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

[meekGee]

Back to near term work for 2026, SpaceX is now working on what I think are two entirely separated tracks:

- v2 ships (37,38) / pad A, an effort that for better or worse will not extend past December
- v3 ships (39 and onwards) / Massey's/ pad B, probably catch on pad A later on

The learnings of v2 should be centered around heat shield, payload deploy, fuel management.  I'm pretty sure the thrust/structure learnings, to a great extent, have been incorporated into v3 already and what's really needed is to test and fly THAT.

The v3 track is the gating one, and what I'm watching. The sooner they hit any milestone at Massey's the better. v2 is important but doesn't directly affect v3.

...and, v2 mishaps and recoveries eat up engineering bandwidth and mind share.  That's the sucky part.

[daedalus1]

In the span of a couple months, Musk's target has shifted 2+ years. Let's put aside the idealistic rhetoric and come back to reality:

- Test flight to Mars: 2028
- Humans to Mars: Not even worth discussing yet
- Self-sustaining city on Mars: Not happening this century

Eh, even if a human mission is 3-4 synods away it's definitely worth discussing. NASA was planning for humans to the moon way back with Mercury.

Yep, exactly.

When Bush announced Constellation in 2005, the goal is to land on the Moon in 2020, so planning 15 years ahead just for the Moon.

Most human spaceflight hardware takes at least 6~8 years to develop.

So not discussing human mission 6~8 years away is extremely dumb.

As for self-sustaining city on Mars, I think there's a good chance for this to happen in this century given the assistance of AI and robotics.

Yes, but not in this thread. The topic of this thread is very specific. 2026 launch window.

[uhuznaa]

Back to near term work for 2026, SpaceX is now working on what I think are two entirely separated tracks:

- v2 ships (37,38) / pad A, an effort that for better or worse will not extend past December
- v3 ships (39 and onwards) / Massey's/ pad B, probably catch on pad A later on

The learnings of v2 should be centered around heat shield, payload deploy, fuel management.  I'm pretty sure the thrust/structure learnings, to a great extent, have been incorporated into v3 already and what's really needed is to test and fly THAT.

The v3 track is the gating one, and what I'm watching. The sooner they hit any milestone at Massey's the better. v2 is important but doesn't directly affect v3.

...and, v2 mishaps and recoveries eat up engineering bandwidth and mind share.  That's the sucky part.

Yes, I think the major thing to test and validate in the two remaining v2 flights is the new flaps. If they don't manage to get to a controlled reentry v2 will have been a total waste and they will basically start from scratch with v3.

The satellite dispenser is important too, but this is basically independent from the rest of the vehicle. The flaps aren't, they need to gather data with this as soon as possible so they can apply this to v3.

And to "Mars in 2026": Throwing a ship towards Mars certainly isn't totally impossible if they manage to get the propellant depot working right away and get it filled (which needs the tankers working fine) and can fill a Mars ship with this without getting in the way of Artemis. Then to have the ship make it to Mars they need to get the thermal management and power (solar panels) and avionics for this together and it also will need some propulsion for course corrections and they have to nail all of this down until 2026.

I'd say to launch a ship in 2026 even to a close Mars fly-by (never mind EDL) they need to do everything perfectly right in a hurry now. Does it look this way? To me it doesn't. It's not totally impossible, but that's all.

[DigitalMan]

Gwynn’s post is very interesting.

https://x.com/Gwynne_Shotwell/status/1953432708014600369

[TomH]

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

I am referring to T/W of full stack at liftoff. Higher mass S2, but being lofted by lower thrust S1.

[crandles57]

Gwynn’s post is very interesting.

https://x.com/Gwynne_Shotwell/status/1953432708014600369

"Interesting" as in they will happily sell transport there. If that impedes their ability to do colony stuff so be it, it is about making money selling transport and the colony talk is just inspiring stuff to motivate people but it isn't really an aim they will put a whole lot of resources into if they can make money selling space transport services without having to talk up what they will do to promote the services they will offer?

Is that too cynical? They do have to get to mars to sell transport there and who knows how it will develop once it is possible. Seems a fair enough counter at this stage but is it hard to be too cynical?

Do you see it differently?

[meekGee]

Back to near term work for 2026, SpaceX is now working on what I think are two entirely separated tracks:

- v2 ships (37,38) / pad A, an effort that for better or worse will not extend past December
- v3 ships (39 and onwards) / Massey's/ pad B, probably catch on pad A later on

The learnings of v2 should be centered around heat shield, payload deploy, fuel management.  I'm pretty sure the thrust/structure learnings, to a great extent, have been incorporated into v3 already and what's really needed is to test and fly THAT.

