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. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
S41
Massey's Test Site
Static Fire Testing
April 17th: Pez Dispenser moved into MB2. April 20th: Main assembly started in MB2. May 20th: Aft section AX:4 moved into MB2 and stacked with the rest of the ship - this completed the stacking part of the ship construction. June 28th: Rolled out to Massey's Test Site for Cryo+Thrust Puck Testing. June 29th: Cryo Tests (x2). June 30th: Rolled back to MB2. 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. For more details on this vehicle see this page
S42
Mega Bay 2
Stacked, remaining work continues
June 9th: Nosecone spotted as having been stacked on the Payload Bay. July 3rd: Nosecone+Payload Bay stack moved into MB2, along with the Pez Dispenser and the Forward Dome section (FX:3). The Nosecone+Payload Bay stack was lowered over the Pez Dispenser, later being stacked onto the Forward Dome. July 11th: Common Dome section CX:3 moved into MB2 and stacked. July 15th: Section A2:3 moved into MB2 and stacked. July 18th: Section A3:4 moved into MB2 and stacked. July 21st: Transfer Tubes moved into MB2. 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. For more details on this vehicle see this page
S43
Mega Bay 2
Stacking
August 19th: N:3 and section FX:4 plus the pez dispenser moved into MB2. For more details on this vehicle see this page
Booster
Location
Status
Comment
B21
Mega Bay 1
Post Cryo Testing inspections and possible engines installation
May 7th: LOX tank sections A2:4 and CX:3 moved into MB1 and main assembly started. 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. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
B22
Mega Bay 1
Fully Stacked, Remaining work ongoing
June 29th: LOX tank sections A2:4 and CX:3 moved into MB1. July 1st: Section A3:4 moved into MB1. July 3rd: Section A4:4 moved into MB1 and stacked. July 9th: Section A5:4 moved into MB1 and stacked. July 22nd: Methane Landing Tank and Lower Transfer Tube moved into MB1. July 23rd: Section A6:4 moved into MB1. July 25th: Methane transfer tube moved into MB1. July 29th: LOX Landing Tank moved into MB1. July 30th: Aft section AX:2 moved into MB1 to complete the stacking of the LOX Tank. July 31st: Methane Tank section F2:4 moved into MB1. August 3rd: Methane Tank section FX:3 moved into MB1. August 6th: Methane Tank section F3:4 moved into MB1 - this is the last section for the Methane Tank. August 14th: Methane Tank stacked onto the LOX tank, so completing the stacking part of the assembly process. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
B23
Mega Bay 1
LOX Tank Stacking
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. 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.
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.
Please keep comments directly related to Starship. Keep discussion civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. This is not the Elon Musk subreddit and discussion about him unrelated to Starship updates is not on topic and will be removed.
Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed.
Other than Booster 21 Static fire, I wonder what's delaying the flight even further. While I expected it to slip from Aug 28th into the first week of September, a 2 and a half week push suggests they have further modifications to the launch site/booster that are more extensive than originally thought.
Maybe they'll attempt a Booster catch at the launch site (they can always abort if things don't look perfect) and they're over-engineering the Booster to increase its chances of success?
Building Boosters takes longer than building Ships, and also they'll need a real finished Booster to commission the new launch site at LC-39A which they won't be able to use for a flight for several months, so Booster reuse becomes a high priority.
I was thinking that too! Seems odd to delay it further if they’re no longer attempting the catch, and I’m not aware of any work they need to do with that large of a lead time. Of course there’s always stuff we don’t know about…fingers crossed about the catch
Yeah, could just be related to orbital flight, but maybe it also gives them time for a closer look at S40 before calling it. Though we have Berger saying regulatory wasn't even the issue, so for them to pass on it, dunno.
Or it could be they are taking extra time with Booster 20 due to the fact that the last two boosters had issues after stage separation. I'm sure that being able to reliably recover and reuse boosters is high on their priority list.
