I did some messing about with contrast & blurs. It's tricky, but you can actually see Super Heavy Booster 20 falling into the Gulf at an angle, kicking up water, before exploding.

It also kinda looks like lost footage from the 1940s 😂

🎥 @KSpaceAcademy/@NASASpaceflight pic.twitter.com/liSXuAqDms

— Ryan Caton (@dpoddolphinpro) July 27, 2026

That makes it look like if just one more engine had stayed lit, the booster might've pulled it off.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

That makes it look like if just one more engine had stayed lit, the booster might've pulled it off.

---

I think they calculated for the engines out. They needed a few more seconds basically.

The empty booster without an upper stage is 'light' for even the inner 3 raptors to decelerate but they didn't build in enough safety margin to the timeline imho. Relighting on the booster is frustrating but should be something pretty easily resolved, again my two cents.

I think this was the case for V1/V2 but they're relighting all 33 for the boost back burn on V3. Not that that translates to being able to selectively light any any particular engine for the landing burn. I expect they'll both clean up the relight process and build in a little more margin with an earlier relight.

Just 100m extra...

I took the last 1km of descent telemetry from the booster and the deceleration was about 25m/sec^2
It had slowed to 42m/sec for the last 100m.
So, if the booster had began landing burn 100m higher it could have stopped before impact.

— Scott Manley (@DJSnM) July 25, 2026

We found Ship 40 floating in the ocean

At the time of the capture, 2026-07-27 03:56 UTC, Ship 40 had been floating for 56 hours.

Using @MarineTraffic data, I estimated the position of Ship 40 and recovery ship GO Australis at the time of when the satellite imagery would be… pic.twitter.com/0z9sDVp1X1

— Ryan Caton (@dpoddolphinpro) July 27, 2026

Elon says next flight they will try to catch Starship??

Anyone know if a notification can be set for when the next date is announced? I might be in.

Just track this thread, us nerds will definitely be posting about it whether they go for the catch or not.

Alternatively, if you use X, just follow SpaceX, as they are usually pretty good about posting it there.

Do they have an indication if an engine might have an issue re-lighting? In previous catch attempts, the booster had to meet certain criteria for them to go ahead with catch. But up until they relight, I assume they must have a degree of certainty.

Starship Flight 13: The FAA has confirmed no mishap investigation will be required following Friday's launch, despite the early boostback burn shutdown.@NASASpaceflight pic.twitter.com/LSGOWR2LNH

— Jay Keegan (@_jaykeegan_) July 27, 2026

normaleagle05 said:

---

I think this was the case for V1/V2 but they're relighting all 33 for the boost back burn on V3. Not that that translates to being able to selectively light any any particular engine for the landing burn. I expect they'll both clean up the relight process and build in a little more margin with an earlier relight.

Just 100m extra...

I took the last 1km of descent telemetry from the booster and the deceleration was about 25m/sec^2
It had slowed to 42m/sec for the last 100m.
So, if the booster had began landing burn 100m higher it could have stopped before impact.

— Scott Manley (@DJSnM) July 25, 2026

---

Yep all 33 engines light for the boost back then they go to 13 then the final 3 in stages.

It didn't quite work out that way for flight 13. Scott Manley surmised it was because of ice.

Side note: I believe E4, E5, and E9 were intentionally shut off by the booster to save itself. We've seen it switch to 5 engines before, so it wouldn't be shocking. However, E2, E6, E10, E11, E13 definitely failed, with E2 and E13 even flickering on for a few frames. pic.twitter.com/d32AOyYFvU

— Chandler G (@Echo5550) July 25, 2026

flintdragon said:

---

Do they have an indication if an engine might have an issue re-lighting? In previous catch attempts, the booster had to meet certain criteria for them to go ahead with catch. But up until they relight, I assume they must have a degree of certainty.

---

There's a big difference in what they know or have an indication of and what they've released publicly. Keep in mind SpaceX is a publicly traded company now so generally speaking they likely have obligations to be mindful of what is posted. Yeah, it's Elon... He'll post what he wants to at times, but still...

My first guess on relight is:

• potential aerodynamic damage in reentry/return flight
• potential damage during boost-back shutdown (there's speculation this occurred earlier than plan)
• vapor ingestion due to adverse acceleration or g-loads
• ice or other contaminant accumulation
• completely planned but un-published (unspoken) test
• something entirely different

yeah would be interesting to know at what point they thought there could be trouble. So far the catch attempts were successful.

And how far off target they can divert at that altitude. To get away from the expensive parts.

Keep in mind... this is still only the 2nd flight of a V3 booster and V3 raptor. Elon was quick to remind everyone at flight 12 the overall general shape of the film stack was for all intents the only similarity to Flights 1 -- 12.

As for how far can they get it away... I've always assumed it was similar to Falcon in that they aim offshore and only commit to shift to the landing site (tower here, barge or pad for falcon) if landing criteria are all Go.

