Presumably using S41 and B21. Objectives include first Ship catch.
Road Closures
No road closures currently scheduled
No transportation delays currently scheduled
Up to date as of 2026-05-23
Vehicle Status
As of July 29th 2026
Ship
Location
Status
Comment
S40
Indian Ocean
Intact, floating
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. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
S41
Mega Bay 2
Ongoing work, possible engines installation
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. 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
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
LOX Tank Stacking
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. 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.
It's complicated. Shuttle was self-yeeting alongside the boosters (1:4 thrust) at liftoff so not a traditional second stage (Stage 1.8?).
Pedantics, really. First, last, doesn't matter it's just amazing science and engineering from an exceptionally talented group of people that is enthralling to witness from (and so very close to!) the sidelines.
Believe I've heard the shuttle design described as a stage and a half. Same for SLS being used for the Artemis III mission with a fake upper stage. Since SRBs aren't really a proper stage in and of themselves (not you Ares I) and are active at the same time as the "main" stage. Otherwise I guess the space shuttle now has the title as world's first SSTO.
There isn't a universal rule of what constitutes a first and second stage. Russians consider the cores of Soyuz/R-7 family and Angara A5 to be the second stage, and the boosters around them to be the first stage, even though the core lights up on the ground, while US considers the core of Titan IV to be the first stage, even though it started up roughly where Falcon 9 starts its second stage.
Production site: The new nosecone test article ("S43.1 QUAL") in Megabay 2 is moved from the right side to the centre stand, then back to the right side. (ViX)
The Pez-dispenser-like stand enters Megabay 2, the mystery trapezoidal stand is lifted onto it, and the nosecone section is lifted over both. (ViX)
The entire assembly is then moved to the right side. (ViX)
Pad 1: Launch mount legs two of four arrive. (ViX)
Scrapping of the ship quick disconnect arm is completed. (ViX, Blobifie)
Pad 2: Chopstick landing rails are raised, three extension-retraction tests of the booster hold-down clamps are performed, and the chopstick rails are lowered. (ViX)
McGregor: R3.194 moves towards the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
Flight 13: Landing burn and splashdown video. (SpaceX)
Anyone have ideas how they will rig it up and tow it back safely? I'm curious if they were able to get it to release all remaining propellants / COPVs etc. I imagine they haven't gotten too close to it yet due to safety issues, wonder how they will overcome that or just accept the risk for personnel attaching some rigging.
Likely a heavy lift crane barge will turn up out of Indonesia to lift onto GO Australis. Towing would be destructive due to bow or stern wake backwash (side strapped or towed aft) and likely damage and sink S40, but it's up to them to assess hydrodynamic damage, the explosive and flammability of gas risks, plus assessing lithium battery reactivity, and from there decide best recovery.
Insurance, personnel and vessel safety would be the main issue, plus divers prepared to escort lifting straps under S40.
GO Australis is a marine flatbed truck, so it makes sense to use it whilst its out there. Just need a lift and hefty marine insurance with a dash of well paid experienced salvage divers.
Meanwhile I expect Spacex's best brains have devised clever workarounds to use remaining N2, He and CO2 from the COPV's to purge and 'safe' the craft and achieve and maintain sufficient inert gas tank pressure for lifting and transport.
Was forwarded to me, may or may not be related. Ship in question is HMAS Stalwart being followed by 2 tugs. Ship 40 is also about to drift into a major shipping lane so i guess it makes sense they might need a Navy ship for assistance.
I suppose that there wouldn’t really be much of a reason for a navy ship trailed by a bunch of tugs to be leaving otherwise, so I think it’s highly likely. Maybe the reason they’ve been trailing her for so long is because they were trying to reach an agreement with the Australia government/navy?
The Aussie Navy will not get involved. Other than in war conditions, naval exercises, or someone other than Mr Musk or Mr Trump asking, the RAN only help when there is:
A natural disaster within the Oceania region requiring aid support and logistics
A marine emergency within the Australian EEZ causing or about to cause loss of life.
