US Astronauts on Mars in December, 2028 is Possible With Everything Going Right

26 thoughts on “US Astronauts on Mars in December, 2028 is Possible With Everything Going Right”

1. Would a red, white and blue Optimus stepping down to the Martian surface, then driving a flag pole into the ground, satisfy the goal of an American flag on Mars by 2029?

   Making methane on Mars will require almost a megawatt of power — and maybe two years, to crack the water, make and store enough propellant for fully refuelling one Starship.

   The Delta V to Phobos is significantly lower than to Mars’ surface.

   A ship would require far less fuel to match orbit with that low moon, allowing for more payload.

   If the refining was done “on” Phobos, far fewer flights would be required.

   One Ship brings a nuclear power source to provide the power, and equipment for methane production.

   A second is refilled at Phobos, then landed as a fuel depot to be left on Mars — after disgorging other equipment and supplies at the “gas station”.

   A third ship with crew matches orbit at Phobos, fuels-up, then descends to the surface.

   Refuel from the depot, launch back up.

   Top off at Phobos, then home.

   Two Starships carrying two crews would allow for rotational gravity, and a lifeboat, if needed.

   Upon arrival, one crew to surface, the other possibly remaining in orbit.

   Many chances to abort.

   Otherwise, a nuke reactor, or massive solar complex, would need to be landed, along with a refinery and tankage.

   Then a single shot at landing, refuelling, and launching straight back to Earth.

   Much greater risk.

   (Ad cycling keeps wiping comment as I’m writing – Sucks!!)

   • “A ship would require far less fuel to match orbit with that low moon, allowing for more payload.”

     While delta v to the Martian moons IS less than to the surface, remember that aerobraking supplies most of the difference, and rockets only have to provide enough delta v for course corrections and the last bit of landing, roughly from the speed of sound to zero.

     You can of course use aerobraking for orbital capture, but then you need a circularization burn if you’re going to stop at one of the Moons.

     So, in all likelihood, no, it does NOT require less *rocket supplied* delta V to rendezvous with Phobos. Certainly not significantly less.

     I don’t think Musk plans to use nuclear power for a Mars colony, at least not initially. This would vastly increase the regulatory burden you have to surmount. As I’ve related, if you built an SPS in Earth orbit, you could transfer it to Mars orbit using ion engines over the course of a couple of years, as power would be no issue. If desired, I suppose it could be built with living accommodations, you’d at least want that much for a visiting maintenance crew.

     Mars stationary orbit is substantially lower than geosynch, so the antenna challenges are less, or the potential spot size smaller, and an SPS has the advantage of being unaffected by surface events, a rectenna would function just fine during a dust storm.

     Maybe two such satellites, leading and trailing, so that the colony would get uninterrupted power during the satellites’ brief night.

2. Would a red, white and blue Optimus stepping down to the Martian surface, then driving a flag pole into the ground, satisfy the goal of an American flag on Mars by 2029?

   Making methane on Mars will require almost a megawatt of power — and maybe two years, to crack the water, make and store enough propellant for fully refuelling one Starship.

   The Delta V to Phobos is significantly lower than to Mars’ surface.

   A ship would require far less fuel to match orbit with that low moon, allowing for more payload.

   If the refining was done “on” Phobos, far fewer flights would be required.

   One Ship brings a nuclear power source to provide the power, and equipment for methane production.

   A second is refilled at Phobos, then landed as a fuel depot to be left on Mars — after disgorging other equipment and supplies at the “gas station”.

   A third ship with crew matches orbit at Phobos, fuels-up, then descends to the surface.

   Refuel from the depot, launch back up.

   Top off at Phobos, then home.

   Two Starships carrying two crews would allow for rotational gravity, and a lifeboat, if needed.

   Upon arrival, one crew to surface, the other possibly remaining in orbit.

   Many chances to abort.

   Otherwise, a nuke reactor, or massive solar complex, would need to be landed, along with a refinery and tankage.

   Then a single shot at landing, refuelling, and launching straight back to Earth.

   Much greater risk.

