Transcript
Ship 39. 60 seconds. All six engines. Full duration. Booster 19, 6 seconds. All 33 Raptor engines. The most powerful rocket engine test ever conducted on Earth. How did it go, and can we finally see Starship Flight 12 now? Meanwhile, two fierce competitors are getting ready to pressure SpaceX even more! But is there even demand for all this? My name is Felix. Welcome to What About It!? Let’s dive right in!
Starbase is cooking! It almost seems as if the long pause between Starship flight 11 and the upcoming flight 12 has made SpaceX hungry! So, what’s for dinner, honey? Where’s my dinner? Let’s start with Ship 39, because what happened at Massey’s this week is genuinely historic.
Ship 39 performed a full 60-second static fire. All six Raptor 3 engines. Full duration. SpaceX confirmed it via X post, and the footage speaks for itself. Absolutely. Jordan was out there to film the entire thing! A shaking experience! Oh my god. 60 seconds might not sound like much, but in the context of Starship’s history, it’s a big deal. Let’s do a quick trip down memory lane for some perspective!
In the early days of ship static fire testing, SpaceX used basic test stands at the launch site itself, sitting on the concrete slab foundation. Those stands could handle burns of up to about 6 seconds before the infrastructure took too much heat and force. Useful, but limited. But they’ve come a long way since. In May 2024, SpaceX built the new flame diverter test stand at Massey’s, and that changed everything. With an open structure designed specifically for sustained engine firings, SpaceX could run full-duration tests of up to 60 seconds. Ship 34 and Ship 35 both did exactly that in early 2025. And then Ship 36 played the party pooper and exploded on that very stand in June 2025. I’m the party pooper. Oh no.
With the Massey’s stand out of service, SpaceX needed another way to static fire ships. Their solution was an adapter that allowed them to mount a ship on the Pad 1 orbital launch mount, which was normally designed to hold only a booster. With that adapter, Ship 37 and 38 could be static-fired on Pad 1. Typical SpaceX approach. Wait for Massey’s to be fixed. No, we’ll just jerry-rig something up and go on!
But the Pad 1 infrastructure was not built for sustained firing, so they were limited to burns of around 10 seconds. Enough to check the engines, not enough to fully validate the vehicle. Now the new and improved Massey’s test stand is operational, fully rebuilt and upgraded, including the flap structural testing we talked about in earlier episodes. And Ship 39 just proved it works. 60 seconds of Raptor 3 firing. SpaceX now has all the data it needs on the ship’s propulsion system before flight.
The booster’s path to static fire this week was a little more eventful. Let me walk you through it. On April 13th, Booster 19 performed an igniter test on Pad 2. It was loud and dramatic enough to rattle our cameras. Based on SpaceX’s current pre-static-fire routine, this kind of igniter test appears to be a standard step before a full engine fire. You’re verifying the ignition systems are healthy before you commit to loading 33 engines with propellant. Safety first, please!
On April 14th, things looked like they were heading toward a static fire. The tank farm spooled up with huge vapor clouds engulfing the entire site. Spectacular! Everything looked good from the outside! And then, right at the critical moment, it stopped. The tank farm wound down. No fueling observed. No static fire. The most likely explanation is that the go-no-go poll for fueling didn’t pass. Somewhere in the system, a parameter was outside of limits or a team called no-go, and SpaceX did the right thing and stood down. That is not a failure. That is the system working exactly as designed. Better to scrub than to push through with a questionable condition.
And then came the real thing. The moment we had all been waiting for. Booster 19 performed a 6-second static fire with all 33 Raptor 3 engines firing simultaneously. Brand new design. More thrust. More power. More everything! Take a moment to absorb that. 33 Raptor 3 engines. The most capable rocket engines ever built, at their highest performance yet, all firing at once for the first time. This is the most powerful rocket engine test ever conducted on Earth. The flame trench on Pad 2 handled it. The hold-down clamps held and the booster passed. SpaceX confirmed the test via X post. Dinner was served!
Now, why only 6 seconds on the booster when the ship ran for 60? For the same reasons, ships were limited on Pad 1. The flame diverter in the Pad 2 trench can handle a short burst from 33 engines, but a sustained 60-second firing at full thrust would cause serious damage to the pad infrastructure. Remember, largest blowtorch ever built. Six engines firing for 60 seconds and 33 engines firing for 6 seconds are completely different loads on the pad. The ship test stand at Massey’s can handle sustained burns because it is designed for that. Pad 2 can too, in terms of structure. But the booster produces roughly 5.5 times the thrust of the ship. The flame diverter in the Pad 2 trench can absorb a 6-second blast from 33 Raptor 3 engines. A 60-second blast at the thrust level is a different matter entirely. The infrastructure simply cannot take that much sustained force without taking real damage.
