24 comments

• Richard M

  February 4, 2026 at 5:17 pm

  So, it appears that SpaceX is no longer going to launch crew missions from LC-39A. In fact, they are preparing to dismantle the crew access arm!

  Ryan Caton of NSF posts:

  “It looks like the LC-39A Crew Access Arm’s days (hours?) may be numbered. A yellow crane & load spreader – very similar to the one used to install the arm – has risen overnight.

  As I reported last week, 39A Falcon 9 ops are spooling down in favour of Starship and Falcon Heavy.”

  ….

  “I asked @SpaceX’s Lee Echerd if there was any more information on the quiet cadence from LC-39A: “We’re planning to launch most of our Falcon 9s from SLC-40 – this includes all Dragon missions going forwards”.

  This will allow LC-39A to focus on Falcon Heavy & Starship.”

  https://x.com/i/status/2019075221496734010

  * * *

  I am kinda surprised that NASA signed off on this. They really wanted that redundancy for launching crew missions
• Richard M

  February 4, 2026 at 5:48 pm

  Also SpaceX related: the expansion has begun. Via Starship Gazer on X:

  “The SpaceX Starbase launch complex has been expanded today with new boundaries and silt fencing installed around the new perimeter. All of the details of the expansion can be read at the site linked below. Click on “public notice” and “project plans”:

  swg.usace.army.mil/Media/Public-N…

  2/4/26″

  https://x.com/i/status/2019183785024098670

  (See photos at the post link.)

  I tend to doubt this would have been possible under a second Biden term or a Harris term.
• Dick Eagleson

  February 4, 2026 at 7:31 pm

  Richard M,

  The SpaceX news just keeps on coming.

  The section of wall panel in the access-way where Dragon crews left their autographs needs to be saved as a museum piece, but the rest of it can be accorded SpaceX’s typical unsentimental scrapping process.

  NASA wanted crew launch redundancy at SLC-40 so that, if a Starship test at LC-39A went badly awry, there would still be a crew launch capability. Well, SLC-40 has been launching crew and cargo missions for awhile, so LC-39A can now be removed as an area of concern anent crew and cargo missions.

  I suspect this removal may have to do with, at long last, making infrastructure changes at LC-39A to accommodate vertical integration of payloads needing those extended fairings SpaceX has arranged to provide for FH. The original concept involved a large covered tower on rails. But I wonder, now, if perhaps SpaceX has decided that a new type of swing arm, in place of the crew boarding arm, with a hoist above a closed work volume, would be both less expensive and require less dedicated real estate at the site. The question of minimizing footprint could, in turn, be driven by a yet-to-be-disclosed SpaceX plan to construct a second Starship launch complex at LC-39A on the other side of the FH pad from the one currently well along in construction.

  The annexation of more land at Starbase is simply an indication that the infrastructure construction throttle will remain wide open at that site as well – the concrete never sets on Elon Musk’s empire.
• Nate P

  February 4, 2026 at 7:39 pm

  While it isn’t a guarantee Starship will work, that they’re investing so much into infrastructure for Starship should be an indication there’s a fair amount of confidence internally that Starship will work as intended (whether or not it gets as cheap as they plan is something only experience will tell them and us).
• Robert Zimmerman

  February 4, 2026 at 8:34 pm

  Nate P: I can’t imagine why anyone would have any doubts right now about Starship. They have already several times landed its softly and vertically at its intended spot in the Indian Ocean. It has survived orbital speeds and re-entry in doing so. This is going to work.

  Of course, a lot of detail work is still necessary, but the vehicle concept has demonstrated its viability. It would be foolish if SpaceX WASN’T going full bore ahead at this point.
• john hare

  February 5, 2026 at 2:41 am

  Technically work as intended yes. Financially, doubt is a rational take., depending on which set of forward-looking statements you are looking at.
• Richard M

  February 5, 2026 at 6:19 am

  “I can’t imagine why anyone would have any doubts right now about Starship.”

  Robert Oler still thinks it’s a “disaster!”

