Something Weird Happened with Starship Flight 12 Rocket and Pad. No Static Fire until…

Huh. How strange. B-19 has not been tested for several days since its rollout, and SpaceX's recent activity suggests something unusual may be happening behind the scenes. In Florida, NASA is finishing final preparations for the SLS, confidently declaring there will be no more wet dress rehearsals. Meanwhile, Amazon has criticized the FAA for allowing SpaceX to license up to one million satellites, prompting a firm response. Let's take a closer look at these developments in today's episode of Great SpaceX. On March 8th, B-19 arrived at Pad 2 after weeks of anticipation, carrying 10 Raptor 3 engines. Everything pointed toward a powerful static fire test of this new version, but as the days passed, the test kept slipping. Four opportunities between the 9th and the 12th came and went, according to the latest road closure update, the primary target date now is March 13th. Still, SpaceX has not been idle. Over the past few days, the team has carried out two major fuel loading tests. The first took place on the morning of the 10th and sets an impressive record. The liquid oxygen tank was filled in only about 30 minutes, the fastest loading time yet. The second test on the evening of the 11th was just as striking. Strong venting could be seen across the tank farm, the launch pad, and the booster itself. Most importantly, the fueling speed was almost identical to the first attempt. Together, these tests appear to demonstrate the reliability of both the vehicle and the launch pad, something SpaceX has been emphasizing since moving to the V3 design. But the big question remains, where is the static fire? If the goal was simply to show reliable fueling operations, why has the test taken so many days to happen? Why the delay? One possible answer is that a problem occurred. At the time of this update, the transport stand has been moved to the pad and the Mechazilla chopsticks adjusted their position to secure B19. From the footage, it appears the booster was lifted onto the transport stand. If that's the case, several explanations are possible. The first possibility is an issue with the launch pad itself. After two full-capacity fueling operations, the pad systems may have experienced unexpected stress. The problem could involve the fuel pumps, the piping network, the booster QD system, or the water deluge system beneath the pad. These systems are all directly tied to the static fire operations, so if anything needed attention, SpaceX would likely remove the booster rather than risk testing immediately. If this is the situation, B19 may only remain on the transport stand temporarily. Once the pad systems are checked and repaired, it could be lifted back into position for the planned March 13 test. Another possibility is an issue with the vehicle itself. After two fuel-loading tests, a problem could have appeared inside the propellant tanks or the internal piping. V3 includes many upgrades, but demanding operations like these can still reveal weaknesses. In that scenario, the booster might require repairs at the pad or even a return to the production site if the issue is serious enough. However, this seems less likely. Both fueling tests were completed successfully, which makes a pad site issue the more probable explanation. There's also the possibility that nothing is wrong at all. In one hand, B19 may have been moved simply to allow crews to prepare or modify equipment at the pad. If so, the booster would soon return to position for the static fire on the 13th. And by the time you watch this, the test may already have taken place with the same 10 engines currently installed. If that happens, we'll bring you the details in the next episode. Now, on the other hand, SpaceX is planning to reinstall the remaining 23 engines before testing. Now, if B19 returns to receive a full set of 33 Raptors, that would confirm speculation that the earlier rollout happened before all engines were ready. A full engine test would be far more powerful, but it would likely push the schedule back by a few more days. So, what do you think is behind the delay of the first static fire test for Starship V3? Let me know your thoughts in the comment section down below and don't forget to like the video and subscribe as we continue following SpaceX's progress. While B19's upcoming test is drawing most of the attention, activity continues across Starbase. Its partner for this mission, S39, is now back inside Megabay 2 after returning from the Massey test site, where it successfully completed a cryogenic pressure test. If progress continues smoothly, the next step should be installing 6 Raptor 3 engines, followed by a static fire test at the other end of Starbase, possibly in the 3rd or 4th week of this month. Beyond Flight 12, SpaceX also appears to be moving quickly on hardware for Flight 13. On the booster side, progress has been steady. After the aft section arrived in February, the liquid oxygen tank section reached Megabay 1 earlier this month. By the evening of March 11, two more key components, the methane landing tank and the propellant transfer tube, were delivered, suggesting stacking operations are entering their final stage. Work is also advancing on the next ship. After the aft flaps arrived in early March, recent updates show they have been installed on S40. Taken together, the pace is striking. Once S39 completes its static fire, Flight 13 hardware could move quickly into testing. If progress continues at this speed, Flight 13 may not be far behind, potentially signaling a faster launch rhythm for SpaceX. For now, all eyes remain on the next steps at Starbase. While activity accelerates in Texas, developments are also unfolding within NASA's lunar program. Turning to the