SpaceX flight testing in South Texas
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
Joined: Sep 2014
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 282
Likes: 108
From: Germany
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
BOOSTER 19 / SHIP 39 ROLLOUT!
A new road closure has been posted on the Starbase website, from the production site all the way to Masseys.
This almost certainly means Booster 19 or Ship 39 is heading out tonight for the start of the testing campaign.
A new road closure has been posted on the Starbase website, from the production site all the way to Masseys.
This almost certainly means Booster 19 or Ship 39 is heading out tonight for the start of the testing campaign.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
VideoStarbase Pad B was a little frosty yesterday, as teams went through around 13 hours of testing of the tank farm and related GSE systems, sending venting clouds into the sky, as the pad prepares for launches next year.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
Delivery of the first barge to transport boosters & starships from Texas to the Cape.
It appears SpaceX were testing out their new Starship Superheavy Transporter for this delivery! 🔥
Good eye. Still needs a little work before we put the name on it, but it was a good first trail run of a transport 😎
Good eye. Still needs a little work before we put the name on it, but it was a good first trail run of a transport 😎
Last edited by ORAC; 2nd January 2026 at 08:24.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
Video……..
Another six Raptor 2 engines rolled toward the scrap yard this afternoon at McGregor... A reminder that there are no more vehicles capable of using them.
It's Raptor 3 or bust now, boys and girls.
It's Raptor 3 or bust now, boys and girls.
Joined: Oct 2004
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 454
Likes: 134
From: Norfolk, UK
Joined: Sep 2014
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 282
Likes: 108
From: Germany
Yes, indeed. Also I wonder if the design and build is fit for this purpose and how much otherwise useless weight it adds. On the other hand - they have to transport it somehow this distance. .... Thinking twice - why not just hop over the Gulf of A. and be catched 
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
I can think of several reasons.
1. How many successful launch/catches of the booster will the government require before they allow a catch at the KSC?
2. Will every booster move require a Starship for every shuttle flight? There will be far fewer boosters (supposedly able to launch/recover/launch several times a day) whist many payloads will be tankers, moon landers etc unable to be caught). If not, then unless a booster only profile is developed the boosters will need to to moved on a barge.
3. There has been discussion of shuttle flights for the Staship, which is pretty robust. But a lot of the structural integrity of the booster will be provided by the fuel load, which also relates to the G load during launch and max-Q; can it launch will a partial lot without breaching those limits? If a full load is required what will be the flight profile? The path of the Caribbean is now proven, but one inclined to the north to allow a burn-back to land at the KSC will presumably overfly or go near Cuba, the Bahamas etc.
1. How many successful launch/catches of the booster will the government require before they allow a catch at the KSC?
2. Will every booster move require a Starship for every shuttle flight? There will be far fewer boosters (supposedly able to launch/recover/launch several times a day) whist many payloads will be tankers, moon landers etc unable to be caught). If not, then unless a booster only profile is developed the boosters will need to to moved on a barge.
3. There has been discussion of shuttle flights for the Staship, which is pretty robust. But a lot of the structural integrity of the booster will be provided by the fuel load, which also relates to the G load during launch and max-Q; can it launch will a partial lot without breaching those limits? If a full load is required what will be the flight profile? The path of the Caribbean is now proven, but one inclined to the north to allow a burn-back to land at the KSC will presumably overfly or go near Cuba, the Bahamas etc.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
Looks like we might eventually need a thread for Starship Vandeberg....
SPACEX: The U.S. Space Force issued a request for information on December 29th, inviting commercial companies including SpaceX to develop and operate a new launch site at Space Launch Complex 14 (SLC-14) on the southern tip of Vandenberg Space Force Base.
This is an undeveloped area several kilometers from existing infrastructure with a nearby rail line 600 meters away. The site targets Heavy and/or Super Heavy launch vehicles capable of 20,000 to and exceeding 50,000 kilograms to low Earth orbit.
They are prioritizing providers with financial maturity, new vehicles lacking existing Vandenberg sites, unique capabilities like point-to-point transportation or payload return, and technical readiness for operations within five years of a lease.
In other words, characteristics that of Starship.
Responses must detail safety measures to minimize impacts on other launches, with submissions due within 30 days. Any lease requires safety analysis and environmental review.
The initiative aims to enable larger military satellites, rapid response in emergencies, enhanced resilience, diversified portfolios, and faster constellation reconstitution, positioning SLC-14 as the most viable location for such large-scale programs.
This is an undeveloped area several kilometers from existing infrastructure with a nearby rail line 600 meters away. The site targets Heavy and/or Super Heavy launch vehicles capable of 20,000 to and exceeding 50,000 kilograms to low Earth orbit.
They are prioritizing providers with financial maturity, new vehicles lacking existing Vandenberg sites, unique capabilities like point-to-point transportation or payload return, and technical readiness for operations within five years of a lease.
In other words, characteristics that of Starship.