  On the other hand he has an entire essay up this week at the Space Review blasting NASA for normalization deviance in its handling of the Orion heat shield, so maybe I shouldn’t be too hard on him.
• Richard M

  February 5, 2026 at 6:56 am

  “NASA wanted crew launch redundancy at SLC-40 so that, if a Starship test at LC-39A went badly awry, there would still be a crew launch capability. Well, SLC-40 has been launching crew and cargo missions for awhile, so LC-39A can now be removed as an area of concern anent crew and cargo missions.”

  Yeah, and perhaps that’s what NASA decided.

  But this doesn’t end the complications for SpaceX, though. Setting up a pad for a Dragon launch takes the pad offline for longer than a normal Falcon 9 launch. So this move is going to have a negative impact on how many F9 launches SpaceX manages in 2026. And that is on top of what they will lose by not having LC-39A available for F9 for an extended period of time.

  But, I guess this is a price Elon is willing to pay for maxing out the speed at which the Starship pad at LC-39A is completed.
• Nate P

  February 5, 2026 at 8:29 am

  Robert Z: yes, I think technically there are no obstacles to full reuse, but because SpaceX is the entity plowing through unknown unknowns, it will fall short in some fashion from SpaceX’s original plans-and that’s fine. It will inform future development, just as SpaceX learned a lot from early F9 flights that applied to upgrades, and then to Starship:

  Richard M: ah, Robert Oler. I’ve wondered why he seemingly has no problem with the test campaigns for aircraft, which involve a large number of flights before it becomes operational, but then the same for Starship means it must be a failure. There’s a contradiction there that I cannot explain short of partisanship and his clear dislike of Musk:

  Re: total F9 launches: Musk tweeted the other day that F9 would make it to around 1,000 before being fully replaced by Starship. At present rates that’s as little as two and a half years, perhaps three and a half if pad transition really slows it down. That makes me think of Apple, and how under Jobs when he returned they were willing to cannibalize existing, profitable product lines, in favor of new ones with more potential reward.
• F

  February 5, 2026 at 11:23 am

  Another day, another “Starlink competitor”.

  https://www.engadget.com/science/space/a-potential-starlink-competitor-just-got-fcc-clearance-to-launch-4000-satellites-143905076.html
• Jeff Wright

  February 5, 2026 at 3:31 pm

  “I’ve wondered why he seemingly has no problem with the test campaigns for aircraft, which involve a large number of flights before it becomes operational, but then the same for Starship means it must be a failure.”

  I don’t think several 747s failed in a row, so…

  In terms of cryogenics–there has been an advancement….”a new regenerator material composed solely of abundant elements, such as copper, iron, and aluminum, that can achieve cryogenic temperatures (approx. 4K = −269°C or below) without using any rare-earth metals or liquid helium,” has been made.

  “Researchers at Wageningen University & Research have developed a new type of plastic that, according to materials theory, should not be able to exist. Its properties sit somewhere between those of glass and plastic: it is easy to (re)shape, yet resistant to impact. This unusual combination is possible because the building blocks of the material are not held together by chemical bonds, but by physical forces. As a result, the material is easier to shape and repair than conventional plastics.”

  Jason Patrick of North Carolina State University has something similar:

  “The self-healing material resembles conventional FRP composites, but with two additional features. First, the researchers 3D-print a thermoplastic healing agent onto the fiber reinforcement, creating a polymer-patterned interlayer that makes the laminate two to four times more resistant to delamination.”

  “Second, the researchers embed thin, carbon-based heater layers into the material that warm up when an electrical current is applied. The heat melts the healing agent, which then flows into cracks and microfractures and re-bonds delaminated interfaces—restoring structural performance.”
• Nate P

  February 5, 2026 at 4:41 pm

  Jeff Wright: has anyone operated a fully reusable rocket before, or used FFSC engines? No? Then the situation isn’t comparable, and neither he nor you have any room to quibble.
• john hare

  February 5, 2026 at 4:55 pm

  Richard and Nate,
  Oler has been banned from some blogs and laughed off of others. Once in a while he hits something correct. His biases and prevarications ruin that. Still insists that “Pilot Error” was sole cause of 737 Max problems and that anything SpaceX is wrong and disastrous.
• Richard M

  February 5, 2026 at 5:28 pm

  Hello John,

  You can take the boy out of the Boeing, but you can’t take the Boeing out of the boy.

