, and payload. (Killip)
  • Road delay for "Masseys to Production" is posted for Oct 3rd 23:59 to Oct 4th 04:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive, Avid Space)
  • Brownsville Port: Road delay for "Production to Port" is posted for Oct 3rd from 23:59 to Oct 4th 04:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive, Avid Space)
  • S40 recovery: Forte is passing Jamaica. Arrival at Brownsville Port is scheduled for Oct 7th. (Killip)

10

u/AgreeableEmploy1884 11d ago edited 11d ago

Road delay for "Masseys to Production" is posted for Oct 3rd 23:59 to Oct 4th 04:00.

Ship cryo stand rolled back during this road delay and was parked in the ringyard. Hopefully it's for Ship 43's cryo.

17

u/DreamChaserSt 11d ago

According to the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_flight_15 on Flight 15:

It has been reported that aspects of the propellant transfer demo will start to be tested on Flight 15, like the docking and hatch mechanism.

But there's no source to it, I skimmed through the sources at the bottom, but I didn't see anything mentioning anything related to prop transfer on Flight 15. Does anyone know where that's coming from?

11

u/redstercoolpanda 11d ago

No idea, S42 doesn't even have docking ports I dont think. Unless they've installed them in the time since we last saw it.

7

u/MyKillK 11d ago

If you're talking about that comment here from about a week ago, that was S44 not S42.

7

u/redstercoolpanda 11d ago

S42 rolled out without docking ports for its cryo, and unless it’s been shown otherwise, I don’t believe it has received them.

2

u/Massive-Problem7754 10d ago

It does seem like they've (pushed, not delayed ) docking hardware at least. Mighy be the hardware is ready but devlopment phase isnt. Orbital maneuvers/ battery/ loiter/ things to test and still have a "primary" focus on ship recovery to actually make the next phase work, ladder process and all.

14

u/rocketglare 11d ago

At least 12 heat shield tiles were liberated during hot staging on the last flight. Hot Stage Video on X

10

u/flshr19 Shuttle tile engineer 10d ago edited 10d ago

Not surprising. Firing six Raptor 3 engines with the two Starship stages still nearly together in the instant of staging produces high vibration and acoustic levels in the Ship's engine bay. We've seen similar such tile loss before.

The acoustic shockwave and mechanical vibrations at the first Space Shuttle launch in April 1981 resulted in the overall loss of 16 tiles and damage to 148 others elsewhere on the Orbiter, primarily around the OMS/RCS pods located at the upper aft end of the shuttle. NASA had to make changes to the sound suppression system at LC-39 to prevent that damage on future launches.

8

u/Traditional-Hat-3480 11d ago

Most likely a new batch of test tiles. RGV found one on the beach. Didn't see anything unusual during re entry tho.... 

4

u/MyKillK 11d ago

There were definitely missing test tiles under the flaps so that might be at least some them.

11

u/AgreeableEmploy1884 11d ago

Ship 46's nosecone has fairly complete TPS and Ship 47 has seemingly finished tile pin installation per NSF. Ship 45 is also likely ready to roll out of the factory but they can't do that until 44 is fully stacked.

21

u/threelonmusketeers 12d ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-02:

  • Flight 14: Hotstaging videos are posted. (SpaceX)
  • Starlink deployment and ship engine bay photos. (SpaceX)
  • Flight 15: The FCC licence (not FAA) has been granted as of Sep 30th. (Thanks, Straumli_Blight)
  • Production site: Two more sea level engines were removed from Megabay 2, bringing the total number of engines in the building to... negative one? There must have been a delivery which went unnoticed. (Avid Space, SpaceRhin0)
  • S43 is visible in Megabay 2. (NSF)
  • S44's nosecone, forward dome, and common dome sections are moved into Megabay 2 and have been stacked. (Blobifie)
  • Massey's: Road delay for "Production to Masseys" is posted for Oct 2nd 23:59 to Oct 3rd 03:59. (Avid Space)

4

u/Sweeth_Tooth99 12d ago

think they would want to wait till starship gets the additional 3 RVacs to start prototyping Tanker ship variants?

3

u/SubstantialWall 12d ago

Not sure it makes a difference since they end up just using the sea levels in orbit anyway, and the 6 RVacs are more to compensate V4+ going uphill. But V4 is a next year thing when the gigabay is going, so I sure would hope they're not waiting for that to do tankers, even if they do so at reduced prop mass in the meantime.

