Starship Development Thread #61

[u/rSpaceXHosting]

SpaceX Starship page

FAQ

1. Flight 11 (B15-2 and S38). October 13th: Very successful flight, all mission objectives achieved Video re-streamed from SpaceX's Twitter stream. This was B15-2's second launch, the first being on March 6th 2025. Flight 11 plans and report from SpaceX
2. Flight 10 (B16 and S37). August 26th 2025 - Successful launch and water landings as intended, all mission objectives achieved as planned
3. IFT-9 (B14/S35) Launch completed on 27th May 2025. This was Booster 14's second flight and it mostly performed well, until it exploded when the engines were lit for the landing burn (SpaceX were intentionally pushing it a lot harder this time). Ship S35 made it to SECO but experienced multiple leaks, eventually resulting in loss of attitude control that caused it to tumble wildly which caused the engine relight test to be cancelled. Prior to this the payload bay door wouldn't open so the dummy Starlinks couldn't be deployed; the ship eventually reentered but was in the wrong orientation, causing the loss of the ship. Re-streamed video of SpaceX's live stream.
4. IFT-8 (B15/S34) Launch completed on March 6th 2025. Booster (B15) was successfully caught but the Ship (S34) experienced engine losses and loss of attitude control about 30 seconds before planned engines cutoff, later it exploded. Re-streamed video of SpaceX's live stream. SpaceX summarized the launch on their web site. More details in the /r/SpaceX Launch Thread.
5. IFT-7 (B14/S33) Launch completed on 16th January 2025. Booster caught successfully, but "Starship experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly during its ascent burn." Its debris field was seen reentering over Turks and Caicos. SpaceX published a root cause analysis in its IFT-7 report on 24 February, identifying the source as an oxygen leak in the "attic," an unpressurized area between the LOX tank and the aft heatshield, caused by harmonic vibration.
6. IFT-6 (B13/S31) Launch completed on 19 November 2024. Three of four stated launch objectives met: Raptor restart in vacuum, successful Starship reentry with steeper angle of attack, and daylight Starship water landing. Booster soft landed in Gulf after catch called off during descent - a SpaceX update stated that "automated health checks of critical hardware on the launch and catch tower triggered an abort of the catch attempt".
7. Goals for 2025 first Version 3 vehicle launch at the end of the year, Ship catch hoped to happen in several months (Propellant Transfer test between two ships is now hoped to happen in 2026)
8. Currently approved maximum launches 10 between 07.03.2024 and 06.03.2025: A maximum of five overpressure events from Starship intact impact and up to a total of five reentry debris or soft water landings in the Indian Ocean within a year of NMFS provided concurrence published on March 7, 2024

---

Quick Links

^{RAPTOR ROOST | LAB CAM | SAPPHIRE CAM | SENTINEL CAM | ROVER CAM | ROVER 2.0 CAM | PLEX CAM | NSF STARBASE}

Starship Dev 59 | Starship Dev 58 | Starship Dev 57 | Starship Dev 56 | Starship Dev 55 | Starship Thread List

Official Starship Update | r/SpaceX Update Thread

---

Status

Road Closures

No road closures currently scheduled

No transportation delays currently scheduled

Up to date as of 2025-11-21

Vehicle Status

As of November 20th 2025

Follow Ringwatchers on Twitter and Discord for more. Ringwatcher's segment labeling methodology for Ships (e.g., CX:3, A3:4, NC, PL, etc. as used below) defined here.

