Will a Starship go to Mars in the 2026 launch window?

[M.E.T.]

They need a hardware rich approach to achieve the fastest schedule possible. Send a dozen ships to Mars as soon as possible, and crashland them to gain the maximum data to speed up a successful landing.

This is the way, if we want to make it before Earth descends into an imminent dark age. I honestly think Elon’s urgency has been heightened by his increasing concern that our civilizational window is closing faster than he had expected.

[DanClemmensen]

So transfer fuel in LEO is the bottleneck for a trip to Mars in my eyes. So 2026 seems doable for a trip

There are several critical milestones and each of them is a possible bottleneck, but since they can work on some of them in parallel it's not clear that fuel transfer is "the" bottleneck. For example, SpaceX may consider that booster reuse is so important to Starship success that it must be proven before they can attempt fuel transfer. In a project as complex as Starship and especially with the SpaceX hardware-rich development philosophy, The PERT chart is subject to weekly updates, so the "bottleneck" is subject to change.

[matthewkantar]

SpaceX may have to build an offshore facility to avoid environmental issues for launching.  Landing the Starship may have to be on land using legs if the chopsticks can't catch the Starship under the 2 fins.  The booster at least has 4 grid fins for catching.  Hoovering for catch may use a lot of fuel. 

Lots of things to work out.

I’m not so sure an off shore launch platform will help much, SpaceX is a US entity, and the open ocean is still in the environment. There will still be as much red tape as the feds want to generate.

[Coopman0]

I doubt it. Especially with the in-orbit refueling maneuver not even having been attempted yet, much less two Starships in-orbit simultaneously. I could see them making the 2028 window though given how they've been progressing.

[DanClemmensen]

They need a hardware rich approach to achieve the fastest schedule possible. Send a dozen ships to Mars as soon as possible, and crashland them to gain the maximum data to speed up a successful landing.

This is the way, if we want to make it before Earth descends into an imminent dark age. I honestly think Elon’s urgency has been heightened by his increasing concern that our civilizational window is closing faster than he had expected.

Agreed, but descent into a dark age is not necessarily an existential threat. I think Elon is probably worried about all of them, not just that one.

[friendly3]

Currently reading the book called Challenger and it feels like we are on a repeat about reusable spacecraft timescales. As back in the day there was lots of optimistic talk about the shuttle and when it would first fly and what it would do, and here we are again and I don’t expect the result to be any different than that time.

SpaceX already disproved your "point" with Falcon 9's first stages and fairings, Starship will be the final nail in the coffin of this myth.

[chopsticks]

Currently reading the book called Challenger and it feels like we are on a repeat about reusable spacecraft timescales. As back in the day there was lots of optimistic talk about the shuttle and when it would first fly and what it would do, and here we are again and I don’t expect the result to be any different than that time.

SpaceX already disproved your "point" with Falcon 9's first stages and fairings, Starship will be the final nail in the coffin of this myth.

And yet SpaceX is still charging like $60 million or something for a F9 launch.

I'll believe it when I see it.

And to answer the question: lol, no.

[Vultur]

A recent Ars Technica article implied SpaceX is supposed to demonstrate orbital refueling in spring 2025. I expect that to slip since this is Sept and IFT 5 still hasn't launched, but it's still likely to be demonstrated by late 2026 as it will be needed for Artemis purposes. Summer-fall 2025 would seem reasonable, they'll probably have the second Boca Chica launch pad ready by spring/early summer.

The things that make *me* skeptical of a 2026 landing are:
- regulatory issues around planetary protection
- Artemis timing (if they need to launch a bunch of tankers for Artemis right around the Mars window, they probably won't yet have the cadence for both)

The first wouldn't prevent an interplanetary flight test (TMI and testing low cryo boil off for the duration of a Mars trip, testing relight of Raptors after that duration, but doing a flyby rather than landing) so that strikes me as much more plausible. Especially since the exact window is less critical if you're not going to Mars itself, so the second problem is mitigated too.