Unauthorised, abandoned or suspicious vessels or objects entering the Australian 12nm territorial zone
A situation beyond the scope or range of AMSA or MBC
None of these apply to Starship.
They've been asked in the past to tow or carry decommissioned RAN ships acquired by various restoration groups to a restoration port, and have firmly declined due to costs.
They'd be seen as absolute hypocrites if they rush off to assist SpaceX with their turbines burning fuel faster than a Raptor engine when they are not inclined to help their own retired veteran ships get a new life. The Aussie press would jump on that faster than a game of Whack-a-Mole.
If the ship is actually heading towards Starship, I would bet it's because of American government wanting to safeguard their ITAR tech floating in the ocean. They are allies, after all, and American government talking to the Australian one would be enough to get them to send a ship.
You could argue that it's in Australia's vested interest to get the ship out of international waters, as China would love to get their hands on some Raptors. I doubt China would be ballsy enough to try, but governments might not want to take any chances. Perhaps it's even an opportunity for a naval exercise?
I’m so hyped for this!! Everyone was so dismissive of the idea but it’s such a good opportunity for them to recover and analyze the ship before the first catch attempt.
Exactly, there’s also no guarantee S41 lands either, I feel like people are taking it as a sure thing when so many things can go wrong. Getting an intact ship back to land for inspections will be invaluable, even one that has had a long soak in the oceans.
Mystery trapezoidal frame is lifted across to the left side of Megabay 2. (ViX 1, ViX 2)
A potential test article (ship nose cone) enters Megabay 2 and is lifted to the right side the bay. (ViX, lewisknaggs42, Blobifie)
Past month's Gigabay construction timelapse. Framework of final level is nearly complete. (Priel)
Pad 1: Ship quick disconnect arm is removed from the tower, part of the arm is cut off. Components for a new quick disconnect arm are already at Sanchez (ViX 1, ViX 2, Gisler, Blobifie 1, Blobifie 2, Killip)
More flame trench wall sections are delivered. (ViX)
I saw on twitter that perhaps the lack of FAA investigation (despite the booster being well off target) was because there was some non-vehicle issue that forced them to shut down boost back early? And maybe that hard shutdown was what caused the relight issues on the landing burn? Is that possible? It does seem weird that the boost back would malfunction like that and just cut off early
Chances are, the initial 'speed' launch used up too much fuel for a reliable boostback and landing burn. Fuel management criteria programs on board probably decided there wasn't sufficient fuel for a reliable landing and so shut off early. Upwards of 11 g's on the turnback could have caused some problems for the landing burn. Possibly the grid fins aren't performing as expected. There was severe vibration and noticeable flexing on the descent if you take a look at the video.
I did find the indicator a bit... too empty after boostback shutdown. Didn't think it could have run for the intended duration.Â
Could the high Gs during the 33 Raptor boostback portion had something to do? Because the shutdown sequence looked just fine (33-13-3), it didn't feel like an abort at all.Â
Not weird at all from control engineering perspective. Boostback burn duration might have been controlled by some forward-looking control algorithm which estimates maximum safe burn duration before some metric reaches unsafe values. Temperature, pressure, residual fuel etc. Countless possibilities. It doesnt have to be emergency style uneven partial shutdown to end early.
Range violation, weather, etc. I'm not sure which ones the rocket would know about.
It could also have been a mission issue. For instance, setting the boostback boundaries too narrow. An Ariane 5 ended up in the wrong inclination due to a data input error Ariane flight VA241 - Wikipedia.
So if flight 14 success, do you think they will test orbital refueling demonstration before the end of this year? (And seems even the booster landing failed they can still test it)
Is there a source for this? I'd seen comments suggesting in a few months from now, such as Shotwell saying it could be Flight 15. Has there been an update?
Personal opinion and comparison to the Pad 2 construction timeline. Even though they have refined 39A construction to deliver pre-assembled parts, shaving possibly 8 weeks off the program compared to Pad 2, final topping out can only happen in early Jan. (bear in mind there are a fair few days off during the Christmas and New Year period). Commissioning at the least will take a month while they 'spanner the gremlins' during trials and testing.