   (Ad cycling keeps wiping comment as I’m writing)

3. Chemical rockets reached their peak decades ago and tweaks have come to the non-engine part of the spaceship + size upgrades.
   Musk can’t even get Starship to orbit without exploding, after 7 tries (New Glenn did it in 1). Refueling will be high risk X multiple launches, a terrible combination. What if the 7th refueling launch blows up? Or, the 5th launch fails to dock properly, or the fuel just doesn’t transfer properly, etc. etc….
   It’s doubtful Starship can even get to the Moon with all that rigamarole. I don’t know why SpaceX doesn’t just strap 4 falcon-size boosters around the lower stage of Starship, then jettison those once orbit is reached and use the central rocket to get to the Moon. But then, I am not a genius…
   Atomic rockets will reach Mars, like this one from NASA: https://newatlas.com/space/nuclear-reactor-fuel-survives-rocket-engine-conditions/
   They’ll be ready in the 2030s, when the inevitable delays push Starship past the end of the decade. With Musk, add 20% to any deadline he sets, and 30% more if it’s never been done by anyone before and is a major change, like refueling in space.

   • New Glenn is a Falcon Heavy class rocket.
     SpaceX also successfully flew Falcon Heavy on the first try and on the first try they recovered two boosters. They have successfully flown Falcon Heavy 11 times, 19 landings and 16 reflown.
     SpaceX has flown Falcon 9 423 times and landed 381 times and reflown 354 times.
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Launches_and_payloads

     SpaceX is being cautious on the one hand. The orbital capability was clearly there for five of the flights. They chose not to orbit for the safety of re-igniting the engine in orbit to de-orbit.

     I think that SpaceX will get the landing and operations of Starship to equal and exceed the safety of Falcon 9 within 2-3 years. This is one failure in 400 launches. By 2026, SpaceX will have 20-40 Starships. Five will fly to Mars. this could be 50 refueling missions. If one fails, that will be meaningless, because there will be redundancy and they will have checks before approaching to refuel. Just like they check before docking with the space station.

     This will drop further because shifting to safe operations instead of testing (this last explosion was one the first test flight of a block 2 rocket).

     • The Angry Astronaut has been making the same point about nuclear rockets – which have a long & proven history, and were only derailed because NASA switched to a space truck, the Space Shuttle, and stopped funding long range human capable rockets in the 1970s under Nixon: https://youtu.be/ZggkNX0nAsc?si=8q1SnPN3QLOR6GSw
       AA also points out that with General Atomics’s recent 3X efficiency boost to this old nuclear concept, it’s possible to reach Mars in 2 months, which means a crew of 4 can get there, spend 2 months on Mars, then return, all within the close approach that Mars & Earth make every couple of years. Otherwise, you have to spend 2 years on Mars waiting for the next approach, after a 4-5 month trip, which also requires more of everything: more shielding against cosmic rays, more food etc. Plus you need all that refueling & even fuel creation on Mars!
       It’s very doubtful SpaceX can do this in this decade, if ever, and by the 2030s, Lockheed Martin/NASA/General Atomics should be able to finish up the creation of a rocket that has 3X the ISP of Starship, traveling at 13 km/sec vs. 4.5km/sec. for Starship or basically any other chemical rocket. It’s possible that an orbiting nuclear rocket could be accessible via Starship, or even the new space plane Dreamchaser, or even some other company’s reusable rocket. That would get rid of the Earth gravity well/fuel problem, while allowing the maximum thrust & speed of a nuclear rocket.
       SpaceX is using old technology, like a lot of what Musk is doing these days while he’s so distracted in politics and X.

       • “Otherwise, you have to spend 2 years on Mars waiting for the next approach”

         I tend to think of it as “get to spend”, not “have to spend”. It’s not like they’d work for 2 weeks and then just play cards for another 2 years. It’s SO NASA to spend vast resources to get somebody someplace interesting, and then snatch them back as soon as possible.

         The radiation level at Mars surface is about 240-300 millisieverts per year. This sort of level is actually not unheard of naturally on Earth, and notably, is NOT associated with negative health consequences.

         https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1350448715000086

         It’s actually in the range where you’d expect radiation hormesis to occur. Remember, most of our evolutionary history was at higher than current radiation levels, as nuclear isotopes have been gradually decaying over the life of the Earth.

         The linear no threshold theory is just that, only a theory, and not even a well grounded one, just a conservative initial assumption. Subsequent research has actually rendered it rather dubious.

         But as I’ve related before, you could cover an inflatable habitat on Mars with a simple layer of sandbags, and reduce that level to normal Earth levels.

   • Uh…Starship tests havent meant to be orbital

4. An aluminum Spaceship boosted by the Starship Heavy booster, that is stripped to the bare bones, using Ion propulsion, and with a landing capsule fitted with an inflatable re-entry shield for Mars aero-braking would get the Americans Explorers to Mars very quickly, without need for the on-orbit re-fuelling currently being planned. The “other thing” that should be seriously considered is “one-way” trips by volunteers (in the beginning) that relies on the arrival of a serious amount of provisions delivered by the Falcon Heavy launcher in advance. A case of the “KISS” principle that is well known to engineers. If Elon Musk can throw his car at Mars using the well proven Falcon Heavy launcher, then with the right financial backing, he can send/land “care packages” well in advance.

