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

[daedalus1]

My measure as I've outlined many times is for just this thread headline question. And as I've outlined several times, is my opinion. You seem to have a problem accepting another person's opinion that differs from yours.
Again my opinion is zero chance of SpaceX sending a Starship during next mars launch window.

Yup you own your opinion.  It's just that when you try to give it credence, you fall back on general "SpaceX is fail" tropes, like "Starship is late", or "hasn't (officially) made orbit" - so you basically fail to connect the dots.

And then it falls upon us to show you the errors of your way.

I've given several reasons for my opinion all of which are valid. Especially the quote from Kathy Lueder.
You have not shown me anything to change my opinion.

A quote about flying many times in a previous year?   Yes we know the program is late.  The very question of whether it will fly to Mars in 2026 is proof of that - we hoped it would fly in 2024 too, and maybe 2022...

So no, you're not connecting any dots.

So you still haven't given me a reason to change my opinion.
It's best that we agree to disagree and let the short period of time left to unfold the truth.

[MickQ]

Guys.  Is this going to be another Twark_Main/Coastal Ron type relationship ??

Please don’t 🙏

[Tywin]

My measure as I've outlined many times is for just this thread headline question. And as I've outlined several times, is my opinion. You seem to have a problem accepting another person's opinion that differs from yours.
Again my opinion is zero chance of SpaceX sending a Starship during next mars launch window.

Yup you own your opinion.  It's just that when you try to give it credence, you fall back on general "SpaceX is fail" tropes, like "Starship is late", or "hasn't (officially) made orbit" - so you basically fail to connect the dots.

And then it falls upon us to show you the errors of your way.

I've given several reasons for my opinion all of which are valid. Especially the quote from Kathy Lueder.
You have not shown me anything to change my opinion.

A quote about flying many times in a previous year?   Yes we know the program is late.  The very question of whether it will fly to Mars in 2026 is proof of that - we hoped it would fly in 2024 too, and maybe 2022...

So no, you're not connecting any dots.

The only connecting right now are the explosion of the Starship...

It's almost imposible, that they go to Mars in less than 17 months...

[Twark_Main]

Guys.  Is this going to be another Twark_Main/Coastal Ron type relationship ??

Please don’t 🙏

Update: we're now happily married and expecting our first child in September, so I wish meekGee and daedalus1 all the best in their budding courtship. 

[InterestedEngineer]

So based on current and projected turnaround times and other wild estimates

Let's assume we get a successful Starship reuse flight by June of 2026, and their refurb time is 2 weeks.

That their build rate is one Starship a month.

That their booster turnaround time is a week and they have 4 reused or new boosters ready to go by Oct 2026

That the pad turnaround time is 2 days, and they only have one pad.

They will have also demonstrated orbital rendezvous and refuel at least once by Sept 2026

It takes 5 total Starship launches to get the fuel and Mars-bound Starship on its way.

June, July, Aug, Sept - 4 Starships built and used once and refurbished, plus the one they successfully reused the first time.

in October, over the course of 10 days, they launch the 5 Starships and 4x refuel one Starship, and it heads to Mars.


This is plausible, but it's definitely a stretch.   They really can't afford any more explosions especially the kind that take out ground infrastructure.

[meekGee]

The only connecting right now are the explosion of the Starship...

It's almost imposible, that they go to Mars in less than 17 months...

Hey you have a field day every time there's a problem, just remember that the only way not to fail is not to even try.

I believe the next flight is in two weeks. THAT is what should motivate predictions. Failure-to-reflight time is a hell of an indicator. Consider Dragon's history, mishaps and all, and how it worked out.

[meekGee]

So based on current and projected turnaround times and other wild estimates

Let's assume we get a successful Starship reuse flight by June of 2026, and their refurb time is 2 weeks.

That their build rate is one Starship a month.

That their booster turnaround time is a week and they have 4 reused or new boosters ready to go by Oct 2026

That the pad turnaround time is 2 days, and they only have one pad.

They will have also demonstrated orbital rendezvous and refuel at least once by Sept 2026

It takes 5 total Starship launches to get the fuel and Mars-bound Starship on its way.

June, July, Aug, Sept - 4 Starships built and used once and refurbished, plus the one they successfully reused the first time.

in October, over the course of 10 days, they launch the 5 Starships and 4x refuel one Starship, and it heads to Mars.


This is plausible, but it's definitely a stretch.   They really can't afford any more explosions especially the kind that take out ground infrastructure.

Focusing on the earlier stretch:

Let's assume ships 37 and 38 fly in the next two months. (Or 38 retires)

We heard 39 (v3) should fly this year.  I'll sandbag this and call it Jan 1, 2026.