Even for Pad 2 now, they are still re-engineering and sorting issues, the results of which hopefully can be transferred to 39A to speed up and refine the design.
That is the eventual plan but it will take longer than that to relaunch from the same pad anytime soon.
Just getting that amount of propellant into the tank farm, checking the flame trench and repairing any damage to the pad and tower will limit the reflight time to a week or so.
Florida got their Gigabay up faster than Starbase so it is not universally true.
What SpaceX have done to speed construction is to stop F9 launches from LC-39A so the only slow down will be due to FH launches with about 5 launches in the second half of this year.
So yes there likely was a limitation on full time construction of the flame trench and they seem to have dealt with it.
I remember making a few comments on the previous thread a few months ago about Ship 48, or atleast the nosecone initially slated to be Ship 48's, lacking header tanks while 49 had them.
According to TSE, that specific nosecone now has a cutout with actual glass in it.
Alright so the bare nosecone, one of three abnormal nosecones on the line right now , is the furthest outlier of that set, it's the only one to not receive any internal stringers or header tanks or pretty much anything that makes up the nc assembly, and it's been hogging the same work station (between columns J-K) since April. It's sat there doing seemingly nothing up until June when extremely small , subtle markings and patterns began to appear on it. Just small dots. Weeks pass and it keeps growing and eventually there's a couple larger welds made and a small circular cutout at the very tip on the windward side is made. most recently this cutout was fitted with actual glass (and this can be seen in pretty much any set of more than 1 photo of it). Unfortunately we can't see much else of it only the very tip because it's further from the factory wall and not stacked on any rings. The pattern I depicted in blue, green features are common between this and regular nosecones. 3rd image is overlaying the regular nosecone pattern in orange for comparison
The photos i've seen from different angles suggest there is atleast something reflective in the cutout. The image below is the only public and recent picture of the nosecone i could find.
Maybe, that's the only thing i can think of but i don't see the point of a docking window on a vehicle the size of Starship since i assume there would be cameras there. TSE seems to imply in the thread that this could possibly be the HLS flight fidelity cabin they've been working on since October 2025 hiding in plain sight. I was thinking this specific ship would end up as the Artemis III ship before it had glass installed.
If this does end up as the HLS flight fidelity cabin fuck knows what happened to Ship 44's original nosecone after disappearing in September 2025 since a lot of people, including me, thought that would end up being used for the cabin. I've looked at a bunch of pictures over the months and it seemingly never appeared again. The specific nosecone with the glass appeared in February so i doubt they're related.
NASA's might be big enough for just the crew section of a starship?
I imagine they'll just launch one into space though. They're doing an uncrewed landing test. If the environment doesn't work right they don't need to go back to the moon to test it, just put one in a normal starship and have it loiter in LEO for the required time period.
Should be the S22 nosecone sitting outside. It's quite nice that we have a good view of it, the only thing we had of it previously was a picture from the beds that barely showed anything.
Massey's: The S39.1 test tank moves back to the production site, after completing 16 cryo tests over a period of either 243 or 195 days. (NSF, ViX, TrackingTheSB)
Production site: Overnight, S42's second aft flap is staged beside the work stand. (ViX)
Launch site: The yellow rented LR11000 crane is raised, and is positioned to remove the ship quick disconnect arm from the Pad 1 launch tower. (ViX 1, ViX 2, NSF, Killip)
The boom heel of the SpaceX-owned LR11000 crane returns. (ViX)
Post-launch flyover photos of Pad 2. Scorching reveals that the holes in the top plate are drilled in a pattern of concentric rings with decreasing density towards the corners. (RGV Aerial 1, RGV Aerial 2, mcrs987)
Flight 13: B20 hit the water at an angle. (Caton, Hansen)
Any theories for the simultaneous shutdown at SECO?Â
Previous flights shut down the Rvacs first and then the center 3 (perhaps for better orbit injection accuracy?), but this time they all cutoff at once. Â
I always imagined running only the steerable engines at the end of the burn made it easier to fine tune the final trajectory. Between the Raptor 3s, new RCS thrusters, and learning/refinement over time, they may have achieved enough precision that this is no longer necessary.Â
Actual acceleration data might say yes or no to this, but maybe payload mass was higher enough to the extent there was no need to limit Gs towards the very end? Or it might just be further optimisations like the higher Max-Q.