   Up till now, SpaceX has been required to fund all of this Mars stuff out of their general revenue, it is high time the American Government stepped in and provided additional funding! Either the Americans are serious about getting to Mars this time around or it will be just another failed attempt for the history books. 🙁

   Little brains are easily overloaded by the magnitude of this momentous leap. It takes great minds (like that of Werner Von Braun, or Sergei Korolev) to envisage all of the components of a seriously great undertaking. NASA bureaucracy is NOT the answer to this conundrum, a million little brains cannot equal one single Mega Brain!

   I know, the current technology is primitive, but that is what these monkeys have at their disposal, and it is sufficient to get their explorers to Mars!

   So much time has been wasted on diverting the “human” desire for Manned Space Exploration, and very little in the way of resources have been left to implement it…….

   • While I’ve remarked that, if I were still single, I’d volunteer for a one-way mission to Mars if guaranteed resupply, (I’m in my 60’s and a space fanatic engineer.) you’d probably have to line people up at a firing squad to get NASA to agree to a mission plan like that despite the availability of volunteers.

     Which is a shame, really.

   • On a side note, you’re not, with current technology, going to use ion propulsion for a manned mission. The acceleration is so low that the trip time gets increased, increasing radiation exposure during the trip. And cutting mass to the bone means no radiation shielding, too.

     And you can’t LAND using ion propulsion, let alone take off again, you need rockets for that on Mars, so why would you bother with a second propulsion system?

     It would be great for getting cargo to Mars, especially cargo that didn’t need to be landed. And I’ve suggested that Musk build an SPS or two for his Mars colony, and have them get there using ion propulsion, since they’d have the power, and could afford the long trip. But not for manned flights.

     If you think SpaceX is making some fundamental mistake, while that’s not TOTALLY out of the question, (They obviously do once in a while.) it’s not likely, because they do have very good literal rocket scientists on staff.

     • I do take the comments about lining up Explorers for a one way mission to Mars seriously. Human life is not only precious, it is very unique, and well worth saving!

       Some of my ancestors had little choice but to flee Europe in great haste for the American Colonies on little ships like (and including) the Mayflower, back in the early 1600’s. So many adventures like this would have failed without back up supplies arriving just in the nick of time. So that MUST be the first consideration for any settlement on Mars!!

       To answer your comments, Brett,

       #1 Not trying to use Ion propulsion with a manned mission immediately, just the freight component. One could also use thermal fission propulsion like that proposed for the Inter Planetary third stage of the Saturn-5, had the American Government held the same vision as that of President JFK. It is even quite doable for Mars bound freight to just use the long/slow way to Mars with chemical propulsion…..

       As for the early Manned Landings on Mars…

       #2 Some experiments landing Freight Dragon on Earth with the aide of the DRACO thrusters after ISS re-supply might need to be carried out. Musk does own a parachute company that makes these chutes for the Dragon capsules….

       #3 I had an interesting chat with the Claude AI program this day, I will try and post some of it in replies? Might stir up some interest? My thinking is that there is plenty of COTS hardware already tested and available that can get the freight AND Mankind to Mars. So we are talking about the lack of management expertise to get this thing done? Possibly, the “Advanced Dragon” that will de-orbit the ISS might be useful in getting humans to Mars? That could ride atop the already tested Heavy booster with an aluminum second stage? None of this thought bubble is fanciful, NASA has already proven that they can get Unmanned “Landers” to Mars, many times, and with great reliability!

       I have absolutely no doubt, the stainless steel “Starship” will eventually get to Mars, but not by 2026, or even 2028, methinks….. too much testing of “on orbit” refueling and reliability of Starship, which is still not proven. Musk is often outstandingly correct, but not always reliable in the time frame suggested. A missive, perhaps! 🙂

       So, as with anything to do with politicians, no more fantastic words (which can be very cheap and intended to mislead), no more fancy promises, just get out the Government checkbook and do it!!

5. Before sending humans to Mars, why do I hear nothing about sending humans back to our moon? Using momentum awareness, we can get there, as we did in the 1960’s/70’s in under three days. Today, using radiofrequency plasma propulsion, a few hours. The moon offers fabulous natural resources, You’ve heard “In space, no one can hear you scream?” Well, LOTS of people can hear you, if you use a damn radio. Like duh… The moon is VERY close, and should be our first step, before we go to other planets. We have to know how to walk, before we can run, or fly. Or “beam” anywhere but the later, is a whole other issue…

   • Because the lunar Starship tests will be there. For SpaceX, lunar landings will be like orbital trips right now: routine. First used for test vehicles and then for a fee.