Thank you.

Oh... I just recall something I heard on the NSF on Friday. They mentioned something about landing in the flats away from the pad. It caught me by surprise. Certainly i suppose a few hundred yards is far enough to protect our minimize damage to the expensive bits, but my goodness that would absolutely enrage the enviros!

Safe to say that would trigger an investigation!

Starship Flight 14 go list
S41 cryo:✅
S41 SF:❌
Ship FTS:❌
Payload loaded:❌
B21 cryo:✅
B21 SF:❌
Booster FTS:❌
Final stack:❌
Closure:❌
Weather:❌
FAA:❌
FCC:✅
NOTAM:❌
NOTMAR:❌
TFR:❌
SpaceX post:❌
FT14 NET August/September 2026 pic.twitter.com/5Z5XH3SPCG

— Zio._.Bob (@ZioBobKat) July 27, 2026

PJYoung said:

---

Starship Flight 14 go list
S41 cryo:✅
S41 SF:❌
Ship FTS:❌
Payload loaded:❌
B21 cryo:✅
B21 SF:❌
Booster FTS:❌
Final stack:❌
Closure:❌
Weather:❌
FAA:❌
FCC:✅
NOTAM:❌
NOTMAR:❌
TFR:❌
SpaceX post:❌
FT14 NET August/September 2026 pic.twitter.com/5Z5XH3SPCG

— Zio._.Bob (@ZioBobKat) July 27, 2026

---

Might hit double digits today. August 4th quarterly earnings then Aug 6th float unlock (partial).

Quote:

---

"I think you're going to see double digits in stock price, and that's probably not a terrible thing," Alex Morris, CEO of F/m Investments, told Yahoo Finance. "But long term, SpaceX doesn't really have a natural competitor base. They have a good product with an intergalactic-sized moat, and more customers every day. That said, there's a lot of AI hooks shoved into that same package, and that's where we're seeing the volatility."

The slide comes as SpaceX bets ever more aggressively on Starship at the expense of its proven moneymaker, Falcon 9. Per Bloomberg, it has begun turning away satellite operators seeking dedicated Falcon 9 rides beyond 2028, stopped taking Falcon 9 rideshare reservations, and halted production of some non-reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy components. That makes Starship's reliability central to how investors value the whole company.

---

I don't give financial advice but to my mind the $90's are a buying opportunity.

Oh it's absolutely a buy, but just be wary that it may still go down further due to any further complications with Starship and also general negative sentiment towards Elon (it's stupid, but you see this **** with Tesla a lot).

Honestly, I think SpaceX is taking a pretty sizable risk scaling back Falcon 9 on the assumption that in 2 years they're going to have Raptor to the same reliability as Merlin. I am on the record as a SpaceX fanboy, but that is about as complicated an engine as you'll find, and I think it's still giving them some heartburn. Should be a good opportunity for the other providers (Firefly, RocketLab, etc.) to pick up some business.

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

That makes Starship's reliability central to how investors value the whole company.

---

---

The "whole company" is now mostly AI

I wonder if going public has some repercussions here. Maybe they are leveraging the influx of cash to push raptor development? You're right, seems really risky to say "in two years we'll trust them enough to support paid customers".

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

That makes Starship's reliability central to how investors value the whole company.

---

---

The "whole company" is now mostly AI

---

I just pulled it up... Ok Google AI Search assist answer...

SPCX is:

• The launch business
• Starlink (one of the launch biz biggest customers)
• xAI

I think most of xAI older Data Centers are under lease agreement with other users. I'm not certain if Neuralink is an xAI customer or if they're running their own compute for the work they're doing.

My gut says that with Elon wanting to move DC into orbit then everything ultimately hinges on the actual launch services division, specifically Starship, becoming high tempo operational.

Is the Gibbons Creek TERAFAB facility under the xAI umbrella?

TeraFab is a joint SpaceXAI & Tesla collaboration.

See https://terafab.ai/

TexAgs91 said:

---

TeraFab is a joint SpaceXAI & Tesla collaboration.

See https://terafab.ai/

---

It's a really big deal. Also Intel, notably.

Quote:

---

Announced just weeks ago at Austin's historic Seaholm Power Plant, Terafab is not a typical chip contract arrangement. The facility is designed to vertically integrate the entire chip production pipeline design, lithography, fabrication, memory, advanced packaging, and testing all under one roof, adjacent to Gigafactory Texas. Intel joined the project on April 7, 2026, bringing its cutting-edge 18A process node, which features gate-all-around transistor architecture, backside power delivery, and advanced 3D stacking via EMIB and Foveros technologies.

For Tesla owners, the direct downstream impact is significant. Chips manufactured at Terafab are slated to power Tesla's AI5 processor the next-generation silicon behind Full Self-Driving as well as the Cybercab robotaxi platform and Optimus humanoid robots. In short, the faster Terafab reaches volume production, the faster Tesla's autonomous capabilities can scale.