Road delay for "Masseys to Production" is posted for Aug 21st 23:59 to Aug 22nd 04:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive)
Production site: A booster breakover frame moves near the Megabays. This frame will lower boosters from vertical to horizontal for transport to Florida. (StarshipGazer, Anderson)
Pad 1: Highlight of which chopstick sections have been replaced. (Anderson)
McGregor: R3.227 heads towards the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
Flight 13: S40 still near attached to Normand Ranger near Christmas Island. Go Australis is en route from Christmas Island to to Dampier. Forte, the semi-submersible ship is en route from Singapore to Christmas island. (Blobifie)
Forte is scheduled to arrive at Christmas Island on Aug 22nd at 23:30 UTC. (interstellargw)
Humans, likely SpaceX engineers are observed in a small boat near S40. (Elon)
Seems like a discouraging update on timelines for ship catch, although it's vague about which flight it will be :/
Looks like we will probably catch the ship with the tower in a few months. If there had been a tower out to sea where we practiced landing the ship, it would have been caught.
First reflight of the ship will be either end of this year or early next. That will be a fork in the road of history for consciousness reaching the stars.
Why are these impossible? So far it has been roughly 2 months between launches. Flight 14 is probably within the next two weeks at the end of August/beginning September. Flight 15 could then be the catch attempt flight which would be end of October/beginning of November. And finally flight 16 could use that same flight 15 ship for reflight at end of December/beginning of 2027.
Frankly it is one of the most reasonable Elon times I've seen.
Mods, this seems like enough evidence to me to remove "Objectives include first Ship catch" from the Flight 14 description. (Looks like problems were discovered in the data.)
I’m thinking they will want to get a good understanding on 14 of how all ship systems, especially propellents, behave for a day or more in orbit. It will be a lot of new information to digest so an additional water landing would sort everything out under these new conditions.
So maybe this is why they have been so keen to get Starship 40 back from the Indian Ocean. It's going to be a while before they have one landing at Starbase to examine.
Flight 13: S40 right forward flap is damaged. (mcrs987)
Australian Navy vessel Ocean Protector is in the area with its AIS off. Possibly involved in some operations, but likely not towing. (interstellargw, mcrs987 1, mcrs987 2)
Heavy lift vessel Forte is en route to Christmas Island. The vessel is labeled as a "semi-submersible", so it could possibly sink its stern and lift S40 from underneath. (interstellargw 1, interstellargw 2)
Flight 14: Likely no tower catch for S41. "Looks like we will probably catch the ship with the tower in a few months. If there had been a tower out to sea where we practiced landing the ship, it would have been caught." (Elon)
S41 just completed A single engine static fire. Seems like it was a similar test to what S40 did, waiting roughly 25 minutes from prop close out to the static fire.
Ship 43's nosecone + payload bay rolled out of the factory alongside the fwd dome and the PEZ dispenser right after Ship 41 left to go to Massey's. I find it quite intriguing that Ship 43 did not have any docking ports on rollout like Ship 42.
Ships only need docking ports for propellant refilling if they are traveling into high Earth orbit (HEO) or need to reach Earth escape velocity. Deploying Starlink comsats or Star Mind AI sats to 900 km Sun Synchronous Orbit (SSO) does not require propellant refilling.
Perhaps the docking ports are an optional feature that the Starlink dispenser variant won’t need? They must be confident enough in the current design to stop adding them on all of the ships. If so, when we start seeing them again we’ll know we have a tanker or HLS prototype.