[ZachF]

Currently reading the book called Challenger and it feels like we are on a repeat about reusable spacecraft timescales. As back in the day there was lots of optimistic talk about the shuttle and when it would first fly and what it would do, and here we are again and I don’t expect the result to be any different than that time.

I've really grown to hate the modern British sour grapes/declinism/degrowth/tall poppy/crab bucket mentality.

[friendly3]

Currently reading the book called Challenger and it feels like we are on a repeat about reusable spacecraft timescales. As back in the day there was lots of optimistic talk about the shuttle and when it would first fly and what it would do, and here we are again and I don’t expect the result to be any different than that time.

SpaceX already disproved your "point" with Falcon 9's first stages and fairings, Starship will be the final nail in the coffin of this myth.

And yet SpaceX is still charging like $60 million or something for a F9 launch.

I'll believe it when I see it.

And to answer the question: lol, no.

LOL, there was no question in my post.
That's a non sequitur, the launch price of a Falcon 9 isn't related to SpaceX' internal costs or whether reusability allowed these costs to go down. They obviously did.
I don't care what you believe. And the good news is that since SpaceX is a private company they'll never release their internal costs, so you'll be able to "believe" what you want till the end of your life.
But there are multiple sources indicating that the launch cost of a Falcon 9 is around $20 to $25 million, SpaceX even launched NASA's IXPE satellite for $50 million in order to undercut the price of the Pegasus rocket. And these $50 million included the launch itself and other mission-related costs : https://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-contract-to-launch-nasa-small-astrophysics-mission/

Currently reading the book called Challenger and it feels like we are on a repeat about reusable spacecraft timescales. As back in the day there was lots of optimistic talk about the shuttle and when it would first fly and what it would do, and here we are again and I don’t expect the result to be any different than that time.

I've really grown to hate the modern British sour grapes/declinism/degrowth/tall poppy/crab bucket mentality.

It's not "British", it's Western European sour grapes/declinism/degrowth/tall poppy/crab bucket mentality.

[Spiceman]

It's not "British", it's Western European sour grapes/declinism/degrowth/tall poppy/crab bucket mentality.

Incorrect boullechitte (nah, screw political correctness !)

[ZachF]

Currently reading the book called Challenger and it feels like we are on a repeat about reusable spacecraft timescales. As back in the day there was lots of optimistic talk about the shuttle and when it would first fly and what it would do, and here we are again and I don’t expect the result to be any different than that time.

SpaceX already disproved your "point" with Falcon 9's first stages and fairings, Starship will be the final nail in the coffin of this myth.

And yet SpaceX is still charging like $60 million or something for a F9 launch.

I'll believe it when I see it.

And to answer the question: lol, no.

F9 is priced to maximize profit, which SX is then using to build Starlink and Starship.

If Falcon 9 costs $25 million and is selling for $60m, it doesn't make sense to lower the cost unless they are going to make it up in volume. 

[friendly3]

F9 is priced to maximize profit, which SX is then using to build Starlink and Starship.
If Falcon 9 costs $25 million and is selling for $60m, it doesn't make sense to lower the cost unless they are going to make it up in volume.

They all know that.

It's not "British", it's Western European sour grapes/declinism/degrowth/tall poppy/crab bucket mentality.

Incorrect boullechitte (nah, screw political correctness !)

Hi, fellow unbiased Western European! Obviously "boulechitte" means that you're French, are you sure that we're really incorrect about Western European negative mentality?

Edit to align with Spiceman's edit.

[Star One]

Currently reading the book called Challenger and it feels like we are on a repeat about reusable spacecraft timescales. As back in the day there was lots of optimistic talk about the shuttle and when it would first fly and what it would do, and here we are again and I don’t expect the result to be any different than that time.

SpaceX already disproved your "point" with Falcon 9's first stages and fairings, Starship will be the final nail in the coffin of this myth.

And yet SpaceX is still charging like $60 million or something for a F9 launch.