The v3 track is the gating one, and what I'm watching. The sooner they hit any milestone at Massey's the better. v2 is important but doesn't directly affect v3.

...and, v2 mishaps and recoveries eat up engineering bandwidth and mind share.  That's the sucky part.

Yes, I think the major thing to test and validate in the two remaining v2 flights is the new flaps. If they don't manage to get to a controlled reentry v2 will have been a total waste and they will basically start from scratch with v3.

The satellite dispenser is important too, but this is basically independent from the rest of the vehicle. The flaps aren't, they need to gather data with this as soon as possible so they can apply this to v3.

And to "Mars in 2026": Throwing a ship towards Mars certainly isn't totally impossible if they manage to get the propellant depot working right away and get it filled (which needs the tankers working fine) and can fill a Mars ship with this without getting in the way of Artemis. Then to have the ship make it to Mars they need to get the thermal management and power (solar panels) and avionics for this together and it also will need some propulsion for course corrections and they have to nail all of this down until 2026.

I'd say to launch a ship in 2026 even to a close Mars fly-by (never mind EDL) they need to do everything perfectly right in a hurry now. Does it look this way? To me it doesn't. It's not totally impossible, but that's all.

Yes, agreed.  I thought only v3 has new flaps.

[catdlr]

Back to near term work for 2026, SpaceX is now working on what I think are two entirely separated tracks:

- v2 ships (37,38) / pad A, an effort that for better or worse will not extend past December
- v3 ships (39 and onwards) / Massey's/ pad B, probably catch on pad A later on

The learnings of v2 should be centered around heat shield, payload deploy, fuel management.  I'm pretty sure the thrust/structure learnings, to a great extent, have been incorporated into v3 already and what's really needed is to test and fly THAT.

The v3 track is the gating one, and what I'm watching. The sooner they hit any milestone at Massey's the better. v2 is important but doesn't directly affect v3.

...and, v2 mishaps and recoveries eat up engineering bandwidth and mind share.  That's the sucky part.

Yes, I think the major thing to test and validate in the two remaining v2 flights is the new flaps. If they don't manage to get to a controlled reentry v2 will have been a total waste and they will basically start from scratch with v3.

The satellite dispenser is important too, but this is basically independent from the rest of the vehicle. The flaps aren't, they need to gather data with this as soon as possible so they can apply this to v3.

And to "Mars in 2026": Throwing a ship towards Mars certainly isn't totally impossible if they manage to get the propellant depot working right away and get it filled (which needs the tankers working fine) and can fill a Mars ship with this without getting in the way of Artemis. Then to have the ship make it to Mars they need to get the thermal management and power (solar panels) and avionics for this together and it also will need some propulsion for course corrections and they have to nail all of this down until 2026.

I'd say to launch a ship in 2026 even to a close Mars fly-by (never mind EDL) they need to do everything perfectly right in a hurry now. Does it look this way? To me it doesn't. It's not totally impossible, but that's all.

Yes, agreed.  I thought only v3 has new flaps.

V3 Ship 39 has the new flaps installed in the factory production line. It appears they are working ahead of testing and obtaining the results of them on V2 Ships (or are they different on Ship 37 & 38)?

[rsdavis9]

They started with the front flaps moved to leeward (and shape change) on v2. I am not aware of any other flap change?

[InterestedEngineer]

Back to near term work for 2026, SpaceX is now working on what I think are two entirely separated tracks:

- v2 ships (37,38) / pad A, an effort that for better or worse will not extend past December
- v3 ships (39 and onwards) / Massey's/ pad B, probably catch on pad A later on

The learnings of v2 should be centered around heat shield, payload deploy, fuel management.  I'm pretty sure the thrust/structure learnings, to a great extent, have been incorporated into v3 already and what's really needed is to test and fly THAT.

The v3 track is the gating one, and what I'm watching. The sooner they hit any milestone at Massey's the better. v2 is important but doesn't directly affect v3.

...and, v2 mishaps and recoveries eat up engineering bandwidth and mind share.  That's the sucky part.

Yes, I think the major thing to test and validate in the two remaining v2 flights is the new flaps. If they don't manage to get to a controlled reentry v2 will have been a total waste and they will basically start from scratch with v3.

The satellite dispenser is important too, but this is basically independent from the rest of the vehicle. The flaps aren't, they need to gather data with this as soon as possible so they can apply this to v3.

And to "Mars in 2026": Throwing a ship towards Mars certainly isn't totally impossible if they manage to get the propellant depot working right away and get it filled (which needs the tankers working fine) and can fill a Mars ship with this without getting in the way of Artemis. Then to have the ship make it to Mars they need to get the thermal management and power (solar panels) and avionics for this together and it also will need some propulsion for course corrections and they have to nail all of this down until 2026.