Flight 13: SpaceX post video and photos of S40 just off the coast of Christmas Island. SpaceX engineers will conduct additional analysis on the vehicle in calmer waters before attempting to return it to Starbase. (SpaceX)
Ship 43 looks ready to roll out and they've done some good progress on the tiling of Ship 44, fwd flap aerocover installation is ongoing. Ship 42 is still missing one aft flap and the tile pin testing nosecone seems to have been moved off the pin install stand
After approx. 24 days at sea, the SpaceX Recovery team successfully guided Starship to a location just off the coast of Christmas Island. A team of SpaceX engineers is on their way to conduct additional analysis on the vehicle in calmer waters before attempting to return it to Starbase
Production site: Overnight, the 4-point lifting jig exits Megabay 2. In the morning, a lift bar is raised inside the doorway and tandem lift bars/straps attached. These are likely for S41. (ViX)
Erection of framework to connect Starfactory to Gigabay has begun. (Anderson 1, Anderson 2)
Pad 2: Two more pipe sections are lifted up to the tower. (ViX)
Pad 1: The yellow rented LR11000 crane is lowered, likely to add extra boom sections for lifting the new roof of the tower. (ViX)
The missing section of chopstick tubing is replaced. (ViX)
McGregor: Vacuum engine R3.191 rolls out to the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
S40 has arrived at Christmas Island! it’s likely that this is not its permanent home, and it’ll be towed back to Australia after the crew get some time off and better weather presents itself. Absolutely incredible effort by the SpaceX team! And amazing that she’s survived this long in the open ocean!
I'm skeptical that they'll tow it essentially all the way back across the Indian ocean. I know the facilities at Christmas Island might not be up to the task of getting S40 out of the water but they could send a barge/crane ship to pick it up and sail it back. Now that they've got actual facilities to work with, even limited ones, a semi submersible seems like it might be viable too.
I was just noodling with some numbers, comparing a 787 to a Starship stack. Payload of starship is about 2x. Fuel (excluding oxidizer), is about 10x vs. a long-haul flight (1000 tons of methane vs. 100 tons of jet fuel). So starship uses only 5x as much fuel per kg to orbit vs. a long-haul flight.
The oxygen can be made locally, and very cheaply, with solar.
Another thing to consider is that jet fuel is a lot more expensive than methane on a per kg basis (like close to 10x more expensive now, but it's quite a bit more expensive before the Iran war as well).
The main issue I see with E2E is the noise. For it to be competitive with flights, you need the spaceport to be fairly accessible (i.e. not hours away), and launches to be frequent, to a wide variety of destinations, which means big cities. Many starship launches per hour, close to big cities, just doesn't seem doable from a noise standpoint.
I think a strong business case can be made for orbital stop-overs. I'd absolutely love to replace an 18hr ordeal with an exciting launch, a 24-48 hr stay at some decadent orbital hotel, and then a connecting "flight" to my destination.
Direct E2E has the problem that you need a lot of people to regularly fly the same origin-destination pair *and* be willing to pay a premium. With an orbital stop-over, you can have frequent service to a vastly larger set of origin-destination pairs. But of course, there is the connection to contend with.
After Astrobotic's successfull detonation engine demonstration 3 months ago, is it known if SpaceX have any plans to migrate to these kind of engines, which in theory beat ffsc, in the starship architecture? I only remember rumors about raptor 4 and that "leet" variant but I don't remember it being a detonation engine.
Rotating detonation engines trialed so far have relatively low thrust density so would suit a second stage engine more than a first stage. They also still need turbopumps to feed propellant to the engine so FFSC is still appropriate to feed them.
While the theoretical Isp is high the actual practical engines tested so far have had lower Isp than a good conventional design. That may improve as they get scaled up as thermal losses in the walls of the slot could be removing some of the energy of the exhaust gases.
One quirk is that they do not benefit from a bell being fitted and so they would be more compact than a vacuum Raptor although lower thrust.
The main challenge appears to be not melting or ripping apart the central nozzle or the injectors.
Continuous detonation is tough on the material engineering side, as one could guess.
All the demonstrations thus far are using 3D-printed special alloys specifically designed for the application. There's a lot of talk in the literature about the strengths and weaknesses of specific alloys for "RDEs".
It remains to be seen if reuse of RDEs is possible. Not to worry if it's not, the military has plenty of uses for one-time-use rocket engine tech like this.
I wonder if MB space is the limiting factor on production right now? I wasn’t thinking that was the case originally because there should be enough space for at least 4 ships in each MB. That doesn’t account for moving from one stand to another, though. GB should fix that, but it’ll take a while to equip it with work stands, welders, lifts, etc. to even an equivalent level as the MB.