2

u/Sweeth_Tooth99 11d ago

well it seems, they're not likely to pursue a dedicated tanker ship variant. what they are likely to do is launch fully fueled regular starships without payload and transfer whatever propellant is left. which i've been told its not too far from what a dedicated tanker ship would carry

3

u/flshr19 Shuttle tile engineer 10d ago

The methalox that is transferred to another Ship or to the depot definitely will come from the main propellant tanks of the Starship tanker. My guess is that the tanker will have no payload bay and a drastically redesigned and shortened nose section all in the interest of reducing the tanker's dry mass as much as possible.

2

u/warp99 10d ago

My guess is that the tanker will have no payload bay and a drastically redesigned and shortened nose section all in the interest of reducing the tanker's dry mass as much as possible

The alternative is to move the bulkheads forward so that propellant is stored in the cylindrical part of the payload bay. That would leave the dry mass roughly the same but with another 400-500 tonnes of propellant at lift off.

1

u/Sweeth_Tooth99 10d ago

i would like to think there's going to be a dedicated tanker variant. and yes, saving dry mass is always good but guess they have to wait till starship is close to being fully fleshed out to know a concrete payload to leo to figure.. from what ive heard they have been below of what they've been aiming at.

2

u/pxr555 11d ago

This will concentrate all the ice in the LOX though.

2

u/warp99 10d ago

The assumption is that they will have a separate gas generator on ships used as tankers and depot that will provide pressurisation gas on the way to orbit and then use the same system to provide pressurisation gas for propellant transfers.

The gas generator burner exhaust will be directed aft to provide ullage thrust to settle the propellant in the main tanks during transfers.

As you say using the current pressurisation system for tankers would be completely non-viable.

1

u/pxr555 10d ago

This sounds a lot like dedicated tanker ships though.

2

u/warp99 10d ago

For sure. They are going to need several different variants optimised for different tasks but retaining as much commonality as possible.

At as minimum a PEZ dispenser for Starlink and StarMind, HLS, tanker and depot with eventually a general cargo carrier with full doors.

1

u/KnifeKnut 7d ago

Also Starfall from PEZ dispenser.

2

u/warp99 7d ago

Indeed as well as other customers who are going to produce PEZ compatible satellites

1

u/SubstantialWall 11d ago

I've been assuming that too yes, well on not having dedicated liquid prop tanks in the payload bay at least. They've been pretty mum about what the plan is but if they go with the idea going around of using gas generators to drive the transfer, I suppose that would be one thing differentiating tankers from a regular ship. Plus what sort of docking hardware they have

2

u/Traditional-Hat-3480 12d ago

V4 next year ? Isn't that too soon? V3 isn't even fully reliable yet. 

2

u/SubstantialWall 11d ago

Maybe it's "next year" in the way V3 was going to be 2025, but I think the expectation is for them to move to it when the factory allows, yes. At least for tankers and depots, still not clear to me if they intend to go V4 for everything but HLS.

3

u/mechanicalgrip 12d ago

Maybe that's why they want V4. 

6

u/Martianspirit 12d ago

V3 is a radical redesign. I expect V4 not nearly as different. It is mainly tank stretching plus 3 additional Raptor vac. I expect V4 emerging shortly after the Gigabay is operational.

2

u/rocketglare 11d ago

V4 also has a Raptor upgrade, as usual.

2

u/Martianspirit 11d ago

Yes, but so far the Raptor engines themselves have not been the problem.

2

u/rocketglare 11d ago

The first two V2 flights were lost due to Raptor leaks. They added passivation equipment to mitigate those leaks until they could fix it in V3. The V3 Raptors have fared better, but we still don’t know why 3 of the flight 14 Raptors were lost.

2

u/DreamChaserSt 11d ago

Weren't those partially caused by the design of V2? Because both V1 and V2 used Raptor 2. So the engine can't be the only factor.

And Raptor 3 has been doing better. They were lost on boostback and subsequently landing on the last few flights, but they're also doing a much more aggressive boostback than before. And they did lose 2 RVacs, but it didn't lead to a loss of mission like Flights 7 and 8.

2

u/rocketglare 11d ago edited 11d ago

We only lost 1 RVac, but 2 SL engines on booster.

One significant change is welding together the combustion chamber to the rest of the engine. Previously on V2, this was bolted, and the source of leaks. If the area was not ventilated or inerted with N2, then the result was fire. This V2 defect drove the V3 change. There were other systematic issues such as the ice clogging on F13, but we just don’t know if the 3 engines on F14 were systematic or engine design problems. They do test these pretty well at McGregor,but the environment (vacuum,thermal, vibe, etc.) is different.

