SpaceX continues to push the Starship program forward, signaling a careful but meaningful acceleration in its efforts to demonstrate rapid, reusable flight for the world’s most ambitious rocket system. After back-to-back upper-stage challenges, engineers are making notable progress with the Super Heavy booster and the Starship upper stage as they edge toward the next round of flight tests. A recent static-fire test of a flight-proven booster at Starbase in South Texas showcased a controlled eight-second burn that lit the orange exhaust signature SpaceX has become known for. The event marked a significant milestone in the program’s ongoing push to validate reusability for the mega-rocket’s first stage, while also underscoring the parallel work that remains on the upper stage, whose recent test failures have tempered the cadence of Starship’s flight schedule. The outcome of Booster 14’s test, and its readiness for a future flight, sits at the intersection of hardware reliability, engineering discipline, and the broader goal of achieving a high-frequency, low-cost launch regime for deep-space missions and satellite deployment.
Booster 14: a flight-proven milestone and the path to future flights
SpaceX’s decision to reflight Booster 14 reflects a strategic emphasis on reusability as a central pillar of the Starship program. Booster 14 had previously flown and returned to Earth in January, and its sale of data in this latest static-fire test is designed to validate the booster’s continued health after its initial ascent and recovery. The eight-second burn underlines a testing philosophy that prioritizes short, controlled demonstrations before committing hardware to a full mission profile. Within the broader reflight strategy, the focus on a flight-proven engine set—29 of the booster’s 33 Raptor engines—highlights SpaceX’s confidence in refurbishing and reusing the propulsion system rather than scrapping components after each mission. A compelling question guiding engineers is how many engines meet the company’s reuse criteria, and how the remaining units will perform after refurbishment, testing, and integration into a flight-ready configuration.
The significance of Booster 14’s readiness extends beyond the single booster itself. By advancing a booster that has already demonstrated space-edge performance—firing to the edge of space in a prior mission—SpaceX aims to compress the timeline from refurbishment to a complete flight-ready condition. The booster’s proximity to the Starbase launch site, compared with the longer, more complex transport cycles required for a completely new or less flight-tested unit, underscores a practical advantage: faster cycles, tighter integration with the launch complex, and the opportunity to generate a continuous stream of data that informs both the booster’s refurbishment workflow and the Starship’s overall mission architecture. In many ways, Booster 14 is a litmus test for the “zero-touch reflight” concept that SpaceX envisions as a cornerstone of its operational cadence.
The broader narrative around Booster 14’s testing is anchored by two practical realities: first, the booster’s own flight history and refurbishment path; second, the ongoing effort to align the booster’s readiness with Starship’s flight schedule. SpaceX has indicated that Booster 14 is expected to fly again on a Starship flight in the near term, integrating it into the vehicle stack that has defined Starship’s test program to date. This alignment between booster readiness and Starship integration is essential because the first stage’s performance and reliability directly influence mission success, ground operations, and the readiness of the launch complex to support subsequent test flights and, eventually, operational missions. The static-fire event thus functions not only as a standalone milestone but as a critical checkpoint for the entire Starship system’s maturation.
From the engine perspective, the fact that 29 of the booster’s 33 methane-fueled Raptors have been declared flight-proven is a noteworthy signal. It speaks to the durability and resilience of SpaceX’s engine refurbishment strategy, as well as the company’s confidence in maintaining engine health through repeated cycles of testing, firing, and cooldown processes. Each fraction of the engine count that proves flight-proven reduces the risk associated with a future mission and suggests a robust pathway toward reflight, with the ultimate aim of achieving a high reuse rate across multiple Starship missions. The “first Super Heavy reuse” milestone remains a critical objective for SpaceX, serving both as a proof point for the company’s internal reliability standards and as a demonstration to the broader spaceflight community that rapid reuse can be achieved in a system of this scale.
As SpaceX continues its push toward increased reuse, Booster 14’s role as a near-term flight candidate gains added significance. The booster’s journey—from its January debut to its current static-fire test and its anticipated flight readiness—serves as a practical barometer for the pace at which the company can execute repeated cycles of flight, refurbishment, and turnaround. The strategic implications extend beyond Starship’s immediate schedule; they touch on the company’s broader goals for a fly-fast, fly-often approach to spaceflight that would enable more frequent access to low Earth orbit, lunar missions, and deeper space exploration. Within this context, Booster 14’s performance and the readiness of its propulsion system will be watched closely by engineers, program managers, and industry observers who are evaluating the feasibility of a sustained launch cadence.