latest updates on Artemis 2, after returning the rocket to the Vehicle Assembly Building for repairs, NASA recently conducted a series of flight readiness review meetings to evaluate the vehicle's condition and determine whether the mission could proceed. Following the review, and in an update on NASA's official website, officials announced that repairs to the SLS have been completed inside the VAB. The flight termination system batteries were also replaced, and the team ultimately voted go for launch. During the press conference, Lori Glaze, NASA's Acting Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Development, described the discussions. During the flight readiness review, we had extremely thorough discussions, very open, transparent. She added that the team closely examined mission risks and how they were being addressed. We talked a lot about our risk posture and how we're mitigating those risks. We reviewed the challenges that we've had and how we've addressed them, and we talked about the work that remains, what's left to do, and how we're going to get through all of that. NASA also confirmed an important decision, there will be no additional wet dress rehearsal before launch. According to Sean Quinn, manager of NASA's EGS program, the updated Quick Disconnect system has already been tested inside the VAB. This component connects the launch tower's ground umbilicals to the rocket to deliver propellants. The earlier issue occurred at the upper stage QD used with the interim cryogenic propulsion stage where a liquid hydrogen leak was detected during the first wet dress rehearsal. Engineers developed a design fix, tested it on a test article, and approved it for Artemis 2. The upgraded QD has now been installed on the upper stage. As many will remember, the hydrogen leak and a helium flow issue were discovered after the second wet dress rehearsal in February. When the rocket returned to the VAB, the seals were replaced again. Glaze later stated, At this point, we've demonstrated that the seals that we have are the best seals we've ever seen on the SLS and that this QD. Suggesting further testing would provide little benefit. With repairs complete, NASA plans to roll the rocket back to the launch pad on the 19th. The target launch date is the 1st of April with additional opportunities from the 2nd through the 6th and again on the 30th. Another notable decision is that NASA will not conduct a separate fuel testing, fueling test before launch. Officials explained that the helium flow issue was not related to the propellant loadings since the earlier wet dress rehearsal had already completed fueling successfully. They also noted that every full fueling operation stresses the rocket's propellant tanks and repeating the process too often could shorten their lifespan. As a result, the next time the rocket is fully fueled will be during the actual launch attempt. This approach shows NASA's confidence in the repairs, but it also has sparked debate. If a problem appears during launch operations, it could cause new delays. Artemis 2 will be the first crewed mission to travel toward the moon in more than 50 years, helping set the stage for the next phase of lunar exploration. Given the importance of this mission, do you think NASA should have taken additional steps to test the system? Let me know your thoughts in the comments. Shifting from lunar missions to our final developments in orbit, a new controversy is emerging between Amazon, the FCC, and SpaceX. As many of you know, SpaceX has proposed an ambitious plan to build a space-based data network supported by as many as 1 million satellites. A proposal that has already received approval from the Federal Communications Commission or the FCC. However, the plan quickly drew criticism from a major competitor, Amazon, the company founded by Jeff Bezos. Amazon is developing its own satellite network system, called Project Kuiper, and it is designed to compete with SpaceX's Starlink network. Naturally, Amazon is not eager to see SpaceX deploy a constellation on such a massive scale. The company urged the FCC to reject the proposal, describing it as more of a lofty ambition than a realistic project and arguing that building such a network could take at least a decade. The FCC responded firmly. In a post on X, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr addressed Amazon's concerns directly. Instead of focusing on SpaceX's proposal, Carr suggested Amazon should concentrate on its own challenges. He noted that the company could fall nearly 1,000 satellites short of its next deployment milestone and wrote that it should focus on meeting its obligations rather than filing petitions against competitors already placing thousands of satellites into orbit. So far, Amazon has not publicly responded. The exchange highlights the contrast between the two companies. Amazon designed Project Kuiper to compete with Starlink, but the program has faced delays. One reason is its choice of launch providers. Amazon signed contracts with rockets including Blue Origin's New Glenn, ULA's Vulcan, and Europe's Ariane 6, but these vehicles have taken longer than expected to reach full operational readiness. Because of those delays, Amazon eventually turned to an unexpected solution. Purchasing launch services from SpaceX itself, Falcon 9 rockets are now helping carry Kuiper satellites into orbit. Since launches began last April, Amazon has reportedly spent about $10 billion to deploy about 200 satellites, and the total cost will likely rise as the network expands. Tension turns to how Amazon will respond to the FCC's remarks in the days ahead. And that brings us to the end of today's episode. Thank you so much for tuning in. As always, this has been Kevin from GreatSpaceX. Until next time, keep looking up!