I'd say to launch a ship in 2026 even to a close Mars fly-by (never mind EDL) they need to do everything perfectly right in a hurry now. Does it look this way? To me it doesn't. It's not totally impossible, but that's all.

Yes, agreed.  I thought only v3 has new flaps.

V3 Ship 39 has the new flaps installed in the factory production line. It appears they are working ahead of testing and obtaining the results of them on V2 Ships (or are they different on Ship 37 & 38)?

it's true they haven't tested the V2 flaps with a proper re-entry, but given the CFD simulation results of the hot stage separation, they are probably feeling reasonably confident of their CFD models for re-entry, which have been tested multiple times.

So I don't think V3 will have much risk in copying the as yet untested flap design of V2.

[Coastal Ron]

Eh, even if a human mission is 3-4 synods away it's definitely worth discussing. NASA was planning for humans to the moon way back with Mercury.

Yep, exactly.

When Bush announced Constellation in 2005, the goal is to land on the Moon in 2020, so planning 15 years ahead just for the Moon.

Most human spaceflight hardware takes at least 6~8 years to develop.

What? Not for hardware meant to go to space with humans. The Orion MPCV contract was awarded in 2006, so 19 years and counting without a human-rated version. For Commercial Crew it took SpaceX 9 years from initial award to first Dragon Crew operational flight (and they could leverage the Dragon Cargo version as a starting point), and Boeing is at 15+ years so far for Starliner.

The Artemis program lucked out that SpaceX was already building Starship BEFORE the Artemis Human Landing System (HLS) competition, and the carbon fiber version of Starship (i.e. BFR then) started construction in 2018, so Starship has been in hardware development for at least 7 years.

I think your estimate comes from the 1960's, when the goals and hardware were more simple and more risk was acceptable. Depending on who is building what, and how much political will there is during development, I'd say that at least 10 years is needed for a brand new design.

So not discussing human mission 6~8 years away is extremely dumb.

When this thread was started the "irrational exuberance" level was much higher, but now that SpaceX has had a string of failures, and the public has a good idea what the challenges still are, I'd say that the chances are highly unlikely that a Starship (without humans onboard) will leave for Mars in 2026. But regardless the odds, talking about it makes sense.

[meekGee]

Eh, even if a human mission is 3-4 synods away it's definitely worth discussing. NASA was planning for humans to the moon way back with Mercury.

Yep, exactly.

When Bush announced Constellation in 2005, the goal is to land on the Moon in 2020, so planning 15 years ahead just for the Moon.

Most human spaceflight hardware takes at least 6~8 years to develop.

What? Not for hardware meant to go to space with humans. The Orion MPCV contract was awarded in 2006, so 19 years and counting without a human-rated version. For Commercial Crew it took SpaceX 9 years from initial award to first Dragon Crew operational flight (and they could leverage the Dragon Cargo version as a starting point), and Boeing is at 15+ years so far for Starliner.

The Artemis program lucked out that SpaceX was already building Starship BEFORE the Artemis Human Landing System (HLS) competition, and the carbon fiber version of Starship (i.e. BFR then) started construction in 2018, so Starship has been in hardware development for at least 7 years.

I think your estimate comes from the 1960's, when the goals and hardware were more simple and more risk was acceptable. Depending on who is building what, and how much political will there is during development, I'd say that at least 10 years is needed for a brand new design.

So not discussing human mission 6~8 years away is extremely dumb.

When this thread was started the "irrational exuberance" level was much higher, but now that SpaceX has had a string of failures, and the public has a good idea what the challenges still are, I'd say that the chances are highly unlikely that a Starship (without humans onboard) will leave for Mars in 2026. But regardless the odds, talking about it makes sense.

Sure, but the rocket and vehicle are already flying.  Sure there's iterations ahead, especially on Ship, but we're not at an early award stage for starting a design.

[Lee Jay]

When this thread was started the "irrational exuberance" level was much higher, but now that SpaceX has had a string of failures,...

It was even worse in the last thread.

« Reply #5 on: 08/26/2022 11:20 pm »
LOLs, memory fades so quickly...

It's been only 3 years since StarHopper's flight, and this includes the entire build-up of Starbase, the FAA saga, and the major design decisions for SH and SS.

So yeah, of course they'll fly to Mars in 2024.

In 2022 the prediction was 2024 - 2 years.  Now it looks like 2028.  So, it looks like multiplying time estimates by pi is still pretty close.

