Starship Development Thread #52
Portions of this thread copied from the Starship Dev thread on r/SpaceX.
FAQ
- When next launch? IFT-3 is NET Feb 2024, and after completion of the IFT-2 mishap investigation. Candidate vehicles are Booster 10 and Ship 28.
- When previous launch? (IFT-2)? Booster 9 and Ship 25 launched on 2023-11-18.
- What was the result? Successful lift off with minimal pad damage. Successful booster operation with all engines to successful hot stage separation. Booster destroyed by AFTS after attempted boost-back. Ship fired all engines to near orbital speed then destroyed by AFTS. No re-entry attempt.
- Was IFT-2 a complete failure? No. As part of an iterative test programme, many milestones were achieved. Perfection is neither expected nor desired at this stage.
---
Quick Links
RAPTOR ROOST | LAB CAM | SAPPHIRE CAM | SENTINEL CAM | ROVER CAM | ROVER 2.0 CAM | PLEX CAM | NSF STARBASE
Starship Dev 51 | Starship Dev 50 | Starship Dev 49 | Starship Dev 48
Status
Road Closures
| Type | Start (CDT) | End (CDT) | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Date | 2023-12-18 08:00 | 2023-12-18 20:00 | Closure Revoked. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach will be open. |
| Alternative Date | 2023-12-19 08:00 | 2023-12-19 20:00 | Closure Revoked. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach will be open. |
| Alternative Date | 2023-12-20 08:00 | 2023-12-20 20:00 | Closure Concluded. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach now open. |
| Primary Date | 2023-12-21 08:00 | 2023-12-21 20:00 | Closure Concluded. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach now open. |
| Alternative Date | 2023-12-22 08:00 | 2023-12-22 20:00 | Closure Concluded. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach now open. |
| Primary Date | 2023-12-27 08:00 | 2023-12-27 20:00 | Closure Revoked. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach open. |
| Primary Date | 2023-12-29 06:00 | 2023-12-29 16:00 | Possible closure. |
| Alternate Date | 2024-01-03 08:00 | 2024-01-03 18:00 | Possible closure. |
| Alternate Date | 2024-01-04 08:00 | 2024-01-04 18:00 | Possible closure. |
Up to date as of 2023-12-27
Vehicle Status
As of 2024-01-05
Follow Ring Watchers on Twitter and Discord for more.
| Ship | Location | Status | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| S24 | Gulf of Mexico | Destroyed | April 20th (IFT-1): Destroyed by flight termination system after successful launch. |
| S25 | Atlantic Ocean | Destroyed | Mostly successful launch and stage separation |
| S26 | Rocket Garden | Mysterious | Static fire Oct. 20. No fins or heat shield, multiple mysterious changes. Completed 3 cryo tests, latest on Oct 10. |
| S28 | Highbay | Pre-flight prep | Static fired Dec 29th |
| S29 | Megabay 2 | Pending engine install | 3x cryo |
| S30 | Massey's | Cryo testing | 2x cryo: Jan 3rd and Jan 5th |
| S31 | High Bay | Receiving aft flaps | |
| S32 | High Bay | Under construction | Stacking in progress. |
| S33-34 | Build Site | Parts spotted | To be scrapped in preparation for Starship V2 |
| Booster | Location | Status | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| B7 | Gulf of Mexico | Destroyed | Destroyed by flight termination system after successful launch. |
| B9 | Gulf of Mexico | Destroyed | Successfully launched, destroyed during Boost back attempt. |
| B10 | Megabay 1 | Pre-flight prep | Static fired Dec 29th. |
| B11 | Megabay 1 | Finalizing | Completed 2 Cryo tests. |
| B12 | Massey's | Pending cryo testing | |
| B13 | Megabay 1 | Stacking | LOx tank stacked |
| B14 | Build Site | Assembly | Assorted parts spotted |
| B15 | Build Site | Assembly | Potential aft end spotted Jan 5th |
Resources
- LabPadre Channel | NASASpaceFlight.com Channel
- NSF: Booster 7 + Ship X (likely 24) Updates Thread | Most Recent
- NSF: Boca Chica Production Updates Thread | Most recent
- NSF: Elon Starship tweet compilation | Most Recent
- SpaceX: Website Starship page | Starship Users Guide (2020, PDF)
- FAA: SpaceX Starship Project at the Boca Chica Launch Site
- FAA: Temporary Flight Restrictions NOTAM list
- FCC: Starship Orbital Demo detailed Exhibit - 0748-EX-ST-2021 application June 20 through December 20
- NASA: Starship Reentry Observation (Technical Report)
- Hwy 4 & Boca Chica Beach Closures (May not be available outside US)
- Production Progress Infographics by @RingWatchers
- Raptor 2 Tracker by @SpaceRhin0
- Acronym definitions by Decronym
- Everyday Astronaut: Starbase Tour with Elon Musk, Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
- Everyday Astronaut: 2022 Elon Musk Interviews, Starbase/Ship Updates | Launch Tower | Merlin Engine | Raptor Engine
Starbase activities (2023-12-08):
Thanks for this! Really want to keep up with the goings on in space but it's really hard without Reddit.
