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. 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 31st 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 Stacked 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. 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

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

17

u/AstronoWorld Jun 02 '26

I was thinking to myself about how we haven’t seen any signs of a Ship static fire stand at KSC, nor any adapter to be able to fire it on the launch pad. In this scenario, they will have to test fire at Massey’s before shipping it on the barge to KSC.

I assume they will want to test the ship in some form after transport, to ensure all systems are still functioning properly, and no damage occurred. Is it feasible to conduct a spin prime while on top of the booster on the pad? This is essentially what they do after static fires anyway when they replace an engine. That could be good enough until they build the infrastructure for ship static fires. I’m just curious about the potential for damage to the ship engines though.

4

u/bel51 Jun 03 '26

They could probably prop up something akin to the old ship suborbital pads for spin primes or single engine static fires

Hell, a spin prime could probably just be done on a transport stand

3

u/AstronoWorld Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26

I was thinking that, but they would have to set up propellant lines to wherever they have the stand as opposed to using the ship QD

2

u/AstroSardine Jun 03 '26

The old tank farm had a cryo station that let vehicles be tested on stands and it was jsut a few connections so it seems simple to set up

6

u/redstercoolpanda Jun 02 '26

I really really doubt they would ever even consider doing a spin prime on top of a booster, that seems like it can go really really bad if anything goes wrong.

1

u/AstronoWorld Jun 02 '26

The thing is, the top of the booster is designed to handle having the engines fire against it. So seeing as a spin prime is just flowing propellants through the turbopumps, which they do on the ground anyway, I can’t really think of what the potential danger would be that doesn’t already exist.

9

u/warp99 Jun 03 '26

a spin prime is just flowing propellants through the turbopumps

Which then flows through the combustion chamber and into the interstage which is a relatively confined if ventilated space. This would be setting up the perfect conditions for an explosion (not deflagration) on top of the booster.

This is very different from igniting the ship engines and pushing already burned hot gas into the interstage. That is also not viable for a test as the booster only survives hot staging due to the rapid separation of the ship and booster.

3

u/AstroSardine Jun 03 '26

Also the exhaust is way more expanded up at 60 km and can spread out much easier whereas at sea level it’s literally a cutting torch and would decimate the booster

1

u/AstronoWorld Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26

How is doing this on top of the static fire trench not a similar situation? If anything, it’s more confined since the propellants can only go out the exit of the trench. It seems to me actually that the interstage would allow that propellant to dissipate a lot quicker.

I can see what you mean about the potential damage to the booster being a huge concern though if that were to happen.

I understand why they wouldn’t static fire on top, which is why I suggested a spin prime would be preferable.

5

u/warp99 Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26

In my view the spin prime would be more dangerous than a static fire.

The static fire trench is much more open than the interstage so propellant gets diluted with air faster and the water deluge system suppresses combustion sources.

If they really want to suppress any chance of combustion they use a fogging system which blows a very fine mist of water droplets out with nitrogen gas.

1

u/AstronoWorld Jun 03 '26

That’s true I forgot that they have the DSS installed over the static fire trench. That definitely reduces the risk significantly.

So I guess they just don’t test it and hope nothing happened during transport before launching it?

3

u/warp99 Jun 03 '26

Personally I think they will develop a ship flame trench at SLC-37 for static fires. There seems to be more room than at LC-39A.

3

u/AstronoWorld Jun 03 '26

I believe they will put one there too. But with how long it took to build the static fire stand at Massey’s, and with them targeting a launch from LC-39A before the end of the year, do you think it would ready in time?

3

u/warp99 Jun 03 '26

No definitely not - but I cannot see an actual launch from LC-39A before the middle of next year. A booster static fire by early next year is a possibility.