In transport and logistics terms, the absence of a long, multi-step journey for Booster 14—contrasted with the extensive, multi-location refurbishment paths historically associated with earlier booster programs—illustrates SpaceX’s ongoing effort to streamline maintenance pipelines. By reducing the need to move a booster between separate test facilities and launch bases, SpaceX can compress the schedule from mission concept to liftoff, enabling faster iteration cycles and more frequent data returns. The design philosophies informing Booster 14—compact refurbishment pathways, rapid post-test inspections, and a near-field approach to launch operations—are central to the company’s mission to achieve rapid reuse without compromising safety or mission readiness. In short, Booster 14’s testing and its path toward flight serve as an important blueprint for how SpaceX intends to operate its largest booster in a high-tempo launch environment.
Ultimately, Booster 14’s test and its reflight potential are not just about a single booster returning to flight. They represent a broader proof point for the Starship program’s core strategy: to build a fully reusable, vertically integrated system capable of delivering large payloads to a variety of destinations, from lunar surface missions to satellite constellations. The eight-second static-fire event, the data gathered from the flight-proven engine set, and the anticipated reflight all contribute to a narrative of steady, disciplined progress in a program that has repeatedly confronted technical challenges but continues to push toward a longer-term vision of universal access to space. As SpaceX moves forward, Booster 14 stands as a concrete demonstration of how the company is turning ambitious reusability goals into actionable flight readiness milestones.
The upper stage challenges: Block 2, failures, and a path toward reliability
While the boosters have demonstrated meaningful gains in reuse and readiness, the ship—the Starship’s upper stage—remains the focal point of substantial performance questions and ongoing improvements. Earlier flights with an upgraded, larger ship known as Block 2 or Version 2 exposed a series of struggles that have tempered the pace of Starship’s flight cadence. In January and March, Starship’s upper stage suffered engine power loss and a tumbling sequence that ultimately broke apart and produced fiery debris in several regions of the Atlantic and adjacent zones. These incidents highlighted vulnerabilities in the propulsion system’s behavior and the control dynamics of a complex vehicle designed to operate first in the vacuum of space and then to re-enter the atmosphere at a high-energy, guided profile. The aim of Block 2 upgrades has been to provide a more capable, robust upper stage that can sustain power, manage heat, and execute precise reentry sequences that might support future orbital missions and controlled splashdowns or landings.
The planned test concept for Block 2 included a trajectory-first approach: send Starship on a half-world trajectory into deep space, followed by a carefully guided reentry over the Indian Ocean, culminating in a targeted splashdown northwest of Australia. This is a high-stakes test of the ship’s heat shield, its reentry dynamics, and the guidance systems that would be required to manage a controlled descent in a real mission scenario. However, the January and March flights did not achieve those objectives. Instead, both flights encountered power loss events that ended prematurely, preventing the team from validating the heatshield performance or the overall reentry profile. The failures underscore the complexity of scaling Starship’s upper stage to a global mission profile and the challenges of validating an entirely new orbital transfer system at this scale.
The consequences of these upper-stage setbacks for program planning are multifaceted. Foremost, the starship’s test program is now more focused on diagnosing and addressing propulsion-system behavior and engine stability under the new Block 2 configuration. The team has to determine whether these failures share a common root cause or reflect a cluster of issues with timing, engine health, propellant management, or control software. The resolution path involves a combination of hardware inspections, software updates, and possibly redesigned components or revised operating envelopes that reduce the risk of future outages during the most critical phases of flight. The nature of these challenges is typical for a first-in-class large launch vehicle, where every launch exposes new design interactions and a learning loop that feeds back into the engineering process. Yet, the hope remains that Block 2 will eventually deliver a robust upper stage capable of meeting NASA’s high reliability standards and SpaceX’s ambitious flight-rate goals.
