Elon Musk Says SpaceX's First Mission to Mars Will Launch Next Year (bbc.co.uk) 84
"SpaceX founder Elon Musk has said his Starship rocket will head to Mars by the end of next year," writes the BBC, "as the company investigates several recent explosions in flight tests."
Human landings could begin as early as 2029 if initial missions go well, though "2031 was more likely", he added in a post on his social media platform X...
The billionaire said in 2020 that he remained confident that his company would land humans on Mars six years later. In 2024, he said he would launch the first Starships to Mars in 2026, with plans to send crewed flights in four years.
Musk has said that the coming Mars mission would carry the Tesla humanoid robot "Optimus", which was shown to the public last year.
The billionaire said in 2020 that he remained confident that his company would land humans on Mars six years later. In 2024, he said he would launch the first Starships to Mars in 2026, with plans to send crewed flights in four years.
Musk has said that the coming Mars mission would carry the Tesla humanoid robot "Optimus", which was shown to the public last year.
Elon time (Score:3)
Is that next earth year or next mars year?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Elon time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doing otherwise would be nothing less than completely careless.
It's a cost saving measure.
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, since we know next to nothing about the biology of Mars, will this be, for safety's sake, a one-way mission for the astronauts? Doing otherwise would be nothing less than completely careless.
More than likely it is one-way. Unless SpaceX has built a refueling station on Mars that no ones about.
Re: Elon time (Score:2)
Going by the ketamine Nazi's bullshit, people have been on Mars for 3 years now.
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
Send Elon to Mars (Score:1)
Also, have SpaceX take over maintenance of Air Force One.
Calendar issues? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Elon Musk is trying to do PR management (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like Elon Musk is trying to do PR management. If they are going to get on the way to Mars next year, thereâ(TM)s a *ton* of problems they have to solve first.
- They need to not blow up on the way to orbit.
- They need to stop the booster from damaging itself during its return to launch site (while theyâ(TM)ve caught them, the engines have always been too damaged to reuse more than one or two of the 33)
- They need to solve the heat shield problems, and make Starship able to reliably reenter without dropping debris along its reentry path (which will need to be over land).
- They need to catch the ship without damaging the heat shield.
- They need to do in orbit refueling, between ships.
- They need to design a version of the ship that can operate as a tanker in orbit and stop fuel boiling off while itâ(TM)s up there.
- They need to design a version of the ship that can land on Mars (which is quite different from the lunar HLS variant which will have no heat shields, engines and legs not capable of supporting Martian gravity, solar systems not capable of providing enough power at Mars, fuel systems not capable of maintaining fuel unhooked for 6 months, etc)
Thereâ(TM)s probably a whole bunch of things Iâ(TM)ve not thought to include in that list. The rate of progress they need to reach this goal is simply ludicrous, and I donâ(TM)t see any reason to say that youâ(TM)re going to do it beyond âoeoh shit, maybe destroying the government at the same time as my space company blows up a bunch of rockets, and I become so unpopular that my car dealerships need a constant police presence to stop them burning to the ground; time to engage PR mode and try to pretend to be iron man some more.â
Re: (Score:1)
They need to design a version of the ship that can land on Mars
Well, technically, the stated claim was only to head for Mars, so arriving and landing may be only stretch goals.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because it isn't going to happen, and never was.
"Starship" was designed as a bulk Pez dispenser for his private replacement internet.
But Mars made for some PR in the past, so here comes the lies again.
Is he playing Bowie again yet?
Re: (Score:2)
And even that seems doubtful to be successful. Far cheaper to keep using Falcon 9 for starlink.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, 'Star Trek' (not nuTrek) ironically showed us exactly how to solve this.
1. Build in orbit
2. Don't try to land big ships
What I'd propose is building much larger-than-necessary ship in orbit (might take 10 years or so, given how long the ISS has been in orbit), attach the engines to leave earth before fueling it, and then launch it when Mars is the closest to conserve time and fuel.
But most importantly. DO NOT LAND THE SHIP. Use smaller landing craft that have basically a "tow-rope" from the ship to
Re: (Score:2)
2. Don't try to land big ships
I seem to recall the Enterprise "landing" in one of the movies, at least...
Re: (Score:2)
2. Don't try to land big ships
I seem to recall the Enterprise "landing" in one of the movies, at least...
