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

[daedalus1]

2031 earliest, 2033 likely, that's my estimate as well, based on current status as well.

I'll add that if 2026nos a no go, it'll make for an interesting 2028, Since there's no way 2028 will be a minimum campaign like 2026 will be.

I would really not be surprised if they end up doing a "fake TMI"/interplanetary cruise/Raptor relight after long cruise test *not* during a Mars synod, if they have to pass on 2026 (which I do think is likely).

They could test interplanetary cruise and real world boiloff in interplanetary space conditions and Raptor relighting after months off without actually going anywhere near Mars.

I doubt SpaceX is going to conduct 6+ refueling flights to go nowhere.

[meekGee]

Just the cost of the propellant would prohibitive, right?

[meekGee]

But seriously now.

Obviously the 2026 mission they're attempting is minimal, and I'll submit that its main purpose is to optimize the 2028 missions - basically decrease the number of unknowns during EDL, or else they'll waste too much of 2028 on the consequences of bad guesses.

Engine relight after cold soak can be tested in 2027 independent of any Mars flight.

Leg deploy is a low risk item. It's a deploy-once mechanism, easy to test, it's not a great concern.

So really, what's left is heat shielding and reentry profile through the Martian atmosphere. Learn that, and 2028 can be as large a campaign as they wish.

Setting the ship(s) down on their skirts is just gravy. If it works and they can then shove something out the door, great. It'll be a PR win.  Of the ship(s) can deploy solar and remain alive till 2028, even better.

Let's see ..

[DAA640]

Looking much more likely after today! Assuming the end of this year and all of next year they continue to progress the same rate (maybe 2025 prop transfer demo) then they can make the 2026 window with a showpiece at least.

[Vultur]

It could save 26 months of schedule if it avoids wasting a synod.

I don't think 6+ tankers would be needed. It doesn't actually have to go to Mars per se for this purpose, and LEO to Earth escape should only be something like 3500 m/s (depending on what LEO)? With a 380 Isp for Vac Raptor and a 100 t dry Starship, that's about 255 t initial mass = about 155 t propellant. That should be 2 tankers. (Eventually probably just 1 tanker, but I wouldn't assume they've optimized it to that point by 2027-early 2028.)

Could be a little more if current Starship is more than 100 t dry mass or current Vac Raptor isn't at 380 Isp, but I really can't see any way to get to 6+ tankers.

[InterestedEngineer]

It could save 26 months of schedule if it avoids wasting a synod.

I don't think 6+ tankers would be needed. It doesn't actually have to go to Mars per se for this purpose, and LEO to Earth escape should only be something like 3500 m/s (depending on what LEO)? With a 380 Isp for Vac Raptor and a 100 t dry Starship, that's about 255 t initial mass = about 155 t propellant. That should be 2 tankers. (Eventually probably just 1 tanker, but I wouldn't assume they've optimized it to that point by 2027-early 2028.)

Could be a little more if current Starship is more than 100 t dry mass or current Vac Raptor isn't at 380 Isp, but I really can't see any way to get to 6+ tankers.

you don't just leave Earth's SOI, you have to transit to Mars, and the farther away from the optimal window time, the more deltaV that's going to require.

it's more like 150t dry (if you want to have fuel in header tanks), and if 6 tanker loads = 1200t fuel that's 1350/150, with actual Isp at 370 (need SL engines to steer), you get ~8km/sec, which would allow you to get to Mars slightly out of the nominal transfer window.

the typical calculation for in-the-window will be 3-4 tankers, depending on cargo (and minimum is 3)

[thespacecow]

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...

And just like that, Starship stopped exploding, milestone achieved merely 3 weeks after this comment.

This is the SpaceX speed, something to think about.

[daedalus1]

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...

And just like that, Starship stopped exploding, milestone achieved merely 3 weeks after this comment.

This is the SpaceX speed, something to think about.

It wasn't exploding to begin, then it was,  now it hasn't..........

[meekGee]

It wasn't exploding to begin, then it was,  now it hasn't..........

Keep up the hope, maybe they'll fail again still....

Still though, also keep in mind Shotwell's recent reminder: Bet against SpaceX at your own peril.

[daedalus1]

Keep up the hope, maybe they'll fail again still....

Still though, also keep in mind Shotwell's recent reminder: Bet against SpaceX at your own peril.

I don't hope they fail, as I've said several times.
I just inject a bit of realism into the discussion.

[meekGee]

And just like that, Starship stopped exploding, milestone achieved merely 3 weeks after this comment.
...

It wasn't exploding to begin, then it was,  now it hasn't..........

My apologies.  Thank you for reminding us that this success could have only been an unfortunate fluke.

[daedalus1]

And just like that, Starship stopped exploding, milestone achieved merely 3 weeks after this comment.
...

It wasn't exploding to begin, then it was,  now it hasn't..........

My apologies.  Thank you for reminding us that this success could have only been an unfortunate fluke.

I'm actually reminding you that the future is not a certainty.

[meekGee]

And just like that, Starship stopped exploding, milestone achieved merely 3 weeks after this comment.
...

It wasn't exploding to begin, then it was,  now it hasn't..........

My apologies.  Thank you for reminding us that this success could have only been an unfortunate fluke.

I'm actually reminding you that the future is not a certainty.

Not once, not me, nor others, have said anything like that.

We said SpaceX will try, and given the time, it might be possible if all goes well.

You OTOH have only used absolute language along the lines of "it is not possible".

The only certainty is that if they won't try  they won't go

[daedalus1]

You all sound like cry babies - arguing like 6 years old. Booohoooo... 

Lol.
It's a discussion of differing opinions.

[Lee Jay]

Looking much more likely after today! Assuming the end of this year and all of next year they continue to progress the same rate (maybe 2025 prop transfer demo) then they can make the 2026 window with a showpiece at least.

I'm more pessimistic now about ship reusability than I was before this test.  Starship made it to the ocean but essentially every part of it was toast including the basic structure.  Shuttle made it down on the first try and was, in fact, reused despite being a mostly aluminum structure over 40 years ago.

I think reusability is a prerequisite for both Mars and the moon given the approach they want to take.

[SpaceLizard]

Looking much more likely after today! Assuming the end of this year and all of next year they continue to progress the same rate (maybe 2025 prop transfer demo) then they can make the 2026 window with a showpiece at least.

I'm more pessimistic now about ship reusability than I was before this test.  Starship made it to the ocean but essentially every part of it was toast including the basic structure.  Shuttle made it down on the first try and was, in fact, reused despite being a mostly aluminum structure over 40 years ago.

I think reusability is a prerequisite for both Mars and the moon given the approach they want to take.

But were they deliberately pushing shuttle outside of its operating envelope and trying to break it on its first flight? Because if the answer is no, then there is no comparison to what this ship just went through and no validity to conclusions drawn from such an apples to agates comparison.

[Lee Jay]

Looking much more likely after today! Assuming the end of this year and all of next year they continue to progress the same rate (maybe 2025 prop transfer demo) then they can make the 2026 window with a showpiece at least.

I'm more pessimistic now about ship reusability than I was before this test.  Starship made it to the ocean but essentially every part of it was toast including the basic structure.  Shuttle made it down on the first try and was, in fact, reused despite being a mostly aluminum structure over 40 years ago.

I think reusability is a prerequisite for both Mars and the moon given the approach they want to take.

But were they deliberately pushing shuttle outside of its operating envelope and trying to break it on its first flight? Because if the answer is no, then there is no comparison to what this ship just went through and no validity to conclusions drawn from such an apples to agates comparison.

The pushing they did had little to do with all the damage.  Most of it occurred before the excursions and they weren't the cause of most of the damage.

[crandles57]

It could save 26 months of schedule if it avoids wasting a synod.

I don't think 6+ tankers would be needed. It doesn't actually have to go to Mars per se for this purpose, and LEO to Earth escape should only be something like 3500 m/s (depending on what LEO)? With a 380 Isp for Vac Raptor and a 100 t dry Starship, that's about 255 t initial mass = about 155 t propellant. That should be 2 tankers. (Eventually probably just 1 tanker, but I wouldn't assume they've optimized it to that point by 2027-early 2028.)

Could be a little more if current Starship is more than 100 t dry mass or current Vac Raptor isn't at 380 Isp, but I really can't see any way to get to 6+ tankers.

you don't just leave Earth's SOI, you have to transit to Mars, and the farther away from the optimal window time, the more deltaV that's going to require.

it's more like 150t dry (if you want to have fuel in header tanks), and if 6 tanker loads = 1200t fuel that's 1350/150, with actual Isp at 370 (need SL engines to steer), you get ~8km/sec, which would allow you to get to Mars slightly out of the nominal transfer window.

the typical calculation for in-the-window will be 3-4 tankers, depending on cargo (and minimum is 3)

>min 3
Have you considered sending tanker as the Mars ship with an optimus strapped in nosecone instead of header tank (also rigged to receive fuel instead of supply)? If they have only a single use heatshield then tanker will be expended anyway and doesn't need header tank. Just two (one fairly standard tanker and one adapted to be mars ship) might get close to Mars with some admittedly fairly optimistic assumptions?

I imagine optimus having a cutting tool to cut porthole in nosecone in order to take pictures. That might be bad for aerocapture attempt, but inadequately prepared attempt probably doesn't get planetary protection approval for just atmospheric entry in time anyway.

[meekGee]

Looking much more likely after today! Assuming the end of this year and all of next year they continue to progress the same rate (maybe 2025 prop transfer demo) then they can make the 2026 window with a showpiece at least.

I'm more pessimistic now about ship reusability than I was before this test.  Starship made it to the ocean but essentially every part of it was toast including the basic structure.  Shuttle made it down on the first try and was, in fact, reused despite being a mostly aluminum structure over 40 years ago.

I think reusability is a prerequisite for both Mars and the moon given the approach they want to take.

But were they deliberately pushing shuttle outside of its operating envelope and trying to break it on its first flight? Because if the answer is no, then there is no comparison to what this ship just went through and no validity to conclusions drawn from such an apples to agates comparison.

The pushing they did had little to do with all the damage.  Most of it occurred before the excursions and they weren't the cause of most of the damage.

Incremental development is not for everyone...

I mean, remember how the first ships even looked?

Shuttle never looked like a quarter baked prototype, not even Enterprise...

There's 10 light years between the outdated v2 we see flying on a stress test flight, and the v3 and v4 that are on the factory floor and drawing boards.

[Twark_Main]

Looking much more likely after today! Assuming the end of this year and all of next year they continue to progress the same rate (maybe 2025 prop transfer demo) then they can make the 2026 window with a showpiece at least.

I'm more pessimistic now about ship reusability than I was before this test.  Starship made it to the ocean but essentially every part of it was toast including the basic structure.  Shuttle made it down on the first try and was, in fact, reused despite being a mostly aluminum structure over 40 years ago.

I think reusability is a prerequisite for both Mars and the moon given the approach they want to take.

But were they deliberately pushing shuttle outside of its operating envelope and trying to break it on its first flight? Because if the answer is no, then there is no comparison to what this ship just went through and no validity to conclusions drawn from such an apples to agates comparison.

The pushing they did had little to do with all the damage.  Most of it occurred before the excursions and they weren't the cause of most of the damage.

The entire trajectory was pushing the envelope (steeper), not just one section.

... and it's an old version. This is essentially SpaceX getting rid of junk cars in their yard.

... and they intentionally removed a bunch of tiles, and replaced others with test materials.


I came to read all the insightful commentary about the effect of this flight on future timeline expectations. Instead I find....  this?  Let's Do Better, gentlemen.