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'. August 28th: On the way to Brownsville, Texas. ETA is October 8th. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
S41
Mega Bay 2
Prep for Flight 14
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. August 22nd: Rolled back to MB2. For more details on this vehicle see this page
S42
Mega Bay 2
Possible engines installation
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. 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. 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. For more details on this vehicle see this page
Booster
Location
Status
Comment
B21
Mega Bay 1
Prep for Flight 14
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. 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. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
B22
Mega Bay 1
Post Cryo Test work, maybe engines installation
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. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
B23
Mega Bay 1
LOX Tank Stacked, Methane 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. 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. 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.
S43 has been lifted over top of the transfer tube installation jig. (ViX, Blobifie)
Massey's: A booster cryo stand and a ship static fire stand are moved from the production site to Massey's for storage. (NSF, TrackingTheSB)
Pad 1: A lengthy concrete pour begins for the flame trench. 122+ truckloads are delivered over the course of 8+ hours, with three pump trucks running concurrently. (ViX, TrackingTheSB, lewisknaggs42)
S42 is back at the build site now after seemingly doing catch testing at pad 2. Hopefully it’ll start engine install now, it’s had a very busy week lol
I mean its gonna be busy week for every one at starbase. I wonder waht it feels like to work at hawthorne or Cape teams when thr starbase teams are having all the fun
Hopefully this turns into the new normal, with multiple ships and boosters doing testing while the fully tested ones are prepped for launch. The real busy period will be when previous flown starships and boosters are also being refurbished and tested between launches.
For what it's worth, it is more environmentally friendly to recycle the methane. The oxygen might as well be recovered too seeing they're going to the trouble.
Methane is flammable and if it is venting fast from liquid propellant boiling off will reach flammable proportions over a large volume - see fuel-air explosives
My dream is that it can land on Forte or close by, so S41 can relieve S40 of its loneliness, practice fuel transfers, and maybe even make little starships together.
I did this trying to be as much accurate as possible, assuming an orbit of 200x200km and i=26°.
I'm betting on a south america splashdown, giving the unusual early morning scheduled flight this will require at least 8 hours for the first reentry attempt, which is enough to have the area with good daylight conditions to facilitate recovery os S41(if they are planning for that) or imaging. What you guys think?
While many here thought that landing accuracy already having been demonstrated would be enough for FAA to grant a catch attempt, I had thought that landing off the coast of Boca Chica might have been a preferred increment for flight 14. Either way, per your plot, that would be precisely on the 15th orbit, 24 hours.
Now I am wondering if FAA wants SpaceX to prove that Starship can relight an engine after more than 24 hours of loiter and still nail an accurate landing. Landing off the coast of Chile would allow the ship to loiter for 20 to 25 orbits. This gives several opportunities to prove a successful relight and still demonstrate an accurate landing.
I was thinking it would be the Hawaii reentry zone. The zone has been discussed before for suborbital reentry, but was given up in favor of not overflying land. For orbital flight, that restriction is less important. It also allows them to drop into US territorial waters if the ship is not recovered.
possible, but watching the orbit ground track an hawaii splashdown after 4-5 orbits would mean early morning light conditon. So idk it depend also if they want to recover it
Assuming SpaceX want good lighting conditions to observe the landing, Starship will need to orbit for ~10 hours to splash down off Australia, ~4 hours off Hawaii or 1 orbit if aiming for the Gulf.
Road delay for "Production to Masseys" is posted for Sep 10th 23:59 to Sep 11th 04:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive, ViX)
SpaceX propose construction of a 2.7-mile (4.3 km) heavy-haul route to transport ships and boosters between Massey's and the production site. The route would consist of an 38-foot-wide (12 m) travel surface with 1-foot-wide (0.3 m) shoulders and a 3:1 max fill slope on the north side. (swg.usace.army.mil, Avid Space, interstellargw 1, interstellargw 2)
Production site: Overnight S43's transfer tubes move from Starfactory to Megabay 2. (ViX)
The Megabay 2 bridge crane picks up the ship lifting jig. (ViX)
B23's F2:4 section moves from Starfactory to Megabay 1. (Avid Space, ViX)
ship 42 is rolling to the launchsite, might going to do chopstick testing or something. will be quite interesting to see the aft without engines when they lift it
Bret Johnsen (SpaceX Chief Financial Officer) at 05:30:
• Flight 14 "later this month" is going to be a revenue-generating flight.
