Moon AND Mars?

[meberbs]

Adding a second spacecraft in a moon test increases more ways that the mission can fail including some that have nothing to do with the Mars mission. It adds more complexity, risk, and cost that can't be hand waved away. Risking one ITS for a test with minimal utility doesn't make sense. Risking two spacecraft makes even less. I totally understand why Musk didn't include it when he presented the development plans.

He did not provide an exhaustive list of what tests they will run, and since as I said before, I doubt SpaceX is far enough in the design to know if this test is worth doing or not, he wouldn't want to mention it, because if he mentions it and then doesn't do it, their would be problems with public opinion (which matters when you are trying to send members of the public to Mars.)

You can't just hand wave in the complexity and risk you are claiming either. They are going to be doing multiple orbital tests anyway, this gets them some data from 2 ITS at once. Since they already will be doing orbital refueling, this doesn't add significant complexity. You seem to have forgotten some of my original points, such as the fact this might not cost anything, since it is not unlikely for some space agency or group of scientists to pay SpaceX to fly their stuff to the moon. (With the scientists accepting any risk of loss of their payloads.)

[Negan]

He did not provide an exhaustive list of what tests they will run

No but he did present where those tests would take place.

[meberbs]

He did not provide an exhaustive list of what tests they will run

No but he did present where those tests would take place.

Huh? There was a piece of the timeline labelled "orbital testing" that could include any number of things, which at the minimum will probably include looping around the moon. I already put in my last post that he wouldn't have wanted to mention a lunar landing without being 100% certain they would do it. If you are just going to ignore parts of my post, there is no point in continuing this conversation.

[JamesH65]

He did not provide an exhaustive list of what tests they will run

No but he did present where those tests would take place.

Huh? There was a piece of the timeline labelled "orbital testing" that could include any number of things, which at the minimum will probably include looping around the moon. I already put in my last post that he wouldn't have wanted to mention a lunar landing without being 100% certain they would do it. If you are just going to ignore parts of my post, there is no point in continuing this conversation.

The minimum would be launch to orbit, then land. Whether they do that first or loop round the moon? Who knows, but I'd keep it simple first.

[meberbs]

He did not provide an exhaustive list of what tests they will run

No but he did present where those tests would take place.

Huh? There was a piece of the timeline labelled "orbital testing" that could include any number of things, which at the minimum will probably include looping around the moon. I already put in my last post that he wouldn't have wanted to mention a lunar landing without being 100% certain they would do it. If you are just going to ignore parts of my post, there is no point in continuing this conversation.

The minimum would be launch to orbit, then land. Whether they do that first or loop round the moon? Who knows, but I'd keep it simple first.

Yes of course, I should have been more clear. I meant it in the sense that they will basically have to fly a loop around the moon at some point to test the heat shield and structures in an environment closer to interplanetary re-entry, I don't think there can be much argument that they won't do that.

[Negan]

You seem to have forgotten some of my original points, such as the fact this might not cost anything, since it is not unlikely for some space agency or group of scientists to pay SpaceX to fly their stuff to the moon. (With the scientists accepting any risk of loss of their payloads.)

Jim has explained many times why it doesn't work this way along with the fact that scientists don't pay for missions or payloads.

As far as your "public opinion" theory, you have absolutely no evidence to prove it. Public opinion has never guided Musk's ideas or what he's divulged to the public. He made that abundantly clear when he started talking about the likeness of death with this venture.

There's both technical and historical evidence that makes a moon landing test very unlikely. Technically the ITS system isn't capable of such a test, and expending an ITS to make it happen isn't even in the realm of possibility. Historically successful Mars missions have taken place without even orbital testing so going beyond that is not supported by precedence. Sure you can add in a bunch of speculation to try discredit these facts, but they are still facts.

[meberbs]

Jim has explained many times why it doesn't work this way along with the fact that scientists don't pay for missions or payloads.