The longest Super Heavy static fire ever done was Booster 10 back in December 2023, and that lasted approximately 10 seconds. Arguably, IF1 was the longest static fire, but uh 6 seconds on 33 Raptor 3 engines still gives SpaceX all the data it needs on propulsion performance, engine-to-engine interactions, and pad behavior before a real launch. The data, not the duration, is what matters.
Both static fires are done. Both vehicles are go. And it is not always that easy. [ad text redacted] Before we get back to flight 12, I want to talk about something that was spotted at the Sanchez production site, because the implications are significant. Community researcher Chrome Kiwi has identified what those unusual-looking structures at the Sanchez site are actually for. And the answer is something SpaceX has never done before with a Starship vehicle: horizontal booster transport.
What is that? Up until now, Starship vehicles have only ever been transported vertically, on self-propelled modular transporters, or SPMT’s for short. Short-distance trips between the Starfactory, Mega Bays, Massey’s, and the pads. A trip of a few kilometers at most. What SpaceX is preparing now is something fundamentally different: transporting completed Super Heavy boosters in a horizontal position aboard the “You’ll Thank Me Later” barge, from Starbase in South Texas to Kennedy Space Center in Florida. That’s thousands of kilometers, not 2 or 3.
Think about the scale of what that means. A Super Heavy booster is 70 m tall. Transporting it upright on a barge is not practical. The only way to do it by sea is horizontally, or you risk damaging it. And horizontal transport requires a completely different cradle and support structure than anything SpaceX has used before. The hardware at Sanchez appears to be exactly that.
SpaceX is almost ready for this. Once the first booster makes that journey by sea to Florida, the launch network becomes real in a very tangible way. Kennedy Space Center does not have to wait for local production to begin. Starbase can feed it directly. And it seems that Kennedy Space Center isn’t the only place soon needing more Ships. These parts were spotted by Travis Sorenson at Starbase! Those look a lot like flame bucket parts. We’ve seen this before! During the construction of Pad 2!
So what’s this? Spare parts? Far from it, my friends! These are going directly to Pad 1, where SpaceX is modifying a real Starbase relic. The OG Starship pad is getting a major facelift! Including a new flame bucket! Progress at the new pad is lightning fast. SpaceX has a much easier job here than they had at Pad 2. That pad just got finished, meaning that the entire crew that built it very likely is right now busy building that second pad. And what accelerates production the most? Right, if you can repeat it over and over. The know-how and the procedures are fresh. That team building Pad 2 is a world-exclusive expert. They just did it, and now they can just repeat exactly the same thing. They are staging the parts even before they can start using them. I honestly expect them to be done in maybe even half the time it took them to build Pad 2.
My prediction right now is that by the end of 2026, SpaceX will have three operational Starship pads, with two more under construction and close behind. Pad 2, the new and almost done pad at 39A, and Pad 1. And close behind? SLC 37, where SpaceX has just moved all the segments for one of two new towers! All right, fantastic news. Back to actual flight action!
So where does this leave us on Flight 12? Both static fires are completed. That is the last major technical gate before launch. From here, SpaceX will roll both vehicles back to the production site for post-fire inspections and final checkouts. Based on the pace we’ve been watching, those inspections should take about a week. That puts a realistic launch window opening around May 1st. Two weeks from today.
There is still the wet dress rehearsal question. SpaceX has skipped it on the last several flights. Given the amount of new hardware involved in Flight 12, a case can be made either way. But if they skip it and go straight to stacking and launch, May 1st is a genuinely achievable target.
Flight 12 is no longer a question of whether the hardware is ready. It is ready. The question now is purely operational: how quickly SpaceX moves through the final steps. May 1st as the Flight 12 launch window opener. Do you think SpaceX makes it? And what do you think the booster horizontal transport hardware means for how quickly Kennedy Space Center will start seeing Starship launches? Drop it in the comments. I will be reading every single one.
Hey, thank you from the bottom of my heart for watching and liking the video! If you’re among the 40% who haven’t subscribed yet, it would mean the world to me if you did. It’s free, and it genuinely helps more people find my channel to spread the word about spaceflight! Want to make my world even easier? There’s only one place you’d rather be! The WAI members club on Patreon and right here on YouTube. Click the card or the join button right here under the video! You’re the reason why we keep doing this. Thank you so much!
You rock! Can you imagine that we are in the middle of a rocket shortage? In 2025, we saw 165 Falcon 9 launches and many more from other providers. But there’s still demand for more. While Starship makes the headlines, Falcon 9 is the rocket that currently does the everyday work for SpaceX. It’s been the trusty tool that enabled Starlink, and Starlink has become SpaceX’s single most important source of income.
