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

[TheRadicalModerate]

Pretty clearly if HLS needs launches from Starbase they're going to get them. My prediction is that when we first see a 'plan of record' for HLS-related launches they will all be from the Cape, and there won't be more than fig-leaf cover for that from the technical side.

You need more than a pad in Florida to have operational launches; you need a steady supply of boosters and Ships.  I understand that there are plans to barge them to Florida until its manufacturing is up and running.  I'm skeptical that this is going to result in a robust cadence at LC-39A any time soon.

I could believe that HLS Starships will be manufactured and launched from Florida.  But I'd guess the tanker and depot ops are going to be in Texas for some time. 

Starlink launches from BC will need to be significantly de-rated to accommodate the doglegs needed to get to the higher inclinations.  If there's excess capacity in Florida, it's much better to launch Starlink missions from there, where the range issues aren't a nightmare.

[sdsds]

Pretty clearly if HLS needs launches from Starbase they're going to get them. My prediction is that when we first see a 'plan of record' for HLS-related launches they will all be from the Cape, and there won't be more than fig-leaf cover for that from the technical side.

You need more than a pad in Florida to have operational launches; you need a steady supply of boosters and Ships.  I understand that there are plans to barge them to Florida until its manufacturing is up and running.

Yes, there's photo evidence that SpaceX is building the capability to transport boosters from Starbase horizontally and the Cape is the obvious destination.

I'd guess the tanker and depot ops are going to be in Texas for some time. 

I fully admit to having no knowledge of how SpaceX plans to launch from the Cape the required number of tanker missions for the HLS demo and HLS Artemis III missions. And obviously the tanker missions make up the bulk of the total launches required. They're building that enormous GigaBay in Florida with 24 work cells though. That's not all for Starlink.

[crandles57]

[...] Let's do some back-of-napkin math to figure out what's available from a vanilla-flavored Ship with no payload.  We'll assume:

dry mass = 130t
prop mains = 1550t
Nominal payload to LEO = 100t

Mass ratio = (130 + 100 + 1550) / (130 + 100) = 7.74. 

That's what's needed to get a Starship from staging to LEO and back to landing.  Now let's run the same Ship with no payload, which should require the same mass ratio:

(130 + 0 + 1550) / (130 + propRemain) = 7.74
propRemain = 87t

I'm confused. This ship can deliver 100t of payload to LEO, unless that payload happens to be prop, in which case it can deliver only 87t?

This does assume that total delta-v is the same for both cases.  Gravity losses should be slightly less in the no-payload case, which will help a bit.  It's hard to estimate, but I'd be surprised if the total delta-v varied by more than 1%.  That would make the mass ratio only 7.58.  So:

(130 + 0 + 1550) / (130 + propRemain) = 7.58
propRemain = 91.6t

So only 8.4% difference.

Note:  If you made the tanks 100t bigger, then the "payload" would indeed be exactly 100t.  The intuitive way to think about this is that you have less prop to burn, because you're carrying the payload in the tank, instead of in the payload bay.

Does this account for lighter Starship means SH booster can stage at higher speed and still get back to launch tower? Or is that negligible?

[Vultur]

Even if Mars is totally written off, I'm actually still rather skeptical of HLS Demo in 2026. I think that probably has a lower tolerance for failure, and it requires actual landing and I think now takeoff too; probably harder than an interplanetary cruise test.

I'm also skeptical that the Option A demo will occur in 2026.  But it needs something like 6 tankers, even for the minimal ascent test.  A lot obviously depends on tanker launch cadence, but if they plan to do the demo in 1Q27, there's a pretty good chance that they need to be devoting those tanker resources in 4Q26, maybe even 3Q26.  They can't do that if they're busy trying to make a November-December Mars launch window, complete with 3-4 tankers.

Just to get a feel for how much they need to improve:  In 2025, cadence currently averages 1 launch every 74 days.  At that rate, in order to hit a demo by the end of 1Q27, they'd have to start launching operational tankers in early January, 5 months from now.  And that assumes zero boiloff.