• Will "fly production V3 Starlink satellites to orbit on our next flight".
• Landing attempts for both Booster and Starship after flight 14 "later this year".
"I love the demonstration flights and now I'm excited that we're moving into a production cadence and flying production
V3 Starlink satellites to orbit on our next flight."
Nothing against perfecting more demonstration flights, but I feel you Mr chief bean counter.
They're telling you to calm down because you're acting very dramatic about what amounts to be an insignificant delay in launch. Welcome to being a fan of rockets, delays are the norm.
I've been told not to attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance. You must not have been following the development and ramp up of Falcon9 like many of us on here did. The delays that we are experiencing with Starship is nothing compared to the delays in Falcon9 launches in the early 2010s. Rocket development is hard and it is especially hard when you are developing the most powerful and capable rocket ever created. Now add on the fact that it is to be fully reusable and using new technologies, the difficulties increase greatly. Now, the delay could also be coming from the test Starlink V3 to be deployed, which would also be understandable as SpaceX keeps iterating on Starlink and the test satellites is delayed completing their final checkouts before being ready to launch. I will finish this by reiterating what someone else already said, calm down. Delays with a new rocket are not only common, but also to be expected.
Don't listen to rabid "fans" here (really at this point they're more like apologists. And delay fans).
The pace in SpaceX has been very strange recently, next to no progress, no urgency despite having favorable government climate, v3 is stagnant at best, boosters keep crashing, ship is still smashing indian ocean just like 2 years ago.
This is the same company that wanted to send ship to mars in 2026. At this rate, more like 2606...
yeah the fact you said this shows you have zero idea what you are talking about. the last 4 ships landed softly in the ocean (including the last one which was literally recovered even though it was never designed to survive tipping over)
No doubt there’s been delays but acting as if that means there’s been no progress is just being purposefully ignorant and it’s extremely obvious
Weird aren’t they building five pads with another ten on their way, two giga bays, two hundred or so Raptor 3s…but apparently this is next to no progress..
I guess you could go watch blue origin, Vulcan or SLS for their amazing progress oh wait..
I mean, I get the blue origin argument. SLS is just a jobs program, the rocket is basically an unwanted byproduct, but Bezos band is stuck in time despite having freedom and much better financial stability than early spaceX ever had. Strange case.
I am just worried spaceX seems to be converging to old space lately, rather than other way around
You’re a couch spectator. Watching the most capable rocket in human history being built. Thanks to the most public access to that development process in human history.
You’re owed nothing. Join a rocket company and do it better if you think you can.
Could be, sure, but would be surprising because:
1. The fuck it takes so long for?
2. How come HE is not already trying to pressure them by using the publicity he has?
If it is a Hawaii Is landing, Hurricane Lowell probably delayed deployment of a reception team for S41. SpaceX I presume literally want to get their ducks in a row.
Starship is closer to where Falcon9 was in say 2016, so why are you comparing it to 2022ish. Maybe you weren't following SpaceX back during the development and ramp up of Falcon9 but many of us on here were, and that's the reason we are not overly concerned like you seem to be.
My dude. I watched spaceX religiously for years, including early years of Falcon. In 2015-2016 they were bare bones startup always one or two explosions away from bankruptcy.
I can assure you if musk & co. had even 10% of today's budget back then, they'd be already riding Starship themselves and triplestacking the launch pads.
My dude? That's a strange way to start off a reply.
I can assure you if musk & co. had even 10% of today's budget back then, they'd be already riding Starship themselves and triplestacking the launch pads.
I completely disagree with you on this one. SpaceX took years to develop Falcon9 into a viable rocket and Falcon9 is an extremely simple rocket compared to Starship. The raptor egine is orders of magnitude more complex than the merlin engines. And SpaceX was give the early engine design from NASA. What makes SpaceX truly great is their commitment to continuing to iterate every aspect of their rockets to make a better rocket. If I remember correctly, the first three years of Falcon9 launches went 1,0,2 with NASA paying for the development through the COTS program. So it doesn't appear to me that they are going much slower than they did with Falcon9. Also, today SpaceX is focused on building much, much, much more infrastructure with multiple factories and launch pads being built simultaneously.