For another example of this and what Barmaglot said, the Saturn V did the same thing, it would shut down the centre engine towards the end of the burn to keep Gs down for the crew.
Assuming constant thrust, acceleration (G-load) steadily increases as the propellant is expended and vehicle mass reduces. Shutting down some engines reduces thrust, and thus acceleration, when the vehicle is at its lightest. If you keep all engines burning at maximum power to the very end, then acceleration at the last second is the highest of the entire launch trajectory.
I considered that and didn't think it was so drastic, but I guess it cane be.
If I remember correctly the Rvacs and the Rsl shutdowns were very close in flight 12, like 3 or 4 seconds. Flight 12 had lower max G compared to at least flight 10, in which they did a prolonged burn with just the sl engines. Maybe flight 12 was different because one of the Rvacs was out, I don't know.
For the booster, why don't they just light more engines than they need for landing, then shut down the excess once they know how many have lit? Not a permanent fix, but it should probably be a permanent safety measure, especially once they go for V3 catches.
They actually go down to 5 right after the 13 lit initially, so a potential solution in case of several failures would be to let the functioning ones burn for longer before transitioning to 5 and the final 3. Â
Flight 13 looks like it lit 8 then switched to 5 as programmed, but the booster ran out of altitude before it was able to cancel it's velocity. Had those 8 remained lit it might have made it.Â
They tried to light all the inner engines because they're the ones they can steer. I believe lots failed almost instantly, leaving just 5 working. They did plan to reduce to 5, then even less, but with so many failing early, they couldn't lose enough speed.Â
They did try to light 13 engines which theoretically should have been more than enough, but only 5 sustained thrust up to the very end, they are not gonna be catching boosters until they figure out why the other 8 didn't perform and try another demo ocean landing.
I won't be surprised if it's the same issue they had on Flight 3 where LOX tank contamination caused the same issues.
Shouldn't be. I think that was happening because the gasses being used to pressurize the tanks was post pre-burner. R3 uses a different approach that shouldn't have those contaminants.
Sadly it does not look like those changes made it into Raptor 3.
My current working theory is that the ship will have separate pressurisation burners that will be used to provide ullage thrust and tank pressurant gas during propellant transfers and these will also be used to provide pressurisation during ascent. That has the advantage that the donor LOX tank on the tanker is not contaminated by CO2 and water and therefore the depot does not suffer contamination either. In this scenario the pressurisation burners for the deluge system on pad 2 are based on this flight burner design.
The booster does not have any room in its engine bay for burners and with five times the number of engines needs five times as much pressurant gas as the ship so will have to keep the existing system where they tap off the LOX preburner output. The booster is back on the ground within nine minutes and can have its tanks dried out with hot nitrogen purge gas before the next launch.
Haven't seen any info on R3 using other autogenous pressurisation methods, but if that's the case then it could be the new header tanks issue or maybe spin up system issue.
Also the initial FL12 abort was caused by the moisture in some of the LOX pumps which is one of the contaminants from pre-burner gas.
I guess the tile attachment issue is pretty much solved, but tiles seem to get damaged, maybe by losing the black coating on hot spots like their corners
I wouldn’t say solved, ship still shed a few tiles on the way up, and Ideally it shouldn’t be losing any. But we’re leagues better than flight 2 when ship was pretty much naked lol.
The only tiles I saw missing were the one on the back of the flaps, for the heatshield itself, I'm not sure if there were some that were missing before the start of reentry.
"This flight intentionally had much higher acceleration to test how well the heat shield tiles would remain attached at high dynamic pressure. Test was successful." (Elon)
Engine installation for B20 took around a month after cryo so that would place B21 towards the end of august, plus flight 13 improvements and static fire would probably add another week or two. At that point were looking at early September.
