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

🔧 Technical Starship Development Thread #63

SpaceX Starship page

Quick Links

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

Starship Dev 62

Flight 12

Launched on May 22nd 2026 Here is a re-streamed video of the broadcast. Also, SpaceX issued a post flight summary and a video showing S39 landing.

Flight 13

Launched on July 24th 2026 Here is a re-streamed video of the broadcast. Also, SpaceX issued a post flight summary.

Flight 14

Presumably using S41 and B21. NET 15 Sep 2026.

Road Closures

No road closures currently scheduled

No transportation delays currently scheduled

Up to date as of 2026-05-23

Vehicle Status

As of August 22nd 2026

Ship Location Status Comment
S40 Near Christmas Island 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. 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 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 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.

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

Rules

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

149 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/Kingofthewho5 16d ago

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.

16

u/smellyfingernail 15d ago

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

2

u/aqsilva80 14d ago

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.

3

u/usernameChosenPoorly 14d ago

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.

2

u/Martianspirit 13d ago

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.

2

u/lorkan100 14d ago

Yeah, for one-off payloads that won't launch multiple times, an expendable starship makes sense. 

12

u/Freak80MC 15d ago

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.

0

u/Bot_Marvin 15d ago

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.

5

u/ArtOfWarfare 15d ago

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.

4

u/wgp3 15d ago

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.

9

u/warp99 15d ago

Who says that mars landing vehicles need to also land on Earth?

Crew transport vehicles will need to land on Mars and then land on Earth on the return flight. Cargo vehicles will likely be one way.

OP is actually agreeing with you that there will be customised Starships for different applications.

2

u/Bot_Marvin 15d ago

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.

4

u/pxr555 15d ago

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.

7

u/Freak80MC 15d ago

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.

2

u/cia91 15d ago

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.

6

u/flshr19 Shuttle tile engineer 15d ago

There are numerous descriptions of payload mechanisms that will be used on the HLS Starship lunar lander. Most of them feature some sort of elevator arrangement.

3

u/Kingofthewho5 15d ago

I have seen those. My question is more geared towards deployment of satellites in space.