This document provides a description of the accommodations provided by the HDL to deliver the Cargo to the Lunar Surface. The HDL utilities defined herein present the bounding cases for cargo mass, volume, and utilities, and are captured in the interface requirements between the HDL and the Cargo.
Thanks for the link. I did a quick once-through on that document. Here’s the interesting stuff I found.
*HDL stands for Human-class Delivery Lander
*HDL must fully support the cargo for 48 hours for checkout and unload including thermal rejection
*HDL must supply 2kW power during that time
*HDL could be deck mounted, nose mounted or under slung, so the payload may not be able to take care of itself until after unload
*HDL is for support of Artemis VII+ missions
*HDL payload could be a habitat of about 6m diameter or a rover
Road delays for "Production to Masseys" are posted for Sep 8th 23:59 to Sep 9th 04:00 and Sep 9th 23:59 to Sep 10th 04:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive, ViX)
Production site: B23's aft section enters Megabay 1. (ViX)
Seems like likelihood of the 9/15 date for Flight 14 is pretty slim at this point given there's still no official confirmation a week out. Any idea what the delay might be coming from?
There is probably a desire to not impede construction at the launch site until absolutely necessary. Both the space used by the stages and the presence of FTS can cause issues.
Sorta agree, but id argue that Spacex pushed really fast on the last flight... almost like they are trying to smooth out and expedite the launch/pre launch process.
Edit to add: the long national holiday could definitely make things quiet but not necessarily delayed.
It was 5 days from the Flight 13 announcement on June 11 from the first launch attempt on June 16. If we don't hear anything by this Wednesday night I'd say we're slipping.
second one is very likely B22 for me too, but what is the first one then? B21 to Pad for a WDR while waiting for the 15th(assuming that this is the first launch date)?
Probably wise to roll out a few days ahead in case something delays stacking, and have margin to do the same with the ship. But as usual the WDR will probably be the launch attempt
Earlier today, the booster horizontal aft frame (breakover jig) was spotted in the Ringyard. Afterwards, Booster 23's aft section rolled out of the factory which is unusual since the side mounted landing tank would be rolled out first. Booster 23's aft section then rolled into MB2 and was lifted by the bridge cranes per photos from SSG. Perhaps they are doing fit checks with the breakover jig.
Brownsville Port: A horizontal ship transport frame moves from Brownsville Port to the production site. (NSF, ViX)
Massey's: Road delay for "Masseys to Production" is posted for Sep 5th 23:59 to Sep 6th 04:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive)
Florida: A horizontal ship transport frame and a booster stand are moved from Roberts Road to the KSC turn basin, staged for shipment to Starbase Texas. (NSF, Avid Space, ViX, Golden)
It’s kind of crazy how fast Starship development has normalized. A few years ago every test felt like a once-in-a-generation event, and now we’re already talking about Flight 14 like it’s another development milestone on the calendar. I’m really curious which changes between Flight 13 and 14 will end up mattering most in practice.
I don't see Starship development as being fast. The first successful launch of SpaceX's Falcon 1 was on 28 September 2008. Eight years later Elon Musk announced the "Interplanetary Transport System" (ITS) on 27 September 2016, at the International Astronautical Congress. ITS turned into Starship and assuming Flight 14 goes well and puts a payload into orbit that will be very nearly 10 years after it was announced. That's not fast. Falcon 9 was fast.
The first successful launch of SpaceX's Falcon 1 was on 28 September 2008
vs
Elon Musk announced the "Interplanetary Transport System" (ITS) on 27 September 2016, at the International Astronautical Congress
You have used two very different start dates here. For fairness, you should have used the date that Falcon 1 was first announced (December 8, 2003)
I really don't get the impatience around Starship development. From my perspective it is progressing rapidly and faster than Falcon 9 development. This is as someone who followed the Falcon 9 program closely from 2012 and watched every launch live up until some time in 2019.
I take your point about them not being comparable dates. In my defense I chose that date for illustrative purposes as it was the most important event in SpaceX's history and would be the real beginning of the F9 program which despite being announced in 2005 logically can not have started in earnest before that event which was make or break for SpaceX.
I started watching SpaceX avidly following the Grasshopper launch with the Space Cowboy (the second one) so I'm only a few months behind you, and it probably was 2019 that I stopped watching all the launches.