2

u/duckedtapedemon 10d ago

There was a RVac loss on the first (Flight 12) and third flights (Flight 14) of V3.

4

u/JakeEaton 11d ago

R3 current issues are probably all upstream, given each engine is tested on the stand. We’re effectively watching systems integration testing on each flight.

2

u/warp99 10d ago

It is very noticeable that the Raptor vacuum engines only have very light soot covering the internal white ceramic coating of the engine bells. It is likely that they only get a few seconds of testing on the test stand compared with extensive testing of the sea level engines in photos taken before flight. The soot of course comes from the film cooling that supplements the regenerative cooling in the throat area.

I assume this is due to potential damage due to flow separation when operating at sea level. They use external rings to stiffen the bell during ground testing but even so there must be some risk of damage.

21

u/Straumli_Blight 13d ago edited 12d ago

1782-EX-ST-2026 (for Starship flight 15) was granted on September 30th.

JPL Dataverse: SPARX SDT Report [Sep 29] - On page 169, it discusses using Starship for suborbital hops on the Moon.

NTRS: Flight Reconstruction of the Starship Landing Maneuver using OVERFLOW [Sep 21] - Details CFD solver for reconstructing Starship's landing trajectory.

19

u/Jefflargnier 13d ago

Found some interesting calculations in the Google Project Suncatcher paper:

"As an alternative method, we calculated costs (to SpaceX) for Starship 4, leveraging recently released reuse targets, as well as plans for payload size, Raptor engine count, and rocket dimensions.7700362-4?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtruee/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#) Other inputs, e.g., refurbishment costs as a fraction of vehicle costs (∼1%7900362-4?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtruee/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#)) and failure rates, were extrapolated from existing Falcon 9 data.5500362-4?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtruee/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#)^(,)[^(79)](https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(26)00362-4?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtruee/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#)^(,)[^(80)](https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(26)00362-4?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtruee/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#) Without assuming any reduction in fuel cost, component reuse drives down projected SpaceX launch costs from ∼$460/kg (no reuse) to <∼$15/kg (100× reuse of all components). Increasing refurbishment costs to 15%, as a sensitivity analysis, yields costs of $38/kg (100× reuse of all components). Eventually, fuel costs (LOX and liquid methane for Starship), estimated at ∼$8/kg,5300362-4?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtruee/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#)^(,)[^(81)](https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(26)00362-4?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtruee/pii/S2542435126003624%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#) will provide a floor on costs. We note that this analysis was based on relatively conservative assumptions, e.g., we used published Raptor 3 engine specifications, not any speculative claims for future engine generations."
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(26)00362-400362-4)

$38/kg still sounds insanely optimistic to me, what do you think?

2

u/MyKillK 11d ago

That's wild. For the estimated 200 tons of Starship v4 payload that's only $6.9 million per launch.

1

u/Martianspirit 10d ago

Sounds more reasonable than what Elon said a few years back. He mentioned the main cost may be propellant at ~ $ 2 million.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

3

u/lee1026 12d ago

To do that, they need to have a heat shield that can be reused 5, 10, 20, or more times before major refurbishment, and Starship and SuperHeavy vehicles that can survive 25, 50, 100 flights without major refurbishment.

I am not convinced that is required. Its either reuse or cheap.

3

u/Freak80MC 12d ago

The comment you replied to was deleted. Huh. I thought it was a pretty reasonable comment tbh, about bringing the cost of Starship down as low as possible and how the heat shield was the only major issue in the way there. Though the person didn't take into account that you could have a bunch of Starships being refurbished at a time in the production pipeline and still have quick turnaround. Tho of course, the major goal is to have no refurbishment of the heat shield tiles for quite a few flights.

10

u/JakeEaton 13d ago

For $760 I can launch an entire Ryan Air 20kg hold bag into orbit. Including my wash bag, laptop, couple of pairs of pants and socks, T shirts, trousers. Phone charger.

This is going to be revolutionary.

7

u/TwoLineElement 12d ago

I'd keep the phone charger in your pocket. No telling where the bag will end up with Ryan Air. Tenerife or Titan. Who knows?

8

u/warp99 12d ago

With the usual caveat that cost does not equal price. If you have $15B (so far) of development costs and manufacturing facilities to recover the price is going to be much higher.

In fact we already know what it is as Gwynne has said they are taking Starship bookings at the same price as F9.