We know boosters are reflyable already, and there are 5 ships in the barrel, probably 6-9 by years end.

There will likely use one pad to launch and one to catch ships with.

Let's assume all ships are needed to achieve ship reuse. (Heat shield, catch, refurb)

How long does it take to fly 6-9 ships like this?  Let's say 3 months.

So if things don't go sideways, they can start refueling tests (whatever wasn't done with the first 6-9 ships already) in April, except now with reusable ships and faster cadence, so 3 months?

The goal will be to have hardware, and start the real campaign, in July.

I also think that feasible is not the same as likely...  But I'll track against these milestones:

- 2025-10-01: Massey's is back for v3 ships
- 2025-12-01: Pad B is functional.
- 2026-01-01: First v3 ship is launched.
- 2026-02-01: Pad-A is functional again.
- 2026-04-01: Last one-time ship has flown.
- 2026-05-01: We see a ship with legs.
- 2026-06-01: Refueling demonstrated.
- 2026-07-01: Campaign starts.

As people have pointed out  there are all sorts of "improv" campaigns possible if this schedule doesn't look like it's happening, and there are about 2 months of margin in there, before real improv becomes necessary.

So this is just an arbitrary set of milestones to compare against.

But this is what I think a nominal effort would look like.

(Edit: added a couple more)

[catdlr]

.
.

There will likely use one pad to launch and one to catch ships with.
.
.
But this is what I think a nominal effort would look like.

meekGee

Is the entire plan on Pad-A to stay as-is but only be used for catching and potentially ongoing Ship static firing in addition to Massey when it's reconstructed? There will be more ships manufactured than boosters performing static fire tests; thus, having two Ship static fire test stands could help with scheduling.

Tony

[crandles57]

So based on current and projected turnaround times and other wild estimates

Let's assume we get a successful Starship reuse flight by June of 2026, and their refurb time is 2 weeks.

That their build rate is one Starship a month.

That their booster turnaround time is a week and they have 4 reused or new boosters ready to go by Oct 2026

That the pad turnaround time is 2 days, and they only have one pad.

They will have also demonstrated orbital rendezvous and refuel at least once by Sept 2026

It takes 5 total Starship launches to get the fuel and Mars-bound Starship on its way.

June, July, Aug, Sept - 4 Starships built and used once and refurbished, plus the one they successfully reused the first time.

in October, over the course of 10 days, they launch the 5 Starships and 4x refuel one Starship, and it heads to Mars.


This is plausible, but it's definitely a stretch.   They really can't afford any more explosions especially the kind that take out ground infrastructure.

One a month for ships is perhaps a little slow?

Once the design of tankers depots and ships is decided for the launch window, maybe having one come off the end of the line every 3 weeks is possible.

Musk claimed 2 to 3 weeks a couple of months ago but he tends to be optimistic but I am tending to think 3 weeks seems plausible soon once the design settles down.

However the time to build for each is more like 18 weeks (6 stands in megabays at that time multiplied by the 3 weeks) so have to have started the build of the last one at least 18 weeks before the window closes.

Before this they need to have settled on design not only for mars ship - likely just pez dispenser version they are currently doing, but also design for tankers (and depot if that is in the plan?). Easier if is no depot and just 4 tankers to refill the mars ship. So I think we need one tanker for testing around 24 weeks (18+3*2) prior to close of window to allow 3 more tankers to be built. This means SpaceX has to start building test tanker at least 18 weeks before that. So that is minimum 42 weeks prior to window close.

The first attempt at catching a starship may not be soon and I doubt the first one caught will be reused because there will be lessons to be learnt and applied. Ship 37 is not going orbital and there won't be a catch attempt. If 37 goes really well 38 might go to orbit but probably not caught. First v3 ship 39 might not be allowed to be caught because it is a new version and we may well be into 2026 (edit from 2027 typo) before ship 40 is allowed to be caught and that probably isn't reusable. We have to learn the lessons from the ship recovery and start building our test tanker by ~week 10 of 2026.

Is it even possible to build enough ships, tankers and boosters on this timeline?
It seems really really tight to me.

There is perhaps a little more time if you don't feel the need to test a tanker before settling on a design for the tankers but that seems fairly wild eyed optimist planning.

We would also have to hope our first test of restarting engines after long cold soak works and other things like solar panels for power during journey also all work well enough on what will be near? first attempt.

[meekGee]

.
.

There will likely use one pad to launch and one to catch ships with.
.
.
But this is what I think a nominal effort would look like.

meekGee

Is the entire plan on Pad-A to stay as-is but only be used for catching and potentially ongoing Ship static firing in addition to Massey when it's reconstructed? There will be more ships manufactured than boosters performing static fire tests; thus, having two Ship static fire test stands could help with scheduling.

