Starship Build Engineering System

Verification Report

← Back to outcome

Verification Report — Starship Build Engineering System

Strictness: IRS_AUDITOR | Proof status: Internal verification on hand-checkable fixtures + a notional-model synthetic benchmark (disclosed seam).

Checks: PASS 18 / 18 (100%) | Evaluated on: structural fixtures + notional Starship build model | Generated: 2026-06-25T22:23:34.426Z

Disclosed seams & limitations

  • DISCLOSED_SEAM: The Starship build model in src/vehicle.mjs (operations, times, weld samples, tolerances, part counts) is NOTIONAL, self-authored engineering data — NOT SpaceX proprietary data, as-built process sheets, or measured production figures.
  • DISCLOSED_SEAM: No physical hardware, fixture, weld, or station was built or measured; all results are computed from the model only.
  • SIMULATED: The "synthetic benchmark" quantifies line-balancing skill on the notional model; it is not a claim about any real production rate or factory.
  • ASSUMPTION: Process-capability fallout assumes the measured feature is normally distributed and the process is in statistical control.

What is verified

Each engine is exercised against inputs whose answers are known by hand (takt, theoretical-minimum stations, an exactly-balanceable chain, the closed-form CPM of a tiny network, a textbook Cp/Cpk sample, the ±3σ yield, an exact worst-case/RSS tolerance pair, and a 70%/60% DFM reduction). The same engines then run on the notional Starship build model, and the balanced line is benchmarked against a naive one-operation-per-station baseline at the same takt.

Synthetic benchmark (notional model)

MetricValue
Takt60 min
Operations16
Stations (baseline -> balanced)16 -> 11
Station reduction31.3%
Line efficiency (baseline -> balanced)52.1% -> 75.8%
Efficiency improvement45.5%
Throughput8 vehicles/day
Critical-path lead time56 h

Checks

CheckDetailResult
Takt time = available / demand (480 min / 8 = 60 min)takt=60PASS
Theoretical min stations = ceil(work/takt) = ceil(500/60) = 9total=500, min=9PASS
Exact balance: 4x30min chain @ takt 60 -> 2 stations, 100% efficiencystations=2, eff=1PASS
Vehicle balance respects precedence, station<=takt, min<=N<=opsviol=0, stations=11, underTakt=truePASS
Line efficiency identity = work/(stations*cycle), 0<eff<=1eff=0.757576, recomputed=0.757576PASS
Line balancing is deterministic (identical stations & efficiency)11==11, 0.757576==0.757576PASS
Throughput = available / bottleneck (480/60 = 8 units)tp=8PASS
Parallel stations for a 130-min op @ takt 60 = ceil(130/60) = 3n=3PASS
CPM exact: A(3),B(4)->C(2) => duration 6, critical path B,Cdur=6, path=B,CPASS
CPM vehicle flow: lead time 56 h, critical A,B,E,F,G, slacks D=14 C=2dur=56, path=A,B,E,F,G, D=14, C=2PASS
Process capability exact: [9,10,11], spec 7..13 => mean 10, sd 1, Cp 1.0, Cpk 1.0mean=10, sd=1, Cp=1, Cpk=1PASS
Normal CDF anchors: Phi(0)=0.5, Phi(1.96)~0.975, symmetry, erf(0)=0Phi(0)=0.5000000005, Phi(1.96)=0.9750PASS
+/-3 sigma capability: yield ~ 0.9973, ~2700 ppm defectiveyield=0.9973, ppm=2699.93PASS
Tolerance exact: tol [0.1,0.2,0.2] => WC 0.5, RSS 0.3WC=0.5, RSS=0.3PASS
Tolerance invariant: RSS <= worst-case for every vehicle stackstacks=2PASS
DFM exact: 40->12 parts => 70% reduction; 100->40s => 60% fasterparts=0.7, time=0.6PASS
DFA: 2 essential parts, 2 consolidation candidates identifiedmin=2, candidates=2PASS
Benchmark: balanced line uses <= stations and >= efficiency vs naive baselinestations 16->11, eff 0.520833->0.757576PASS