And that makes Falcon 9 build Starship and everything else SpaceX is doing. It also hits a sweet spot economically: A launch costs about $74 million, including SpaceX’s healthy margin. And it can carry over 17 tons to low Earth orbit. Enough for most satellites operating today.
What alternatives are there for customers that need Falcon 9-class launch vehicles? And are they even needed? Let’s start with the second question and look at the demand. Amazon needs dozens, maybe even hundreds of launches for its LEO constellation. The U.S. military is actively looking for additional launch providers as well. So there is money and these aren’t just the high-volume customers. Lower satellite launch prices have opened up space to tech start-ups and traditional satellite manufacturers alike in ways unimaginable a decade ago.
Demand is still rising, and there’s no reason to believe it will slow down anytime soon. SpaceX’s launch schedule is booked years into the future. At least for now, until Starship disrupts everything once again.
This leaves potential customers in rough waters. In the small launcher sector, customers can find plenty of options, but at the moment, Falcon 9 is still in a class of its own. This rocket is not the biggest or the most powerful. It’s just the one that everyone is using. It has become the pick-up truck of the space industry. Always available, cheap, reliable. Maybe the first-ever rocket that actually fully deserves the word “workhorse.”
But this is about to change, at least if all goes to plan for two companies working on Falcon-class rockets. Both of them target inaugural launch dates later this year. Their names: Neutron, developed by Rocket Lab, and Terran R, built by Relativity Space. Both rockets have their own unique design choices.
Let’s start with the elephant… wait… the hippo in the room! Neutron made headlines last year when Rocket Lab shared images and videos of its fairing design. Instead of dropping the payload fairing during flight, as most rockets do, Neutron keeps it attached. The nose opens like a giant mechanical jaw, releasing the second stage and payload before closing again. It’s called the Hungry Hippo fairing. And it’s obvious why: Just take a look at it!
This, of course, greatly improves reusability: the entire first stage, including the fairing, returns to Earth as one piece. No ocean recovery. No fishing fairings out of the water. This saves time and money on every single flight.
The whole rocket is also built from carbon composite, making Neutron the largest composite launch vehicle ever constructed. And new design concepts aren’t just reserved for the fairings. They can be found all over the rocket. Ever wondered why the hippo has such a large butt? Oh, I love my jokes. Neutron’s wide base creates so much aerodynamic drag during descent that the booster may only need a single landing burn before touching down.
From the outside, Neutron development looks promising. The Archimedes engine has already completed a full mission-duration test. The giant fairing passed structural load testing, and Rocket Lab has already built its new launch site in Virginia.
But, as it’s almost the norm in rocket development, things haven’t been entirely smooth. In January 2026, a Neutron propellant tank ruptured during pressure testing. The tank had survived the expected flight loads but failed when engineers pushed it beyond its limits to test safety margins, which are rather important. Rocket Lab says a redesigned replacement tank is already in production. But it did cost them multiple months of precious development time.
The company now targets no earlier than late 2026 for the first Neutron flight. On April 13th, 2026, the FCC granted Rocket Lab experimental authorization for telemetry, tracking, launch vehicle communications, and recovery activities for a single Neutron launch from Launch Complex 3 at Wallops Island, Virginia. And it also covers associated pre-launch ground testing. The authorization runs from July 1st, 2026, through January 1st, 2027. We’re getting closer! But how does it compare to Falcon 9? Is this a worthy contender for the reigning king?
Neutron is a medium-lift rocket offering about 13 tons to LEO. That’s 10 tons less than Falcon 9. But Neutron offers significantly more payload fairing volume. At least double, maybe even triple. Precise numbers are hard to find. And here’s the twist. Most launches aren’t limited by payload weight. They’re limited by fairing volume. This is a commonly misunderstood metric. The heaviest payloads SpaceX sends up with Falcon 9 are Starlink stacks. A full stack of Starlink Mini weighs roughly 16 tons. That’s 7 tons shy of Falcon 9’s maximum payload capacity.
So, Rocket Lab markets Neutron as a constellation deployer. A relatively large mass to LEO paired with a huge fairing volume to make sure that this mass to orbit number can reliably be maxed out. And with a target customer price of $50 to $55 million per launch, it undercuts Falcon 9 significantly. So, Neutron is both cheaper and capable of lifting more volume.
Rocket Lab is building a valid LEO contender, but it is not trying to copy Falcon 9 in any aspect. Neutron is an all-new design that is created for a specific and lucrative scenario: low Earth orbit, large-volume payload delivery. Its geostationary transfer orbit payload capacity, for example, is nearly three times less than Falcon 9’s. Looking at its numbers that way makes the LEO specialization clear.