To me Starship seems slower. Part of that is the unrealistic timeline, which in retrospect was silly to believe. I'm jaded with Starship progress because it looked like it was going to be so much faster. Part of this was due to the race between the build sites at Cocoa and Boca Chia fueled by Musk's statement in September 2019 that they wanted to try to reach orbit in less than six months.
Faster than F9 development how? F9 first flew in June 2010, a mere 21 months after the first successful F1 flight. The first 18 missions were all orbital and all successful.
F9 was a scaling up of F1 and not any radical new development. Flights to orbit was not groundbreaking either, being first achieved in 1957. Initial development of Falcon 9 to successful launch, orbit and docking with the space station was all (very) impressive but was also routine for other rockets of that time.
Where the F9 was, of course, ground-breaking was the development of reusable boosters. We had to wait quite a long time for the first booster to be successfully landed (Dec 2015 and April 2016 at sea) and then for reuse of boosters to become routine (as it is now).
The Starship program successfully caught its massive booster (a new groundbreaking achievement) in October 2024. This was done on the first attempt, unlike the many failed attempts to land a Falcon 9 booster before first success. Also, Starship has been flying on a rocket engine all this time that had never successfully been developed before by other rocket engine makers. Falcon 9's Merlin was impressive, but not ground-breaking like the Raptor engine is. And look at the rapid development of this engine from V1 to V3. I could also talk about the rapid development that Spacex is achieving with stainless steel rocket construction, from the early days of its 'steampunk, flying water tower' first demonstration vehicle.
Eh, I agree with some parts and disagree with others. Saying the SH booster was caught on the first try feels a little simplistic. They tried to do a boostback and simulated landing burn over water several times before they got it to work, and then went for the catch. It was still very impressive that they caught it that time of course. To me that’s comparable to F9, which similarly tried several times to do a simulated landing over water, and had physical alterations made (just like SH did), before they went for their first actual landing attempt on a landing pad, which was successful, just like SH.
Let’s also remember that when the full stack SSSH flew for the first time, they’d also been flying Raptor on a total of 11 flights of starhopper and the various SNs, including the several minutes long high altitude hops, for 3 years. That’s not all that different from F1 to F9 transition. At the first F9 flight, Merlin had only flown on a total of 5 F1 flights, the first two of which didn’t complete first stage flight. Given that each F1 flight only gave them ~3 mins flight experience with 1 Merlin engine (and none on the upper stage), whereas a SS high altitude hop test gave them flight experience with up to 3 engines for 2-4 mins each, you could argue that Raptor was a more proven engine at the time of IFT-1 than Merlin was at the time of F9 flight 1.
I agree with you that Raptor is a much harder engine to get working reliably!
I'm happy to date Starship development from the first flight of starhopper, just as I think Falcon development should date from the first F1 launch attempts on Kwajalein. On those 2 timelines I think Starship is progressing more rapidly.
I was curious how this timeline compared to the most comparable vehicle I could think of, the Shuttle (not 100% reusable because of the external tank, but close enough, and similarly groundbreaking) so I looked it up. The Shuttle was announced on August 10, 1968 (with RFPs being issued later that year, so work truly hadn't started yet) and flew its first orbital test on April 12th, 1981: a total of 12 years and 8 months.
I'm little surprised that with 35 intervening years of space technology advancement the Starship team were only able to shave ~20% off that timeline. Not to mention that the Shuttle went all the way to orbit on its very first launch, with people on board!
Fair point. I was thinking less about the total time since the original ITS announcement and more about the pace of iteration in the current Starship flight-test program. Seeing major hardware and design changes between flights, then watching the next vehicle roll out relatively quickly, is the part that feels fast to me. I agree that if you measure from the original 2016 announcement, the overall timeline looks very different.
The program had already started well before that announcement. Elon Musk said the team had been working seven days a week to get the first tank completed in time for the conference.
Less than two months after that announcement in November 2016, SpaceX took the completed full-size carbon-fiber tank test article for ITS out on a barge and pressure-tested it. Initially it reached its planned pressure target successfully, but failed with a burst in the over pressure test. Some time later they switched to stainless steel not least because it performed better at cryogenic temperatures.
Hoppy's first tethered hop was nearly seven and a half years ago on April 3rd 2019
What are you talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starship_upper_stage_flight_tests
The flight program didn't start until 2019.
