Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mars Space

Elon Musk Says SpaceX's First Mission to Mars Will Launch Next Year (bbc.co.uk) 186

Posted by EditorDavid from the 22-month-countdown dept.
"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.

Elon Musk Says SpaceX's First Mission to Mars Will Launch Next Year More | Reply

Elon Musk Says SpaceX's First Mission to Mars Will Launch Next Year

Comments Filter:

  • Elon time (Score:5, Funny)

    by Njovich ( 553857 ) on Saturday March 15, 2025 @04:44PM (#65236313)

    Is that next earth year or next mars year?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbialac ( 320955 )
      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.
      • You mean, other than there has been no detected life on mars in any of the proves sent there so far. Data can scan for tiny little life forms but hasn't detected any. [ https://youtu.be/dWBmaKk32fE?s... [youtu.be] ]

      • Doing otherwise would be nothing less than completely careless.

        It's a cost saving measure.

      • 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.

      • 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.

        Manned missions are not planned until 2029 at the earliest. So for at least several years these will be robotic missions.

        Which is what we did with the moon. Sending the Surveyor robotic missions to land on the moon before Apollo. There were 7 surveyor missions over 3 years.

    • Going by the ketamine Nazi's bullshit, people have been on Mars for 3 years now.

      https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]

  • Also, have SpaceX take over maintenance of Air Force One.

  • I wonder of Musk uses the same calendar as the rest of the world? Maybe that is why so few of Musk's predictions actually are delivered on the schedules originally announced?

  • Elon Musk is trying to do PR management (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Saturday March 15, 2025 @04:47PM (#65236337)

    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:2, Informative)

      by presearch ( 214913 )

      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)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      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

      • 2. Don't try to land big ships

        I seem to recall the Enterprise "landing" in one of the movies, at least...

        • 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.

          • Voyager was a much smaller ship and still had to "divert power to structural support"

            • 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)

            by caseih ( 160668 )

            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)

              by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              Or the Jurassic Park vibe where you drive over the hill and see the Brontosaurus.

              They did the Enterprise reveal thing a few times but usually with Kirk in a shuttle or something. The reboot wanted him to be cool and have a motorcycle so....

          • 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.

            • 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 ...

            • 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.

              Sounds like BS. Shuttles would suffice, and shuttles are basically analogous to the small boats used by ships at sea for centuries. No technobabble explanation needed for a shuttle.

              The truth is probably the transporter special effect was cheaper than shooting a shuttle scene. It was a budgetary decision.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Phact ( 4649149 )

          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)

            by drnb ( 2434720 )

            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..."

            If we can have transporters and time travel, why not a ship that can land.

            In my mind I just pretend it's a full-sized complete mockup not a real ship, for training at starfleet academy. :-)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by drnb ( 2434720 )

          I seem to recall the Enterprise "landing" in one of the movies, at least...

          Hence the GP's "(not nuTrek)". Sticking to the old 1960s shows, I think the Enterprise only entered Earth's atmosphere. Let's say 50K feet at least given it was intercepted by a USAF fighter. For some reason my mental picture is an F-102 but I'd would not wager on that. And I don't care enough to look it up - I'll just wait for the inevitable correction. :-)

      • 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)

      by dbialac ( 320955 )
      Carrying enough food for a round trip voyage to Mars seems to be at the top of that list as well.

      • 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: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        Carrying enough food for a round trip voyage to Mars seems to be at the top of that list as well.

        NASA has been researching growing food on board for decades. It'll probably supplement, not completely replaced on board supplies.

    • Re:Elon Musk is trying to do PR management (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fons_de_spons ( 1311177 ) on Saturday March 15, 2025 @05:54PM (#65236495)
      Sounds to me like Elon is using a page from Trump's book. Divert attention by stirring up some controversy.

      Yawn...

    • And let's not forget shielding humans from radiation once they get out of Earth's magnetic field.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Chances are, the public isn't likely to buy it. He's trying to distract from all the negative press that's happening - the markets are way down, to the point Trump's trying to claim it's Biden's fault all along. A recession is happening, etc.