From a mission-architecture perspective, the behavior of the upper stage in the early flight tests has a direct bearing on the tempo of the overall program. Without reliable upper-stage performance, even flawlessly functioning Super Heavy boosters cannot deliver a complete mission profile. The intended upgrades—improved engine control, enhanced heat-shield integration, and more resilient propulsion hardware—are critical to unlocking the ability to test reentry and landing sequences for Starship itself, and to carry out orbital refueling demonstrations that NASA and other customers consider essential precursors to a future full orbital launch regime. The Block 2 effort thus sits at the heart of the Starship program’s long-range strategy: a dependable, scalable vehicle capable of delivering large payloads, performing complex in-space maneuvers, and enabling rapid reusability across multiple mission profiles.
As the testing program advances, SpaceX continues to monitor and adjust flight-test parameters, with an eye toward a more predictable and repeatable upper-stage performance. The team’s approach involves a combination of incremental hardware improvements, more rigorous ground tests, and refined flight-dynamics simulations designed to anticipate how the ship will respond to different reentry angles, engine throttling regimes, and propellant management scenarios. The ongoing work on Block 2 is not just about fixing isolated issues; it is about creating a robust, integrated system that can operate reliably in the high-stakes environment of orbital launches, refueling chains, and eventual crewed missions. In the broader context of SpaceX’s mission, solving the upper-stage dynamics is as crucial as proving booster reuse, because the mission success of Starship depends on both elements functioning in harmony at extreme scales and speeds.
The FAA investigation and ongoing technical lessons
In parallel with the hardware development, regulatory and safety oversight remains a critical factor shaping SpaceX’s development cadence. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has completed an initial review of the January Starship test event, concluding that stronger-than-anticipated vibrations in the propulsion system created increased stress on hardware, which eventually led to a fire in the engine compartment and a loss of control. The agency’s assessment, which focuses on the root cause as a mechanical and dynamic interaction within the propulsion network, has driven SpaceX to implement a suite of corrective actions—eleven in total—to prevent a recurrence of the problem. The scope of these corrective actions covers hardware modifications, verification testing, and procedural updates aimed at ensuring that similar vibration-induced failures do not reappear in future flights. The FAA’s findings and corrective actions serve as a framework for how the company engineers, tests, and verifies Starship’s propulsion architecture under increasingly demanding flight conditions.
Concurrently, officials indicated that investigations into the March failure remain open. While the precise root cause for that incident has not been released publicly, the timing and nature of the event suggest the possibility of a shared underlying issue or a related set of contributing factors, such as propulsion-system dynamics, engine diagnostics, or telemetry interpretation challenges during an intense, high-energy phase of flight. The open status of the March investigation does not imply a lack of progress; instead, it indicates a careful, multi-threaded analysis that seeks to identify the common threads linking multiple anomalies and to determine whether a single systemic fix can address them all or if a more tailored approach is necessary for different parts of the propulsion system. In practice, this means SpaceX and the FAA will continue to work in a collaborative loop, sharing data, conducting root-cause analyses, and validating corrective actions that can be implemented across future missions.
The regulatory process matters for the program’s overall cadence, particularly when planning to support NASA’s Artemis program and its ambitious schedule for returning humans to the Moon. Any delays in validating the propulsion system’s reliability or in finalizing the upper-stage improvements ultimately ripple into mission timelines, launch windows, and the ability to demonstrate refueling operations that Under NASA’s contract portfolio are central to sustaining long-duration lunar missions. The FAA’s ongoing oversight and SpaceX’s willingness to implement corrective actions reinforce the shared objective: to develop a launch system that meets rigorous safety and reliability standards while enabling an accelerated flight tempo, including rapid iteration cycles that could unlock more ambitious mission profiles in the not-too-distant future. As SpaceX advances its testing program, the regulatory lens remains a critical factor in shaping how quickly the company can transition from prototype demonstrations to routine, high-volume launches.
What this means for Starship’s cadence and NASA’s Artemis program
The broader implications of Booster 14’s successful static-fire test, coupled with ongoing upper-stage development and regulatory progress, touch several strategic areas for SpaceX and its customers. First, achieving more reliable booster reuse is fundamental to lowering per-flight costs and enabling a higher launch cadence. SpaceX’s experience with Falcon 9 reuse—culminating in hundreds of successful landings—has informed its confidence in pushing toward a similar philosophy with Super Heavy in Starship’s architecture. The transition from an initial, slower test program to a streamlined reuse regime is a stepwise process that relies on validated data from engine refurbishments, structural inspections, and refurbishment workflows that minimize downtime between flights. The company’s approach to booster reuse—focusing on a high proportion of flight-proven engines and a shortened refurbishment cycle—signals a maturity in SpaceX’s manufacturing and operations that could redefine how large-scale rocket systems are prepared for flight.