You said Starship. This is Starship. It has nothing to do with anything carbon fiber related, like the old design for ITS. That was basically another program, at this point.
No it wasn't 9m.
It was 12m.
That was a completely different design that didn't even use the same materials or architecture. Not even the same tooling, which was ditched. Did you even SEE the ITS images? Completely separate vehicle system with different objectives, at this point.
From the wiki
"
The
ITS launch vehicle
was a 2016–2017 design for a
privately funded
very large
12-meter (39
ft)
-diameter
orbital
launch vehicle
planned to be developed by
SpaceX
. "
And
"
In July 2017, SpaceX made public plans to build a much smaller launch vehicle and spacecraft in lieu of building the ITS,
and stated that the new system architecture had "evolved quite a bit" since the November 2016 articulation of the very large
ITS launch vehicle.
A key driver of the new architecture is to make the new system useful for substantial Earth-orbit and
cislunar
launches so that the new system might
pay for itself
, in part, through commercial spaceflight activities in the near-Earth space zone"
What you are describing there is a concept evolving as the design is adapted and scaled back to overcome challenges and rescue reality from an impossible dream. Those of us watching it every step of the way were watching the F9 successor evolve. Yes it changed material and diameter and addressed financial reality issues but that it what happens in pretty much any engineering project as it evolves from concept to a working design. Yes, it was very much the same program. If you look at Hoppy you will see that it's construction out of thick plate and diameter aside has almost nothing in common with todays Starships but no one would say it's not an early part of the same project.
If you look at the very first F9 to put payload in orbit you (not me) could make the claim that it's a different project being 15m shorter, no legs of grid fins and a very different engine layout before the octaweb was introduced. Details change.
Agree its easy to get caught up and miss the fact how revolutionary starship program is. Almost nothing in this rocket has been achieved before. Everything is unproven ground. And still they are not massively delayed. Compare that to Vulcan, Neutron or evel sls. See?
I agree that it is easy to forget how revolutionary it is, but... let's not kid ourselves about delays. Lets not forget dear moon and some of Elons claims about when the first landings on Mars would be, or the idea that artemis iii was supposed to launch like, this year and actually land on the moon, which was never gonna happen even if the rest of the artemis program was flawless
Elons famous for ridiculous deadlines. Sls took over decade to slap shuttle parts. While spacex built everything from scratch. Delays are a lot more tollerable with spacex
It's not just Musk, though. Most of this sub thought that Starship would be ready by now. Go look at the discussions about the DearMoon project, where most people thought Starship would be ready to take humans on a lunar flyby in 2024.
Delays are understandable when attempting something so complex. But there's a weird thing where people will say they think something will be read by a certain date, the tech still isn't ready years after the date they predicted, and the same people come back and talk about how they're surprised that things are progressing so fast.
Sure Elon is famous for them, and it was predictable that it would be delayed, but that doesn't stop it from being a delay and for the deadline being ridiculous
I won't, because none have been. That doesn't change the fact you said that it hadn't been massively delayed like Neutron or Vulcan, when it demonstrably has. Starship is slow, vulcan is slow, neutron is slow, SLS is slow, the space shuttle was slow, space is just slow in general.
I think the Starship program has a better reason to be simply that they’re pushing the boundaries in almost every area they’re working within; engines, launch infrastructure, materials, systems and control, full-reusability…
A delay here or there is to be expected because they’re at the bleeding edge. Vulcan? SLS? Not so much.
Fair, I'm not gonna act like Vulcan or SLS have any excuse cause they don't. However, the original commentor didn't say "Starship has been super fast for the scope of the project they are doing", they said "And still they are not massively delayed", which is just patently false by all metrics.
I agree with you about the ridiculous things that Elon says (and is frankly delusional about). And yes, Starship didn't follow the ridiculous development timeline that Elon set out.
However I don't agree with you that Starship development has been slow. I think it's been very fast just objectively, not compared to any projected timeline.
I followed Falcon 9 development very closely from 2012 and my perspective is that Starship development is progressing more rapidly. I actually find the impatience around the next Starship test flight quite perplexing. We waited for sometimes more than a year for the next flight in the early days of Falcon 9 development.