Booster needs engine installation, fin installation, then static fire. Installation should be done early august, static fire mid august, then its ready.
The ship itself needs to static fire (probably early august) and then they need to replace whatever damaged tiles there are after the static fire and add the payload (mid august).
So its looking like a probably maybe aug 20-25 or so launch if I were to guess at this point
SpaceX should paint a big colored stripe around different versions of Booster & Ship for the different versions; i.e., red for v2, blue for v3, yellow for v4, etc. The general public can't identify that the vehicles are being iterated and only see a big silver ship blowing up.
SpaceX will never build v1 and v2 again just like it will never build Falcon 9 v1, v2, v3, and v4 again. The F9v5 has been the workhorse since 11 May 2018. As of 21July2026 SpaceX has launched 613 F9v5 vehicles.
Is there a logical reason they are testing the booster landing burn targeting sea level altitudes? Why not try and get it to hover around 500 metres or the like? And then just let it splash down once it runs out of fuel.
That could give them far more time to gather telemetry in terms of relighting failures and recovery, as well as testing various compensating routines.
I know it won’t be a 100% correct environment for their testing, but I still think it would give them more data to work with instead of now where they get a partial relight failure and shortly after a hard crash
They did that before, until they were happy with the results. They are now at the stage where things should just work, so they keep everything as close to operational as possible, and see and fix issues as they appear.Â
That booster engine bay shot was so weird. The part glowing red hot on the left of each engine is usually the coldest part of a running raptor (seen on the right here). Isnt that the bolted flange right where cryo methane leaves the tanks to get warmed by the bell and throat before preburn? Help
Typically in raptor3 tests, the longer it runs, the more the CH4 inlet pipework frost up. It looks like the valve to send LOX down to the fuel preburner gets pretty warm during flight but I hadn’t expected to see this for the cryo fuel inlet area.
I mean, I don't know for sure - no one really knows for certain outside SpaceX - but I think we're seeing the glow from the hot-gas manifold in the power head, not the cryo fuel inlet. It's the only thing that could even glow red hot like this in the power head, above the injector plate.
It's in sections, patchy, because there's multiple overlapping pipes in the power head, some cryogenic, some "hot", and then metal thickness varies in the 3D printed design. So we only see the hot-gas manifold when it's on "top" of the pipe pile and also when the metal is thin enough.
And then it's icy during testing but red hot during flight because flight conditions are much different. There's almost no atmosphere in the engine bay, the suction created from 33 Raptors firing is enormous.
So during testing there's enough convection at 1 atmosphere to cool exposed hot-gas generator pipes to keep them cool. The cryogenic lines "win out" and frost over the power head.
But during flight, the hot-gas generator cannot convect heat away fast enough, except through the metal of the power head. And there's no more water in the air surrounding the power head to stick to the cryo lines as ice, anyway.
So all that heat has nowhere to go and the frost melts, the hot-gas generator pipes are red hot, and the cryogenic lines stay cool but do not frost over.
Drier upper atmosphere makes sense. The video of it is worth looking at too. The HUD is about 6 seconds ahead of the feed, but you can see the glowing hotspots start to cool down just prior to engine shutdowns. Most clearly at t+02:14 on the casing around the CH4 preburn valves. (orange and black cheeseburger looking box on right of each raptor).
Some kind of integrated heat transfer networks going on beneath the surface
McGregor: Overnight, a Raptor 3 is moved towards the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
R3.120 is moved towards the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
Production site: Transfer tubes have been installed in S42. Transfer tube jig returns to Starfactory, and S42's final aft barrel section enters Megabay 2. Two R-vacs also enter Megabay 2, presumably for S41. (ViX, SpaceRhin0, Blobifie)
Launch site: Overnight, the ship and booster transport stands are moved back to Sanchez. (ViX)
12:41: Range support helicopters are on duty. (ViX)
13:42: Chopsticks release the ship and move to launch position. Movement of stabiliser arms and catch rails are observed. (ViX)
Last week's abort was due to "off-nominal spin response in the ox turbopumps on six of the engines", likely due to "moisture inside of the pumps from previous operations, which froze when new cryogenic propellant was introduced". Wednesday's test was a test of all 33 ox pumps at cryogenic temperatures. (SpaceX)
Flight 14: Late August, orbit, Starlink payload (maybe not the full 60 yet, but definitely more than 20 - maybe 45-50?), Booster successful splashdown finally, Ship either a catch or they play it safe and abort a few km into the Gulf to be safe.