Second, the focus on Starship’s Starship upper stage remains a critical risk area and an essential determinant of flight cadence. Even as boosters demonstrate rapid turnarounds, the upper stage must consistently perform at the required level to complete a mission profile. The Block 2 upgrade represents a decisive step in the direction of an orbital-capable, refueling-enabled platform that can deliver large payloads, including long-range satellite constellations or deep-space missions. The ongoing difficulties encountered during the early Block 2 tests underscore the need for rigorous testing and validation of propulsion dynamics, heat shield performance, and control software. The results of these tests will shape the design and operational parameters of future Starship flights and are likely to influence how quickly NASA and other customers will be able to place habitual orders for Starship-based missions.
Third, regulatory oversight and corrective actions are a critical aspect of the development environment. The FAA’s formal conclusions and SpaceX’s responsive actions establish a framework for accountability and continuous improvement that informs both industry best practices and the program’s public perception. For NASA’s Artemis program, reliability and predictability in launch infrastructure are essential for planning a sequence of missions that could include multiple Starship-backed refueling flights to support lunar landings. The combination of booster readiness, upper-stage reliability, and regulatory compliance thus contributes to a trajectory in which Starship’s capabilities could become a backbone of NASA’s deep-space exploration plans. While there are still uncertainties in the near term regarding exact flight windows and mission sequencing, the rift between booster development and upper-stage maturation is narrowing as both elements advance toward a coordinated, repeatable flight regime.
Fourth, the program’s success or setback has broader implications for the private space sector. Demonstrated ability to reuse the heaviest booster in the world, paired with an upper stage pursuing orbital capability, could reshape cost structures and accessibility to space. The industry watches closely as SpaceX navigates the intersection of technical risk, regulatory compliance, and market demand for reliable access to space—whether for communications satellites, scientific missions, or planetary exploration. The progress on Booster 14, the ongoing Block 2 upper-stage development, and the regulatory corrective actions collectively contribute to a narrative about a private company pushing the envelope of what is technically feasible, while maintaining a disciplined approach to safety, reliability, and mission assurance.
The hardware scale and engineering rationale behind SpaceX’s approach
A recurring theme in the Starship program is its scale and the engineering choices SpaceX has made to manage complexity at an unprecedented level. The Super Heavy booster, with thrust nearing 17 million pounds, dwarfs most conventional launch systems and sits at the frontier of human-made propulsion capabilities. For perspective, that thrust level is roughly twice the power of the Saturn V engine configuration that propelled the Apollo missions toward the Moon. The booster’s dimensions and engine count create an architecture whose reliability depends on an extraordinary degree of integration between propulsion hardware, avionics, fuel management, and ground systems. The challenge is not simply to build a rocket that can lift a large payload; it is to design a system that can be quickly inspected, refurbished, and prepared for subsequent flights without compromising safety or performance.
In this context, SpaceX’s mechanical arm-based catch mechanism for Starship’s booster on return, rather than landing on legs or a landing pad, represents a radical departure from traditional reusability methods. The mechanical-arms approach, coupled with autonomous or semi-autonomous control sequences, is designed to minimize the time spent on the ground and maximize the repeatability of the reflight process. The strategy assumes a highly disciplined docking precision, robust guidance, navigation, and control systems, and tight integration with the launch pad’s handling infrastructure. The concept of hardware recovery through robotic interfaces is a cornerstone of SpaceX’s vision for rapid reusability, enabling the company to reuse boosters with a minimized turnaround time and a controlled risk profile while preserving payload integrity and vehicle health.
The Starship system’s immense scale also shapes its manufacturing and testing strategies. With the upper stage and booster configured to operate in concert, the integration work required at Starbase—near the launch pads and the factory—becomes a highly choreographed set of operations. SpaceX has aimed to reduce the distance between factory floor, test stand, and launch pad, which has implications for supply chain management, tooling requirements, and personnel training. The aim is to create a nimble, compact loop that allows technicians to inspect and verify each major subsystem rapidly, then assemble, stack, and roll the vehicle toward launch. This approach, while challenging, is central to achieving the program’s high-frequency launch objective and to delivering a system that can support not just occasional test flights but sustained operational missions.