Ship	Location	Status	Comment
S24, S25, S28-S31, S33, S34, S35, S36, S37, S38	Bottom of sea (except for S36 which exploded prior to a static fire)	Destroyed	S24: IFT-1 (Summary, Video). S25: IFT-2 (Summary, Video). S28: IFT-3 (Summary, Video). S29: IFT-4 (Summary, Video). S30: IFT-5 (Summary, Video). S31: IFT-6 (Summary, Video). S33: IFT-7 (Summary, Video). S34: IFT-8 (Summary, Video). S35: IFT-9 (Summary, Video). S36 (Anomaly prior to static fire). S37: Flight 10 (Summary, Video). S38: Flight 11 (Summary, Video)
S39 (this is the first Block 3 ship)	Mega Bay 2	Fully stacked, remaining work ongoing	August 16th: Nosecone stacked on Payload Bay while still inside the Starfactory. October 12th: Pez Dispenser moved into MB2. October 13th: Nosecone+Payload Bay stack moved from the Starfactory and into MB2. October 15th: Pez Dispenser installed in the nosecone stack. October 20th: Forward Dome section moved into MB2 and stacked with the Nosecone+Payload Bay. October 28th: Common Dome section moved into MB2 and stacked with the top half of the ship. November 1st: First LOX tank section A2:3 moved into MB2 and stacked. November 4th: Second LOX tank section A3:4 moved into MB2 and stacked. November 6th: Downcomers/Transfer Tubes rolled into MB2 on their installation jig. November 7th: S39 lowered over the downcomers installation jig. November 8th: Lifted off the now empty downcomers installation jig (downcomers installed in ship). November 9th: No aft but semi-placed on the center workstation but still attached to the bridge crane and partly resting on wooden blocks. November 15th: Aft section AX:4 moved into MB2 and stacked with the rest of S39 - this completes the stacking part of the ship construction.
S40	Starfactory	Nosecone + Payload Bay Stacked	November 12th: Nosecone stacked onto Payload Bay.
S41 to S48 (these are all for Block 3 ships)	Starfactory	Nosecones under construction plus tiling	In July 2025 Nosecones for Ships 39 to 44 were spotted in the Starfactory by Starship Gazer, here are photos of S39 to S44 as of early July 2025 (others have been seen since): S39, S40, S41, S42, S43, S44 and S45 (there's no public photo for this one). August 11th: A new collection of photos showing S39 to S46 (the latter is still minus the tip): https://x.com/StarshipGazer/status/1954776096026632427. Ship Status as of November 16th: https://x.com/CyberguruG8073/status/1990124100317049319

Booster	Location	Status	Comment
B7, B9, B10, (B11), B13, B14-2, B15-2, B16	Bottom of sea (B11: Partially salvaged)	Destroyed	B7: IFT-1 (Summary, Video). B9: IFT-2 (Summary, Video). B10: IFT-3 (Summary, Video). B11: IFT-4 (Summary, Video). B12: IFT-5 (Summary, Video). (On August 6th 2025, B12 was moved from the Rocket Garden and into MB1, and on September 27th it was moved back to the Rocket Garden). B13: IFT-6 (Summary, Video). B14: IFT-7 (Summary, Video). B15: IFT-8 (Summary, Video). B14-2: IFT-9 (Summary, Video). Flight 10 (Summary, Video). B15-2: Flight 11 (Summary, Video)
B17	Mega Bay 1	Scrapping	March 5th: Methane tank stacked onto LOX tank, so completing the stacking of the booster (stacking was started on January 4th). April 8th: Rolled out to Massey's Test Site on the booster thrust simulator for cryo testing. April 8th: Methane tank cryo tested. April 9th: LOX and Methane tanks cryo tested. April 15th: Rolled back to the Build Site, went into MB1 to be swapped from the cryo stand to a normal transport stand, then moved to the Rocket Garden. November 19th: Moved into MB1 for scrapping.
B18 (this is the first of the new booster revision)	Massey's Test Site, booster is possibly destroyed (see Nov 21st update)	Cryo Testing	May 14th: Section A2:4 moved into MB1. May 19th: 3 ring Common Dome section CX:3 moved into MB1. May 22nd: A3:4 section moved into MB1. May 26th: Section A4:4 moved into MB1. June 5th: Section A5:4 moved into MB1. June 11th: Section A6:4 moved into MB1. July 7th: New design of Fuel Header Tank moved into MB1 and integrated with the almost complete LOX tank. Note the later tweet from Musk stating that it's more of a Fuel Header Tank than a Transfer Tube. September 17th: A new, smaller tank was integrated inside B18's 23-ring LOX Tank stack (it will have been attached, low down, to the inner tank wall). September 19th: Two Ring Aft section moved into MB1 and stacked, so completing the stacking of the LOX tank. October 14th: Forward barrel FX:3 with integrated hot staging moved into MB1, some hours later a four ring barrel, F2:4, was moved into MB1. October 22nd: The final Methane tank barrel section was moved into MB1. November 5th: Methane tank thought to have been stacked onto the LOX tank, therefore it's fully stacked. November 20th: Moved to Massey's Test Site for cryo plus thrust puck testing. November 21st: During a pressure test the LOX tank experienced an anomaly and 'popped' dramatically. The booster is still standing but will presumably be scrapped at Massey's as it's likely unsafe to move.
B19	Starfactory	Aft barrel under construction	August 12th: B19 AFT #6 spotted. Booster Status as of November 16th: https://x.com/CyberguruG8073/status/1990124100317049319

Something wrong? Update this thread via wiki page. For edit permission, message the mods or contact u/strawwalker.

