Another Successful SpaceX Starship Prototype Hop Test

The SpaceX SN6 Starship prototype had a successful 150-meter hop test. This is the second SpaceX 150 meter hop test using a prototype Starship. There was Starhopper test flight in 2019.

Elon Musk tweeted there will be several short hop tests to ensure they have the launch process completely worked out. They will than add body flaps and go for high altitude testing.

SOURCES – SpaceX, Wikipedia, Everyday Astronaut
Written by Brian Wang,

21 thoughts on “Another Successful SpaceX Starship Prototype Hop Test”

  1. In the space market, commercial companies reached great success. Skyrora for example represents a new breed of private rocket companies developing the next generation of launch vehicles for the burgeoning small satellite market

  2. SLS has LH2 capability, and Musk doesn’t offer that. Alabama would have benefited from EELV assembly options more so than shuttle derived HLLV options that are less Rube Goldberg. People have been calling for SD-HLLVs for years before Congress finally listened.

  3. It needs to be "cured" the way Ronan the Accuser did in Guardians of the Galaxy – smashing with a giant hammer.

  4. No. SLS is not fixable. It would be a complete waste of Elon's time to have him spend any time even talking about SLS.

  5. The 20km hop, sky-dive and land is going to be exciting, almost no matter how it turns out…

    I'm guessing they'll do the first attempt over the ocean, simulating landing maybe 10m above the waves for observational purposes. Or maybe they'll use an existing landing ship – they're wide enough, though Starship is a lot taller than the Falcon9 booster.

  6. Every tiny hop gets to the goal. Lots to do over the next two months. First Starship flight and first big booster hop. It keeps me entertained while hunkered down.

  7. SLS has become pure political pork. Congress should defund SLS. And save the pork monies by establishing new programs to explore new habitat ideas, lunar colonies, space based power stations, asteroid mining and all the other new opportunities made feasible by StarShip.

  8. Incorrect. We need to use another planet as a testbed for technologies that will save this one. Can't do ecosphere-spanning tests on an O'Neill cylinder.

  9. See "Away" for great example of Mars propaganda. Headline is "Gotta Leave This Doomed Earth to Save This Doomed Earth". Well, that is true, but not by going to Mars! Bezos/O'Neill/Galileo have the correct understanding, Space is the place, not any planet, including Earth. Leave Earth to save it. Mars is too tiny to matter.

  10. They will say New Glenn is too small, as it can't support Mars Direct/First/Only plans the way SLS can. New Glenn is about like FH, I believe. That is why O'Neill is about ISRU, not bigger launch vehicles. They help, but why wait over 40 years for them. We could have started O'Neill long ago.

  11. The Space Development Network contacted the Representatives on the Space Subcommittee and other decision-makers after the first hop encouraging them to recognize the policy implications of Starship (vs SLS). We are also reaching out to other space advocate organizations to encourage them to do likewise with each major Starship progress.

  12. It's mostly the "one basket" argument which will probably be presented, which should become interesting once New Glenn (eventually) comes online. Then we will have two reusable options and SLS will have to find some other pretext.

  13. Presumably the parts of SLS+ can be launched as Starship cargo, then crewed once in place. The big expendable NASA rocket not needed at that time, well before SS is crew safe.

  14. I realize there are political reasons to keep the program going, i.e aerospace jobs, election votes, re-election campaigns, etc., but I guess I don't see how that benefits most members of Congress. Sen Shelby in AL is a big supporter of course since a lot of the SLS work is done in his state. But why the rest of the bunch in DC keep backing what appears to me is an evolutionary dead end is hard to fathom. I suppose that 2 heavy lift options are better than one (never put all your eggs in one basket, of course) but Starship is clearly much more advanced than SLS can ever hope to be.

  15. It wasn’t developed to NASA standards for crew safety, only SLS meets those requirements. It can’t be trusted for high value uncrewed missions like Europa clipper. It isn’t proven technology. Etc. That ought to get them though a launch or two of SLS. It will really get ridiculous comparing SpaceX Starship DearMoon or Lunar version vs Orion.

  16. Eventually SpaceX is going to have an operational Starship. At that point, what's the justification for Congress to keep the Space Launch System program? I'm not being sarcastic. Just politely asking the question.

Comments are closed.