More seriously, and less catastrophically, Google says Voyager landed (and took off) 5 times.
Re: Elon Musk is trying to do PR management (Score:2)
Voyager was a much smaller ship and still had to "divert power to structural support"
Re: (Score:2)
You should tell Elon about that one neat trick.
He could use it in next Musktown MarsX Village PR fantasy funding video.
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek always involved suspending disbelief, but some things require more suspension of belief than others. Landing and building starships on a planet were certainly less believable than building a ship in orbit and never landing on a planet.
The scene in the star trek reboot where kirk sees the enterprise being built on earth was pretty cheesy. I think they were going for the Star Wars vibe where you see a massive star destroyer hanging in the air above a city. Looks cool, but not even close to believ
Re: (Score:2)
2. Don't try to land big ships
I seem to recall the Enterprise "landing" in one of the movies, at least...
More seriously, and less catastrophically, Google says Voyager landed (and took off) 5 times.
Fun fact: for TOS, Roddenberry and the show-developers couldn't figure out a way to land the Enterprise so they created the transporter to get around the problem.
You are correct that Voyager could (and did) land.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: for TOS, Roddenberry and the show-developers couldn't figure out a way to land the Enterprise so they created the transporter to get around the problem.
I'd buy that, but I also heard that transporters were faster and more versatile -- story/filming-wise -- than using a shuttle for every excursion ...
Re: (Score:2)
That was just because that hack JJ Abrams didn't know shit about Star Trek. The star ships never landed before he decided "sure why not..."
Re: (Score:2)
You know, 'Star Trek' ironically showed us exactly how to solve this.
1. Build in orbit
2. Don't try to land big ships
And is what Andy Weir's The Martian said NASA would actually be doing in the near future. Sure, the book was fiction (and the wind was a lie), but there was a lot of well researched science and technologies in the story (even if the wiliness of the country to commit to such a mission by the mid-2030's was aspirational).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Carrying enough food for a round trip voyage to Mars seems to be at the top of that list as well.
I imagine you could re-supply en-route depending on orbits and fuel use, especially if you were willing to expend the supply ship ...
Re:Elon Musk is trying to do PR management (Score:5, Insightful)
Yawn...
Re:Elon Musk is trying to do PR management (Score:4, Insightful)
There you go, he removed the tweet.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true; mod parent up.
let's disregard most anything the lap dog says (Score:1, Insightful)
Lack of information.... (Score:2, Funny)
Much as I'm opposed to Musk's current political actions, there is no one in the world who has proven more capable of building the spacecraft necessary to send people to Mars.
I give it a 50-50 chance that he'll be able to send a Starship to Mars in 2026 (no people). The booster has already proven a spectacular success, catching (Catching!) 3 out of 4 attempts. The Starship isn't yet a success - yet has three successful flights with soft ocean landings, but is pretty danged close - and they expect to fly se
Re: (Score:2)
Much as I'm opposed to Musk's current political actions, there is no one in the world who has proven more capable of building the spacecraft necessary to send people to Mars.
More specifically, no one proven more capable of building reusable ships to launch things into orbit. His track record on ships capable of going to Mars is dubious at the moment. He *is* on track for blowing up a lot of things, though. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
What's this "he" shit?
Re: Lack of information.... (Score:3)
The only thing special about his ideas is that he started out rich enough to hire people to make his ideas a reality and not really care if it fails and he loses some of his fortune.
Re: (Score:1)
I give it a 50-50 chance that he'll be able to send a Starship to Mars in 2026 (no people).
Musk has been making fake predictions for over a decade with Tesla. In April 2019 he claimed Tesla would have over a million fully autonomous "robotaxis" on the road by mid-2020. It's 2025 and there isn't one autonomous Tesla robotaxi anywhere. I don't share your confidence for Musk sending the amazing exploding Starship to Mars in 21 months.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet Musk did none of those things. His money definitely paid some very smart people to do them, and he personally has been pushing the teams to do it. And he does take credit for all of it. But he's not a rocket scientist nor an engineer, even though ketamine makes him think he is. He's just willing to push people to take bigger risks than the industry traditionally did. I'm no longer sure this is a good thing.
It appears that his push to move fast and break things has led to a place where Starship
Re: Lack of information.... (Score:2)
Given that elona hasn't built anything that can even get to mars, nevermind take people there, he's in the same position as most of us.