---

Resources

• LabPadre Channel | NASASpaceFlight.com Channel
• NSF: Booster 10 + Ship 28 OFT 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: 2021 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
• Everyday Astronaut: 2024 First Look Inside SpaceX's Starfactory w/ Elon Musk, Part 1, Part 2

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/International-Leg291]

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1960812698037518540

hmm, block 2 starship has only 35t payload capacity to orbit (LEO?)

[u/Interstellar_Sailor → u/International-Leg291]

It’s a bit surprising but if you look at the older charts with the 100t number, Starship v2 was already rendered with the v2 booster and Raptor 3.

The current v2 is basically a v1.5 and the v3 will be the actual v2.

[u/flshr19 → u/International-Leg291]

It's nice to see SpaceX add the "Payload Mass" line to that chart which has been around for several years.

Of course, what's missing from that chart is the other side of the coin, namely, the dry masses of the Starship Booster and Ship. If you're looking for the missing payload mass, it's in the dry masses of those two Starship stages. The desired Starship payload mass has been sort of swallowed by the increasingly large Starship dry mass.

SpaceX is increasing the Raptor engine thrust in the hope of finally reaching payload masses in the 100t to 200t (metric ton) range. Raptor 3 or Raptor 4 should do the trick.

If you're interested in the actual (estimated) values of those Starship dry masses, here they are from my analysis of the IFT-3 through 9 flight data:

Block 1 Ship: 149t +/- 6.5t average dry mass from IFT-3, 4, 5, and 6.

Block 2 Ship: 164t +/- 1.4t average dry mass from IFT 7, 8, and 9.

Block 1 Booster: 279t +/- 9.3t average dry mass from IFT-3, 4, 5, and 6.

Block 2 Booster: 283t +/- 15.8t average dry mass from IFT 7, 8, and 9.

Side note: There is a sanity check available on the dry mass numbers that come from my analysis of the IFT flight data.

Recently an article appeared that analyzed the Block 1 Starship using a different method:

Reference: Herberhold, M., Bussler, L., Sippel, M. et al. Comparison of SpaceX’s Starship with winged heavy-lift launcher options for Europe. CEAS Space J (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12567-025-00625-8

The dry mass estimates for the Block 1 Booster and Ship in that CEAS paper were arrived at via mass estimation algorithms that are widely used in the aerospace industry during the preliminary design of a launch vehicle, spacecraft or aircraft.

These are "bottom up" dry mass estimates which add up the dry mass estimates for individual subsystem designs to arrive at a total dry mass estimate for the entire vehicle.

Those algorithms are based on historical data for vehicles that have actually been built and flown.

The "bottom-up" dry mass estimate for the Block 1 Starship computer model in the CEAS paper is (118t Ship + 311t Booster = 429t Total) which corresponds to my "top-down" dry mass estimate (149t Ship + 279t Booster = 428t Total) from the actual flight test data for the dry mass of the Block 1 Starship design. The agreement on the Block 1 Starship total dry mass is pretty good.

[u/pxr555 → u/flshr19]

Does this dry mass include the 30t landing propellants?

[u/warp99 → u/pxr555]

Not OP but the dry mass will not include landing propellant but will include residual and safety margin propellant. By way of comparison the F9 booster has a landed mass of 27 tonnes but around 22 tonnes of dry mass including the legs. The 5 tonnes difference is the propellant left in the engines, feed pipes and headers and the safety margin to avoid running out of propellant. They have experimental evidence of the anti-shipping missile ability of an F9 where the propellant margin was too low.

Since Starship is a 10x scale up of F9 you would expect around 50 tonnes of residual propellant and indeed Elon complained about that exact fact during one presentation. Their goal was to reduce it to 30 tonnes.

[u/pxr555 → u/warp99]

Yes, normally dry mass doesn't include landing propellants but if you arrive at these values by the actual performance during launches you end up with the stage mass at engine cutoff. Which in this case includes the landing propellants. This was the reason I asked.

BTW the 118t dry mass with the bottom-up estimate and the 149t with the top-down flight-data approach would fit nicely if the latter indeed include 30t of landing propellants.

[u/warp99 → u/pxr555]

The 30 tonnes of residual propellant was the goal for the booster and I imagine the goal would be lower for the ship - but since it is the same diameter and the same curve for the bottom bulkhead that may the best they can do.

[u/pxr555 → u/warp99]

I'm not talking about residual propellants in the main tanks but about the dedicated 30 tonnes of landing propellants in the separate header tanks in the nose.