Tony

Don't know!

I laid out one timeline that assumes a bunch of stuff, is plausible, and leads to a 2026 mars attempt...

There can be many alternatives.

Like they may run late, and there won't be dedicated Mars vehicles, they'll just chuck something in the general direction...

Or there may be a stretch involved, where pad A gets really reworked for a longer booster/ship...

I should add a "Mars surface ship spotted" on the timeline... (Just did)

[crandles57]

.
.

There will likely use one pad to launch and one to catch ships with.
.
.
But this is what I think a nominal effort would look like.

meekGee

Is the entire plan on Pad-A to stay as-is but only be used for catching and potentially ongoing Ship static firing in addition to Massey when it's reconstructed? There will be more ships manufactured than boosters performing static fire tests; thus, having two Ship static fire test stands could help with scheduling.

Tony

Don't know!

I laid out one timeline that assumes a bunch of stuff, is plausible, and leads to a 2026 mars attempt...

There can be many alternatives.

Like they may run late, and there won't be dedicated Mars vehicles, they'll just chuck something in the general direction...

Or there may be a stretch involved, where pad A gets really reworked for a longer booster/ship...

I should add a "Mars surface ship spotted" on the timeline... (Just did)

After launch of ship 38, I think probably start reworking the OLM at pad A as quickly as possible but tower is quickly modified for v3 catches and so still available for catches during that work.

This then enables, if they want, catch both ship and booster (at different times obviously) on pad B so that disruption to work on pad A OLM is minimised. Later when they want faster launch rate, catch both ship and booster (at different times obviously) on pad A so that pad B can be prepared to be ready for next launch without having to take time to prepare for a catches between launches? Whatever suits really, if they want to do two catches close together in time then one catch on each tower.


A different possibility I see is that if ship 39 is likely to approach being ready fairly early but pad B and/or v3 booster are facing longer delays then they will still have a v2 booster. Could they do a crossover hot stage ring that fits to v2 booster below it and v3 ship above it? Do you wait to either do this or until they can rule it out before starting OLM complete rebuild?

Other possibilities?
Rebuild tower for stretch versions? Unlikely to I hope.
Replace pad A chopsticks or just modify for v3 catches?

[TomH]

A different possibility I see is that if ship 39 is likely to approach being ready fairly early but pad B and/or v3 booster are facing longer delays then they will still have a v2 booster. Could they do a crossover hot stage ring that fits to v2 booster below it and v3 ship above it? Do you wait to either do this or until they can rule it out before starting OLM complete rebuild?

IIRC, V3 SH was to have 35-37 Raptor 3 engines. SS V3 wet mass is considerably more than SS V2. While a SH V2 with 33 Raptor 2 engines topped by SS V3 (far more prop plus 9 Raptors) would probably have >1 T/W for liftoff, how much >1 is a big question. If it is only marginally >1, then we are talking enormous gravity losses for the early seconds of the flight. If this assumption is accurate, a substantially higher mass SS on top of an underpowered SH seems self-defeating.

[crandles57]

A different possibility I see is that if ship 39 is likely to approach being ready fairly early but pad B and/or v3 booster are facing longer delays then they will still have a v2 booster. Could they do a crossover hot stage ring that fits to v2 booster below it and v3 ship above it? Do you wait to either do this or until they can rule it out before starting OLM complete rebuild?

IIRC, V3 SH was to have 35-37 Raptor 3 engines. SS V3 wet mass is considerably more than SS V2. While a SH V2 with 33 Raptor 2 engines topped by SS V3 (far more prop plus 9 Raptors) would probably have >1 T/W for liftoff, how much >1 is a big question. If it is only marginally >1, then we are talking enormous gravity losses for the early seconds of the flight. If this assumption is accurate, a substantially higher mass SS on top of an underpowered SH seems self-defeating.

I think the version 3 at ~end of year are still 33 and 6 engines. You are talking about the future version which is a long way away yet?

[sdsds]

Using the pad A tower only for ship catch seems like it fits the near-term timeline while clearly not being sustainable. Eventually they'll want to convert pad A for v3 SH use as well. Given the Starship rapid development methodology I put even odds on conversion of the pad A OLM as soon as they get a sufficiently successful test flight off that pad.

It might seem like having a V3 pad at the Cape is just as good, yet that doesn't provide the same (potentially amazing) photo opportunities. ;-)

There's also the real possibility that NASA would prefer HLS-related launches take place at the Cape. That leaves Starbase to handle all the Mars-related and developmental launches. Having two v3 pads for that seems really useful.