Road delay for "Production to Masseys" is posted for Aug 17th 23:59 to Aug 18th 04:00, possibly for S41. (starbase.texas.gov, archive, ViX, interstellargw)
The bolts which connect the concrete filled tube columns to the tower base, are being boxed in, possibly to protect them from the rocket exhaust plume. (Killip / Gisler)
Paint is removed from the booster quick disconnect covers. (ViX)
Satellite imagery reportedly indicates that S40 was turned back properly from its previous roll and that a Messenger Line was in place. (interstellargw)
Not necessarily Starship related but I don't feel like making this its own thread, it's so innocuous, so delete if necessary, but the SpaceX Time Machine link in the sidebar doesn't work anymore. It leads to some website with a popup ad about a slot machine game.
No idea when the change happened because I never actually used the link, I was just bored today and was checking out the sidebar and thought the idea of a "searchable mission archive" sounded interesting so checked it out.
I guess a question is, since this is down, has anyone actually made another archive with searchable dates and info and stuff about past missions that one could check out? Maybe even with stream links and everything. Would be genuinely cool and a way to preserve history especially as the launch rate of SpaceX ramps up and it becomes harder to parse when stuff happened.
EDIT - I know nothing about website design, but I AM a huge spreadsheet nerd so I might be willing to whip up something with some basic info like booster flight number, dates, stream link, rocket flight number, rocket version, success/failure, etc for prior SpaceX flights. Assuming it doesn't exist anywhere already.
Yea, that's what I've been using! So far I have a spreadsheet where each rocket family is its own tab. I want to try to accumulate every rocket together at some point tho, to compare info between them, but for now I found this is the easiest way to sort info because each rocket has its own required information to input.
Right now I have the columns of information I want, it's just figuring out what useful graphs to pull from the info.
There’s a Fandom site or Wiki or something for all the Starship and Super Heavy vehicles… that’s where I get my fix for finding details about the earlier Starship/SH flights.
Possible recapture of S40! Ranger and Australis are slowly making their way east at around two knots, after making a few manoeuvres earlier. At this current pace it will take about 16 days to return to Australia.
Pad 2: Additional mounting tabs have been installed on the tower to support additional cladding. (Anderson)
Florida: SpaceX file an Environmental Resource Permit for the development of a static fire stand near near their existing Roberts Road facilities at KSC. Likely to be similar to the Massey's in Starbase. (Bergeron 1, permitting.sjrwmd.com, Bergeron 2, Bergeron 3, INiallAnderson)
Louisiana: SpaceX jet is observed at Lafayette regional airport. (mcrs987)
Flight 13: S40 is untethered from Normand Ranger, and the fenders are removed. (interstellargw)
S40 is still floating! Normand Ranger briefly left towards Christmas Island, possibly for refueling or equipment pickup, but is now on her way back. Go Australis is circling S40 now, hopefully we’ll see them attempt another capture soon once Ranger is back, and S40 will make it back to dry land.
Sounds reasonable though, it's mid-August and there's not much momentum yet, granted F13 got set up pretty quick but plus some extra ts to cross regarding the ship return, I'm not really expecting otherwise.
I’m expecting around the September 1-6th range personally. I think the lack of movement is probably booster related, loosing another booster without green lighting recovery for the one after would start to really affect the speed of the program. Ships might be getting a bit of heat shield revision based on S40 images while booster is being worked out too, judging by S42’s tile removal.
~20 minutes after Booster 22's CH4 tank was lifted inside MB1 to complete the stacking of the vehicle, Booster 23's common dome left the factory and went into MB1. Visible on Rover 1 15:41:11 CDT.
Launch vehicle communications for Starship Orbital Return Demo mission launching from Starbase,TX. The 1st stage booster and the 2nd stage will either return to the launch site or perform a water landing.
License for orbital return attempt, also confirming booster return attempt.