Of course, but someone pays the scientists, and pays for the hardware, the financial details of this is irrelevant nitpicking, and does not change my point.

As far as your "public opinion" theory, you have absolutely no evidence to prove it. Public opinion has never guided Musk's ideas or what he's divulged to the public. He made that abundantly clear when he started talking about the likeness of death with this venture.

He cares about public opinion because he is planning to send 1 million people from the public to Mars, and if he said "we'll test it on the moon" and didn't this would make people question the validity of the system, and possibly cause people to pressure NASA to not support it (If you don't think NASA would be supporting it before it gets to Mars, I don't know what world you are living in). The possibility of death for early astronauts thing was never going to go away, so addressing that early is much better than not addressing it and having all support pulled later when something goes wrong.

There's both technical and historical evidence that makes a moon landing test very unlikely. Technically the ITS system isn't capable of such a test, and expending an ITS to make it happen isn't even in the realm of possibility. Historically successful Mars missions have taken place without even orbital testing so going beyond that is not supported by precedence. Sure you can add in a bunch of speculation to try discredit these facts, but they are still facts.

The technical isn't an issue as I already described, and the historical is an argument of "this is how it has always been done," which is a bad argument to begin with (you need to ask "why", which is a question I have already answered for this), and applying it to SpaceX, which has been rewriting the rulebooks, is so silly, it sounds like a joke.

[Negan]

The technical isn't an issue as I already described

Do you design spacecraft?

[meberbs]

The technical isn't an issue as I already described

Do you design spacecraft?

Yes.

[Negan]

The technical isn't an issue as I already described

Do you design spacecraft?

Yes.

What BEO spacecraft have you designed?

[meberbs]

The technical isn't an issue as I already described

Do you design spacecraft?

Yes.

What BEO spacecraft have you designed?

None yet, not that many people have. Though I have worked on verification for reports for one (I don't want to share more detail about who I work for at this point though) While there is still a lot for me to learn, I do know a lot about testing methodologies for various scale systems. Your initial arguments against ITS testing on the moon seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of testing in large systems.

You now seem to be trying to discredit me rather than find any flaws in the technical statements I made previously. If you continue down this path, don't expect more replies from me.

Edit: grammar

[Chris Bergin]

Hey, calm it down. Getting way too rowdy in here.

[Negan]

You now seem to be trying to discredit me rather than find any flaws in the technical statements I made previously. If you continue down this path, don't expect more replies from me.

Jim has reminded us many times that LEO and BEO spacecraft are not the same. It would seem to me that a unique spacecraft like a tanker would be even more so. I was just trying to gauge your expertise compared to his.

[Negan]

He cares about public opinion because he is planning to send 1 million people from the public to Mars, and if he said "we'll test it on the moon" and didn't this would make people question the validity of the system, and possibly cause people to pressure NASA to not support it.

Well if the consequences would be so dire for canceling a test, failing that test would be even more devastating so it better be very important an absolutely necessary.

[JulesVerneATV]

SpaceX Mars Mission Comes Under Fire From The World’s Top Mars Scholar
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinholdenplatt/2025/09/29/spacex-mars-mission-comes-under-fire-from-the-worlds-top-mars-scholar/

NASA Eyes 2026 Mars Launch as Musk Pushes to Skip the Moon
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nasa-eyes-2026-mars-launch-183922168.html


Mars a much different off-world site, an atmosphere, you can fly aircraft, possible signs of life unlike the Lunar landscape, much easier access to water, a near 24 hour day, it is much closer to the asteroid belt than Earth, it would take less Delta-v to get to the Asteroid belt and return minerals to Mars, no micrometeorite worries like the Moon.

[steveleach]

SpaceX Mars Mission Comes Under Fire From The World’s Top Mars Scholar
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinholdenplatt/2025/09/29/spacex-mars-mission-comes-under-fire-from-the-worlds-top-mars-scholar/

NASA Eyes 2026 Mars Launch as Musk Pushes to Skip the Moon
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nasa-eyes-2026-mars-launch-183922168.html

Is there anything more to that than Zubrin banging the Zubrin drum again?

