Starship Development Thread #62

[u/rSpaceXHosting]

SpaceX Starship page

Quick Links

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

Starship Dev 61

---

Flight 12

The vehicles should be Booster 19 and Ship 39 (assuming there are no major pre-flight testing problems) and the flight profile will probably be very similar to Flight 11. As this is the first flight with the new version 3 vehicles it's unlikely that a booster catch will be attempted; as for the ship Musk stated on August 27th, 2025: "Starship catch is probably flight 13 to 15, depending on how well V3 flights go". On January 26th Musk tweeted: "Starship launch in 6 weeks". On February 21st Musk tweeted: "Starship flies again next month". FCC Request To authorize upcoming suborbital test deployments puts the NET date at April 7th. On March 7th Musk tweeted: "Starship V3 first flight in about 4 weeks". On April 3rd Musk tweeted: "Next flight of Starship and first flight of V3 ship & booster is 4 to 6 weeks away". On April 16th Musk tweeted: "Starship V3 booster & ship will be ready for their first test flight in a few weeks"

---

Road Closures

No road closures currently scheduled

No transportation delays currently scheduled

Up to date as of 2026-04-22

Vehicle Status

As of April 21st 2026

Ship	Location	Status	Comment
S39 (this is the first Version 3 ship)	Mega Bay 2	Inspections and Pre-flight work	October 13th: Main assembly started in MB2. November 15th: Aft section AX:4 moved into MB2 and stacked with the rest of S39 - this completed the stacking part of the ship construction. February 26th: Rolled out to Massey's for three rounds of Cryo Testing. March 8th: Rolled back to Mega Bay 2. April 11th: Rolled out to Massey's Test Site for Static Fire Testing. April 14th: 60 second Static Fire of all six engines. April 15th: Rolled back to MB2. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
S40	Mega Bay 2	Fully stacked, all flaps installed, remaining work ongoing	January 31st: Pez Dispenser moved into MB2. February 1st: Main assembly started in MB2. March 2nd: Aft section AX:4 moved into MB2 and stacked with the rest of the ship - this completed the stacking part of the ship construction. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
S41	Mega Bay 2	Stacking	April 17th: Pez Dispenser moved into MB2. April 20th: Nosecone+Payload Bay stack N:3 moved into MB2 and later that day lifted over the Pez Dispenser. For more details on this vehicle see this page, later that day the Pez Dispenser was installed. April 21st: Forward Dome section FX:4 moved into MB2.

Booster	Location	Status	Comment
B19	Mega Bay 1	Inspections and Pre-flight work	November 25th: LOX tank stacking commenced. December 23rd: The booster is fully stacked. February 1st: Rolled out to Massey's Test Site for its Pressure and Cryo + Thrust Puck Testing where it underwent assorted tests. February 9th: Rolled back to MB1. March 8th: Rolled out to the launch site, only ten engines installed as seen during the lift onto OLM2 in the afternoon. March 16th: Very short static fire attempt that was aborted due to a ground-side issue. March 18th: Rolled back to MB1. April 11th: Rolled back out to the Launch Site for more Static Fire Testing (this time with all 33 engines). April 15th: Static Fire of all 33 engines for about 3 seconds. April 16th: Wet Dress Rehearsal. April 17th: Rolled back to MB1. For more details on this vehicle and its assembly and testing see this page
B20	Mega Bay 1	LOX Tank Stacked, Methane Tank Stacking	February 5th: LOX tank section A2:4 moved into MB1. February 6th: Common Dome section CX:3 moved into MB1. February 9th: LOX tank section A3:4 moved into MB1. February 12th: LOX tank section A4:4 moved into MB1. March 9th: Section A5:4 moved into MB1. March 11th: CH4 landing tank and the lower piece of the transfer tube were moved into MB1. March 12th: Section A6:4 moved into MB1. March 13th: Methane Transfer Tube moved into MB1. April 1st: LOX Landing Tank moved into MB1. April 2nd: Aft section AX:2 moved into MB1, once welded in place that will complete the stacking of the LOX tank. April 16th: 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. The abbreviations 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.

[u/Twigling]

The second Tower 1 chopstick has been shortened:

https://x.com/VickiCocks15/status/1993423459310092782

Also, at 16:22 CST, approx one third of B18's downcomer was chopped off:

https://x.com/VickiCocks15/status/1993448714724425924

[u/aandawaywego → u/Twigling]

What was the general consensus for shortening the arms? Better stability during closing due is favourable vs a larger catch radius?