Responses must detail safety measures to minimize impacts on other launches, with submissions due within 30 days. Any lease requires safety analysis and environmental review.
The initiative aims to enable larger military satellites, rapid response in emergencies, enhanced resilience, diversified portfolios, and faster constellation reconstitution, positioning SLC-14 as the most viable location for such large-scale programs.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
That’s ramping up to 20 Starships a week and then onto 200 per week…..
Musk:
SpaceX is going to produce Starships like they're Aeroplanes
With a $250 million Gigabay at Starbase, the company is accelerating Starship production. The 700,000-square-foot facility is designed to manufacture up to 1,000 rockets per year.
With a $250 million Gigabay at Starbase, the company is accelerating Starship production. The 700,000-square-foot facility is designed to manufacture up to 1,000 rockets per year.
Yes, at massive volume. Maybe as high as 10,000 ships per year.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,679
Likes: 3,341
From: Everett, WA
Even 1,000 per year sounds insane. Boeing and Airbus "mass produce" 737s and A320 series aircraft - and don't come close to 1,000 per year.
I think one/day would be damn impressive.
I think one/day would be damn impressive.
Joined: Sep 2014
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 282
Likes: 108
From: Germany
We need more space ports! A whole lot more ... (and we have to ask the Old One for more LEOs).
I am glad for Trumps call for at least a Space Traffic Management/Control already.
I am glad for Trumps call for at least a Space Traffic Management/Control already.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
If you looking at building a civilisation on Mars that is going to need the transport of landers to carry/be housing, factories, machinery, food, materials etc a regular shipping fleet will be needed. Many of those ships will be one way tankers and freighters.
You are looking at space moving from a scientific to an industrial basis.
Meanwhile, even as we wait for Starship V3 first flight, V4 is being designed.
Musk:
You are looking at space moving from a scientific to an industrial basis.
Meanwhile, even as we wait for Starship V3 first flight, V4 is being designed.
Musk:
Starship 4 will be another 10% to 20% longer.
Joined: Oct 2004
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 454
Likes: 134
From: Norfolk, UK
Can't help wondering how they're going to create the propellant required to keep a fleet that size in the air. 1500t for Starship and 3400t for the Booster so for easy math call it a round 5K metric tonnes per launch with US->UK conversion, venting and other losses. At a 3.6:1 ratio that's 1087t of CH4 and 3913t O2.
Commercial plants look like they can generate 500t a day of O2. Methane I guess is a bit easier as you a) need less and b) just pump it out the ground, but gonna need plants to purify and liquify the stuff. Struggling to find anything on that online with a cursory search so focusing on O2...
I've seen mention of 25 launches a day to settle Mars, so they'll need to generate 97Kt of O2 per day to feed that which is 195 of those plants at full capacity with no down time. Just a launch a day will need 8. Even assuming no problem paying for all this kit and that you have the land to put it on, you'll need MWs to run it so add in your own power plant.... which need fuelling...
All this not a consideration I've seen factored into the cost per Kg to Mars. Maybe that's why they need the IPO!
All the ^ just some cursory Googling and math when I really should be doing something more productive - awaiting ORAC to point me at some definitive article somewhere
Commercial plants look like they can generate 500t a day of O2. Methane I guess is a bit easier as you a) need less and b) just pump it out the ground, but gonna need plants to purify and liquify the stuff. Struggling to find anything on that online with a cursory search so focusing on O2...
I've seen mention of 25 launches a day to settle Mars, so they'll need to generate 97Kt of O2 per day to feed that which is 195 of those plants at full capacity with no down time. Just a launch a day will need 8. Even assuming no problem paying for all this kit and that you have the land to put it on, you'll need MWs to run it so add in your own power plant.... which need fuelling...
All this not a consideration I've seen factored into the cost per Kg to Mars. Maybe that's why they need the IPO!
All the ^ just some cursory Googling and math when I really should be doing something more productive - awaiting ORAC to point me at some definitive article somewhere
Joined: Sep 2014
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 282
Likes: 108
From: Germany
I just imagined 1000 Starships sitting on Mars close to Mars City 1 development area, in +2 years 2000 ships. Someone should render it. I unfortunately cant operate an AI picture generator...;-)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
VideoIt appears the B18.3 test tank buckled below the common dome level during crush testing at the Masseys test site this evening. It's currently unclear whether this was intentional or not. Watch till the end for a zoomed in view.
The B18.3 test article seems to have suffered a structural failure during qualification testing of the Integrated Hot Staging Ring for the V3 Booster.
It appears that it buckled beneath the common dome weld which is not ideal, considering that was not the component being tested for structural integrity.
Hopefully they were able to gather the data they were hoping for and won't need to replace this test article in order to complete this extremely important test.
https://x.com/csi_starbase/status/20...768620922?s=61
It appears that it buckled beneath the common dome weld which is not ideal, considering that was not the component being tested for structural integrity.
Hopefully they were able to gather the data they were hoping for and won't need to replace this test article in order to complete this extremely important test.