[Greg Hullender]

SpaceX Mars Mission Comes Under Fire From The World’s Top Mars Scholar
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinholdenplatt/2025/09/29/spacex-mars-mission-comes-under-fire-from-the-worlds-top-mars-scholar/

NASA Eyes 2026 Mars Launch as Musk Pushes to Skip the Moon
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nasa-eyes-2026-mars-launch-183922168.html

Way to wake up a 9-year-old thread!

Sadly, the first link is just Zubrin lamenting that Elon's test mission to Mars in 2028 is missing a big opportunity to deploy lots of scientific equipment. Assuming anyone could develop such in the next two years and be willing to risk it on a test flight.

And the second dates from five months ago, which makes it hopelessly out-of-date.

Anyway, we now know (as we did not 9 years ago), that NASA is paying SpaceX to go to the moon, so the original question this thread asked has been answered.

[JulesVerneATV]

To clear things up Elon Musk has politically backed Mars many times, however not to say that he would refuse money and contract to go to the Moon but he was a 'Mars First' type at the 2006 Mars Society conference. Today there is a risk of Bezos Blue catching up and Elon Musk's Space-X Starship has not delivered a payload to orbit, I believe he has radically transformed the industry but some of those deadlines he set himself have been a little slow or overly ambitious.  Elon Musk has also donated to the Mars analog Desert Research Station with many having the belief that it is a lot easier and cheaper and reliable to do analog testing on Planet Earth rather than testing a 'Mars Base' on the Moon. Elon Musk has repeated and update statements saying the Lunar missions are a diversion or interference for building Mars colonies, he sees it as an overall interruption on the colonization vision and recently saying that he wants to skip the Moon as it is a ‘distraction’.


Bill Nelson, Retired in Name Only


He’s been to space, ran NASA and can do 40 pushups at IHOP. Here’s why Bill Nelson thinks Musk must rethink his Mars plan
https://www.independent.co.uk/space/nasa-mars-musk-bill-nelson-spacex-b2844667.html

Nelson says you can’t have Mars without the moon. Scientists need the research from the first phases of the Artemis program to get us to Mars.

“But the fact that he has a contract to do this lunar lander — he can’t land on Mars if he doesn’t have a lander. And so, he’s going to try to develop that lander and what he learns on a lunar lander will help him with the Mars lander,” he added.

[steveleach]

Nelson says you can’t have Mars without the moon. Scientists need the research from the first phases of the Artemis program to get us to Mars.

“But the fact that he has a contract to do this lunar lander — he can’t land on Mars if he doesn’t have a lander. And so, he’s going to try to develop that lander and what he learns on a lunar lander will help him with the Mars lander,” he added.

Is there any merit to that argument?

I'd have thought that landing on Earth would be a much closer analogue to a Mars landing than a lunar landing would be.

[meekGee]

Nelson says you can’t have Mars without the moon. Scientists need the research from the first phases of the Artemis program to get us to Mars.

“But the fact that he has a contract to do this lunar lander — he can’t land on Mars if he doesn’t have a lander. And so, he’s going to try to develop that lander and what he learns on a lunar lander will help him with the Mars lander,” he added.

Is there any merit to that argument?

I'd have thought that landing on Earth would be a much closer analogue to a Mars landing than a lunar landing would be.

Of course there isn't.  He's throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

To say we should go to the moon is one thing.
To say we should go to the moon before going to Mars is another.
To say we can't (technically/scientifically) go to Mars without going to the moon is just plain rubbish.
To say SpaceX is using the moon to develop their Mars lander is outright lying. The HLS lander came very late in the program and is a hell of a detour.  Also, if that was the case, why would Musk be advocating to skip the moon?