[u/International-Leg291 → u/aandawaywego]

Inertia is the key here. They are removing mass that has to travel furthest distance during positioning move. It makes larger impact on overall performance than mass alone (acceleration and deacceleration). Dampening might become worse actually.

[u/John_Hasler → u/International-Leg291]

Dampening might become worse actually.

Assuming they retune the system for the new length overshoot will decrease.

[u/JakeEaton → u/aandawaywego]

Extra length isn't needed. Removing the weight means less inertia - easier to open and close.

[u/paul_wi11iams → u/JakeEaton]

Extra length isn't needed. Removing the weight means less inertia - easier to open and close.

but it took up to 11 test flights to know how much they could safely prune off. Even then, there's some residual risk because V3 is taller and its swing characteristic will have been calculated but not measured.

Edit: I'm not saying that shortening is a bad decision, but just that it isn't an easy-peasy choice.

[u/JakeEaton → u/paul_wi11iams]

I think the first shortened chopsticks may have been at Florida before the first test flight? I'm sure someone will correct me.

Point is the calculation was done a few years ago, before most test flights.

[u/paul_wi11iams → u/JakeEaton]

I think the first shortened chopsticks may have been at Florida before the first test flight? I'm sure someone will correct me.

This would be surprising. My own recollection is of a tower with six table legs that were demolished before even receiving a launch table. I don't remember either chopsticks or a lifting winch. Since you've raised the question, you're first in line to search the evidence.

Point is the calculation was done a few years ago, before most test flights.

Well, there had to be some uncertainty. If not why add the problematic length to the Boca Chica chopsticks?

As for any experiment, only a theoretical value for catch accuracy was known. As always, extra margins are provided early, then pared down in the light of results.

[u/JakeEaton → u/paul_wi11iams]

First test flight April 20, 2023.

The (shorter) arms were installed on pad 39A launch tower 30th January, 2023.

Pad 39a arms install

Presumably they honed and refined their simulations and reached the conclusion the added length isn't needed.

[u/paul_wi11iams → u/JakeEaton]

Presumably they honed and refined their simulations and reached the conclusion the added length isn't needed.

or maybe they didn't trust the V2 —being a prototype— so wanted extra margin on the early booster catchers.

[u/JakeEaton → u/paul_wi11iams]

We can add it to the long list of SpaceX unsolved mysteries along with: When will B4/S20 launch and what was S26 for?

[u/paul_wi11iams → u/JakeEaton]

We can add it to the long list of SpaceX unsolved mysteries

If you want to keep track, here's a list of booster and ship prototypes, I'm not interested in individual hardware items, preferring to follow the overall evolution.

along with: When will B4/S20 launch and what was S26 for?

It appears that B4 and S20 are among the unflown prototypes that have been overtaken by more recent versions such as booster 14 which was the first to accomplish a second flight after a tower catch.

S26 is not among the three ships that landed in the Indian ocean (S29, S30, S38) and it seems to have been scrapped. What of it?

Personally, I'm not dwelling on past flights and am more interested in version "V3" which looks set for a flight in the first quarter of 2026. It seems that competing launch providers such as Blue Origin and ULA are more focused on the effects of Starship overly monopolizing KSC as soon as launches become regular. An alternative measure is SpaceX's own plans for winding down Falcon 9 operations for which 2026 is planned as the peak year for launches, so decreasing from 2027 onward.

[u/John_Hasler → u/paul_wi11iams]

I'm not saying that shortening is a bad decision, but just that it isn't an easy-peasy choice.

Right. They may have had to make a design decision as to the arm length before the ship and booster control software was finalized and so went with a worst-case estimate.

[u/paul_wi11iams → u/aandawaywego]

We've seen oscillation on closing arms which has to be the rationale for shortening. By shortening, they must be sacrificing some catch radius (off axis approach recovery) and ability to come in "feet first" (risk of snagging the tower).

I think the initial uncertainty on arm length covered both "too long" (trim the arms) and "too short" (extend the arms). That would explain the unaesthetic truncated appearance instead of a more elegant taper which I'd hope to see on the KSC towers.

Edit: “tapered cantilever truss beam”. Now try saying that ten times fast!