From a performance standpoint, the thrust-to-weight ratio, engine health, propellant management, and thermal protection of the Block 2 upper stage are all critical topics. The decision to pursue a larger stage with more capable heat-shielding components underscores SpaceX’s recognition that reentry performance is a multiplier for mission capabilities. The company’s design philosophy involves balancing structural weight, thermal protection, and engine efficiency to achieve a robust performance envelope that can handle the rigors of an orbital insertion, a multi-thousand-kilometer reentry, and the potential to perform refueling maneuvers that extend Starship’s orbital lifetime. The holistic engineering approach—encompassing propulsion hardware, thermal protection systems, aerodynamics, and control software—reflects a willingness to push the boundaries of aerospace engineering to enable a future where interplanetary missions and large-scale satellite deployment become routine.
Operational cadence, ground logistics, and the Starbase ecosystem
Beyond the rocket hardware itself, the Starbase ecosystem—the cluster of manufacturing facilities, test stands, ground support equipment, and logistics networks—plays a pivotal role in shaping Starship’s cadence. The proximity of Booster 14 to the launch site in South Texas reduces the logistical overhead involved in transporting a flight-proven booster through a multi-location refurbishment process. The implication is not only shorter lead times but also a more integrated feedback loop between the factory floor, the test stands, and the launch pad. This operational proximity can expedite the learning cycle, enabling engineers to observe, diagnose, and implement design changes with a speed that is culturally and technically distinctive within the aerospace industry. The systemic approach to Starbase—where hardware, software, ground systems, and human expertise converge—helps SpaceX to adapt to rapid testing demands while maintaining a safety-first posture that is essential for high-risk, high-reward programs.
In addition to hardware and logistics, the Starbase ecosystem supports a broad range of testing activities designed to verify the robustness of both booster and ship components. Static-fire tests, engine-tuning procedures, and integration checks form the core technical cadence of the program, while ground-test simulations, telemetry analysis, and data validation cycles provide the essential data feedback loops that drive iterative improvements. The ability to execute a rapid sequence of tests—ranging from subscale validations to full-scale booster checks—helps SpaceX to identify engineering risks early and implement corrective actions with momentum. A disciplined approach to test planning and risk assessment is integral to advancing Starship toward a credible, repeatable flight cadence.
The broader industry has observed how SpaceX has translated its Falcon 9 reuse experience into a much larger, more complex system with Starship. Falcon 9’s decades-long experience in reusability—achieving hundreds of landings and numerous successful refires—has informed not only SpaceX’s engineering choices but also its organizational culture and project management philosophy. The knowledge gained from refurbishing Falcon 9 stages—managing corrosion, seals, and propulsion components across many cycles—has contributed to a more mature approach to Starship’s maintenance and maintenance scheduling. While the scale difference is enormous, the underlying discipline—rigorous inspection regimes, data-driven decision making, and a robust supply chain—remains a throughline that SpaceX has extended from the company’s earlier programs to the most ambitious rocket system in development.
What to watch next: signals, timelines, and decision inflection points
Looking ahead, several key milestones and decision points will help determine how quickly Starship can achieve regular flight operations. First, the rollout to a test stand for an engine firing of the upper-stage Block 2 vehicle and its subsequent return to the factory for inspections and finishing touches will be an important signal of the readiness to move toward launch. Following those checks, Fast-moving ground crews will prepare to roll the ship to the launch pad and stack it atop a Super Heavy booster for the final launch preparations. The next Starship flight, often referred to as Flight 9 in the ongoing progression, will be a focal point for observers who track the program’s cadence, reliability, and progress toward the broader objectives set by Starship’s mission portfolio.
Second, the status of the upper-stage iterations will influence NASA’s planning for lunar missions and for refueling demonstrations that are seen as essential steps for deep-space exploration. NASA’s Artemis program relies on a sequence of Starship-based activities to support lunar landings, and the pace at which SpaceX can validate refueling, orbital maneuvers, and landing capabilities will shape NASA’s confidence in counting on Starship as a core element of the agency’s future architecture. The number of Starship refueling flights required to support a lunar mission remains a point of emphasis for both regulators and customers, as it directly affects mission design, cost estimates, and launch schedules. If Block 2 demonstrates the intended reliability improvements and the reentry tests meet expected performance targets, mission planners may be able to lock in more concrete timelines for orbital operations and lunar delivery campaigns.