Yeah, that's all reasonable.

I guess I don't think the current cadence is terribly reflective, since Starship is having a bunch of problems now. If v3 fixes those (and doesn't introduce a bunch more equally bad problems), I think cadence could spool up very quickly. If v3 doesn't fix them, then both HLS Demo and anything Mars-ish are out of the range of possibility in 2026.

So in the scenario where any of this is relevant (V3 goes relatively smoothly) I think tankers will get launched fairly quickly.

I guess I am a bit more pessimistic about Artemis III schedule; I am not sure that starting the tanker campaign in January 2027, and doing the HLS Demo in say Q2 2027, would make them the long pole.

[TheRadicalModerate]

I guess I am a bit more pessimistic about Artemis III schedule; I am not sure that starting the tanker campaign in January 2027, and doing the HLS Demo in say Q2 2027, would make them the long pole.

The question is whether SpaceX is confident enough that they won't be the cause of a schedule slip to take risks with the Option A schedule.

[sdsds]

I guess I am a bit more pessimistic about Artemis III schedule; I am not sure that starting the tanker campaign in January 2027, and doing the HLS Demo in say Q2 2027, would make them the long pole.

The question is whether SpaceX is confident enough that they won't be the cause of a schedule slip to take risks with the Option A schedule.

Throwing something expendable in the direction of Mars could be seen as a risk reduction activity that increases the likelihood of a successful Option A mission. There's no particular reason to believe that a Starship refilled at an LEO depot would have any trouble completing a TLI burn. On the other hand there was no particular reason to believe that a Starship would have any trouble completing an LEO insertion burn either.

A successful Mars departure could increase their confidence in their HLS schedule.

[catdlr]

Elon Musk@elonmusk
·
Replying to
@Erdayastronaut
Making a fully reusable orbital rocket of any design is one of the hardest engineering problems of all time.

Much, much harder than going to the Moon, which is why it still hasn’t been solved.

I am cautiously optimistic that Starship will achieve full reusability next year.

The other critical technology, albeit much easier, is orbital refilling. If fortune favors us, that will also be achieved next year.

Then consciousness and life as we know it can extend to the planets and hence to the stars.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1959019114258997609

[meekGee]

Interesting that in the promo, the 2026 ship(s!) were shown with pez slots, whereas the 2028 ships had larger payload doors.

I'm also realizing belatedly that the door slot interrupts a pretty benign load path - it is above the propellant tanks and payload floor.  It only really supports the fairing, header tank, and any upper floors if they exist. So I hate it less now.

It's pretty clear in case there was a doubt that they're still trying for 2026.

[billh]

Interesting that in the promo, the 2026 ship(s!) were shown with pez slots, whereas the 2028 ships had larger payload doors.

I'm also realizing belatedly that the door slot interrupts a pretty benign load path - it is above the propellant tanks and payload floor.  It only really supports the fairing, header tank, and any upper floors if they exist. So I hate it less now.

It's pretty clear in case there was a doubt that they're still trying for 2026.

They also said it will land on its skirt in 2026, and showed an illustration. No legs. If they are able to fly in 2026 it will be an EDL test only.

[meekGee]

Interesting that in the promo, the 2026 ship(s!) were shown with pez slots, whereas the 2028 ships had larger payload doors.

I'm also realizing belatedly that the door slot interrupts a pretty benign load path - it is above the propellant tanks and payload floor.  It only really supports the fairing, header tank, and any upper floors if they exist. So I hate it less now.

It's pretty clear in case there was a doubt that they're still trying for 2026.

They also said it will land on its skirt in 2026, and showed an illustration. No legs. If they are able to fly in 2026 it will be an EDL test only.

Cool I missed that, I was fighting with my TV.  Anything else on what I'd call the "minimal plan"?