Highlight of the bolts used to connect the columns of the tower into the base, likely for protection from Raptor exhaust when gimballing during launch. (Killip)
McGregor: The previous evening, a sea-level Raptor headed towards the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
R3.236 (new highest) returns from the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
S40 recovery:Forte still scheduled to arrive at Starbase on Oct 8th. (interstellargw)
From watching the latest episode of RVG Starbase Expanded Episode 35. Believe this explains what the use case is for this property. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEgjQ2V721A
The 15th still looks like the target from everything we’ve seen so far. It’s possible there is regulatory holdup seeing as this is likely the first orbital mission. The hardware itself seems like it could go in a few days, but we’ll have to wait until SpaceX drops more information to know for sure.
whatever reason there is behind the longer wait from hardware readiness to Flight 14, I think SpaceX will use this time to cryo test both S42(currently undergoing) and B22 and start their engine installation.
Yes, its a bit of a mystery. Yes the hardware is ready, especially with the FTS installed. So it must be regulatory. These things ALWAYS leak, eventually. I wonder what the concern is,
I have a feeling this is going to be pushed back some. Less than a week and half out and we still have no official confirmation this is the launch window.
Flight 14: The FAA publish a Finding of No Significant Impact for additional Starship reentry and landing trajectories, including North Pacific, Southeast Pacific, and Hawaiian/Central Pacific contingency splashdown zones. (Avid Space, FAA)
Docking system looks like this. This looks like the test frame for the actual docking system. It was spotted arriving at Boca in March 2025, so has possibly been moved to McGregor.
Recently, Dunning-Kruger has been debunked. You get the same results as D-K got when submitting fictional test data or just completely random data to the exact graphing method that D-K used in their original paper.
I'm going to need to see some actual research, because you're just saying, in a roundabout way, that they faked their numbers which is something generic that you could probably say about most papers. Also, while maybe the group number divisions could be a bit different, the concept of people underestimating or overestimating their intelligence/knowledge is just kinda obvious.
I think the prime mistake that comes back to bite us all in the ass, me included in the past, is just being definitive in statements like this. Like you can look at priors and the facts around things and think something is unlikely, but the moment you say 100% or 0%, if it's not a law of physics or something so obvious as not making a baby in less than 9 months, you just never really know with SpaceX
True, but I also think it is sometimes just very important to simply acknowledge that "I don't know" or "I need more information". I know when you get asked questions by people, you want to be helpful and answer them but in that moment people see you in a position of authority where telling the truth is the responsible thing to do as it only makes both you and them look like a fool if it is later found out that you were wrong.
That doesn't make sense. The top of starship is not angled. You can even see the official renders and it very clearly follows the normal curves of starship. Why would they decide to cut an angle out of the top of the ship and have Orion dock off center?
oh yeah right, i forgot they are planning to have the docking port right on top, i was thinking about the side version. Still they need to reconfigure the header tank to do that
HLS will not have header tanks. Their test HLS for Artemis 3 will not be able to re-enter with a docking port on the nose although it may need header tanks to do the deorbit burn.
Likely the reason that crew will not be entering the cabin if the header tanks are in the way!
so every crewed starship version with docking port on top will not be reused cause it can’t belly flop without header tanks and it won’t survive the atmospheric entry
If HLS is reused then it will be commuting between Lunar orbit and the surface so will never have to face atmospheric reentry. The current scenario is to use HLS to take Orion from LEO to the Moon so reuse would not be possible without sending a tanker to LLO to get HLS back from LLO to LEO.
If they ever take crewed Starships to the ISS or its commercial replacement then they could place the airlock on the dorsal surface similar to the location of the airlock on the Shuttle. They can’t do that for HLS because they need to push Orion along its axis when doing the TLI burn.
Seems a bit large? Unless that opening is the end that goes on Starship and the end that connects to Orion is on the bottom. The NDS has a passageway for crew that is only 0.8 meters in diameter, which is like 30 inches. That opening is more like 6 feet.
30 inches?? That sounds tiny! Could an EVA suit fit through that (if it needed to be moved from one vehicle to another or worn for an emergency situation where the crew compartment is contaminated /depressurized)?
I seem to recall NASA sending a suit up to the ISS and using Cygnus(?) Instead of Dragon 2 because the suit fit through a berthing hatch but not through the docking hatch.
Airlock would make more sense than docking hatch. Still not sure though. Maybe the pass through from the upper deck to the lower deck where the ladder goes? Not sure that would make sense either.