I'll believe it when I see it.

And to answer the question: lol, no.

Precisely. It’s no more true now as it was then.

[Star One]

Currently reading the book called Challenger and it feels like we are on a repeat about reusable spacecraft timescales. As back in the day there was lots of optimistic talk about the shuttle and when it would first fly and what it would do, and here we are again and I don’t expect the result to be any different than that time.

I've really grown to hate the modern British sour grapes/declinism/degrowth/tall poppy/crab bucket mentality.

And I’ve really grown to dislike the massively over optimistic verging on delusional approach of some followers online of certain companies. Plus their complete inability to take any criticism no matter how mild.

[friendly3]

Currently reading the book called Challenger and it feels like we are on a repeat about reusable spacecraft timescales. As back in the day there was lots of optimistic talk about the shuttle and when it would first fly and what it would do, and here we are again and I don’t expect the result to be any different than that time.

I've really grown to hate the modern British sour grapes/declinism/degrowth/tall poppy/crab bucket mentality.

And I’ve really grown to dislike the massively over optimistic verging on delusional approach of some followers online of certain companies. Plus their complete inability to take any criticism no matter how mild.

Well, his point (and mine) is that this isn't real "criticism" but sour grapes/declinism/degrowth/tall poppy/crab bucket mentality disguised as "criticism".
Ten years ago guys like you swore up and down that SpaceX would never reach Mars, now you can only "assure" us that it will be later that we think.
But in the end we'll be much closer than never, won't we? You've all discredited yourselves on your own a long time ago.

[meekGee]

Currently reading the book called Challenger and it feels like we are on a repeat about reusable spacecraft timescales. As back in the day there was lots of optimistic talk about the shuttle and when it would first fly and what it would do, and here we are again and I don’t expect the result to be any different than that time.

I've really grown to hate the modern British sour grapes/declinism/degrowth/tall poppy/crab bucket mentality.

And I’ve really grown to dislike the massively over optimistic verging on delusional approach of some followers online of certain companies. Plus their complete inability to take any criticism no matter how mild.

Come on.  Bucket these "concerns" with the concerns over F9 landings and reusability, and Starlink catching the sky on fire and what was it - ruining the entire body of star-related poetry?

Some people simply don't like change and progress.

Some of it is rational - change and progress do usually give rise to new problems, though it's still wrong, because the old ways have problems too, and new ways also introduce solutions.

Some of it is entirely irrational. There are people that just emotionally don't like change.

Oddly, these traits are orthogonal to the classic "conservative/progressive" labels. I kinda wish politics were split along these lines, because it would make things so much easier.

Circling back - there is no inherent reason cheap reusability is impossible. Shuttle was destined to fail because of the environment that designed it. People that project forward from that are almost gleeful about that failure.

We saw that glee on full display on IFT1 when he first launch pad got excavated, and we'll see it again every time something else fails.

I'll tell y'all the same thing I told the detractors at the early stages of Falcon development: the dogs bark, but the caravan still travels.

[Riccardo11]

What about a Starship Mars Orbiter with an useful payload (say, high bandwidth comms) for the 2026 timeframe? This should avoid all the regulatory problems.

[ZachF]

What about a Starship Mars Orbiter with an useful payload (say, high bandwidth comms) for the 2026 timeframe? This should avoid all the regulatory problems.

Some sort of robot that could build a better landing pad would probably be good

[meekGee]

What about a Starship Mars Orbiter with an useful payload (say, high bandwidth comms) for the 2026 timeframe? This should avoid all the regulatory problems.

The longer you don't do it, the bigger the problem gets.

PP was crafted with the conops of tiny robotic landers with very limited instruments which could be fooled by forward contamination.

The prospect of forward contamination "ruining the planet for science" is a non starter. Earth is already "forward contaminated" and science has no problem interpreting historical findings, and on Earth the contaminants are a lot more similar to the targets as they would be on Mars.

At this point it's just another convenient excuse not to do stuff.