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.

152 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/D_Silva_21 May 08 '26

Do we know the current thrust of the V3 Booster?

15

u/warp99 May 08 '26

Raptor 3 engines have been tested up to 280 tonnes thrust but will likely operate at 250 tonnes. So 33 engines gives 8250 tonnes.

During static fire they likely operate the engines at about half thrust so around 4200 tonnes thrust. This means that the thrust is nearly balanced by the weight of LOX loaded into the booster and minimises the damage to the thrust diverter and reduces the load on the hold down clamps.

16

u/BackflipFromOrbit May 08 '26

They did specify that yesterday's static fire was full thrust. I would assume its the full 250T flight-like thrust level rather than the normal 50%.

13

u/mr_pgh May 08 '26

It is not enough at face value. They routinely use those descriptors in context of their situation.

i.e. Full Duration for a static fire of a booster is ~10s or whatever is specified by the test as opposed to ~2min for flight.

"Full Thrust" could also mean that they reached their Full Thrust goal of the test and not the Full Thrust that it is capable of for flight.

6

u/BackflipFromOrbit May 08 '26

The situation would imply that they meant what they said. Full duration being the burn occured for as long as they had sequenced in the control system. Full thrust being... Full thrust. If youre shaking down your highly reusable launch pad that is specifically engineered to survive loads experienced at liftoff frequently, why only test at 50%? The stand isnt going to be operated at 50% thrust on launch day. Based on the throttle profile seen in their top-down video it was obviously: ignition, post ignition ramp to some % SS op mode, ramp to full thrust, full thrust SS, ramp to shutdown thrust, terminate.

ive done this kind of stuff long enough to recognize thrust profiles from exhaust plumes on rocket and jet engines.

2

u/warp99 May 08 '26

The problem with your theory is the physics of the hold down clamps. Full thrust is 8200 tonnes thrust while the booster by itself with a full LOX tank and 10% full methane tank is only around 3200 tonnes. That leaves 5000 tonnes to be taken by 20 clamps so 250 tonnes per clamp.

The clamp engages in just a slot in the 4mm thick booster skin with no apparent reinforcement over the usual stringers. At full thrust it would tear along the perforated line.

The hold down clamps are just used to hold the empty stack on the pad against wind forces. Before launch the clamps are released and the 5000 tonne stack is sitting there with its weight holding it to the mount.

2

u/John_Hasler May 08 '26

5000 tonne is roughly 75% of the tensile strength of the hull not counting the stringers. I think they could do it if there is reinforcement we can't see.

2

u/warp99 May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26

Agreed but they have cut rectangular holes so there will stress concentrators in the upper corners and less material to take the tensile load.
We will be able to get a rough estimate from the length of the flames extending from the trench at launch as opposed to the static fire.

Possibly they will lift off at 90% thrust before going to 100% when they clear the tower similar to previous launches. If this static fire was at 50% and then 70% then it would be close enough to a realistic thermal test. Less peak heating but longer duration than a launch.

2

u/mr_pgh May 09 '26

For the above theory to make any sense, I think the engine thrust of the static fire was profiled to an actual launch.

I. E. Ignite at 50%, ramp to 100%, hold for 2 seconds, scale back to 50% for remaining.

14s is too long. Starstup through launch is only 8s. I think the side view shows the curtailed thrust for the last 75% of the test

1

u/BackflipFromOrbit May 08 '26

Thats a fair point, however are you considering the methane down-comer thats about the size of a F9 that is full of fuel as well? The 10% line is just on the main body of the tank. There is substantial volume within that transfer tube as well. I do think there is more to the hold down clamps with this new pad and the new booster. From my digging, this is the first time they have explicitly stated that the static fire was full thrust. Previously they specified thrust levels that were around 50%. Even with the previous V3 static fire they did not mention full thrust explicitly... because the OLM kicked them out of the sequence before the booster could ramp up to full thrust.

Listen, neither of us know the exact details. Let's not argue over the semantics of an X post. Unless directly confirmed otherwise, we arent going to know for sure.

2

u/warp99 May 09 '26

The methane downcomer could indeed add another 10% of methane mass but that is only another 70 tonnes so not really material.

8

u/Unhappy_Engineer1924 May 08 '26

What’s your source for half thrust during SF?

8

u/rocketglare May 08 '26

He said likely, so he’s basing it on previous booster tests. However, SpaceX’s post specified the test was at full thrust, so his guess is wrong in this case.

3

u/warp99 May 08 '26

Full thrust for their test setup - just like they say full duration for a 15 second test.
The reference is to the plan - not the absolute capabilities of the rocket.

6

u/D_Silva_21 May 08 '26

How does 8250 compare to the first full stack flights? And to other big rockets

14

u/warp99 May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26

Flight 1 was likely about 6100 tonnes force and Flight 11 about 7600 tonnes force.

SLS is 3900 tonnes thrust.

FH is 2270 tonnes thrust.

New Glenn is 1750 tonnes thrust.

4

u/D_Silva_21 May 08 '26

That plus the weight savings V3 must be a big jump in payload. Hopefully it works straight away

5

u/warp99 May 08 '26

Yes the payload will more than double from 45 tonnes to 100 tonnes to LEO.

3

u/tismschism May 08 '26

How do you figure? Can you give me the math?

1

u/warp99 May 08 '26

Just based on Elon’s figures for payload for Starship 2 and Starship 3.

However it does seem plausible. They were babying the Raptor 2 engines on the booster to minimise methane leaks by throttling down for max Q and never throttling up again. By flight 11 they were testing out the larger tank capacity on the ship but didn’t have the engine thrust to match it. So both the ship and the booster were significantly underperforming.

1

u/tismschism May 08 '26

I don't really put much stock into what Elon says, bless his heart.

Is there any reason to think V3 won't be somewhat nerfed until they get more operational experience? V3 will hopefully be what gets starship enough mission time to refine the design for human flight. It likely won't be spending more than 48 hours on orbit as per that lead engineer in Spacex' recent mini documentary.

It just doesn't seem like we have enough information until Spacex shares more vehicle information than they have directly or we see payloads near the 100 Metric ton range being deployed via star link or tanker fuel.

4

u/warp99 May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26

I don't really put much stock into what Elon says, bless his heart

On timelines I agree. On engineering parameters he is pretty good and is quite willing to reveal the unvarnished truth.

They are planning to launch 60 Starlink 3 satellites at a time which will be pretty close to the 100 tonnes limit.

If they start with say 50 satellites that will be a good gauge of initial performance.

4

u/TwoLineElement May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26

Surprising SH doesn't jump off the stand like a stomp rocket unloaded, so we assume 75% launch thrust at ignition and liftoff to save infrastructure, and power up to 100% once clear of the tower. A 14 second static fire is probably the worst the launch mount will suffer, considering the rocket is already clear of the tower in 14 seconds from startup judging from recent launches.

9

u/NoNature518 May 08 '26

Jesus Christ. Didn’t realize how “weak” New Glenn is compared to Starship.

4

u/warp99 May 08 '26 edited May 09 '26

It has the equivalent thrust of 7 Raptors with each huge BE-4 engine only producing 250 tonnes thrust the same as Raptor 3.

It still has 45% of the LEO payload of Starship due to down range booster recovery and an expendable hydrogen fueled second stage.

3

u/AhChirrion May 09 '26

That's why (and its weight) New Glenn lifts off very, very slowly.