The long-term vision extends well beyond Austin. The permanent Terafab campus is expected to require thousands of acres at a yet-to-be-determined location, with the current Gigafactory Texas site serving as the initial prototype fabrication hub before that larger buildout begins.

The pace here is worth emphasizing. Traditional semiconductor fabs take five to seven years from groundbreaking to volume production. Terafab's stated timeline small-batch AI5 chip output in 2026, volume in 2027 is extraordinarily aggressive by industry standards. Whether that holds will depend heavily on how quickly the foundation and cleanroom shell can be completed, and whether Intel's 18A process node delivers at yield in a new facility environment.

What Tegtmeyer's comparison photo confirms is that the site is not sitting idle. The River Road extension, water retention infrastructure, and trailer relocation are all prerequisite work that has to clear before heavy construction equipment can operate freely across the full footprint. Seeing this progress less than a month after the public announcement suggests the project had significant pre-announcement planning behind it which is consistent with how Musk-led ventures typically operate.

---

Quote:

---

The target of one terawatt of annual AI compute capacity is a number that demands context. Current global AI chip output dominated by NVIDIA is estimated at roughly 20 gigawatts annually. Terafab's stated goal is approximately 50 times that figure. Even if the actual ramp falls well short of that ceiling, the facility would represent a seismic shift in who controls AI silicon supply.

---

Regardless of whether one owns any TSLA and/or SPCX stock, this is what the companies are oriented toward producing as businesses looking ahead.

Yeah this project is at a national infrastructure scale, and arguably beyond since they're aiming to double the energy output of the US.

will25u said:

---

I think the Falcon 9 reduction/no more flights was fake news. I posted about it in the last few pages.

---

I'm very surprised SpaceX hasn't denied it.

Falcon 9 launches are certainly trending down lately compared to prior years.

Starship in space on Flight 13 pic.twitter.com/rAxl8BqHsK

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) July 28, 2026

Skip ahead to 2:30 or so to see the window experiment.

They put a bunch of older house windows pretty close to the launch site of Flight 13 to see if any would break.

SpaceX's Flight 13 produced twice the sound pressure than Flight 12! You wont believe what happened to this old window!!! 🤯 @elonmusk pic.twitter.com/Ef26vKTHTg

— Avid Space (@LabPadre) July 28, 2026

PJYoung said:

---

will25u said:

---

I think the Falcon 9 reduction/no more flights was fake news. I posted about it in the last few pages.

---

I'm very surprised SpaceX hasn't denied it.

Falcon 9 launches are certainly trending down lately compared to prior years.

---

2023 -- 96 Total, 91 F9, 5 FH
2024 -- 134 Total, 132 F9, 2 FH
2025 -- 165 Total, 165 F9, 0 FH
2026 -- thru July 25: 88 Total, 87 F9, 1 FH
Estimating 140-145sih total

Lower than 2025, but I don't know if we can determine a real trend here.
SpaceX Starlink is still Falcon's biggest customer but they're only launching V2 mini as the V3 is too big and too heavy to carry on F9.

F9 will by necessity slow though with the conversion of 39A to Starship operations.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

will25u said:

---

I think the Falcon 9 reduction/no more flights was fake news. I posted about it in the last few pages.

---

I'm very surprised SpaceX hasn't denied it.

Falcon 9 launches are certainly trending down lately compared to prior years.

---

2023 -- 96 Total, 91 F9, 5 FH
2024 -- 134 Total, 132 F9, 2 FH
2025 -- 165 Total, 165 F9, 0 FH
2026 -- thru July 25: 88 Total, 87 F9, 1 FH
Estimating 140-145sih total

Lower than 2025, but I don't know if we can determine a real trend here.
SpaceX Starlink is still Falcon's biggest customer but they're only launching V2 mini as the V3 is too big and too heavy to carry on F9.

F9 will by necessity slow though with the conversion of 39A to Starship operations.

---

Some of the Falcon cadence drop is also them being down one drone ship as they convert it over for use transporting Starships and boosters to the Cape beginning later this year.

I would be curious if that window was framed into a building and rigid if it would have the same result. I'm not arguing that there is damage or danger done…. I'm just wondering if that window (and frame) sitting on the ground free to vibrate behaves any differently than if it was fixed into a rigid structure.

Centerpole90 said:

---

I would be curious if that window was framed into a building and rigid if it would have the same result. I'm not arguing that there is damage or danger done…. I'm just wondering if that window (and frame) sitting on the ground free to vibrate behaves any differently than if it was fixed into a rigid structure.

---

Yeah, I saw lots of methodological issues with that video. The ones closest to the pad were shielded from direct sound energy by the blast walls at the pad and were only getting the sound/pressure waves indirectly.