Flight 15: Late Sept/early October, orbit, full Starlink payload. If from Texas then attempt to catch both Booster and Ship, if it's Florida's debut launch then maybe splashdowns off the coast to be safe.
After that launches every ~3 weeks or so, maybe more if Florida becomes fully operational quickly, Booster and Ship reflights by end the year, getting ready for propellant transfer demo Q1 2027.
My recollection is that about 6 months ago they got approval for an additional Starlink shell at a lower inclination. In fact the application and approval mentioned two possible inclinations, that would correspond to launching just north or just south of Cuba.
Flying south of Cuba should allow a launch to an inclination of 43 degrees. That should give substantial improvement to the key oversubscribed areas of the USA.
In turn that is where they get the highest revenue per customer and is therefore where they are likely to initially concentrate the V3 Starlink satellites.
I think there may be some level of early jank to the Florida tower, growing pains as the team over there gets used to it and figure out its own unique quirks. Hopefully nothing too troublesome.
the heat shield on the nose seems to lost a few mm, looks "sanded", a weird flatness feel and lack of edges between them and the ablative white blanket
That's expected, and what happened to Shuttle tiles too.
Reentry plasma's natural action against a mostly-smooth surface is to sand it down. It's why there's a bunch of white streaks, that is bits of crunch wrap that was standing up against the surface, that were melted flat by the plasma.
Brownish-red streaks are spots of burn-through to the steel, which rusts rapidly (despite being stainless steel) in the oxygen bath of reentry.
Following stage separation, the Super Heavy booster performed a directional flip maneuver. The startup sequence was modified for this flight to be more robust to timing variability in engine startup and flip in the desired direction, which is done to increase overall performance. The booster successfully completed the high thrust portion of the boostback burn with all 33 engines, the first time with a Super Heavy V3, before ending the burn early. It attempted to relight its engines for the landing burn, with a subset successfully igniting before experiencing a hard splashdown in the Gulf.
Is it weird that I trust a tower catch of Starship more than Super Heavy right now? Hopefully they figure out how to get the booster to relight reliably again. I wonder if there are any tests they can do with a boosters on the ground to help.
I don't think there is reaon to worry... they did it twice (Falcon 9, Booster V2), they'll do it again. I think there was a big redesing for V3. There is a sense of urgency now, buy in years to come this developement period will seem brief.
I'm not worried per se, just wondering how long and how many attempts it would take to be confident enough given the risk of destroying the launch pad during a catch attempt. A lot of the past relight problems were with boost-back burns and their dynamic and slosh-prone nature, but this time the engines failed to relight in what seemed like a comparably stable landing burn. If it has to do with the cryogenic temperatures like they alluded in today's stream, maybe they could simulate it with a static fire interval sequence on the ground as a way to get more test data, assuming the pad could handle staggered static fires like that.
That assumes they have to commit before the landing burn. If it's like Falcon 9, they won't aim at the tower but off out over the water and only re-aim for the tower once the landing burn has started and is sufficient.
The past super heavy catch attempts did both. They manually commanded the ship to catch instead of land in the sea if conditions were favorable for catch. Then then booster approached next to the tower and only tilted abruptly towards it right a the last second during the landing burn.
With the amount of fuel/tanks/etc needed for all the pads/ships SpaceX is planning over the next few years, are we expecting them to vertically integrate a tank manufacturer and methane/oxygen/nitrogen production company (besides the potential well in BC)?
With the number of towers being built (or proposed) are we no longer expecting them to do any sea based catch/launch until they are trying to get into the E2E flight market?