[crandles57]

Using the pad A tower only for ship catch seems like it fits the near-term timeline while clearly not being sustainable. Eventually they'll want to convert pad A for v3 SH use as well. Given the Starship rapid development methodology I put even odds on conversion of the pad A OLM as soon as they get a sufficiently successful test flight off that pad.

There is also the question of whether there is months of build time away from the pad before they roll it to the pad. Or is it easier to build it all at the pad once the existing OLM-A is no longer needed?

If the former, we might see build work elsewhere before flight 11 rather than only after successful flight 10 or flight 11?

[Norm38]

Like they may run late, and there won't be dedicated Mars vehicles, they'll just chuck something in the general direction...

That's my thought.  Just do something.  Throw mass in the general direction of Mars, and if it blows up on the way there, well we learned more than we did before.

[Norm38]

I doubt many of you are theater nerds, but I actually built sets for this show. (not this actual production)
"I know things now".  You don't know until it actually happens.  And if it doesn't happen, you don't know.

[meekGee]

A different possibility I see is that if ship 39 is likely to approach being ready fairly early but pad B and/or v3 booster are facing longer delays then they will still have a v2 booster. Could they do a crossover hot stage ring that fits to v2 booster below it and v3 ship above it? Do you wait to either do this or until they can rule it out before starting OLM complete rebuild?

IIRC, V3 SH was to have 35-37 Raptor 3 engines. SS V3 wet mass is considerably more than SS V2. While a SH V2 with 33 Raptor 2 engines topped by SS V3 (far more prop plus 9 Raptors) would probably have >1 T/W for liftoff, how much >1 is a big question. If it is only marginally >1, then we are talking enormous gravity losses for the early seconds of the flight. If this assumption is accurate, a substantially higher mass SS on top of an underpowered SH seems self-defeating.

I think the version 3 at ~end of year are still 33 and 6 engines. You are talking about the future version which is a long way away yet?

I agree. If the 2026 flight does not require it, I'd leave stretch till December 2026...  But then again that's me. I'm beyond guessing what Musk does

As for T/W>1 though, upper stages don't start out vertically, so T/W at separation is a desirement, not a requirement.

[Vultur]

Like they may run late, and there won't be dedicated Mars vehicles, they'll just chuck something in the general direction...

That's my thought.  Just do something.  Throw mass in the general direction of Mars, and if it blows up on the way there, well we learned more than we did before.

Yeah.

I think the chance of a Mars landing in 2027 (launched in 2026) is incredibly low.

An interplanetary cruise test (does the fuel boil off, can Raptors restart after months, etc.) pointed in the general direction of Mars (TMI, but no EDL) might be possible. Whether that fits this thread's criteria *shrug*. I meant "to Mars" to be that broad (going through TMI counts even if it doesn't make orbit or landing) but others might disagree.

I think an interplanetary cruise test like that might be possible in 17 months IF

1) V3 comes into service fairly smoothly (no more than one explosive failure setting back from what had previously been achieved)

2) they get FAA permission to do full-orbits by spring of next year (demonstrating relight with either the last couple v2 or the first or second v2)

3) propellant transfer test is demonstrated successfully by summer of next year (August or so)

Those imply 4) no major GSE destruction costing multiple months to repair

--

I don't think Ship reuse is actually necessary for this. They could demonstrate relight with Ships already built (37 or 38). One or two v3 flights to demonstrate v3 also works, a couple Starlink launches, two Ships for propellant transfer test, add two or three more for further destructive mishaps, five or so for the actual cruise test (1 + 4 tankers)... That's only 16 Ships or thereabouts (the first one already built), so I think they could build that in 17 months

That does require NASA letting them delay the HLS test until early 2027, or building even more Ships, though.
 

[crandles57]

I don't think Ship reuse is actually necessary for this. They could demonstrate relight with Ships already built (37 or 38). One or two v3 flights to demonstrate v3 also works, a couple Starlink launches, two Ships for propellant transfer test, add two or three more for further destructive mishaps, five or so for the actual cruise test (1 + 4 tankers)... That's only 16 Ships or thereabouts (the first one already built), so I think they could build that in 17 months

That does require NASA letting them delay the HLS test until early 2027, or building even more Ships, though.

16 ships plus 5 boosters if booster refurbishment takes over 2 weeks so they can't be reused during refuelling campaign? Boosters probably take longer to build but lets say a ship or booster coming off end of line every 3 weeks starting 1 Jan 2026. 21 needed but ships 37 and 38 are 2 of those. So 19*3weeks = 57 weeks which is past end of window.

Of course we can hope boosters are reusable within 2 or 3 days so that we only need 2 boosters.