1

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Starship V3

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 11:05 pm »

Cyberguru
@CyberguruG8073
·
1h
Starship Hardware Diagram (2026-02-08 - 2026-02-15)

S40's CX:3 Has Been Stacked!

B20's A4:4 Section Has Been Stacked!

B19 Is Back In Megabay 1!

https://twitter.com/CyberguruG8073/status/2023165447504314803

2

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: SpaceX Starship/Super Heavy Engineering General Thread 5

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 11:03 pm »

Cyberguru
@CyberguruG8073
·
1h
Starship Hardware Diagram (2026-02-08 - 2026-02-15)

S40's CX:3 Has Been Stacked!

B20's A4:4 Section Has Been Stacked!

B19 Is Back In Megabay 1!

https://twitter.com/CyberguruG8073/status/2023165447504314803

3

ULA - Delta, Atlas, Vulcan / Re: ULA anomaly investigations

« Last post by WannaWalnetto on Today at 11:02 pm »

So …. Is this where I should look for any updates on “the observation” that happened during Vulcan VC4S V005? (Never quite sure anymore.)

4

SpaceX Facilities and Fleets / Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 13

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 11:01 pm »

StarbaseTracking
@TrackingTheSB
Starbase This Week (2026-02-15) | Written by
@Space_Mr_Banana

SpaceX has rolled Booster 19 back to the production site to join the now semi-stacked B20, and the Starship upperstage is now officially allowed to return to the launch site. Welcome to this week's Starbase This Week!

Launch Site

Nothing super exciting at the Launch Site this week, SpaceX is, as usual, conducting various tests of the tank farm and pad alongside preparing to add in some new Liquid Methane (CH4) tanks with the SpaceX LR11000, which is being dismantled at the ASU Site (Air Separation Unit) ahead of moving back to the launch site.
At Pad 2, the chopsticks did see some action, raising the full height of the tower. An ability necessary for catching Boosters, and in the maybe not so far future, Ships.

https://x.com/TrackingTheSB/status/2023155556186288276

5

SpaceX Facilities and Fleets / Re: Starship Manufacturing Facility in Starbase, TX (incl Giga-Bay)

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 11:00 pm »

StarbaseTracking
@TrackingTheSB
Starbase This Week (2026-02-15) | Written by
@Space_Mr_Banana

SpaceX has rolled Booster 19 back to the production site to join the now semi-stacked B20, and the Starship upperstage is now officially allowed to return to the launch site. Welcome to this week's Starbase This Week!

Production Site

SpaceX is making good progress stacking Booster 20. Currently slated to fly on flight 13 alongside Ship 40, B20 is, like B19, also showing a fast pace for stacking. After the first section rolled out (the A2:4), it only took one day for the common dome and three more days for the A3:4, only to be joined in another three days by the A4:4. Compared to the stacking of B19, this is slower, but so far only by 2 days. Also making progress in its stacking is Ship 40, with its common dome rolling out to MegaBay 2.
Coming back to join B20 inside of MegaBay 1 is B19, which early in the week rolled back from Massey’s after completing a total of four cryogenic proof tests. B19 will now likely receive engines before it heads out to Pad 2, so that it can both complete its own testing and allow the Pad to complete its testing.

https://x.com/TrackingTheSB/status/2023155556186288276

6

SpaceX Facilities and Fleets / Re: SpaceX Texas Massey site Discussion and Updates

« Last post by catdlr on Today at 10:59 pm »

Jake (Max-Q) 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 reposted
StarbaseTracking
@TrackingTheSB
·
1h
Starbase This Week (2026-02-15) | Written by
@Space_Mr_Banana

SpaceX has rolled Booster 19 back to the production site to join the now semi-stacked B20, and the Starship upperstage is now officially allowed to return to the launch site. Welcome to this week's Starbase This Week!


Massey’s - B18.1

Over at Massey’s, SpaceX has finally, after what felt like years, removed B18.1 from the Can Crusher.
It seems that the test tank has at long last completed its testing.

Up next in the Can Crusher will likely be S39.1, the ship forward test tank that seems to have finished testing at the ship cryo station. Once S39,.1 is lifted into the Can Crusher, it will allow for Ship 39 to complete its cryo test campaign ahead of static fire testing and Flight 12.

That’s it for this weeks Starbase This Week!

https://x.com/TrackingTheSB/status/2023155556186288276

7

Missions To Mars (HSF) / Re: Aerocapture at Mars

« Last post by sdsds on Today at 10:54 pm »

The attached graphic attempt to present a plausible range of Mars arrival hyperbolic excess velocities for 2030-2031.