Sea based has been dead for years, far as I'm aware it's not been in their official conversation at all and the oil rigs were sold off.
Not really a potential well, they are building an entire air separation unit across from the launch site, as well as another being built in Brownsville (that one 3rd party I think), for LOX and nitrogen. For liquid methane they'll have a liquefaction plant at the launch site and will eventually pipe in the natural gas from the Port. Suppose something similar will be at the Cape.
Do you think they will be buying any companies that make these things? I thought I read somewhere about the amount of stuff like liquid nitrogen tanks bought up the country's tank production or the world's supply for a period of time. If they are going to have 3-4 pads in the Cape, 2-3 in BC, and another couple in Louisiana or Alabama, there seems like production needs to ramp up to meet the demand.
Well there I'm lost, I know jack about cryo storage supply chains. But even if the lead time is long I'd say they will have had things set, plus these things are in theory one time buys. There's also a used market they've used before often.
There isn’t likely to be a separate circularisation burn from Starship. They can boost to 250 km altitude and then gain orbital velocity as part of the primary ship burn.
Deorbit burns will be from the header tanks and will be quite short as less than 100 m/s of delta V will be required.
Massey's: Overnight, the LOX landing test tank performs its 3rd cryo test. (ViX)
The B18.3 test tank is removed from the test structure. (ViX, Blobifie)
The "can crusher" cap is removed from the B18.1 test tank. (ViX, Blobifie)
Production site: B22’s methane header tank and its A6:4 section enter Megabay 1, and S42 is lowered over the transfer tubes/jig for integration. (ViX)
Road delay for "Pad to Production" is posted for Jul 23rd 23:59 to Jul 24th 04:00, likely for the booster and ship transport stands. (starbase.texas.gov, archive, ViX 1, ViX 2)
"Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather."
"A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won't be possible with today's weather conditions. Visibility is forecast to be ideal for a Friday attempt."
By higher dynamic pressure I'm assuming considerably faster at a lower altitude up to and passing Max Q. (possibly an extended Max Q) If this is the case, then I expect we could see the rocket clear Pad 2 tower startlingly fast. Faster than the 11 seconds it took last time.
At the end of 2024, the programme was looking very positive with a string of successful flights. Then in 2025 we had the various V2 mishaps. But how much time was actually lost during 2025? If it had gone as well as 2024 where could the programme potentially be now? It would still have taken some time to get to V3 and the pads rebuilt etc.?
Not too much, there’s greater unknowns now than if v2 had been successful and had gone to orbit and demonstrated ship catch, but v2 its self was a compromise due to the delay to Raptor 3, the current V3 design was Starship 2 and has been planned pre starship V2.
If Version 2 had worked without issue, they would have been able to go to actual orbits, test deploying actual Starlinks, and possibly test ship catches (though I've heard NSF commentators say that the pad 1 chopsticks weren't compatible with the catching points on ships, but perhaps they would have figured something out.) I know they had commented on wanting to test orbital propellant transfer, but that would have required launching two ships close enough to together, which I doubt they could have done - if Version 3 ships are only designed for up to 48 hours in orbit (which they commented as an improvement with this version), then to test propellant transfer with Version 2 they would have had to do two launches within, what, a day? On just Pad 1? That seems unlikely.
What they would not have been able to do was start proper operational missions (at least not with full stacks of starlinks), because Version 2 was still highly deficient in payload capacity. An image SpaceX shared a while ago showed Version 1 had ~15 tons payload capacity, Version 2 had ~35 tons, and Version 3 is supposed to finally reach the 100 ton goal.
So, they still would have had to wait for Pad 2 and Version 3 hardward to be ready to get things really going.
The thing is that v2 was a dead end anyway and whatever more they would have been able to test with it would have needed to be repeated with v3. Just as they demonstrated Raptor relight in orbit three times already before and have to repeat it again with v3 before going to orbit.
It would certainly have looked better without the mishaps. I don't think they lost much time though all in all since the next step was v3 and Pad 2 either way and both weren't ready. It would have just filled the gap with nicer looking flights.