  But he can get Jeff Foust to run his essays, so I guess that keeps his morale up.
• Richard M

  February 5, 2026 at 8:02 pm

  An update from Starbase: Today, Booster 19 underwent a full cryoproofing test at Massey’s without issue, surpassing the milestones of the first Block 3 booster achieved, after that vehicle popped early into testing.

  Next step: roll back for engine installation.

  https://x.com/i/status/2019595420587159681
• Dick Eagleson

  February 5, 2026 at 8:22 pm

  Nate P & john hare,

  There are no insuperable obstacles to getting Starship to an operational status. As to the financial side of things, every F9 Starlink mission’s costs are quickly covered by the ability of the additional bandwidth put on-orbit to support an expanded customer base. The same will be even more true of Starship ops that deploy Starlinks. Once Starship reaches minimum viable operational status, SpaceX will, as it has done with F9 and FH, keep finding new ways to take additional costs out of vehicle construction, turnaround and operations. As I’ve noted here before, the most expensive Starships ever flown are those that have already flown.

  Richard M,

  The real bottleneck at LC-39A was never Dragon missions – which are just standard F9 missions in most respects – so much as FH missions. To switch from F9 to FH takes something like 10 days of pad mods and switching back afterwards takes about the same. SpaceX has its ops tempo at Vandy almost equal to that at SLC-40 so overall Falcon launches per year will probably stay the same or even rise modestly. SpaceX seems to be expecting a sharply higher rate of FH missions this year than has recently been the case. And it can certainly do more of those over a given interval if there is no more necessity of back-and-forthing the pad setup. If there is a bit more time required per Dragon mission, anent, say, Starlink missions, it isn’t much and would only occur about a half-dozen times a year, max.

  There will also be – perhaps – some additional Falcon launch total contribution from the SLC-6 complex at Vandy, assuming that reaches initial operational capability anytime in calendar 2026. Have seen no real news about this facility in quite awhile and perhaps SpaceX’s plans for it have changed.

  In any event, I still expect SpaceX to launch at least modestly more Falcons this year than the 165 it managed last year.

  If Elon announces yet another big surprise that would invalidate that expectation, well, it wouldn’t be the first time he’s caught me out like that. To never be surprised by an Elon move I’d have to be as smart as he is and I’m short a mid-double-digit block of IQ points on that score.

  Jeff Wright,

  It’s true that there were no spectacular blowups of 747s during either its test or early operational period, but there were a number of seriously scary early incidents of engines barfing their innards out the back or even ripping themselves entirely off of their pylons. As the 747 was a fundamentally superior piece of engineering compared to the DC-10 nd L-1011 that followed it in the pioneer widebody ranks, it was able to shrug off some early anomalies that certainly would have crashed either of the tri-motors. The 747 didn’t suffer a fatal crash until five years into its operational service history. The fact that the big boy could keep playing even when badly hurt is a point of commonality it has with Starship as a piece of engineering.
• Dick Eagleson

  February 5, 2026 at 8:37 pm

  Richard M,

  Just saw your note anent B19’s successful pressure and cryo-proof campaign. That leaves engine installation and a hot-fire test at Pad 2 while S39 does its own pressure, cryo-proof and hot-fire exercises at Massey’s. Then it’ll be stack and launch time. Thus far, no obvious sign of anything that would invalidate Elon’s early March launch estimate.

  Kind of amusing that we have another “race” of sorts between SLS and Starship anent launch sequence. Last time, it was for first-ever launch bragging rights which SLS won. This time its SLS launch 2 vs. Starship launch 12 with Starship probably the modest favorite. Of course the intervening 11 Starship launches have also seen a number of firsts SLS will never equal owing to its expendability.
• john hare

  February 6, 2026 at 3:09 am

  “”””Richard M
  February 5, 2026 at 5:28 pm
  Hello John,

  You can take the boy out of the Boeing, but you can’t take the Boeing out of the boy.