But given how brazenly he's lying to the more gullible among us, there is one character he's quite close to: the former Roskosmos head Dima Rogozin.
According to elona, people are already on Mars. https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
According to Rogozin, putin's rashka is already operating a moon base.
Bonus: both live off government grift for their fantasies.
Oh goody more pump and dump (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively, you can be happy that a set of people working on going to Mars is not zero, which would be the case without Musk.
NASA has been working on the various issues of travel to (and return from) Mars for decades. As NASA has never received direction/funding to actually accomplish such a mission, it has only been part of the various research activities that NASA performs (perhaps performed, it has been rumored that NASA's budget may end up being cut 25-50% going forward, which might force a curtailment in a number of programs).
Re: Oh goody more pump and dump (Score:2)
Of course NASA is getting their funding cut. It all needs to go to Elon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, he might be a traitor, a fascist, a groomer, and an unhinged drug addict but at least we have someone working on going to Mars....
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, he might be a traitor, a fascist, a groomer, and an unhinged drug addict
You lost your marbles. Turn off MSNBC.
but at least we have someone working on going to Mars....
It is not at least. Musk's SpaceX, Starlink, and Tesla and the only new US companies that produce anything. Plus, now he is doing something that NASA should have done long time ago. Moon landing was 60 years ago.
Re: Oh goody more pump and dump (Score:2)
You don't. He's lying to you so that you give him money.
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Found the guy who owns a Swastikar
Lack of information.... (Score:2)
Yup, trying to pump that old SpaceX stock. What's that symbol again? I'd like to go long on that....
Re: (Score:2)
a musk brand pump and dump
In his case, otherwise known as "having children." :-)
Who is volunteering to be Musk's first sacrifice? (Score:2)
No seriously, with the way Musk does things, whoever goes on the first flight to mars, is definitely ending up dead. Expect the first manned Mars craft to explode the second it touches Mar's atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Elon is trying to turn the US into a big enough hell-hole that people will start to see dying on Mars as a step up?
Re: (Score:2)
No seriously, with the way Musk does things, whoever goes on the first flight to mars, is definitely ending up dead.
Musk himself has stated there's a “good chance you’ll die” on the earliest SpaceX missions to Mars. He still expects that some will volunteer to be a part of such a (likely to be) one-way mission.
Re: (Score:2)
No seriously, with the way Musk does things, whoever goes on the first flight to mars, is definitely ending up dead. Expect the first manned Mars craft to explode the second it touches Mar's atmosphere.
Fingers crossed it will be him. (As if he'd ever ride one of those things...)
First passenger (Score:3)
Can he please be the first passenger?
Ahh.. Give a 12yr old billions of dollars and... (Score:3)
This is so dumb.
We can't even get a couple people out of orbit in 9 months, and we're 'going to Mars'.
We know space fucks up humans.
We know that if we can't even manage the climate on our own 'suitable for life' planet, it's a fools errand to think we can somehow manage the climate on another entire 'hostile to life' planet.
This guy's mentality is stuck as at 12yr old. The robot is named after a fucking Transformer. And shit like "SpaceX".
You should have to maintain a certain level of maturity to manage a bank account of more than $200.
This is what happens when children are given the keys to the world.
Re:Ahh.. Give a 12yr old billions of dollars and.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sigh. The two astronauts who traveled to the ISS back in June of 2024 have had the ability and means to return to Earth since September 2024, with no further launches from Earth required. The Dragon capsule that will bring them home next week has been docked at the ISS since September 2024.
The delay on returning them to Earth is due to how long its taken to get a replacement crew up to the ISS. And apparently that is important because if Butch and Suni and the other two astronauts, all part of crew 9, came home before their replacements arrived, it would leave the US side of the ISS unoccupied and with no one to tend to any experiments that that are running, or maintenance, etc... Thats the risk with all of this. There is no reason why the already docked Dragon capsule couldn't have left the station months ago to bring crew 9 back to Earth, except it would leave a staffing gap at the ISS. There would be three astronauts remaining on the ISS that flew up on Soyuz, but removing over half of the staff for a time will certainly cause issues on the ISS simply due to not enough hands available to maintain the station.
If the risk of an astronaut having a major medical issue in Space outweighed the risk of removing 4 of 7 astronauts from the ISS for a period of time, Butch and Suni would be on the ground already.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really a justification.