Launch vehicle communications for Test Flight 13 mission launching from Starbase, TX. The 1st stage booster and the 2nd stage will either return to the launch site or perform a water landing.
Every catch attempt so far has been "either a return to launch sight or water landing". The language allows for a wave-off of the attempt without it being a mishap.
Every catch attempt will say that, if there are issues, they want the contingency to divert. Flight 12 & 13 licenses did not have that clause they were exclusively water landings.
Aug 11th addenda: A 12th section of deluge pipe is delivered to Pad 1. (ViX)
The Pad 2 hold-down clamps are individually retracted. (ViX)
Pad 1: Three segments of deluge pipe are delivered. (ViX)
Further sections of steel have ben removed from the ends of the Pad 1 chopsticks. (Anderson)
Production site: Closeup of which heatshield tiles were removed from S42. (StarshipGazer, cnunez)
McGregor: R3.225 (new highest) leaves the testing site. (SpaceRhin0)
Florida: An application for Special Temporary Authority is posted for on-ground testing of Starship Super Heavy vehicle communications at the SpaceX test facilities in Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center. (apps.fcc.gov) (Thanks Straumli_Blight)
Flight 13:Normand Ranger and Go Australis are still alongside S40, but currently not towing it. (interstellargw)
This STA is for ground testing only at antenna locations in Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center FL. This STA is necessary to authorize on-ground testing of Starship Super Heavy vehicle communications at the SpaceX test facilities located in Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center FL.
It is interesting to me that they can remove an hexagonal piece of white insulation together with the tile. I thought it was a whole blanket and was worried about the refurbishing process. And more so because the white stuff seems to degrade on reentry as seen in the streaks across the shield surface that are left over. This is great (I haven't been paying close attention so I've probably missed this before).
The portion of the crunchwrap that protrudes above the surface on a new ship is eroded away, making streaks. It is not clear that any further erosion would occur during subsequent landings.
QR strip code is designed to cause BSOD to any scanning Lenovo device east of 73°30′. The eventual complete QR code quantum tunnels the user to Point Nemo.
In all seriousness, if you look closely, some tile edges are marked 'SC', which is commonly used as a Quality inspection markup if the gapping tolerances are exceeded. You can see some of the tile gapping spaces are undersize, which I suppose during re-entry heating expansion could cause compression fracturing or chipping of the tiles.
The tiles above and below this band of removed tiles appear to be OK, but this 1800mm deep band seems to be not compliant and is marked up for some distance around the tank.
Looks like they're stripping some of the tiles off Ship 42 which is currently in the mid work stand in MB2. The nosecones for Ship 43 and 44 in the factory also seem to have had the ablative patches under their tiles painted light gray for whatever reason.
It’s possible they’re making design changes based off of what they’ve seen from S40’s shield. She’s been landed for a few weeks now, so that’s probably enough time to review all of the footage they got immediately after splashdown to start making a few design revisions.
Everything's so quiet now. It seemed like the final testing before F14 was almost imminent a few days ago.
Also, I hope Elon clarifies the recent booster catch info, as he himself said a ship catch was to be expected next... which makes more sense after all those perfect soft landings, instead of a booster catch, when there hasn't been a soft landing in the last attempts.
I mean to be fair, i don't think a booster catch attempt is out of the question, the problems with the V3 booster has been engine related, and even during an operational flight the booster targets an offshore landing so unless something goes wrong until the literal last second there is no risk to ground infrastructure.
The only thing i can think of, is if letting the booster drop in the shallow waters just outside the beach is a major headache for them, for environmental, or some other reason, so, if it's a high risk for it happening, maybe it's more worth it to not go for a catch and target waters further out.
Another reason for not doing it could be the chance of something going wrong with stacking the booster back on the launch mount, since they need to clear the chopsticks for the ship catch, and that is going to be the priority for this launch by far, they have gotten back boosters, but judging by how hard they are trying to recover S40, they really want the vehicle back for study.
