No, Elon, Starship Won't be Going to Mars in 2026.

Mr. Overpromise is at it again.

Starship landing on Mars, render — SpaceX

I despise the Silicon Valley “move fast and break things” mentality. It reeks of children who were never expected to tidy up their own mess. Nothing emphasises that more than Starship. After nearly $10 billion and nine test launches, it hasn’t even orbited the Earth once or managed to deliver any of the minuscule dummy payloads it’s been using. Sure, you can learn a lot from failure, but SpaceX has openly stated that they have lost significant amounts of the flight data. On top of that, repeated failures from functionally the same cause heavily imply that they are, in fact, not learning from their failures. Yet, Musk announced just before the failed ninth test flight that they would be sending a Starship to Mars next year and landing a small army of Tesla Bots on the surface of Mars in 2027. Is this even remotely possible? Or has Musk’s brain finally given out under the weight of all those drugs?

Well, first, what is Musk’s harebrained plan?

So far, Starship has had two generations, and Musk plans to build several “Mars-ready” third-generation rockets in 2025 for this mission. These rockets will be 20 metres longer than the previous generation to accommodate more propellant, yet somehow, they are still expected to have a lighter dry mass than the previous generation. They will also use Raptor 3 engines, as opposed to the Raptor 2 engines currently used on the second-generation rockets. By simplifying them and removing heat shielding, SpaceX has saved roughly 100kg per engine (though this isn’t enough to account for the larger rocket being lighter), increased thrust by nearly 20%, and increased specific impulse (the measure of how efficiently a rocket turns propellant mass into thrust) by 6%.

Musk plans to launch five of these rockets to Mars in 2026, with all scheduled to land in 2027. These rockets will be laden with Tesla Bots, which will “demonstrate key technologies for Mars transit and landing”. However, a Starship can’t simply launch and head straight to Mars — it requires refuelling in Earth orbit to complete the trip and land safely. Each of these rockets will have to be refuelled multiple times in orbit by cryogenic fuel transfers from other Starships, which has never been done before. So, in reality, Musk will need tens of Starship launches to get these five to Mars.

Okay, so a new, more powerful rocket and a bit of refuelling. Is that enough to make it to Mars?

Hell no! There are literally dozens of reasons why this won’t happen. Let me break it down in no particular order.

1. Generation 3 Starship Doesn’t Solve the Issues Plaguing Generation 2

Why did all of Starship’s Generation 2 test flights (flights 7, 8 and 9) fail? Was it because of a lack of thrust? Not enough fuel? Or too much weight? No. It was because the rocket and engines were too fragile for the stress of launch, let alone the forces of landing.

Flight 7 exploded before it reached orbit after vibrations caused a massive fuel line leak. Flight 8 exploded before reaching orbit when a rocket engine experienced a “flash” event, likely due to overheating caused by proximity to the other engines or stress damage, which resulted in the engine exploding and taking out the other engines. Flight 9 failed when another massive stress-induced fuel leak caused a fire and explosion that destroyed the rocket.

With this data in mind, where should SpaceX go from here? Should they build a larger rocket to carry more fuel but with a lower dry weight, meaning that the rocket’s structure is weaker but still has to carry substantially more mass (thanks to far more fuel) during launch? Should they also use a more powerful rocket engine, which runs hotter than current engines and doesn’t have the heat shields currently used? No, right? This is a recipe for failure.

Basic engineering principles suggest that this updated Starship is unlikely to address the issues that cause Starships to keep failing.

2. Tiny Payload

About a year ago, Musk stated that the Raptor rocket engines had a significant thrust shortfall and that Starship’s designed 150-tonne payload to LEO had to be reduced to roughly 45 tonnes. However, it appears that Musk was significantly underselling the issue. Test flight 7 had a dummy payload of 20 tonnes, flight 8 had a dummy payload of 8 tonnes, and flight 9 had a dummy payload of 16 tonnes. These are all a fraction of the revised 45-tonne payload, meaning the flights could carry less fuel and be significantly lighter. That in turn meant less thrust was needed, so the rocket engines weren’t being pushed as hard as they were supposed to, and structural stress should be lower than designed for. Even despite these low stresses, the rocket still failed because of stress-related issues.

Flights 7 and 8 didn’t reach orbital speeds before exploding, but Flight 9 did. However, it exploded before it could deliver the dummy payload. As such, Starship could theoretically deliver 16 tonnes to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), with a very high risk of mission failure. That is significantly less than SpaceX’s own decade-old Falcon 9.

This is why the Gen 3 rocket has focused on increasing thrust and adding fuel capacity; it’s to increase this pathetic payload capacity, not the actual problem of explosive mission failures.

But Musk is promising that Gen 3 Starship will have a payload capacity of 200 tonnes to LEO, which is a 12.5 times increase. A 20% increase in thrust, a 6% increase in specific impulse, and a much heavier rocket simply aren’t going to give him that. So, even if Musk can make Starship reach orbit, these Mars-bound Starships will have payload capacities so small they essentially become useless.

3. Cryogenic Fuel Transfer

Starship’s upper stage expels between 80% and 90% of its propellant during launch to orbit and is expected to use almost all the remaining fuel during landing. As such, to exit Earth’s orbit and land on another celestial body, namely the Moon or Mars, requires it to be refuelled in orbit. SpaceX plans to send up another Starship that uses its payload to carry propellant, docks with the Moon- or Mars-bound Starship, and transfers the fuel, refilling it.

This is something that has never been done, and the complexities are immense. Handling such volatile substances in the vacuum of space and transferring them safely between two massive spacecraft without leaks or explosions is a recipe for disaster. If one single highly probable error occurs, it’s bye-bye to both Starships.