If Neutron is the specialized challenger, Terran R is something very different. It’s bigger than Falcon 9. In its reusable configuration, the rocket can deliver 23.5 tons to low Earth orbit. That is almost 5 tons more than what Falcon 9 has to offer!
Falcon 9 can fully be hidden behind Terran R. It’s more than 16 m shorter and considerably slimmer, with just 3.7 m in diameter. Terran R stands 86.6 m tall with a 5.4 m diameter for both of the two rocket stages, including the payload fairing. It’s not a small rocket in any aspect. Size might matter, but the real competitive advantage lies in its innovative manufacturing technologies. These will be key to enabling competitive pricing. Experts suggest that Terran R could undercut Falcon 9’s pricing at around $55 million per launch. That’s about the same as Neutron. A launcher on par with Falcon 9 for an even lower price? How is that even possible?
A huge part of the answer are Stargate metal 3D printers. These incredible machines employ Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing. Think of it as gigantic metal 3D printers that literally print rocket structures layer by layer. Unfortunately, printing a rocket is far harder than it sounds. Early in the development of the printers, Relativity’s engineers had to overcome huge challenges. One of them was a natural height restriction. They could not go higher than their building’s ceiling height. The printer hardware added to that because it had to be above the printed piece at all times.
An unconventional solution was needed and the breakthrough came when engineers did something counterintuitive and flipped printing horizontally. While printing horizontally allows printing longer sections, it must take gravity into account. That’s the real problem when printing horizontally. Ever seen a 3D printer that does it horizontally? It’s not easy to master, but by now the fourth generation of Stargate printers has proven itself. The latest iteration can produce single-piece structures up to 36 and 1/2 m long and 7.3 m wide. That is the height of a 12-story building! Just to bring this into perspective, another improvement is found in the massive speed increase. They are now 7 to 12 times faster than the previous generation. This allows it to theoretically produce four complete Terran R vehicles annually. Per printer! And yes, they already operate multiple units.
However, Relativity has evolved pragmatically from its initial idea to fully 3D-print Terran R. The result is a hybrid approach. The current production strategy employs 3D printing, where it provides the greatest advantage. These parts include engines, grid fins, domes, and complex structural nodes. For large tank sections and panels, speed and scalability matter most. They’re produced employing friction stir welding and traditional aluminum fabrication. Even the engines are mostly 3D printed. All this results in an engine that needs substantially fewer parts.
It’s all part of the overall Terran R concept: built cheaper and faster, outpricing the competition. Testing has validated the design’s robustness. A critical milestone came when engineers completed a 475-second static fire. This represented the full ascent duration, demonstrating the engine can operate continuously through an entire first-stage burn.
Perhaps even more impressively, the team achieved 74 engine starts on a single unit, far exceeding the 31-start baseline required for the planned reuse cadence. But every rocket stage intended for reuse has to master reentry. Relativity’s reusability strategy prioritizes what the company calls “high angle-of-attack” reentry. Rather than descending engines-first throughout, the first stage reenters at a steep angle. Instead of falling engines-first like Falcon 9, Terran R reenters sideways. Almost like a skydiver catching air.
The recovery hardware includes four 3D-printed titanium grid fins for atmospheric steering and four landing legs utilizing a passive deployment mechanism. This goes right down the same design alley that SpaceX loves so much: the best part is no part. Simpler systems mean fewer potential failure points.
Early flights will conclude with controlled splashdowns in the Atlantic Ocean to validate the entry, descent, and landing sequence. The design targets 20 flights per booster, with next-generation aluminum alloys under development potentially extending that further. The inaugural launch is set to take place no earlier than late 2026 from Cape Canaveral in Florida. Relativity has made good progress establishing its launch facilities, refurbishing and modernizing Launch Complex 16 to meet its needs.
As always, take that date with a grain of salt and there is one more important comparison to be made! Rocket Lab is a very experienced launch provider. Its smaller Electron rocket was launched 85 times and delivered 250 satellites to orbit. It even launches from three different launch pads! Relativity also started with a smaller rocket: Terran 1. But that launched only once, in March 2023, and didn’t even reach orbit.
This lack of experience and the advanced manufacturing methods used could easily lead to extended development time and a difficult learning experience for Relativity. If all goes well, Falcon 9 may finally face real competition. Two very different rockets. Two very different strategies. And a space industry that needs every launch it can get. And that’s it for today! ... Thank you very much for watching, and I’ll see you again in the next episode!
Artemis casting $2 billion per every very rare launch is economic malpractice. Once SpaceX’s Starship and booster are launching regularly running then Artemis must die for being the useless nerd jobs program that it is.