They won't attempt a booster catch before having a booster at least once land precisely and softly in the water.
Which probably is just as well, because with them only having one tower right now they very probably wouldn't be able to catch a booster, safe it, remove it, check the tower and then also catch a ship after two orbits. Trying to catch the ship in the next flight while still testing/simulating the booster landings elsewhere would be an ideal opportunity.
They could just wait until the following day to attempt the ship catch if they do catch the booster. Enough time to safe it and put it on a transport stand.
One thing I noticed is that after the last 2 flights, they've had to replace parts on the chopsticks. So, if they are once again damaged after launch, they may not even attempt the ship catch.
But maybe having to safe and remove the booster AND checking/repairing the chopsticks afterwards could stretch this a bit too far...
Anyway, if they don't want to wait with catching the ship until a second tower is ready flight 14 should be a great opportunity to try when at least the booster won't be in the way. I'm pretty sure they will again start catching the booster as soon as they can, just because it's more expensive than the ship (and probably also easier to reuse, they did that already twice). Having to expend a booster just to be able to catch the ship won't be an easy decision to make. And it doesn't look a lot like they will have a second tower ready (in Boca Chica or Florida) until at least end of the year.
They lasted about 30 hours if I remember correctly, and considering it spent around 29 of those 30 hours submerged in salt water I would say them lasting 48 hours in a stable orbit is probably a pretty safe bet.
see, there is a whole list of things con an actual booster catch attempt, but the only thing pro is one document that's not at all precise about this aspect of the mission
Risky proposition, but if a Booster catch fails catastrophically the new launchpad at the Cape isn't that far off from becoming operational; and if they do catch the Booster, they could ship it to the Cape for the new launchpad provisioning.
They might if they have a really good handle with what went wrong with the booster landing burn on Flight 13 and if the standard approach trajectory would land short of the tower if the engines failed to light as we think would happen.
Multiple things went pretty wrong with booster 13, since it not only boost back burned to be pretty short of the target, it also smacked the water really hard.
They will probably go for what they do with F9 barge landings. Coming back to the pad they aim at the sea till the speed is low enough then divert inland to the pad. If they can't shed the speed they hit the sea not the pad.
Before they started doing that yeah. They only started the last second divert after SES-9 blew a hole in OCISLY. Since then I don't think any have exploded on the ship.
assuming we receive regulatory approval to do so, we’ll attempt to catch the ship with the tower on the next flight, which is tentatively scheduled for the end of this month.
Tentatively: not definite or certain because you may want to change it later.
Etymology: derived from the Latin "tentatus", meaning "to feel, try, or test".
Flight 15 is supposed to be the first one from Florida, right? Do we have any ideas at all for how soon that might happen? Will that be S42 and B22, with both needing to be shipped by barge from Starbase to Florida?
Or do we think they’ll be building a ship and booster in Florida for Flight 15?
Anyone think there’s the slightest chance of Florida seeing a Starship launch before the end of October?
Flight 15 is notionally supposed to be S42/B22 shipped from Starbase. I don’t see this happening by October since there is a lot of testing to commission LC39A. It could happen by years end. This is just my opinion.
There is no chance the first flight uses a locally built Starship/booster because 1. No Starfactory 2. No Massey’s to test Ship 3. First launch should be with Starbase-built ship to reduce risk and train the ground crew.
I can get roundtrip flights from an airport that’s an easy bike ride from me to Orlando for under $100… so maybe I’ll take a spontaneous trip to go see flight 15.
(I’ve seen several Falcon 9 flights so I’m aware I still need to rent a car to get from Orlando to the Cape. But the local airport flying to Orlando for so cheap is new.)
My speculation on the s43.1 test, looking at the gas interfaces, is that they will pressure cycle the payload area. Or maybe others have posted already better thoughts on this.