8

SpaceX General Section / Re: SpaceX's Priorities

« Last post by JEF_300 on Today at 10:48 pm »

On January 3rd 2025, Elon tweeted that SpaceX was going straight to Mars, because the Moon was a distraction.
Febuary 8th of 2026 is when he tweeted that SpaceX had shifted focus to building a city on the Moon.

Even if it doesn't change the Mars schedule at all, that is still a HUGE swing! And not just a swing in his and SpaceX's goals, but also in just his personal opinion on the subject.

And while, as a Moon guy, I am delighted by this change, I'm also awfully curious about where it came from.

Like... he saw no value in the Moon a year ago. He clearly does now. And the arguments of Moon focused people like me haven't changed in the past year (or really in the past 50 years, for that matter). So... what are you seeing Elon? What's going on?

9

Advanced Concepts / Re: low mass inflatable habitats on Moon, Mars, asteroids etc.

« Last post by Paul451 on Today at 10:48 pm »

Awhile back, [...] I suggested that NASA should fund a prize-challenge for anyone who could build an unpressurised shelter on the moon of a minimum size from entirely local materials

At the concrete trade show last year, there was a tiny indoor demonstration unit that the operator was quite proud of.

That's the kind of thing I was picturing. The "prize" wasn't intended to produce a complex structure like a habitat, just a little artificial cave to prove we can.

But it wasn't intended to prescribe technology, so a shotcrete version (or dry stacked rocks, or a combination of methods) would have been acceptable. I just thought it'd be neat to have a handful of companies building little boxes and igloos on the moon from lunar materials. Innovation stimulating, public inspiring, all the buzz words.

The contraption took time to set up and program.

It's not like the set up for concreting is normally instant or free. (I spent many a school holiday boxing up foundations and tying steel for my old man.)

Had no ability to incorporate reinforcement or utilities.

AIUI, there are versions that add a reinforcing fibre to the concrete, also vertical bars embedded between layers. (Likewise, utility channels can be added between layers at chosen heights. That seems to be a long-solved problem.)

But shotcrete doesn't add reinforcement either. (Or utilities. Or square corners or dimensioned openings...) It requires someone else to build the structure of the wall/building via reo plus have some kind of backing surface. The shotcrete is just the filler. 3d-printed walls are at least self-supporting.

And the finish on both sides looked about like a log cabin.

Okay, that part has always struck me as odd, since it seems like such a solveable problem. Not only does small-scale 3d printing have ways of smoothing steps, but a robotic smoothing arm that follows the main extruding arm seems like a minor add-on.

That said, shotcrete also needs finishing if you want a flat surface.

[3d can't roof]

If you're willing to add the scaffolding and predalle, like any traditional slab roof, I'm sure it would manage fine.

I can see something similar to 3D printing on houses that would be shotcrete/gunite based as the current approach looks to be a blind alley.

I believe there are startups pushing robotic-arm shotcrete 3d printing, and they seem to have the same construction experience as the guy you met. Not super impressed.

Shotcrete is pretty labour intensive and still requires post-spray finishing. If you can get access to both sides of the wall, you just box up and do a traditional pour. It only makes sense if you can't get to both sides for a traditional wall (eg, swimming pools, basement levels in buildings betwixt other buildings, or civil engineering structures) or specifically want something that can do free-form splines (which isn't a style I like anyway.) Hence I'm not sure there's a market for a robot version.

However...! There are 3d wire-welding robots that can "sculpt" in free-space. There might be a value in using them to build the freeform reo structure for subsequent shotcreting. Even if the shotcreting is then done manually. Building sculpted steel reo by hand is unfun.

Those might also be handy in orbit or on the moon.

10

Advanced Concepts / Re: low mass inflatable habitats on Moon, Mars, asteroids etc.

« Last post by Twark_Main on Today at 10:38 pm »

Lava tubes always worry me, because the distance for falling debris to build up momentum is larger than zero millimeters. This is especially worrisome because suspending a habitat on wires and dumping a bunch of waste heat into the surrounding rock isn't necessarily benign for the tube's stability. Mounded regolith has the advantage that it's effectively already "collapsed" and so it has zero potential energy that could damage the structure.

Lava tubes aren't really 'free' shielding either, because you need an elevator or similar system for routine surface access, a complex suspension rig to hold the modules, and you need to lower all the modules down into the lava tube somehow during the construction process.

So cost-wise it's not clear that this beats "just" landing modules on the surface and piling screened local regolith on top with a smallish semi-autonomous front end loader. You can pay for the loader with all the mass you saved on elevator and module lowering rig, and after construction the loader is more useful landed mass than that (now unnecessary) dedicated elevator infrastructure.