Third, regulatory updates and corrective-action validation will remain a prominent topic as the program matures. The FAA’s ongoing review and the status of the March investigation will continue to influence the pace at which SpaceX can proceed with higher-risk flight experiments, including the orbital or near-orbital operations that would push the envelope of what is possible with Starship. The interplay between certification requirements, test results, and real-world mission planning will continue to shape the program’s cadence, with the potential for revised safety requirements or additional design changes if new data indicate a need for them. Throughout this process, SpaceX’s ability to translate test data into tangible improvements—while maintaining a strong safety and risk-management framework—will be a critical determinant of the program’s momentum.
Finally, the starship system’s overall trajectory will be shaped by its ability to demonstrate rapid, cost-effective reuse of the booster and upper-stage components across multiple flight cycles. The technological, engineering, and operational lessons learned from Booster 14’s test and the Block 2 upper-stage program will contribute to a broader understanding of how the world’s largest rocket can be turned into a reliable, high-frequency vehicle capable of delivering large payloads to a variety of destinations. The path forward will be marked by a balance between ambitious goals and practical constraints, as SpaceX continues to calibrate its research, development, and production pipelines to align with mission objectives, customer demands, and regulatory expectations.
Global context: how Starship’s evolution fits into the broader spaceflight landscape
Starship’s development exists within a competitive and collaborative global spaceflight ecosystem that includes traditional government-led launch programs, other commercial operators, and a growing cadre of new space startups. The scale and ambition of SpaceX’s Starship project place it in a league with some of the most significant propulsion and spaceflight engineering efforts in history. The program’s emphasis on reuse and rapid iteration reflects a broader shift in the aerospace industry toward more sustainable and economically viable access to space. In this context, SpaceX’s push for rapid booster turnaround, high engine utilization, and integrated on-site refurbishment at Starbase signifies a unique approach to achieving reliability and throughput on a scale that few other programs currently match.
The comparative advantage SpaceX seeks to cultivate rests on the combination of hardware sophistication, software-driven flight control, and a tightly integrated ground operations framework. The company’s experience with Falcon 9 has given it a robust playbook for mass production, quality control, and field reliability. Translating that playbook to a multi-engine, multi-stage booster like Super Heavy—and then to an orbital upper stage with Block 2 enhancements—creates a novel set of engineering challenges that SpaceX has chosen to tackle through aggressive testing, data-driven design improvements, and a culture of rapid iteration. The eventual success of Starship could influence other launch providers to re-evaluate their own reusability strategies, potentially accelerating a broader transition to more cost-effective, repeatable spaceflight capabilities across the industry.
From a customer perspective, the ability to execute frequent Starship flights—and to reuse major vehicle components with a predictable turnaround—would open new markets for satellite deployment, space logistics, and deep-space exploration missions. The prospect of a robust, reusable rocket system that can ferry large payloads with a flexible mission profile holds the promise of expanding access to space for a wider range of users, including research institutions, telecommunications operators, and future Moon- and Mars-focused programs. While the path to achieving these capabilities remains complex and fraught with technical and regulatory hurdles, the ongoing advancements in Booster 14’s reuse readiness, Block 2 upper-stage development, and regulatory collaboration are steps toward a future in which deep-space missions, constellation deployments, and crewed lunar operations could be supported by Starship at commercially viable scales.
Conclusion
SpaceX’s Starship program is navigating a pivotal period where progress on the Super Heavy booster’s reuse and the upper-stage improvements are converging with regulatory oversight and mission planning work for lunar exploration and beyond. Booster 14’s static-fire test underscores a meaningful stride in the push toward zero-touch reflight and rapid refurbishment, while the upper-stage Block 2 program continues to face the inherent complexities of scaling a spacecraft from suborbital tests to orbital operations. The FAA’s initial findings and the corrective actions implemented by SpaceX establish a safety- and reliability-focused foundation that will influence how quickly the program can advance toward higher flight cadence and more ambitious missions. As NASA’s Artemis program and other customers look for dependable access to space, Starship’s evolution remains a central question of whether a single, reusable architecture can deliver sustained, high-volume access to orbit and beyond. The next flights, tests, and regulatory milestones will be closely watched, as Starship and its Super Heavy booster move from a bold experimental program to a potentially transformative component of the global spaceflight landscape.