I'm assuming the "crewed by robots" flights will be 2028, and if they can demonstrate reliable landing, humans in 2030?  (As best possible if-everything-goes-right plan?)

Honestly, if they're testing interplanetary cruise, engine relight and EDL in 2026, the odds of getting through everything are already pretty low. Legs would have been awesome, but those are low risk tech.

[daedalus1]

Elon Musk said that two launch windows will be unmanned.
2026 is still not a chance.
So 2033 the earliest manned trip.

[meekGee]

Elon Musk said that two launch windows will be unmanned.
2026 is still not a chance.
So 2033 the earliest manned trip.

Yeah yeah we'll let SpaceX know.

[woods170]

Interesting that in the promo, the 2026 ship(s!) were shown with pez slots, whereas the 2028 ships had larger payload doors.

I'm also realizing belatedly that the door slot interrupts a pretty benign load path - it is above the propellant tanks and payload floor.  It only really supports the fairing, header tank, and any upper floors if they exist. So I hate it less now.

It's pretty clear in case there was a doubt that they're still trying for 2026.

"Trying" is doing a lot of weight lifting here.

[wes_wilson]

Elon Musk said that two launch windows will be unmanned.
2026 is still not a chance.
So 2033 the earliest manned trip.

For fun, Musk said
In 2016 manned Mars mission in 2025, 9 years away.
In 2020 manned Mars mission in 2026, 6 years away.
In 2025 manned Mars mission in 2029, 4 years away. 
 
With his estimates dropping about 66% every 4-5 years in 2029 his estimate could be about 1.5 years or under a synod.  So 2031 earliest possible, 2033 more likely? 

[Twark_Main]

So I did.  I don't remember adding that. Apparently the hobby-horse will not be denied access to the fingers as they type.

I think the black box is worth exploring.  But if you're not gonna let it land, then...

That's right, I'm not gonna let it!  I'll be standing there with my butterfly net. 

Seriously though, my original motivation was to avoid your own stated concern that soft-landing a black box on Mars is essentially as hard as designing and building an entire one-off JPL Mars lander.

then it has to transmit all its goodies to one (or more) of the birds in the relay network before it hits the ground.

Yes I know. This was explicitly my plan from the very first post. Glad you're caught up. 

You said you wanted something with simpler R&D than an entire one-off JPL Mars lander, didn't you? You asked for it, you got it.^TM

It's also a question of how reliable you can make the ejection mechanism.

Agreed. Following TRM's usual logic, we're gonna need at least two synods for (Mars-relevant!) mid-breakup ejection mechanism testing for this backup-to-a-backup-to-a-backup before SpaceX can even attempt to launch anything to Ma–   Hey wait a minute...   

[Twark_Main]

Interesting that in the promo, the 2026 ship(s!) were shown with pez slots, whereas the 2028 ships had larger payload doors.

I'm also realizing belatedly that the door slot interrupts a pretty benign load path - it is above the propellant tanks and payload floor.  It only really supports the fairing, header tank, and any upper floors if they exist. So I hate it less now.

It's pretty clear in case there was a doubt that they're still trying for 2026.

"Trying" is doing a lot of weight lifting here.

"Necessary but not sufficient."

Is merely the act of trying sufficient all on its own? Of course not. But if SpaceX wasn't even trying, then we would all uncontroversially and unequivocally agree that a landing won't happen.

[meekGee]

Of course.

But the program is converging, and if you don't try, it'll always be a decade away...

I don't think anybody can estimate how many flights it'll take to do refueling, and that's by far the biggest hurdle.

[meekGee]

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.

[ChrisC]

During the Mars update segment on yesterday's X stream from SpaceX, I noted the "no legs" configuration of the first ship landings, which you all have already noted above.  Just for the record, here's yesterday's SpaceX coverage on Youtube, which obviously provides a vastly better user experience, cued up to the Mars segment at T-7m26s (41m50s into video).  I expect that script will get repeated during today's coverage.

[Vultur]

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.