   • Because that gives Americans a 30-year head start for a full-time Base on the Red Planet.
     The Moon is within reach for many private and national entities over the coming several months. That’s lunar bureaucracy, space-sharing, and drama into the early 2030s – minimal progress, maximum discussion. Useless.

6. Booster was the easy part. Starship is the harder. It needs to be safe, reliable to carry equipment and later humans. From takeoff, fuel transfer, landing, unloading cargo,…
   Perhaps they have about 12 months to make Starship reliable and 7 months to practice fuel transfers. There would need to be lots of launches to fuel it enough for 1 mission. Few months extra and that is it for the 2026 launch window. Hard to do, but sending equipment is still not such a risk, if it blows not such catastrophy as humans.

   • Having the full five landing attempts is more important than sending the greatest amount of cargo. If reusable tankers aren’t mastered by the late 2026 launch window, I could imagine SpaceX launching just a few expendable tankers for reduced cargo Starship. The last two could have more payload than the first three. Then, in 2029, more than five could be sent with a variety of payload masses. Depending upon how those went, the final, lower-payload crew vehicles could attempt landing if they could do the free return trajectory and try again in 2031. I doubt that it would be later than that that they land humans on Mars.

7. More realistically I think about 2030 for manned launch. That is the earliest. Booster seems on good track. Starship needs quite some of extra work. Now orbital refueling is the priority if they want to launch some robots, equipment in 2026.

   • That’s a more likely schedule.

     IIRC, reentry at Mars is easier than at Earth, because while the Martian atmosphere is thinner at ground level, the pressure drops off much slower than on Earth due to the lower gravity. And you normally shed most of your energy in the very thin upper atmosphere anyway.

     For Mars, the altitude range where you can safely do that at is much wider, basically extends almost to the surface.

     And you don’t have gravity adding back so much of the energy you’re trying to shed, either, and you have less energy to shed in the first place.

     So aerobraking on Mars is much more forgiving, the margin of safety is larger.

     The downside is that aerodynamic breaking stops being effective at a much higher speed for Mars. And parachutes are a non-starter for anything that isn’t tiny. So you need retropropulsive landing, which is… Exactly what Starship was designed from the start for!

     Starship really was designed for Mars.

     The real challenge, aside from having a good atmospheric model for Mars aerobraking, is just storing cryogenic propellants for months on end. There’s not a lot of time in Brian’s proposed schedule to crack that particular nut, and I’m curious how SpaceX plans to pull it off. The methane and O2 need to be at different temperatures, after all, both much much colder than you want the cargo and electronics to get.

     • I understand that cryocoolers are proven technology and small-scale, zero boil off cryogenic propellant storage has been demonstrated in the lab. The published leading expert on the topic (ULA engineer) told me that he doesn’t think docking, connecting, transfer, and storage will prove that difficult and that he expects it more likely than not to work on the first attempt.

8. You’ve forgot one tiny detail. Propellant production on Mars.
   So to send people in 2028 we should send robotic mission to Mars in 2026. It should produce propellant and return to Earth. That would proof that it is safe to send people.
   So SpaceX has 1,5 years to finish the development of Starship, orbital refuelling, landing legs to land on Mars, develop robotic ISRU tech.

   Impossible.

9. Yes, it’s barely possible if everything goes well. Everything going well would require that the unmanned Starships that launch in 2026 land successfully; You’re not going to launch manned ships until the unmanned ships land alright.

   But, yes, barely possible. It should be the goal they work towards. Aim for the stars if you want to hit the Moon!

10. All is possible if the government is no longer your enemy and puts you roadblocks at every step.

    Which I presume is what Musk wanted to get by supporting Trump.

    I pity the poor bureaucratic fool that will try to put the brakes to SpaceX, and there will be. The institutions are still the domain of the lefties.

    • Speaking of, I wonder how long the current FAA halt on Starship testing will last? Not very long, I’m guessing.

      • I didn’t; know there was an FAA ban, and I think of myself as well informed. Need to get my head out of my warm, comfortable a**…

        • Not a ban, a temporary halt, and you can’t say it’s totally unjustified this time.

          https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/17/faa-grounds-spacex-starship-reports-property-damage-in-caribbean.html

Comments are closed.