  But he can get Jeff Foust to run his essays, so I guess that keeps his morale up.”””

  Considering that Space Review also ran an essay from Gary Church, I suspect that getting clicks is more important than credibility.
  I also question whether even Boeing is stupid enough to put it in any responsible position.
• Richard M

  February 6, 2026 at 4:12 am

  Speaking of commercial space stations, CNBC gets the first look inside a (high fidelity) mockup of Voyager’s Starlab space station. Pretty impressive.

  https://www.cnbc.com/video/2026/02/05/heres-the-first-look-inside-voyagers-starlab-space-station.html
• Richard M

  February 6, 2026 at 4:27 am

  Hi Dick

  “There will also be – perhaps – some additional Falcon launch total contribution from the SLC-6 complex at Vandy, assuming that reaches initial operational capability anytime in calendar 2026. Have seen no real news about this facility in quite awhile and perhaps SpaceX’s plans for it have changed.”

  There’s been very little in the way of hard facts about SLC-6, at least since the approvals last October. Vandy being so big, the streamers can’t even get cameras or flyovers close enough for us to see how construction is going, so we basically have to wait until they get satellite footage. But last I heard, it wasn’t supposed to start hosting launches until 2027.
• Richard M

  February 6, 2026 at 6:56 am

  NSF just got a flyover over Starbase, and they have posted a photo of the launch complex in which you can see the new temp fence that SpaceX erected to demarcate the new area of expansion. This is really going to give them a lot more room to work in.

  https://x.com/i/status/2019582838832795843

  FYI, here is the Army Corps of Engineers filing with maps of the expansion and how SpaceX has said it is going to use it:

  https://www.swg.usace.army.mil/Portals/26/docs/regulatory/PN%20August/SWG-2012-00381_20250819_PN%20Figures.pdf?ver=i9Rsv7tp2WlwwnZ5RwUOeA%3d%3d
• Jeff Wright

  February 6, 2026 at 12:20 pm

  I hear that SpaceX has acquired Hexagon Masterworks Inc.
  COPV work will now be done in house.
• Richard M

  February 6, 2026 at 1:59 pm

  “COPV work will now be done in house.”

  Honestly surprised that this did not happen sooner.
• Edward

  February 6, 2026 at 3:23 pm

  Jeff Wright,
  You seem to make apples to orangutans comparisons quite often.

  Development testing is very different than verification testing. During development testing of a radically new design, failure is not an option; it is a necessity. If you don’t have failures during development, then you don’t know where the limits of your radically new design are. You don’t know whether you have designed it close to the limits or far from the limits. If you are close to the limits, then you may find problems during operations that you didn’t count on, so you didn’t design in any safety to prevent the problem or to mitigate the problem if it does manifest itself during operations. Failure is not an option; it is mandatory.

  By the way, every Starship flight test has had failures. Just because it didn’t blow up does not mean that everything worked as intended. SpaceX is doing its development testing very well. In the most recent flight test, they left off thermal protection tiles to see what would happen. The resulting burn through was not unexpected, but it was an intentional failure that demonstrated what happened due to a burn through; the vehicle was not lost and landed as expected.

  Other rocket development programs do not test as hard as Starship, because they are not pushing limits. Not pushing limits is nice for reducing development costs, but it also results in incremental improvements rather than in industry disruptive improvements. Starship promises to change the way we do space, and it will do it in ways that no other launch vehicle has ever done.

  It will do what the Space Shuttle was supposed to do, but it will do it better, cheaper, and more often than the Shuttle was ever expected to do. All this happens because SpaceX has done more testing with all these improvements in mind. NASA and Congress were not this serious about the Space Shuttle, so they just accepted the limitations that their many compromises imposed upon the Shuttle. SpaceX’s philosophy is to find ways to overcome these limitations and to work around as many compromises as possible. Additional philosophies allow SpaceX to do all this for much less cost than SLS development is costing, to do it faster, and to make improvements that no other rocket scientists had ever dreamed of.