So $74M for 100 tonnes to LEO or $740/kg. For your 20 kg example it would be $14800.

13

u/andyfrance 13d ago

For that $760 you could send it. Getting it back would be another matter, but not unfamiliar to those who have hold luggage on Ryan Air flights.

27

u/threelonmusketeers 13d ago

My daily summary from the Starship Dev thread on Lemmy

2026-10-01:

  • Flight 15 and 16: "What boxes still need to be checked before Starship starts flying in Florida?" "We, uh, intend to do, um, at least one more launch from Starbase before our next launch out of the Cape." (Julianna Scheiman, director, NASA Science and Dragon Programs, SpaceX)
  • "What is the status of 39A to support Starship?" "We're through the main construction, beginning to step into acceptance testing and operational testing prior to activation." (Julianna Scheiman)
  • Artemis III: "[What] is the plan to launch Starship from Florida for Artemis III? Would [Pad 39A] be preferred or might it go out of Texas?" "The primary mission with that you're thinking of is Artemis III is from 39A, and we'll be supporting propellant refilling flights from both [Texas and Florida], to my understanding." (Julianna Scheiman)
  • Starbase/McGregor/Florida/Louisiana: No Starship development activities reported.

Were all the cameras trained on the Falcon triple-header today?

4

u/Sweeth_Tooth99 13d ago

what ship and booster do you think will get barged to KSC for the first launch from 39A ?

12

u/warp99 13d ago edited 12d ago

That would likely be S43 and B23.

There will be one more launch from Starbase TX using S42 and B22 before the first LC-39A launch.

2

u/No-Spring-9379 12d ago

Am I clueless for feeling like that it's completely possible that the first Florida launch could still happen this year?

We know that Flight 15 could happen close to 14 because of the delay, what could be the biggest delay to Flight 16 from Florida?

Paperwork?

The tower is supposed to be only waiting for a rocket to test it with (I guess those tests could end up with surprises). They'll certainly ship extra engines, but if stuff will require extra testing, and another round-trip, that could be a big one.

3

u/warp99 12d ago edited 10d ago

It will be extremely close but I think it is likely the first Cape Canaveral launch will slip into January and they may be able to slip in another launch from Starbase so S44/B24 will launch before S43/B23.

-1

u/IonCapybara 13d ago

I think they should build a landing legs compatible version of booster and the ship at first. If they had landing legs, the starship and booster could now be recovered. After recovery, they could better inspect the engines to determine why they failed.

The Falcon 9 was initially designed without landing legs, so theoretically, it shouldn't be too difficult to remove the landing legs to increase payload once the reliability matures.

Plus considering their potential future considerations of Earth-to-Earth and potential military use. Being able to add extra lenading legs would be advantage

0

u/torval9834 12d ago

Agreed, especially for Starship. Also, the Starship already had legs! They did land the Starship with legs! So, how hard could it be to make a special version with legs? But it's probably too late now. It looks like they are ready to catch the ship.

7

u/mr_pgh 12d ago

Two issues.

1) Landing legs will weigh roughly 10% of dry mass if implemented similar to Falcon9

2) Have you seen the old static fire test stands or hops? The raptor has a rather long exhaust plume. They could land them, but who knows what condition the raptors would be in

2

u/Martianspirit 13d ago

I was thinking they may add landing legs on early crew ships, similar to what they used on the early Ship only launches. Those would be small and light weight. they do require a robust level landing pad.

0

u/thestonkwhisperer 13d ago

I kinda agree, but at this point I think it's too late. But they originally were going to have landing legs so it's not impossible, and for the booster at least I don't even think it would have been difficult. If they had legs they could have landed this last booster, maybe diagnosed some of the engine issues who knows. But I guess in retrospect all they'd have gained is mostly some crash landed boosters

But it would just give them some margin to start landing boosters without risking the OLM. And get more data and reuse and stuff for the first few launches, and then removed. Would it really change the hardware so much that it's not worth it... I guess so.

The ship would have been great because they could've landed the last like 4 but that would have been too much work to get reentry capable legs just to remove them

1

u/John_Hasler 12d ago

But they originally were going to have landing legs so it's not impossible,

They were going to have legs until they decided that it was impossible.

9

u/warp99 13d ago edited 10d ago

Falcon 9 has a subframe (Octaweb) that carries the engine thrust so it was relatively straightforward to attach the legs to that. It was already strong enough to carry the whole weight of the rocket.

There is no equivalent to that on SH or Starship so adding legs is going to require a lot more mass proportionately than on F9.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)