Glad to hear that people find these threads useful! Feedback and suggestions are always welcome.
When do you think we'll see IFT-3? January? February? March?
I'm really hoping for before '24 of course because of the yearly launch limit, but realistically I think January is possible and February is most likely. I'd be surprised if it isn't before March unless there's extenuating circumstances, e.g. FAA or lawsuits.
Rumours are that February is the internal target date, so I wouldn't be too surprised if it slipped to March. End of '23 would definitely be a treat though!
I'm hoping this shouldn't be as long of an issue as last time, given that there wasn't a delayed FTS, and there was minimal damage to ground infrastructure.
Kathy Lueders said that this month is unlikely but seems to think that there's a chance for January. I'll go with that.
I think that a launch this year is still possible but I wouldn't want to give odds. I think that before the end of January is likely. It would be cool for it to happen on my birthday but I'd rather see it earlier.
Starbase activities (2023-12-13):
Lmao the SPMT reminds me of the festive raptor engine from a couple years ago
I had forgotten about this! "Christmas tree" indeed. They've certainly simplified the Raptor engines since then.
Starbase activities (2023-12-12):
In other Starship news, Kathy Lueders (now general manager of Starbase) states that they are working to shift as much testing as possible from the launch site to Masseys.
She also confirms that the AFTS was triggered on IFT-2:
Starbase activities (2023-12-18):
Other related activities:
Starbase activities (2023-12-10):
They removed the flex pipes.
Ah yes, I found some video here and here. It seems like they didn't lower the flex pipes or work on them, correct? They just lifted them out of the way so they could access other components?
Starbase activities (2023-12-20):
Starbase activities (2023-12-16):
Daily summary compiled from users on the Starship dev thread over on Reddit
12/15/23
It appears that Tower Pieces are being moved from Florida to Texas. The launch ring in Hangar M at the Cape might roll out onto a barge soon. There was a second tower under construction at 39A, and parts at Roberts Road were intended for a second Starship tower at KSC. SpaceX initially planned a second tower at Boca Chica but dropped the permit request. Now, it seems the tower segments at Roberts Road are destined for a second Starship tower in Boca Chica, possibly for launching and landing Tanker Starships in a rapid salvoing process. It seems like the limiting factor might be the tank farm's capacity to fill Tankers with methalox. The ultimate goal may be controlling multiple Ships in LEO for refilling missions. Tower segments are being transported to Starbase, with various activities observed throughout the day.
Thanks for posting this! Looks like this is OLT #3 segment 7.
Videos of rollout and loading onto a barge at the KSC Turning Basin.
Starbase activities (2023-12-15):
Starbase activities (2023-12-09):
Other Starship news:
What are people's thoughts on the fate of S26? Will it be scrapped? Will they do further modifications or testing?
Starbase activities (2024-01-05):
Other:
The LR11000 has moved into the space near gate D2 where they recently demolished the storage sheds. I think it's there to handle the last three horizontal tanks (unless it's just there to compact the new asphalt...)
Thanks for posting! For posterity, here a link to the video of the crane movement.
Vicki and Zack speculate that it could be there to remove one of the old vertical tanks currently used for water storage.
That looks like a long reach from where it's parked.
But there's a guy up on one of the veritcal tanks working on the lifting rings so perhaps Zack is right.
NSF are live for today's testing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWYZ90lAUOk
S28 has performed a static fire. B10 is up next.
Starbase activities (2023-12-31):
Other:
Happy New Year, all!
Starbase activities (2024-01-03):
Starbase activities (2024-01-01):
Starbase activities (2023-12-23):
Starbase activities (2023-12-29):
B12 is moving to Massey's.
S26 mystery continues, as a second row of stringers is added.
S29 moves out of the Highbay and into Megabay 2, where it is hooked up to a 2-point lifting jig.
Preparations underway to move S30 to Massey's.
Tower segment and two (relatively small) horizontal tanks arrive in Brownsville Port.
Main event: Static fires of both S28 and B10.
S28 static fire was a single engine for roughly 6 seconds, simulating "flight-like startup for an in-space burn"), likely using the header tanks.
B10 static fire was 33 engines for roughly 10 seconds. Zack Golden compares to B9 static fire.
OLM pad looks in good condition, but a shipping container disappeared (and reappeared), and a small sign was damaged.
Road delay posted for Dec 30th from 00:00 to 03:00.
Other:
Starbase activities (2023-12-17):
Since not much happened today, here are some more videos of Saturday's drone show:
Other:
Starbase activities (2023-12-24):
Other Starship dev related info:
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!