      Of course, Musk, as addled up with drugs as he is, doesn't see that right now the public does not care about Mars. Unemployment is up, inflation is up, the economy is crashing. Unless SpaceX goes and hires tons of people, people don't care. Other than maybe tearing down

  • Oh goody more pump and dump (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday March 15, 2025 @04:53PM (#65236349)
    He's saying crazy shit again to try and boost his stocks. The market just doesn't buy it anymore. Too many people have been burned. I think even the densest investor out there are those that they will lose money during a musk brand pump and dump

    • Yup, trying to pump that old SpaceX stock. What's that symbol again? I'd like to go long on that....

    • a musk brand pump and dump

      In his case, otherwise known as "having children." :-)

  • 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.

    • 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?

    • 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.

    • 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...)

      • 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...)

        He may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but he knows better than going on a one-way death mission to Mars. Just as why Musk does not use FSD (with no driver and him sitting in the backseat) in his travels. "And then, *and then* do the smart thing! Let somebody else try first" is a warning to those not in the reality distortion field.

  • First passenger (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vermyndax ( 126974 ) <vermyndax&galaxycow,com> on Saturday March 15, 2025 @05:04PM (#65236379) Homepage

    Can he please be the first passenger?

  • Ahh.. Give a 12yr old billions of dollars and... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Vegan Cyclist ( 1650427 ) on Saturday March 15, 2025 @05:11PM (#65236389) Homepage

    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:5, Informative)

      by rufey ( 683902 ) on Saturday March 15, 2025 @06:54PM (#65236687)

      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.

      • 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?

      • 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

        Anyone with actual clue is well aware of this. But facts do not apply when one is trying to confuse the under-educated in order to subjugate them (and for them to applaud it). The novel 1984 was originally meant as a warning, not as an instruction manual (updated as Project 2025).

  • 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...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rufey ( 683902 )

      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.

  • SpaceX has already been to Mars, just like Tesla finished implementing FSD as promised over 5 years ago.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by godrik ( 1287354 )

      FSD was supposed to be deployed in 2014, so 11 years ago. During the interview of Musk at GTC 2013, he announced that we would have completely autonomous cars within a year. The interviewer was the NVIDIA CEO, the interview is probably on youtube.

      Musk has been full of shit for his entire life. I am surprised anyone believes anything he says.

  • Is that before or after (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday March 15, 2025 @05:47PM (#65236477)

    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)

      by sinij ( 911942 )

      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.

    • Model 3's? LOL Way before Model 3, Tesla stated clearly on the order page to anyone buying a 2016 Model S with FSD that will drive for the Tesla Ride Share Network making money for the owners, while driving friends and family for free. ROFL. There were a lot of people buying into this back then (I was not one of them, got flamed a lot on Tesla forums for stating how ridiculous those claims were for those cars). That said, Tesla made some really good cars, if you ignore Elon and everything he says or sells a

  • 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.

    • 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).

  • 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.

  • Associated Press, 15 April 2031 -- MC-1, the Mars Colonizer mission launched by the Musk Aeronautics and Space Corporation, suffered a setback on Monday when it apparently collided with an object, causing a complete loss of telemetry from the spacecraft. On orders from the Trump Residence, the James Webb space telescope was re-oriented to scan the area of last contact. While MASC has issued no official statement, sources within MASC under condition of anonymity report that, based on initial images from JW

    • 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

  • Everything will happen next year for many years until it doesn't happen.

  • Please please please please.

  • Will he have a pre-made base, complete with resources capable of sustaining human length for any meaningful length of time? Will any work or research be performed? Or is it a publicity stunt, payed for the by the U.S. Taxpayers?
  • That Musk & Trump go to Mars as soon as possible, like this evening

  • What Elon needs to do (Score:4, Funny)

    by presearch ( 214913 ) on Saturday March 15, 2025 @06:38PM (#65236649)

    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!!!"

  • will it have Full Self Driving?

  • See title. I'll bet you a dollar that it doesn't.

  • It's a great planet, full of happy, well-off people living in liberal democracies, getting global warming and the hateful woke under control, and preventing violent invasions of... ...ah. I see what you did there Elon.
    Very cunning :'-(

  • ....from a guy whose cars can't even pass the RoadRunner/Wily Coyote test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • 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.

    • Muskovites think that they're going to manufacture methane on Mars for the return trip using the Sabatier process. No idea where they plan to get sufficient feedstocks, equipment, or power.

  • Ha ha ha!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Our reruns are better than theirs." -- Nick at Nite

Close