As we will see in a moment, Starships will need to be refuelled many times to reach Mars, compounding this risk and making the chance of a Starship leaving Earth orbit extremely small.

4. Cost and Logistics

For Starship to leave Earth orbit, land on another celestial body, and return, it needs its entire 1,500-tonne fuel tank completely refilled in orbit. This poses a considerable issue regarding cost and logistics.

Let’s assume that Starship is capable of full reuse and can carry 45 tonnes of fuel to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and safely transfer this fuel to another Starship. How much would it cost to send one Starship to Mars?

Realistic yet highly optimistic launch costs for Starship are estimated at approximately $70 million. With this payload, it would take a total of 33 launches to completely refill Starship’s tanks. So, that is 34 launches in total, which equates to $2.38 billion!

Don’t forget that Musk wants to send five of these rockets to Mars in 2026. That means a total of 170 launches, which is significantly more than SpaceX achieved in 2024, and a launch cost of $11.9 billion, exceeding the amount they have spent on Starship over the past decade.

The logistics alone of getting that many rockets into space would be a nightmare. Especially because every time a Starship explodes, it is grounded for months at a time while the experts try to figure out what went wrong. However, because our orbit only takes us close to Mars every 26 months, SpaceX cannot afford to miss the launch window; otherwise, its Mars-bound Starships will be stuck in orbit for another two years. After being exposed to space for two years, it might be too damaged for a trans-Mars flight.

So, unless Musk can find a spare $11.9 billion behind the sofa and somehow magically get Starship to take more than double its current payload to space, conduct a landing, be constantly reusable, and reduce mission failures from 100% to 0%, Starship isn’t getting anywhere near Mars in 2026.

5. Mars Landing

Okay, but let’s give Musk the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say he resolves all of these issues and gets Starship on its way to Mars. Well, there are still several significant problems with this mission.

Firstly, landing on Mars is a totally different kettle of fish than landing on Earth from Earth’s orbit. LEO velocity is 17,500 mph, and Earth has a thick, deep atmosphere. Meanwhile, trans-Mars flights are at speeds of 24,000 mph, and Mars has a thin, shallow atmosphere. Starship uses atmospheric drag to scrub off much of its kinetic energy during Earth landings, as this saves on fuel mass. But that isn’t viable for a Mars landing, as not only is there far less atmospheric resistance, but this resistance starts at a lower altitude, and Starship is coming in significantly faster.

As a result, Starship will require a significantly different landing process for Mars, likely utilising retro-rockets more than atmospheric drag. Firstly, this will increase fuel usage and, therefore, decrease the potential payload to Mars. Secondly, this will drastically change the landing procedure, and SpaceX isn’t known for getting these right the first time, so there will likely be a lot of trial and error before successfully landing on Mars. However, as we have seen, these rocket engines aren’t exactly reliable, even when they are fresh and haven’t spent months in space. Therefore, even if the landing procedure is perfect, actually completing a landing is far from guaranteed.

6. It Makes Zero Sense to Send Tesla Bots to Mars

There is a reason NASA sends rovers, not humanoid robots, to explore other worlds. It is because our form factor is incredibly complex, limiting and inefficient, and more specialised robots like rovers beat our weak forms every day of the week. The one thing Tesla’s Optimus robots are good for is proving this limitation. Even after years of research and development, Optimus is only marginally better than a Disney animatronic. But, even as far as humanoid robots go, Optimus is pretty crap, with Honda’s decade-old ASIMO beating it in capability. So, even here on Earth, Optimus is pretty useless (read more here).

However, on Mars, these issues will be exacerbated. Optimus’s AI was trained on Earth gravity, so it is highly likely that it will consistently fall over when it finds itself significantly lighter in Martian gravity. Mars is also covered in a very fine sand-like substance that is hard enough for wheeled robots, let alone balancing biped robots. Optimus has only really been seen shuffling around like a pensioner on perfectly flat, grippy surfaces, so if gravity doesn’t render it immobile, the terrain will.

And, even if Tesla solves these huge locomotion issues, there is still the problem of utility. Their AI is extremely limited, as it can only do basic, highly constrained tasks in controlled environments, making the AI useless on Mars. In almost all the videos of Optimus you have seen, it was being puppeteered by an intern. However, thanks to the at least eight-minute round-trip signal delay from Earth to Mars, that isn’t possible. This also means that if something goes wrong with one of these robots during the mission, we can’t effectively pilot it from Earth. So, a rover is a far easier, simpler, more efficient way of exploring and understanding Mars, and guess what? We already have them there!

From every point of view, from robotics to science to engineering development, there is no benefit to sending these pathetic robots to Mars. The only possible reason would be marketing, but even then, the only thing this kind of mission would prove is that the robots suck, so, no, not a great marketing move.

Will Starship Make it to Mars?

Well, definitely not in 2027 — there is zero chance of that. I personally believe that the Starship concept isn’t viable and will never get to Mars. I am happy to be proven wrong, but with each successive launch, my concerns are gradually proven correct.

This is even more transparently manipulative bullshit marketing from the guy who promised us fully autonomous cars seven years ago. It suggests that he either lacks a fundamental understanding of the technology he sells or he is desperately trying to manipulate markets, investors, and contractors. It’s pathetic, and we should point and laugh at this blatant stupidity.

---

Thanks for reading! Don’t forget to check out my YouTube channel for more from me, or Subscribe. Oh, and don’t forget to hit the share button below to get the word out!

---

Sources: Notebook Check, Reuters, Will Lockett, Will Lockett, BI, CNN, Space.com, SpaceX, AmericaSpace, Will Lockett, Phsy.org