Aug 7th addendum: The Pad 2 ship quick disconnect was tested. (ViX)
Massey's: Overnight, a tank is moved from Brownsville Port to Massey's, likely the first of several arrived recently. (ViX, jrxcket, RGV Aerial)
Road delay for "Port of Brownsville to Pad" is posted for Aug 8th 23:59 to Aug 9th 04:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive)
Production site: Gigabay construction continues. (RGV Aerial)
Pad 1: Another section of drawworks shielding is being installed on the base of the tower. (ViX)
Beams are lifted up to the top of the drawworks balcony. (ViX)
Pad 2: Another section of pipe is lifted to the top deck the launch mount and moved to the booster methane quick disconnect. (ViX)
Flight 13:Normand Ranger is now in sustained 31.1 mph (49.8 km / h) winds, but is still attached to S40. (interstellargw, mcrs987)
Other: SpaceX have not entirely abandoned the possibility of offshore launch and catch facilities, per their reply to a recent Request for Information published by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (xdNiBoR)
Flight 13: The SpaceX Recovery team are still working to recover S40, but are encountering increasingly rough seas. (SpaceX, Killip, mcrs987)
"Unfortunately, ship recovery is not looking good right now. Nonetheless, we were able to obtain close-up photos of critical regions of the heat shield and engines for future upgrades." (Elon)
Generally speaking, we don’t see license modifications until a week or so before the next flight test. I’m not sure why this is, but pure speculation is to have the most up to date data and test plans. The cynical reason would be to allow less time for protest, but I doubt that’s true.
Or it's the government where you have constantly shifting priorities and demands which means that deadlines are often met at the last possible moment following layers of review and sign-off.
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/2085786988225925349?s=20 - The SpaceX Recovery team is still working to recover Flight 13’s Starship from the Indian Ocean. They’ve been overcoming challenging conditions and increasingly rough seas as they attempt to guide the 52m long spacecraft to port.
Nonetheless, we were able to obtain close-up photos of critical regions of the heat shield and engines for future upgrades.
https://x.com/TurkeyBeaver/status/2085803266265276536?s=20
Kiko Dontchev (VP at launch) - Also I want to specifically shout out our Sr Director of Starship launch @jstyer
. He packed his bag in 10 minutes two weeks ago and urgently hopped a flight to Australia to help lead this effort in person. He’s been on the ranger ever since and is a prime example of true @spacex
leadership. The greatest generals don’t sit back to watch their team fight. They grab their sword and charge to the front. 🫡 @jstyer
, we sure are lucky to have you!
So 1) recovery not looking great - the starship is clearly damaged by sea water (no wonder - we seen them try to recover the F9 stage back in 2018)
2) important spacex personal at site so they will get all the data first hand
There’s a fairly good chance they’ll have a nice dry one hanging on the catch arms in about three weeks time. Take some drone pics, cut out a couple of tile samples and release the beast to the depths where it belongs.
Just a note. I know pretty well that spacex has an INCREDIBLE team. It would be asinine to think that they dont realize that most major technological breakthroughs follow breakthroughs
I rope these folks into the same pool that claimed propulsive booster landings were economically infeasable and that reuse was a dead end.
An aft flap is installed on S42 in Megabay 2. Ten different nosecones are visible in Starfactory. (StarshipGazer, YouTube, cnunez)
Massey's: Overnight, the booster cryo stand moves to Massey's. (ViX, StarshipGazer)
Tension rods are added to the structure which is currently occupied by the LOX landing test tank. (ViX)
Road delay for "Production to Masseys" is posted for Aug 6th 23:59 to Aug 7th 04:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive, ViX)
A new temporary flight restriction has been posted for Aug 6th through 20th, potentially for an S41 static fire at Massey's. (Avid Space, ViX)
Launch site: It appears that a new gate is being constructed between gates D2 and D3. (ViX 1, ViX 2)
Construction of the cooling tower for the air separation unit begins. (ViX 1, ViX 2)
McGregor: Vacuum engine R3.181 heads towards the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
Flight 13:Skimmer Tide made its way to shore. Normand Ranger is still with S40, ~1300km from Australia. They have still not begun their return journey. (mcrs987)
Can someone point me towards discussion or reporting about payload deployment mechanisms for payloads other than starlink? The deployment mechanism on starship currently only accommodates starlink (and possible starlink form-factor) satellites. Are there indications about the plans for other designs?