[Coastal Ron]

When this thread was started the "irrational exuberance" level was much higher, but now that SpaceX has had a string of failures, and the public has a good idea what the challenges still are, I'd say that the chances are highly unlikely that a Starship (without humans onboard) will leave for Mars in 2026. But regardless the odds, talking about it makes sense.

Sure, but the rocket and vehicle are already flying.

Yes, and the Booster seems like it is progressing nicely in its development program. However the Ship, which has a number of different flight environments that it has to successfully succeed in, has shown that "space is hard".

Sure there's iterations ahead, especially on Ship, but we're not at an early award stage for starting a design.

I never said there was, I was responding to the previous poster who said:

Most human spaceflight hardware takes at least 6~8 years to develop.

Specifically because of the Ship, not the Booster, I think the chances are slim that SpaceX makes a 2026 launch to Mars with an uncrewed Starship. Not impossible, but based on the learning curve we have been watching with the Ship, pretty slim in my opinion...

[meekGee]

When this thread was started the "irrational exuberance" level was much higher, but now that SpaceX has had a string of failures, and the public has a good idea what the challenges still are, I'd say that the chances are highly unlikely that a Starship (without humans onboard) will leave for Mars in 2026. But regardless the odds, talking about it makes sense.

Sure, but the rocket and vehicle are already flying.

Yes, and the Booster seems like it is progressing nicely in its development program. However the Ship, which has a number of different flight environments that it has to successfully succeed in, has shown that "space is hard".

Sure there's iterations ahead, especially on Ship, but we're not at an early award stage for starting a design.

Most human spaceflight hardware takes at least 6~8 years to develop.

Specifically because of the Ship, not the Booster, I think the chances are slim that SpaceX makes a 2026 launch to Mars with an uncrewed Starship. Not impossible, but based on the learning curve we have been watching with the Ship, pretty slim in my opinion...

I think we're in agreement on ship, in that any Mars bound flight this window will be quite a win, that EDL learnings will take at least one window, starting 2028, and so humans in 2030 will also require a lot of stars to align.  More likely 2032, and 2024 won't surprise me.

Still only 8ish years from now.

[Robotbeat]

I don’t see why they couldn’t attempt an EDL in 2026.

[daedalus1]

I don’t see why they couldn’t attempt an EDL in 2026.

Read comment #457.
The 1st attempt will be a Mars landing as Elon Musk has stated several times. Also he says 2026 is extremely tight even if there were no problems in between.

[meekGee]

I don’t see why they couldn’t attempt an EDL in 2026.

Read comment #457.
The 1st attempt will be a Mars landing as Elon Musk has stated several times. Also he says 2026 is extremely tight even if there were no problems in between.

What he said was that to perform a robot-crewed in 2026 flight ("full plan") is very difficult.

He didn't say (nor can he predict) what they'll be able to do come say August when it becomes clear that the full plan just won't happen in time.

It stands to reason that if a full plan flight is not possible, a less-than-full flight (e.g. EDL only) might still be.

[daedalus1]

I don’t see why they couldn’t attempt an EDL in 2026.

Read comment #457.
The 1st attempt will be a Mars landing as Elon Musk has stated several times. Also he says 2026 is extremely tight even if there were no problems in between.

What he said was that to perform a robot-crewed in 2026 flight ("full plan") is very difficult.

He didn't say (nor can he predict) what they'll be able to do come say August when it becomes clear that the full plan just won't happen in time.

It stands to reason that if a full plan flight is not possible, a less-than-full flight (e.g. EDL only) might still be.

What do you class as less than a full flight?

[meekGee]

What do you class as less than a full flight?

Well TBH what he described (basically a starship crewed by robots, as an immediate precursor to a manned flight) is a lot more than I'd have thought was even entertained.

I was hoping that they'll be able to get orbital refueling done, and be able to send something that will try to land in one piece and probably fail.  Maybe just "touch" land.

Not very different than the expectation I had from the first Earth EDL...  "Please let the engine at least relight".

I'd consider any Mars intersecting flight with an attempt to relight a win.

It'll give a 2028 robo-flight a better chance, and still I think, even if that's successful, it'll take one more window before people can go, since they need to demonstrate reliable EDL.

---

l'll tell you something else tho.  Starship as a program is like 10 years old now. For me as an observer, the breakout of AI is about 2 years old. I expect people on the inside, like Musk, have seen this coming 2-3 years earlier.

I'm not talking about General AI but just "Useful" AI.

This will have more of an impact on the timeline going forward post first landings than a new form of propulsion would have.  Say in the 10-yr timeframe and onwards.

How long before they land a nuclear reactor - brain cluster?


(And this is from someone who up to a year ago dismissed any notion of useful even semi autonomous robots on Mars)