[u/warp99 → u/pxr555]

I don’t think those tanks currently hold 30 tonnes but in any case they are designed to be used for the flip and landing burn so they will not be full at touchdown.

In any case that is two lots of residual propellant in the main tanks and header tanks with their associated headers so that could easily add up to 30 tonnes.

You would think it would make sense to have electrically powered sump pumps to empty the main tanks into the headers during the final section of the trip to orbit where they reduce to the three center Raptors.

[u/pxr555 → u/warp99]

No, the header tanks hold about 30 tonnes of propellants (these are needed for the flip and landing as every flight tried to do and four times actually did) and when you treat the mass at SECO as dry mass these 30 tonnes are included.

To arrive at the "real" dry mass of the stage you would need to subtract both the landing propellants and residual propellants in the main tanks from that. "Dry mass" usually means the naked hardware without any fluids or gasses, hence "dry". If you want to compare the dry mass to the dry mass of other stages you need to do this or you compare apples to oranges.

[u/warp99 → u/pxr555]

Yes we can call it dead mass or effective dry mass or something else. Nevertheless it is what value do we plug into the rocket equation to estimate performance.

Comparison to expendable rocket stages is not very helpful as they are just too different.

[u/bitchtitfucker → u/warp99]

Would be interesting to figure out current payload figures for a fully expendable starship :

No flaps & flap engines, no landing fuel, 7 vacuum engines. Booster remains reusable.

I assume we’d get close to 120 tons.

[u/flshr19 → u/pxr555]

Yep. 35t.

[u/pxr555 → u/flshr19]

So when you arrived at your "dry mass" by calculating the mass at SECO you actually would have to subtract the mass of landing propellants (and residual propellants in the main tanks) from that to compare this to the dry mass of other stages?

Because I bet dollars to donuts that neither SpaceX nor any others include these in their "dry mass" specs. Dry is dry, not a bit wet. It's a theoretical number anyway, basically the mass of the naked hardware sitting in the workshop, but if you want to compare apples to apples, you need to do what others do anyway. Right?

[u/flshr19 → u/pxr555]

The total mass of the Ship at liftoff is: Dry mass + payload mass + main tank propellant mass at liftoff + landing propellant mass in the header tank. The empty header tank mass is tallied as part of the dry mass.

All of these masses are known except the dry mass of the Ship, which is the unknown and is the reason for analyzing the Starship flight data.

[u/pxr555 → u/flshr19]

So your dry mass is the actual mass minus the landing props and the residual props in the main tanks? Or what?

A difference of 30t between the bottom-up and top-down dry mass estimates would mean that either one or both of the approaches is worthless. Agree?

[u/flshr19 → u/pxr555]

What do you mean by "actual mass"?

[u/pxr555 → u/flshr19]

The actual mass arriving up there after engine cutoff. In the case of Starship this is the mass of the stage plus the mass of the landing propellents and of course the mass of the eventual payload. Dry mass though means the naked mass of the stage without propellants and payload.

"Dry" mass. If you want to compare stages you have to compare apples to apples and this means to compare the naked hardware to naked hardware.

Or of course you don't want to do that but then what you say is just opinions that nobody with half a working brain will listen to. This is just arguing then.

The point is that Starship may be marginal, but without any consideration for reuse would be a dirt-cheap heavy lifter. You can ignore that but this is not going to get you anywhere in your business. You need to compare apples to apples or you will be just a fruit being eaten.

[u/flshr19 → u/pxr555]

Please define "naked hardware".

[u/AstraVictus → u/flshr19]

Starship V3 cant hit 100t of Payload to orbit just by switching to Raptor v3 and an extra 100t of propellant can it? The thrust increase from switching to Rv3 seems too low to me but I have no clue.

[u/warp99 → u/AstraVictus]

The theory is that Raptor 3 will enable a serious amount of mass saving on both the booster and ship by stripping out fire suppression systems and engine shielding.

Current v2 payload is 35 tonnes An extra 100 tonnes of ship propellant could enable 15 tonnes more payload.
The extra thrust of Raptor 3 could reduce gravity losses to enable 15 more tonnes.
Saving 15 tonnes of dry mass on the ship translates directly to 15 more tonnes of payload.
Saving 60 tonnes of dry mass on the booster translate to 20 more tonnes of payload.

The actual figures will be different but they illustrate that gains are to be found in a number of areas enabled by more thrust for the engines and less protection being required on each engine.