Sure, were it a medical emergency.
Is that really the bar we're looking at for spending an unintentional 9mos in space, plus having the confidence to go to Mars?
Is the cargo he brought 2022 to Mars still there? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to Musk SpaceX sent cargo ships to Mars in 2022 [cnbc.com]. I did not follow the latest news on Mars colonization, so is the cargo still there, or did colonists already eat it all up? Please don't tell me it is already expired...
That was all PR coming from Musk in March 2018 of what Musk wanted to do by 2022, not what actually happened in 2022. If there had been any such launches in 2022, it would have been all over the Internet. Given that its not, there were no SpaceX cargo launches towards Mars in 2022. The vehicle that will be used to do this just completed its not-so-successful 8th test flight last week. Hasn't even made it to Earth orbit yet, let alone a transit orbit to Mars.
Been there, done that (Score:2)
Oh just go (Score:1)
And f**k your self you human t**d.
It used to be that what your companies did defined you. Now your support of MAGA trash republicans does.
Your businesses donâ(TM)t matter anymore, when youâ(TM)re seemingly on the mission to destroy all democracies.
Is that before or after (Score:3)
FSD will make all Model 3s appreciate in value and pay themselves off being a taxi while you're at work?
At this point who actually believes anything Elon says? Literally everything he has said has been either vapourware, or 5 years late to market. See you on Mars in 2031.
Re: (Score:2)
See you on Mars in 2031.
This is bad why? It was almost 60 years since moon landing. Clearly, with NASA we won't get there.
We're staying home. (Score:2)
Will we go? Nope.
It would be a pure money pit, with zero profit potential.
(and don't say "mining", that's decades upon decades off.)
There's absolutely no military advantage to be gained either,
and those are the only two things that would drive the required funding.
To maintain the survival of the species?
Victory in the struggle of man against nature?
Or "because it is hard"?
We don't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Will we go? Nope. It would be a pure money pit, with zero profit potential. (and don't say "mining", that's decades upon decades off.)
The probably only good use of Mars for mining is as an orbital jumping off point for asteroid mining (using Phobos, or a Phobos like orbit, might be a good choice as a base).
No big deal (Score:2)
Lots of conventional rockets have delivered payloads to Mars, so it wouldn't be very special for a Starship to get there and achieve orbit at least. Maybe they could investigate Phobos.
I expect SpaceX will work out most of the bugs over the course of the next year and be able to deploy the big starlink satellites. Once they get that down it shouldn't be a stretch to get to the moon and then Mars.
Manned Mars Mission Suffers Mishap (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Associated Press, 15 October 2031 -
Six months after the apparent loss of the MC-1 Mars Colonizer mission, an explosive investigation has revealed that the entire mission was faked using pre-rendered video and simulated telemetry data. President Elon Musk, rather than addressing the scandal, has instead announced that the billions in taxpayer funds allocated for the mission will be âoerepurposed for innovationââ"a move critics say amounts to pocketing the money.
The deception unraveled after wh
Elon Musk's Law of Next Year (Score:2)
Everything will happen next year for many years until it doesn't happen.
Will he be on it? (Score:2)
Please please please please.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrational Publicity Stunt (Score:2)
I would likecto suggest (Score:2)
What Elon needs to do (Score:3)
If Musk really wants the budget, he should show Trump Mars Attacks.
He would issue an EO to stop the invasion the next day.
"Horrible tiny men!! Horrible tiny, weak, weak green men!!
They're beheading the pets!!!"
Yeah but... (Score:2)
will it have Full Self Driving?
LOL, sure it will (Score:2)
See title. I'll bet you a dollar that it doesn't.
Why would anyone leave Earth? (Score:2)
Very cunning
This... (Score:2)
....from a guy whose cars can't even pass the RoadRunner/Wily Coyote test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Getting to mars is the easy part (Score:2)
Its not all that much delta-V to get a nearly empty rocket to mars. The hard part is carrying enough fuel for an orbit insertion burn, a controlled landing, then assent, the interplanetary trajectory to earth, and enough reentry shielding to deal with a few X LEO reentry heating. They also need long duration cryo propellant storage
Getting a large spacecraft to Mars is a great step but its a long way from whats needed for a manned mission. That is in addition to the issues of shielding and life support.