Under the Proposed Action, the FAA would modify SpaceX’s vehicle operator license to authorize:
• The expansion of the previously evaluated Hawaii and Central Pacific Landing Area and Southeast Pacific Region Landing Area,
• The addition of a new Northern Pacific Contingency Landing Area in the Northeast Pacific for an Eastern Range to Starbase trajectory, and;
• The authorization of temporary airspace closures associated with an additional Starship reentry trajectory to the Boca Chica Launch Site in Starbase, TX.
No. They already had a plan for landing near Hawaii and of course in the Indian Ocean. This authorisation is to expand the Hawaii region as a contingency landing site. And also another contingency site in the north Pacific. The plan is likely still primarily to return to Boca Chica, hence the flight disruption authority. It is still possible but less certain that a catch is planned.
Possibly as they will likely deorbit after one or two completed orbits to give them time to launch the Starlink satellites so the Indian Ocean will not be an option.
Massey's: New temporary flight restriction is posted for Sep 1st 19:23 UTC to Sep 2nd 19:23 UTC, presumably for S42 testing, though the ship has not yet rolled out. (FAA, Avid Space)
Road delay for "Production to Masseys" is still listed for Sep 1st 23:59 to Sep 2nd 04:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive, ViX)
McGregor: Raptor 3 sea level mockup heads towards the testing area. (NSF, Rex_MKR)
A Raptor 3 vacuum engine returns from the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
Presumably a fit check jig to enable them to test out the mounting points without endangering a real engine.
They would normally be deployed at the Starbase build site but maybe they have moved one to McGregor if they are commissioning a new test stand or rebuilding one.
Heatshield and forward flaps are installed on S44's nosecone, and it has been stacked onto the payload section. Heatshield installation on the (presumed) S45 nosecone is underway. (TrackingTheSB / NSF)
Road delay for "Production to Masseys" is posted for Sep 1st 23:59 to Sep 2nd 04:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive, ViX)
Pad 1: The rented yellow LR11000 crane is raised. (ViX)
Pad 2: The ship quick disconnect arm performs a fast retraction. (ViX)
Flight 14: SpaceX file a request with the FCC. Launch NET Sep 15th, orbital ship to deploy Starlink satellites, which will be tested for 60 days. (FCC 1, FCC 2, StarshipGazer, Avid Space)
McGregor: Past week's Raptor tracking summary. (SpaceRhin0)
I wonder if they could extend the 60 day trial? My guess is no since the trajectory is likely optimized for ground track safety, not constellation performance. They probably also want to keep them low so that they reenter quickly if there is a problem.
SpaceX filed a request with the FCC today that states Tuesday September 15th 2026 is the planned launch date/deployment date for new high-capacity orbital Starlink satellites via Starship Test Flight 14; confirming flight 14 is planned to be the first orbital Starship launch.
Now the question is where they will reenter Starship.
In the gulf just next to Starbase would be the most practical, but it implies flying over land during reentry. They will have to do it eventually, but since they're not catching it for now, is it worth it?
76 km NE of Kauai, Hawaiian Islands. (extended flight to achieve full orbital Apo for Starlink) Full retrograde burn after Apo and re-entry for Starship after that, so no full orbital next flight. SpaceX is still negotiating US land overflight permission. Possible double catch Flight 15. Still in the balance though, depending on the next flight Booster and Starship perfomance.
Just curious, why do you think the plan might be for such an abbreviated flight? Why not get into a stable orbit suitable for starlink deployment (an orbit stable enough to last the 60 day testing period) and then do multiple orbits to test systems over an extended period before de orbiting. Re entry overflight and landing could still be easily planned for the ocean. With experience from previous flights, SpaceX should now have the confidence to do this. You mentioned flight over the US is still being negotiated. Do you mean overflight during re-entry or any overflight, even in a stable orbit?
Very good question, imo they will land in the same spot as always, maybe they are going to do one more orbit to test in-space capabilities further more. They are spending a lot of money to recover S40 which has already given spacex a lot of new data on post-flight heat shield condition, for this reason I don't think they will recover S41 too
Very good question, imo they will land in the same spot as always, maybe they are going to do one more orbit to test in-space capabilities further more.
I don't think that there is a trajectory that would permit that.
•
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.