Seems like there are two problems that need to be solved before then: 1) reentry and landing - seems mostly achieved, based on the "water" landing, if you were landing on mars you would need legs so the "tower catch" isn't relevant IMO 2) orbital refueling - this seems to be where the technical uncertainty is, they need to do it for the NASA HLS part of the Artemis 3 mission anyway If they fail at 2), neither Artemis 3 or "Starships to Mars" will happen. But if they succeed, why wouldn't they send them? Then 6-9 month later they can try and land on Mars, I personally think that the Martian atmosphere is probably much more predictable than Earth's atmosphere due to the greatly lower density,so if they get there I think they'll succeed at landing too. And that way they get enough data in time to design and build the planned crewed starships in 2028
So basically one (big) technical problem to solve - if they can launch fast enough in the next two years, I think they'll solve the refueling part within 10 launches and have enough time to make, launch and refuel 5-8 ships before the transfer window to Mars
This is just a likely as the previous tweets they've made in the past promising Mars in two years.
Case in point: https://x.com/SpaceX/status/780859270011113472
I wouldn't say it's just like that, they actually have a starship, it's actually been put into orbit, they have actually landed a starship booster. All tests of course.
I agree two years is incredibly optimistic, they've still got to figure out in orbit refueling, a tanker version of starship, and a cargo version of starship before they can plan such a mission. On top of that they have to be sure the belly flop maneuver in the martian atmosphere won't flop, pun intended, without prior testing. But it's significantly more likely now than it was 8 years ago.
They actually had a Dragon at the time they wrote that.
Dragon isn't designed to go anywhere beyond LEO with the ISS.
Starship with its in-flight-refuelling, is.
I believe the original plan was a Falcon Heavy carrying a Dragon equipped for propulsive landing. I believe they were actually going to use propulsive landing instead of parachutes even for return to earth. That probably is eventually the answer but the risk just wasn't worth it.
NASA didn't like the propulsive landing for return to earth, so this capability was not funded, and SpaceX wasn't interested in funding it itself only for this mars mission, so Red Dragon was scrapped.
Extremely unlikely but such statements aren't without purpose when it comes to raising funds, motivating employees and applying political pressure to regulators.
Jarod's take on this [1] is absolutely perfect:
It’s fascinating to see the reactions to Elon Musk's recent Mars timeline. Like so many things, it sparks fierce debate from echo chambers—those who either cling to every word, believing he’s infallible, and those who focus only on the negative in everything he or SpaceX has ever tried to accomplish. Honestly, it must be exhausting for both extremes to uphold such rigid positions.
Why can’t both sides see it for what it is? An outrageous, exciting, and, even if late, achievable goal, with a timeline designed to stimulate creative and urgent problem-solving. Much like the space race of old, but this time with a far greater understanding of the technological challenges ahead—and without needing to be funded by every taxpayer. If 14,000 of the brightest minds hit the timeline, we’ll be that much closer to becoming a true spacefaring civilization and unlocking the universe’s secrets. And if they’re late? They will have learned an incredible amount along the way, and honestly, even if it takes a decade or more, it will have been worth the wait.
I just want to get my vote in early so I can say I told you so later. This does not sound likely to me. Also, If they try to catch the booster on the next launch (November?) it will make such a mess that they will be delayed for a long long time (compared to the time between the first few launches). It might even mean the end of the program. It would be nice to see it work so we will see.
I agree that “in two years” is probably not going to happen. But in four or six? I think that’s a more decent chance. Musk/SpaceX tend to give overly optimistic timelines - but they get there eventually.
But I think your claim that there will be a big mess if they try to catch is dubious. My understanding is that SuperHeavy returns on a trajectory to crash into the Gulf of Mexico, and only diverts to the launch site at the last possible moment if its computers conclude it is safe to do so. By the time of the catch, it will (intentionally) be almost out of fuel, so that will limit the scale of any explosion in the worst case scenario. And now they’ve got the new launch tower, so even if they damage the current one, they should be able to use the new one while they repair the current one - I doubt any explosion will be big enough to cause serious damage to both launch towers.
Falcon Heavy has already launched a payload past mars orbit into the inner asteroid belt. A starship mars flyby is not that big a leap, after they nail refueling on LEO.
> Also, If they try to catch the booster on the next launch (November?) it will make such a mess that they will be delayed for a long long time (compared to the time between the first few launches). It might even mean the end of the program.
They've already built a second tower in Texas, with at least another two more planned for Florida. Seems they're making quite a few revisions / improvements to the launch stand and flame diverter for tower 2 as well.
Seems like SpaceX understands, organizationally, that there's always another revision in the works, and failure is a necessary opportunity for learning and applying what you've learned to the next revision. Falcon 9's record seems to show this as has Starship's evolution.
A bunch of years ago someone took a prize for longest indoor human powered flight, with terms that seemed unlikely to ever be reached.
He commented something along the lines of "Everyone else have been optimizing for the wrong problem. They were optimizing for the problem 'how to control indoor flight'.
I optimized for 'how do I make tweaks and modifications to the craft and try again'. Then I kept modifying and trying till it worked.
SpaceX figured out the same thing, but on a grander scale.
My bet for 21st century.
Mars is a planet of robots and will continue to be.
Optimisus’s descendants will first step on Mars before humans will.
We will figure out general artificial intelligence embedded in robots before humans step on Mars.
First greenhouse on Mars built by bots and first potato before humans step on Mars.
I hope they succeed beyond anyone's wildest expectations. As a species (and more narrowly as a nation) we need something to strive for. In the 60s we had that, but that was before I was born. Right now the feeling is sort of like "what's the point in even trying". As a result we can't even do the epic stuff we used to be able to do. That needs to change, if not for ourselves, then for our kids.
There are plenty of things to strive for that will make humanity or our nation better. Mars is a boondoggle.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/mars-is-no... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-settling-mars... https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2020/12/30/col...
That's just, like, your opinion, HN reader. Mars is going to inspire a huge number of kids to go into engineering, much like the Moon landings did. I am an engineer today (although a software engineer, not a "real" one) because of the Moon landings and the space race in general. Whether it gets "settled" or we just drive some buggies there, that's secondary. Spending $2T per year on losing idiotic and unnecessary wars is a "boondoggle", not this. Musk is spending his own money to go there.
[flagged]
[dead]
We need an administration that will greenlight Starship flights immediately, so that the pace of its development can increase. The FAA is currently far too conservative in approving launches, by overindexing on the local risks posed by launches relative to the global risks of delaying space expansion.