And may Starkitty be nestled all snug in their bed, while visions of launch licenses dance in their head. Merry Christmas :)
They're now cutting up the shell of one of the vertical methane tanks. They managed to suck all the perlite out when we weren't looking.
These vertical "methane" tanks never ultimately held methane, did they? Just water and (maybe?) some LN2 or LOx?
I recall something about Texas regulations stipulating that the tanks were too close together to safely hold fuel...
It's been asserted that they were used for water but I know of no evidence that they actually were.
Texas regulations require that the design for a methane storage system be done by a registered professional engineer certified to do methane storage systems in Texas and be submitted for approval before construction starts. Thus it's unlikely that they were "too close together". More likely they just didn't work right. Perhaps they had an excessive boiloff rate or too high a leakage rate.
Speculation: Perhaps they decided to build their own tanks because lead times for purchased tanks were too long. It worked out for LN2 and LOX.
I wonder why they have not recycled the suborbital tanks?
Starbase activities (2024-01-04):
Other:
Starbase activities (2024-01-02):
Starbase activities (2023-12-22):
Starbase activities (2023-12-21):
Some dude who claims to not work for SpaceX, but has worn a SpaceX hardhat reports that the ground connection to B10 was severed for some reason.(Edit: This is likely an unreliable source)Other:
Starbase activities (2023-12-30):
Starbase activities (2023-12-28):
Starbase activities (2023-12-27):
Starbase activities (2023-12-26):
Starbase activities (2023-12-25):
NSF are live for potential B10 static fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJKVjLA1cMg
Starbase activities (2023-12-11):
Starbase activities (2023-12-14):
Road closure revoked for today.
Static fire!
Really hoping for no major setback after what happened during the last tests with the booster.
Yeah, same. That detanking procedure on the most recent B10 test did not seem norminal.
B10’s SPMTs did leave the launch site today, so hopefully that indicates that B10 is healthy enough to continue the testing campaign.
Now with an overpressure notice for tomorrow, I'm hopeful it's a good sign that even if something major happened, the booster did not take a serious hit.
Starbase activities (2024-01-06):
Other:
Potential static fire of S28 today. NSF are live: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vO4olRWhFQs
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
[Thread #25 for this sub, first seen 10th Dec 2023, 02:00] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
Starbase activities (2023-12-19):
Zack Golden seems to have guessed wrong! The vertical inner tank which was exposed yesterday is next to be removed. LR11000 is currently being hooked up to the tank.
Starbase activities (2024-01-07):
to the build site, and is hooked up toa cranethe LR1750. The S26 mystery continues. (Edit: S26 not moved to the build site, still in the Rocket Garden.)This thread is no longer being updated, and has been replaced by:
Starship Development Thread #53
Sounds reasonable, except for the final bit. It's just ridiculous to claim that perfection was not desired. Sensors provide the same data, investors will be happier and invest more, clients will gain more trust and spend more. It feels like the excuse some kid would come up with, who is lacking self confidence to stand by their limited success and claimed it was all intentio... oh.
I think this refers to SpaceX's hardware-rich iterative development process. The quote "if you never fail, you're not pushing the boundaries enough" sums up the sentiment well.
If you never succeed you are pushing them too hard.
A test that goes to completion always returns more data than one that doesn't. For example there is a theory that the flaps on the ship are too large. IFT2 could have confirmed or falsified it.
Hmm, interesting take. Do you think SpaceX's current IFT goals are too ambitious? If you were in charge, what modifications would you make to the testing schedule?
I think you are reading too much into this. SpaceX has a rather aggressive test program, and the purpose of the tests is not (only) to verify the functionality of the system, but also to learn about the vehicle and involved technologies. At this stage they are pushing the boundaries of the systems capabilities intentionally up to the point where it might start to fail. So if things don’t fail, it only means that they could have pushed harder and squeezed out more performance.
That does not mean that anyone wants Starship to explode. But the objective is clearly not to do a perfect launch, because SpaceX knows that it’s more efficient to make mistakes a few times times and then succeed, instead of spending excessive amounts of time and money one single perfect test launch. This has been communicated very clearly from the very beginning.
Not really. It has been communicated very clearly that if there wasn't a successful starship launch every two weeks by 2022 (I believe that's the year Elon Musk used?), SpaceX runs the risk of bankruptcy. At this point what they are doing means, that he wasn't truthful when he said that, or that they are failing unintentionally and downplaying it, or that they are actually very far behind their plans and heading toward bankruptcy.
"Runs the risk" means it might happen, not that it will happen. When he said that Starlink was committed to switching to the version two satellites and F9 was not expected to be able to launch them. They would have missed their FCC deadlines. However, they were able to develop the "shrunken" Starlink2 that fits on F9. I also think that both the F9 launch cadence and Starlink sales have exceeded expectations.