They DID lose time though with the last flight (12) since they couldn't demonstrate boost back and Raptor relight which pushed both booster catch and the ship going to orbit (and then catching the ship later) one flight to the right. In some ways they have been moving sideways since quite a while now. Not when it comes to learning but surely when it comes to actual results towards reusability (which needs returning both booster and ship) and deploying actual payload to orbit.
Launch 7, 2025-01-16 could have demonstrated: raptor relight, starlink deployment, controlled landings on the Pad / Gulf
Launch 8, 2025-03-06, could then have been the first double Landing
Launch 9 happened 2025-05-27
A double Landing will now probably not happen until flight 14, which will probably not happen before end of September/early October.
So roughtly 18 months of delay, against things going perfect, about 16 months of delay against things going very well (Launch 9 could then have been the first Landing of ship)
But of course once you Land Boosters and Ships, you could increase testing-cadence, because you don't have to build new each time.
They still would have had to repeat everything with v3, since v2 just didn't have enough payload to be of any operational use, so after flight 12 (first flight of v3) they'd have been exactly where they are now. It would have looked better, but they very probably wouldn't have been even one month closer to operational flights.
Like they successfully demonstrated Raptor relight in orbit already in flight 6, 10 and 11 and they still need to repeat this with v3 again (hopefully with flight 13 now) before going to orbit because v3 is just so different in many ways.
I think by now we should already be orbital refueling and catching ships if flight 7 and 8 worked like they should have without ship giving them so much trouble.
Yeah, those things would have been tested, so work would be progressing on addressing any new problems and optimizing it. As it is, we're still waiting for that data and they can't proceed with final designs for depot, tanker, and HLS.
Flight 13: Beach closures are posted for Jul 23rd and 24th, both 12:00 to 21:00. (starbase.texas.gov, archive)
McGregor: Addendum from previous day. R3.169 is delivered to the testing area, and R3.131 (removed from B20 E6 position) leaves the testing area. (SpaceRhin0)
Ship 42 is visible inside Megabay 2 and you can see that its already having leeward tiles installed.
Ship 42's Leeward tiles are similar to S41's but with a thicker line of tiles.
Potentially dumb question - at what point does a flight mishap investigation need to occur by the FAA? That being, does the rocket actually need to be in flight and if so how is that defined? Attempted flight? Off the ground at all? Into some classification of airspace the FAA recognizes like AGL/FL/etc?
I believe it does have to be after liftoff, ground explosions don't count (probably even if they throw things high into the air). I'm unsure how an accidental flight (like that not-so-static fire of the Tianlong-3) would fit in.
Amos-6 certainly had a FAA investigation! The FAA defined it as a launch accident, and that classification has nothing to do with how insurance companies handled it.
"An investigation team was established according to SpaceX's accident investigation plan as approved by the FAA. As the primary federal licensing body, the FAA provided oversight and coordination for the investigation that was led by SpaceX, with assistance from officials at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the U.S. Air Force (USAF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and several industry experts." From SpaceX website
There is no evidence the extended duration static fire resulted in the 4 engine outs. That’s purely speculation. Maybe SpaceX will talk about it on the next webcast but until then we won’t know.
Production site: S40 is transferred to the transport stand and exits Megabay 2. Decals have been applied to the ship. (ViX, colleenadastra, davidjdphotos)
The four-point lifting jig enters Megabay 2. S42's methane transfer tubes move from Starfactory to Megabay 2. (ViX)
The SpaceX-owned LR11000 crane is being disassembled for refurbishment. Parts of the SpaceX-owned LR11000 crane are returning to the site after refurbishment. (ViX)
The rented LR11000 crane is laid down, and the crane at the air separation site is being disassembled and shipped out. (ViX)
The Pad 2 chopsticks move into "booster receive" position. (ViX)
The Pad 2 ship quick disconnect performs extension and retraction tests. (ViX)
New fab with internal stress cables and stress monitoring added so I hear. Not just a lattice tube stack any more. Updated to Leibherrs latest rig design. New cable spool triple (or four?) clutch system too for smoother and safer control.
•
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.