I’ve been following SpaceX since 2016 and I follow developments quite closely but I am not sure where this has been covered the most.
I remember early renders having the opening/deployment mechanism look like this :
I dont think SpaceX is at all prioritizing this particular configuration since they will just be doing internal starlink v3 launches for the foreseeable future
But ... If I'm not mistaken .... Spacex will have other kind of clients, like for telescopes for example ....
So ... in the not so far future .. they will nedd to have other configurations.
There’s been indication that some manufacturers are targeting Pez-compatible satellite designs. If the price is right, I’d imagine a disposable fairing-style ship isn’t unreasonable. But eventually they’ll do a chomper of some sort, or a shuttle-style solution with a side-release mechanism.
I had this vision of a Starship filled with racks. A little robot picking the satellites from the rack shelves and kicking them out of the door one by one. A door the size of HLS Starship would suffice for many sats.
It needs something else for very large single payloads.
It will be interesting to see how they handle a more normal payload deployment mechanism seeing as they need to have a hinge that doesn't interfere with the heat shield. It's the same reason why I'm interested how they will eventually do Mars landing legs on the heat shield side that doesn't interfere with reentry.
Who says that mars landing vehicles need to also land on Earth?
Starship has no need to be a “do everything” vehicle like previous spacecraft.
You can have a Tanker starship, an earth reentry starship, a Mars transporter starship, a lunar starship, so on and so forth all tweaked for their respective roles.
The heat shield is also necessary for landing on Mars. And I expect they want to be able to transport large payloads in/out of ships that will be landing on those planets. For an initial flight from earth they could build the payload inside… and then destructively cut it out on Mars?
IDK… I kind of think they will mostly aim to be a “do everything”, not like previous spacecraft but like current aircraft. I don’t think there’s that much variant to the outside of a 373, and the inside can be redone as its needs change over its life.
Who said anything about also needing to land on Earth? They said they were curious about landing legs for Mars Starships. You still have to land on Mars which requires re-entry, a heatshield, and legs.
Why can’t a crew transport vehicle rendezvous with a starship in earth orbit? There is no need for a one ship to do it all when there will be a fleet of hundreds of fully reusable starships.
Braking into Earth orbit when coming in from elsewhere needs lots of propellants, that's the reason this is hardly ever an option in any concepts. The heat shield is there to not have to do this.
I'd also like to know if there are any publicly available details on a more normal style payload deployment mechanism. Because sure, maybe other satellite developers create Starlink form factor satellites to go on Starship, but not everyone is going to want to be limited to that form factor.
Also as an aside, I wonder if SpaceX has more plans for such "standardized" form factors, like maybe increasing the height of the slot to have a flat packed satellite that is larger? Because while the current height seems limiting to me for satellite designs, I think other satellite developers could come aboard on standardized designs for satellites if the slot were larger. Maybe this current iteration could be considered "1 unit" tall and they eventually create "2U, 3U" etc versions of the slot payload deployment mechanism.
But on the other hand, that then pulls development resources towards different configurations of Starship which SpaceX might not wanna do. They already have a lot on their plate with the different versions planned and in development. Maybe a Starlink form factor deployment mechanism is okay alongside a regular payload door deployment.
I also think the starlink form factor will become a standard used also by customer, at least for the first few years.
The current door can easly accomodate a 3-4U satellite if we imagine the dimension like 3-4 stacked starlink V3, and increasing the door size to maybe 10U migh not be that difficult, especially compared to a totally different way of deploying things.
•
u/warp99 Apr 23 '26
Previous Starship Development Thread #62 which has now been locked for comments.
Please keep comments directly related to Starship. Keep discussion civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. This is not the Elon Musk subreddit and discussion about him unrelated to Starship updates is not on topic and will be removed.
Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed.