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

[crandles57]

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.

That seems very optimistic interpretation of what he described.

Musk wrote "flight to Mars crewed by Optimus". What does this mean?

"To Mars" could optimistically interpreted mean landing on Mars or it could (more realistically) be just a flyby

"crewed by Optimus" could optimistically interpreted mean Optimus is doing tasks on the journey but more realistically Starship computers and software will be running the mission and all they will get Optimus to do is wave at a camera with Mars in the background.

If you take the optimistic interpretations as what you believe, and this was no longer possible or only a slight chance, Musk would almost certainly then still be trying to do something like put Marslink satellites in orbit around Mars. So it is only sensible for us to conclude he was talking about an Optimus wave flyby mission and that is all that remains as a slight chance. Even calling that a slight chance is probably optimistic.

How many seriously actually believes such an optimistic interpretation? How does that compare to the numbers that take the more pessimistic view that the terminology is likely marketing speech / intended as inspiring stuff that will in reality likely take a lot longer?

[daedalus1]

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)

So you are still talking about a soft mars landing.
A dry Starship weighs about 120 tonnes. At least three to four times that mass in fuel will be required to send it on a trajectory to Mars.
That's at least three, more like six refueling flights.
Referring to my previous posts this is a long way from being demonstrated, and first use needs to demonstrated a flight to the lunar surface and takeoff noxt year for the Artemis programme.
Elon Musk says it's probably doable if there are no problems in the meantime, this plainly will not happen.

[Cabbage123]

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

Flyby or just intersecting the orbit?

I think somebody did some calculations recently to show that even reaching Mars's orbit requires refuelling, so, if those calculations are correct, once you have the potential to reach Mars orbit, you already have refuelling and so you have the potential to land (at least from a propellant POV).

If the window is missed for a Mars flyby, does SpaceX launch a later intersecting flight to test cruise and relight while waiting for the next window?

There is still a lot of mention of depots, but Elon's last presentation seemed to only discuss ship to ship transfers. He said something like "you launch a ship and then you send a bunch of other ships to refuel that ship before it heads of to Mars". So I'm not sure how much depots are part of the initially planned architecture (despite the much discussed risk reduction of a ship refuelling from one depot vs multiple ships).

If ship to ship is the initial plan, that might be a shorter path to a first trip (I still don't think it is doable for the next window though).

[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.

That seems very optimistic interpretation of what he described.

Musk wrote "flight to Mars crewed by Optimus". What does this mean?

"To Mars" could optimistically interpreted mean landing on Mars or it could (more realistically) be just a flyby

"crewed by Optimus" could optimistically interpreted mean Optimus is doing tasks on the journey but more realistically Starship computers and software will be running the mission and all they will get Optimus to do is wave at a camera with Mars in the background.

If you take the optimistic interpretations as what you believe, and this was no longer possible or only a slight chance, Musk would almost certainly then still be trying to do something like put Marslink satellites in orbit around Mars. So it is only sensible for us to conclude he was talking about an Optimus wave flyby mission and that is all that remains as a slight chance. Even calling that a slight chance is probably optimistic.

How many seriously actually believes such an optimistic interpretation? How does that compare to the numbers that take the more pessimistic view that the terminology is likely marketing speech / intended as inspiring stuff that will in reality likely take a lot longer?

But he didn't just say that.

He also talked about the next flight with humans, right?  This frames the function of the first flight, which has to be a dress rehearsal. 

There are other much simpler 2026 scenarios, but he didn't address those at all, for the obvious reasons.

[crandles57]

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.

That seems very optimistic interpretation of what he described.

Musk wrote "flight to Mars crewed by Optimus". What does this mean?

"To Mars" could optimistically interpreted mean landing on Mars or it could (more realistically) be just a flyby

"crewed by Optimus" could optimistically interpreted mean Optimus is doing tasks on the journey but more realistically Starship computers and software will be running the mission and all they will get Optimus to do is wave at a camera with Mars in the background.

If you take the optimistic interpretations as what you believe, and this was no longer possible or only a slight chance, Musk would almost certainly then still be trying to do something like put Marslink satellites in orbit around Mars. So it is only sensible for us to conclude he was talking about an Optimus wave flyby mission and that is all that remains as a slight chance. Even calling that a slight chance is probably optimistic.

How many seriously actually believes such an optimistic interpretation? How does that compare to the numbers that take the more pessimistic view that the terminology is likely marketing speech / intended as inspiring stuff that will in reality likely take a lot longer?

But he didn't just say that.

He also talked about the next flight with humans, right?  This frames the function of the first flight, which has to be a dress rehearsal. 

There are other much simpler 2026 scenarios, but he didn't address those at all, for the obvious reasons.

The tweet was
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1953028261044187204

Slight chance of Starship flight to Mars crewed by Optimus in Nov/Dec next year. A lot needs to go right for that.

More likely, first flight without humans in ~3.5 years, next flight ~5.5 years with humans.

Mars city self-sustaining in 20 to 30 years.

Don't you see it is all highly aspirational? He clearly doesn't literally mean one single Starship flight in 2028/9 then humans on the second Starship flight in 2031. There would be lots of flights in the 2028/9 synod to take equipment and there would have to be a very high success rate with those 2028/9 flights in order to risk sending humans in 2031.

He is admitting the chances are lower than previously admitted then trying to counter that by saying 'but we are still going to do it soon'.

[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.

That seems very optimistic interpretation of what he described.

Musk wrote "flight to Mars crewed by Optimus". What does this mean?

"To Mars" could optimistically interpreted mean landing on Mars or it could (more realistically) be just a flyby

"crewed by Optimus" could optimistically interpreted mean Optimus is doing tasks on the journey but more realistically Starship computers and software will be running the mission and all they will get Optimus to do is wave at a camera with Mars in the background.

If you take the optimistic interpretations as what you believe, and this was no longer possible or only a slight chance, Musk would almost certainly then still be trying to do something like put Marslink satellites in orbit around Mars. So it is only sensible for us to conclude he was talking about an Optimus wave flyby mission and that is all that remains as a slight chance. Even calling that a slight chance is probably optimistic.

How many seriously actually believes such an optimistic interpretation? How does that compare to the numbers that take the more pessimistic view that the terminology is likely marketing speech / intended as inspiring stuff that will in reality likely take a lot longer?

But he didn't just say that.

He also talked about the next flight with humans, right?  This frames the function of the first flight, which has to be a dress rehearsal. 

There are other much simpler 2026 scenarios, but he didn't address those at all, for the obvious reasons.

The tweet was
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1953028261044187204

Slight chance of Starship flight to Mars crewed by Optimus in Nov/Dec next year. A lot needs to go right for that.

More likely, first flight without humans in ~3.5 years, next flight ~5.5 years with humans.

Mars city self-sustaining in 20 to 30 years.

Don't you see it is all highly aspirational? He clearly doesn't literally mean one single Starship flight in 2028/9 then humans on the second Starship flight in 2031. There would be lots of flights in the 2028/9 synod to take equipment and there would have to be a very high success rate with those 2028/9 flights in order to risk sending humans in 2031.

He is admitting the chances are lower than previously admitted then trying to counter that by saying 'but we are still going to do it soon'.

I see this:
Plan for robo-flight 2026 and manned flight 2028 will not happen.
What he's aspiring to is robo-flight in 2028 (3.5 years) and manned flight in 2030.

I already commented that even if robo-flight happens in 2028, it will probably take yet another window before people can go.

He did not say what IS possible in 2026. I think the next part shows what they originally wanted to do in 2026, many months and explosions ago, but right now, I still think they'll try for  whatever they can scrape up and specifically try to get to EDL and engine relight.

It's easy to dismiss because of recent track record, but you're forgetting how fast things go when they go right.

If v3 is successful, much can be done in 8-9 months

[crandles57]

It's easy to dismiss because of recent track record, but you're forgetting how fast things go when they go right.

If v3 is successful, much can be done in 8-9 months

8-9 months? you think lots can happen? huh?
Ship 38 was first identified 6 Dec 2024, 9 months later it probably won't be launched.

SpaceX needs to:

Launch v3
Get to full orbit
Demonstrate pinpoint accuracy for splashdown after a proper deorbit burn
Catch a pez dispenser ship from orbit
This allows them to examine recovered ship and learn lessons needed for improving design.
With those lessons, they can improve the ship design
They need a test tanker built before they learn those lessons or maybe they can use two adapted ships
Test fuel transfer
Learn lessons from fuel transfer to finalise tanker design.
Build those tankers.
Add solar panels to ship for power during journey
Test engine relight after long cold soak. (maybe not needed if it is just a flyby at a distance?)

Sure some things can happen in parallel. Still lots to do and 8-9 months isn't a lot of time when building the tankers could take most if not all of that time.

Maybe one of ships 40 to 44 will be a test tanker and be close to being built by end of year? They still have to test fuel transfer and then build more tankers. Maybe all the tankers needed can be well on in production, with only the refuelling components to be finalised, before and during the refuelling tests. However this is a lot of build capacity devoted to building tankers when that build capacity might be needed for v3 boosters and ships to test if early v3 ship tests do not go well.

It is tricky to see a coherent timeline path to a simple flyby mission at end of 2026 and SpaceX are certainly more aware of lots of constraints than I am.

[meekGee]

It's easy to dismiss because of recent track record, but you're forgetting how fast things go when they go right.

If v3 is successful, much can be done in 8-9 months

8-9 months? you think lots can happen? huh?
Ship 38 was first identified 6 Dec 2024, 9 months later it probably won't be launched.

SpaceX needs to:

Launch v3
Get to full orbit
Demonstrate pinpoint accuracy for splashdown after a proper deorbit burn
Catch a pez dispenser ship from orbit
This allows them to examine recovered ship and learn lessons needed for improving design.
With those lessons, they can improve the ship design
They need a test tanker built before they learn those lessons or maybe they can use two adapted ships
Test fuel transfer
Learn lessons from fuel transfer to finalise tanker design.
Build those tankers.
Add solar panels to ship for power during journey
Test engine relight after long cold soak. (maybe not needed if it is just a flyby at a distance?)

Sure some things can happen in parallel. Still lots to do and 8-9 months isn't a lot of time when building the tankers could take most if not all of that time.

Maybe one of ships 40 to 44 will be a test tanker and be close to being built by end of year? They still have to test fuel transfer and then build more tankers. Maybe all the tankers needed can be well on in production, with only the refuelling components to be finalised, before and during the refuelling tests. However this is a lot of build capacity devoted to building tankers when that build capacity might be needed for v3 boosters and ships to test if early v3 ship tests do not go well.

It is tricky to see a coherent timeline path to a simple flyby mission at end of 2026 and SpaceX are certainly more aware of lots of constraints than I am.

Yes, v2 history was shit.  If you project that segment forward, then all is lost, all is lost, we all know that.

We can also make the to-do list at least as well as you can.

If v3 proves successful, they can fly easily 1/month.  They are also awfully quick at building ships. Booster on repeat.

How many launches do you think they need before the actual campaign?

[TheRadicalModerate]

My notes in-line.

SpaceX needs to:

Launch v3
Get to full orbit
Demonstrate pinpoint accuracy for splashdown after a proper deorbit burn
Catch a pez dispenser ship from orbit
This allows them to examine recovered ship and learn lessons needed for improving design.
With those lessons, they can improve the ship design Recovery is convenient, but not necessary.
Deploy high-impulse RCS system.
They need a test tanker built before they learn those lessons or maybe they can use two adapted ships Easier just to go straight to depot.  Any ol' Starship will work as a tanker.
Test fuel transfer
Learn lessons from fuel transfer to finalise tanker design.  Finalizing the design won't happen for years.  But they do need to get it good enough that 4 tankers can transfer to a depot, and the depot can do one larger transfer to the target Ship.
Build those tankers. Any random Starship will work.
Add solar panels to ship for power during journey
Test engine relight after long cold soak. (maybe not needed if it is just a flyby at a distance?)  Testable in a translunar orbit.   But Starship should be able to make it to Mars EDL with only heavy-duty RCS.  Only landing requires Raptor relight.
Interplanetary nav and comms, including provision for returning hypersonic entry telemetry.
If landing is intended to be successful (not strictly necessary), landing legs are necessary.  They can probably make do with the current size header tanks if payload is very small.

All that said, I don't disagree that the chance of even attempting an interplanetary mission in '26 is very small.  The chance of successfully landing is almost zero.  But picking up some telemetry in 2027 would definitely increase the chances of a successful landing in 2029.

Chance of interplanetary departure in 2026:  <25%
Chance of return of useful EDL telemetry in 2027:  <15%
Chance of successful landing in 2027:  <5%
Chance of successful landing in 2029:  ~75%
Chance of successful uncrewed landing in 2031:  >80%
Chance of crewed landing in 2029:  0
Chance of crewed landing in 2031:  <20%
Chance of crewed landing in 2033:  <33%
Chance of crewed landing in 2035:  <50%
Chance of crewed landing in 2037:  >50%

[daedalus1]

You are just repeating discussion several pages ago, where I said chance of Starship being launched towards Mars in 2026 is 0%.

[meekGee]

You are just repeating discussion several pages ago, where I said chance of Starship being launched towards Mars in 2026 is 0%.

Yup you said that.

At any point in the last 20 years, there were those who were betting it'll never work, it'll be decades away, it won't be viable.  (For various values of "it")

And the caravan kept moving.

So, we'll see.  I can't estimate the probability of a smooth v3 up-ramp.  But I am pretty certain that if v3 flights go smoothly, we will see a 2026 Mars intercepting flight with an EDL attempt.

I'm also pretty sure that if v3 ships continue to RUD, then they won't.

[daedalus1]

You are just repeating discussion several pages ago, where I said chance of Starship being launched towards Mars in 2026 is 0%.

Yup you said that.

At any point in the last 20 years, there were those who were betting it'll never work, it'll be decades away, it won't be viable.  (For various values of "it")

And the caravan kept moving.

So, we'll see.  I can't estimate the probability of a smooth v3 up-ramp.  But I am pretty certain that if v3 flights go smoothly, we will see a 2026 Mars intercepting flight with an EDL attempt.

I'm also pretty sure that if v3 ships continue to RUD, then they won't.

Well no you definitely won't.
It will require about 5 tanker refills.
A lunar surface and takeoff demonstration in 2026 will require at least that many.
Plus Starlink flights, and not to mention actually getting to orbit for the first time.
It is obvious that in designing the worlds largest ever launcher and making it fully reusable, there is going to be a considerable difference between the projected timeline and reality. As has been demonstrated many times.

[meekGee]

You are just repeating discussion several pages ago, where I said chance of Starship being launched towards Mars in 2026 is 0%.

Yup you said that.

At any point in the last 20 years, there were those who were betting it'll never work, it'll be decades away, it won't be viable.  (For various values of "it")

And the caravan kept moving.

So, we'll see.  I can't estimate the probability of a smooth v3 up-ramp.  But I am pretty certain that if v3 flights go smoothly, we will see a 2026 Mars intercepting flight with an EDL attempt.

I'm also pretty sure that if v3 ships continue to RUD, then they won't.

Well no you definitely won't.
It will require about 5 tanker refills.
A lunar surface and takeoff demonstration in 2026 will require at least that many.
Plus Starlink flights, and not to mention actually getting to orbit for the first time.
It is obvious that in designing the worlds largest ever launcher and making it fully reusable, there is going to be a considerable difference between the projected timeline and reality. As has been demonstrated many times.

I don't think they'll let anything get in the way of the window.  They might make some flights dual-purpose, but otherwise they'll push for Mars.

Starlink can continue at 250 v2.mini on F9 just fine for another year.

Regarding moon, all they promised is that they won't be the long pole.  I don't think there will be a shortage of long poles...

Basically - don't count on distractions on derailing the campaign.

Your 5 refueling flights - that's after the 8-9 months of development.  That's the launch campaign proper, starting September-October, and utilizing two pads, if development was successful enough.

All they need is to get to reliable orbital flights (2-3 good flights) then simultaneously iterate on refueling and EDL..  this can fit in 8-9 months.

[daedalus1]

You are just repeating discussion several pages ago, where I said chance of Starship being launched towards Mars in 2026 is 0%.

Yup you said that.

At any point in the last 20 years, there were those who were betting it'll never work, it'll be decades away, it won't be viable.  (For various values of "it")

And the caravan kept moving.

So, we'll see.  I can't estimate the probability of a smooth v3 up-ramp.  But I am pretty certain that if v3 flights go smoothly, we will see a 2026 Mars intercepting flight with an EDL attempt.

I'm also pretty sure that if v3 ships continue to RUD, then they won't.

Well no you definitely won't.
It will require about 5 tanker refills.
A lunar surface and takeoff demonstration in 2026 will require at least that many.
Plus Starlink flights, and not to mention actually getting to orbit for the first time.
It is obvious that in designing the worlds largest ever launcher and making it fully reusable, there is going to be a considerable difference between the projected timeline and reality. As has been demonstrated many times.

I don't think they'll let anything get in the way of the window.  They might make some flights dual-purpose, but otherwise they'll push for Mars.

Starlink can continue at 250 v2.mini on F9 just fine for another year.

Regarding moon, all they promised is that they won't be the long pole.  I don't think there will be a shortage of long poles...

Basically - don't count on distractions on derailing the campaign.

Your 5 refueling flights - that's after the 8-9 months of development.  That's the launch campaign proper, starting September-October, and utilizing two pads, if development was successful enough.

All they need is to get to reliable orbital flights (2-3 good flights) then simultaneously iterate on refueling and EDL..  this can fit in 8-9 months.

You are aware aren't you that Artemis 3 is way behind schedule and the unmanned demo to the lunar surface has to be successfully completed before the manned version, so 2026 demo is really the latest it can be.
The next sub orbital flight of Starship is September at the earliest. And a tanker version is not even built yet.
Less than 17 months now until the end of the window, and a problem with ship 37 means they had to reverse the adaptation of the pad to do more test.

[meekGee]

You are aware aren't you that Artemis 3 is way behind schedule and the unmanned demo to the lunar surface has to be successfully completed before the manned version, so 2026 demo is really the latest it can be.
The next sub orbital flight of Starship is September at the earliest. And a tanker version is not even built yet.
Less than 17 months now until the end of the window, and a problem with ship 37 means they had to reverse the adaptation of the pad to do more test.

I am not sure about the schedule dependency between pad-A and the remaining v2 hardware, and Massey/pad-B and v3 ships.

Artemis, sigh, what can I say.  Its main function right now is bolstering the hopes of some folks that it will delay SpaceX...  That ship is currently without a rudder, so I can't really estimate its intent.

We're all going to be a lot smarter when we see how v3 starts off the pad.

[envy887]

Your 5 refueling flights - that's after the 8-9 months of development.  That's the launch campaign proper, starting September-October, and utilizing two pads, if development was successful enough.

It could well be 3 pads. If they get flight 10 off in August and 11 by late September, that leaves 14 months until the end of Nov '26. That may be enough to get the pad 1 launch mount torn down and rebuilt to the same specs as the pad 2 and 39A mounts. The later launch mounts will likely be faster to build after learning on the pad 2 mount.

If they get the cycle time down to 4 weeks (5 weeks has already been demonstrated between IFT-5 and IFT-6) at each of 3 pads, they could do 6 launches in a calendar month. That's your lander plus 5 refuelings - although I don't think 5 refueling flights is strictly necessary. A Mars landing could be done with as few as 3 launches, which with 3 pads in operation could all launch near simultaneously.

[crandles57]

My notes in-line.

SpaceX needs to:

Launch v3
Get to full orbit
Demonstrate pinpoint accuracy for splashdown after a proper deorbit burn
Catch a pez dispenser ship from orbit
This allows them to examine recovered ship and learn lessons needed for improving design.
With those lessons, they can improve the ship design Recovery is convenient, but not necessary.
Deploy high-impulse RCS system.
They need a test tanker built before they learn those lessons or maybe they can use two adapted ships Easier just to go straight to depot.  Any ol' Starship will work as a tanker.
Test fuel transfer
Learn lessons from fuel transfer to finalise tanker design.  Finalizing the design won't happen for years.  But they do need to get it good enough that 4 tankers can transfer to a depot, and the depot can do one larger transfer to the target Ship.
Build those tankers. Any random Starship will work.
Add solar panels to ship for power during journey
Test engine relight after long cold soak. (maybe not needed if it is just a flyby at a distance?)  Testable in a translunar orbit.   But Starship should be able to make it to Mars EDL with only heavy-duty RCS.  Only landing requires Raptor relight.
Interplanetary nav and comms, including provision for returning hypersonic entry telemetry.
If landing is intended to be successful (not strictly necessary), landing legs are necessary.  They can probably make do with the current size header tanks if payload is very small.

All that said, I don't disagree that the chance of even attempting an interplanetary mission in '26 is very small.  The chance of successfully landing is almost zero.  But picking up some telemetry in 2027 would definitely increase the chances of a successful landing in 2029.

Chance of interplanetary departure in 2026:  <25%
Chance of return of useful EDL telemetry in 2027:  <15%
Chance of successful landing in 2027:  <5%
Chance of successful landing in 2029:  ~75%
Chance of successful uncrewed landing in 2031:  >80%
Chance of crewed landing in 2029:  0
Chance of crewed landing in 2031:  <20%
Chance of crewed landing in 2033:  <33%
Chance of crewed landing in 2035:  <50%
Chance of crewed landing in 2037:  >50%

Thank you for you reply. You have some good points which I accept but I would disagree on some:

>"Recovery is convenient, but not necessary."

I would suggest reuse of ships is useful to get in more test flights but may not be necessary if everything goes really well.
If you need need those extra test flights then recovery is necessary.
Even if not going for some reuse flight before end of 2026, then recovery might well be important to examine various components. While much of this may be aimed at heat shield to improve prospects for reuse, there may be some examination of engines with respect to restart work?

Without recovery, plan looks like a Hail Mary plan.

>"Easier just to go straight to depot.  Any ol' Starship will work as a tanker."
"Any random Starship will work."

Easier? You then have 3 ship types to develop Mars, depot and Tanker. I would have thought easier with just two types to develop Mars and Tanker. Either way you have to develop hardware for supplying propellants and receiving propellants so maybe there isn't much in it?

For testing purposes maybe any [new if no reuse] Starship will work as a tanker for testing propellant transfer purposes, but you still need to build multiple tankers for the refuelling campaign as ordinary Starships just won't have fuel capacity to be much use, unless you are designing tanks for payload section. Easier and better to build tankers than add tanks to payload section I would imagine. Maybe faster to retrofit tank if you have spare ships with payload sections. With no reuse, these ships for testing purposes and for refuelling campaign still need to be built. The time to do so is long like 6-9 months, even if you can get 1 off end of line every 3 weeks or so.

>"Learn lessons from fuel transfer to finalise tanker design.  Finalizing the design won't happen for years."
Sorry my fault for not being more specific. Yes design will iterate for years. What I meant was decide on the design for a refuelling campaign at the end of 2026.


Waiting for recovery and a refuelling test before starting to build tankers for the refuelling campaign already seems to be impossible to me if it takes a total of 6-9 months for full build of a ship/tanker. It might still be possible for tanker production to start in 2025 or very early 2026 but not have refuelling hardware designed and tested until Summer 2026 then finish the tanker production after that. If there is no reuse then this plus booster v3 production seems like it might severely limit the number of ships available for all the tests you want to do (get to orbit & test deorbit burn accuracy, catch ship, ships for refuelling tests 2 at a time needed for each test, Heavy duty RCS system tests, solar panels and any deployment thereof, long cold soak relight test).
   

[Twark_Main]

You are just repeating discussion several pages ago, where I said chance of Starship being launched towards Mars in 2026 is 0%.

Yup you said that.