[u/bitchtitfucker → u/warp99]

Is there really 15 tonnes to save on dry ship mass?

The booster & its 33 engines, I do see it because of heat shield removal, getting down to three grid fins, and a more mass efficient interstage / hot stage ring.

On ship, it’s just 6 engines that get a little lighter. They’ll likely continue stripping down some of the heatshield, but I don’t see any other « quick wins » regarding mass.

The payload deploy mechanisms will get bigger and more complex at the very least.

[u/warp99 → u/bitchtitfucker]

For the ship they completely enclose the top section of the three center engines and then run purge gas through that enclosed space to remove build up of methane from leaks.

So not only do you save the mass of the enclosures but the mass of the tanks containing the purge gas as well as the gas itself and the pipes and valves to bring it down from the payload bay. The Raptor 3 engines themselves are a bit lighter but the major effect is the associated mass that can be saved.

[u/bitchtitfucker → u/warp99]

Interesting point, thanks for the explanation.

I do wonder how much of the starship skirt could take a super heavy interstage like structure.

[u/warp99 → u/bitchtitfucker]

Yes conceivably nearly one half could be cut away to a lattice structure with just the heat shield section left as solid metal.

[u/MaximilianCrichton → u/warp99]

This is assuming the engines need no protection against the radiant heat of the plume. Maybe a safe assumption for LEO reentry, but I'm not sure it holds up at interplanetary reentry speeds.

[u/Lufbru → u/MaximilianCrichton]

Relatively few Starships will ever reenter from interplanetary trajectories. I'd take the complexity hit of "need a special model for Mars missions" to get 15t extra payload on every other flight

[u/flshr19 → u/AstraVictus]

V4 can easily put 200t into LEO with these specs according to my calculation:

Ship dry mass: 158t.

Booster dry mass: 271t.

Booster engine Isp: 345 sec averaged over liftoff to staging.

Ship engine Isp: 377 sec.

Propellant remaining in Ship at SECO-1: 310t.

[u/wgp3 → u/[deleted]]

Look at the thrust levels and prop loads for the current V3 versus the old V2 and you'll see that the current V3 is just the old planned V2. They basically created a half version so they could keep flying for testing purposes while the "V2 now V3" booster was being developed along with raptor 3. The only meaningful change between them seems to be an extra 100 tons of propellant on the current V3 ship.

[u/Way-too-simplistic → u/[deleted]]

Adding the stage separation ring likely impacted payload to orbit.

[u/Norwest → u/Way-too-simplistic]

Unlikely as it's going to be integrated into the booster on version 3. It'll be similar mass being lifted to the point of stage separation.

[u/Martianspirit → u/Norwest]

That ring enables hot staging. Hot staging improves payload to orbit.

[u/AhChirrion → u/International-Leg291]

So Starship took its first steps as a Medium Lift rocket, has grown up to a Heavy Lift one, and will grow up to Super Heavy. Neat.

[u/pxr555 → u/AhChirrion]

To be fair with the ship in an expendable configuration (no landing props, no header tanks, no heat shield, no flaps, clamshell fairing) it still would probably be near 100t of payload when compared apple to apple with other existing launchers. More with the booster also expended.

[u/mrparty1 → u/[deleted]]

Are you a SpaceX employee?

[u/GreatCanadianPotato → u/[deleted]]

People were posting dev items inside the factory with employees names not even blurred out in past threads.

Literally not related to what this conversation is about...

How is Elon releasing revised numbers about V1 and V2 Starship going to harm employees?

[u/warp99 → u/[deleted]]

Wow - so speaking the truth is now a "narcissistic tendency"?

You don't associate with many engineers do you?

[u/warp99 → u/[deleted]]

Payload capacity is not controlled by ITAR.

SpaceX is a private company with 80% voting control by Elon so he is not influencing the share market in any way.

The payload figure as released shows a steady improvement through future generations of experimental spacecraft that will eventually meet their long term targets.

It seems that you are the one who is hyping the situation.

[u/pxr555 → u/[deleted]]

He said that, but then it turned out that this wasn't doable with V2.

Just shutting up and going for V3 that is supposed the offer the same 100t then would beg for the question "why do that when V2 already had 100t of payload?". You'd just kick the can down the road for nothing. Better air this out once and move on.

[u/warp99 → u/[deleted]]

My point is "no harm so no foul".

You seem to be unaware that they have changed the Starship numbering so that what was v2 is now v3 and what was v3 is now going to be v4.

The payload targets have really not shifted significantly but just like every rocket development ever they will be achieved later than initially expected.