At any point in the last 20 years, there were those who were betting it'll never work, it'll be decades away, it won't be viable.  (For various values of "it")

And the caravan kept moving.

So, we'll see.  I can't estimate the probability of a smooth v3 up-ramp.  But I am pretty certain that if v3 flights go smoothly, we will see a 2026 Mars intercepting flight with an EDL attempt.

I'm also pretty sure that if v3 ships continue to RUD, then they won't.

Well no you definitely won't.
It will require about 5 tanker refills.
A lunar surface and takeoff demonstration in 2026 will require at least that many.
Plus Starlink flights, and not to mention actually getting to orbit for the first time.
It is obvious that in designing the worlds largest ever launcher and making it fully reusable, there is going to be a considerable difference between the projected timeline and reality. As has been demonstrated many times.

I don't think they'll let anything get in the way of the window.  They might make some flights dual-purpose, but otherwise they'll push for Mars.

Starlink can continue at 250 v2.mini on F9 just fine for another year.

Regarding moon, all they promised is that they won't be the long pole.  I don't think there will be a shortage of long poles...

Basically - don't count on distractions on derailing the campaign.

Your 5 refueling flights - that's after the 8-9 months of development.  That's the launch campaign proper, starting September-October, and utilizing two pads, if development was successful enough.

All they need is to get to reliable orbital flights (2-3 good flights) then simultaneously iterate on refueling and EDL..  this can fit in 8-9 months.

You are aware aren't you that Artemis 3 is way behind schedule and the unmanned demo to the lunar surface has to be successfully completed before the manned version, so 2026 demo is really the latest it can be.

Oh no, as we all know it's mathematically impossible for NASA's moon program to slip... 

Largely your (dishonest) debate strategy lately is to pretend that SpaceX needs to do X.) and Y.) and Z.) and A.) and B.) and C.) and oh yeah they need to buy you a pony, all that before they can even begin to think about contemplating formulating a plan toward the possibility of pushing anything toward Mars.  Yawn.

Artemis is going to slip, and that's true no matter what SpaceX does. Or did you forget the main rocket is built by Boeing??   

[Twark_Main]

My notes in-line.

SpaceX needs to:

Launch v3
Get to full orbit
Demonstrate pinpoint accuracy for splashdown after a proper deorbit burn
Catch a pez dispenser ship from orbit
This allows them to examine recovered ship and learn lessons needed for improving design.
With those lessons, they can improve the ship design Recovery is convenient, but not necessary.
Deploy high-impulse RCS system.
They need a test tanker built before they learn those lessons or maybe they can use two adapted ships Easier just to go straight to depot.  Any ol' Starship will work as a tanker.
Test fuel transfer
Learn lessons from fuel transfer to finalise tanker design.  Finalizing the design won't happen for years.  But they do need to get it good enough that 4 tankers can transfer to a depot, and the depot can do one larger transfer to the target Ship.
Build those tankers. Any random Starship will work.
Add solar panels to ship for power during journey
Test engine relight after long cold soak. (maybe not needed if it is just a flyby at a distance?)  Testable in a translunar orbit.   But Starship should be able to make it to Mars EDL with only heavy-duty RCS.  Only landing requires Raptor relight.
Interplanetary nav and comms, including provision for returning hypersonic entry telemetry.
If landing is intended to be successful (not strictly necessary), landing legs are necessary.  They can probably make do with the current size header tanks if payload is very small.

Good deletions, but I see you're riding your old "I need need need comms during blackout" hobby-horse. Obviously this part is a nice-to-have, not really a need-to-have.

[crandles57]

Is the least thing more than a flyby, an aero-non-capture? (aiming for some aerocapture data even if it is not ideal data)

If COSPAR probably won't approve a Hail Mary inadequately prepared plan that involves an aerocapture then this might also be the most they could aim for?

Would a long lasting (high impulse?) RCS system be all they needed for this or would they also need (proven?) raptor relight ability and propellants to get the power needed to escape if the aero-non-capture did not work as planned?

Is there anything else that can be added to a flyby mission short of aerocapture? Drop off Marslink sats a couple of months before flyby and use all the power they can generate over that period for propulsive capture efforts?