News
NASA and SpaceX probably can’t terraform Mars but that doesn’t matter
In recent weeks, a great deal of exaggerative noise has been spread wide about the supposed impossibility of making the planet Mars more Earth-like and hospitable, a concept known as terraforming. The reality is quite a bit different, especially within the context of any SpaceX or NASA-driven human outposts or colonization attempts.
Triggered by comparatively reasonable research just published by two experienced planetary scientists, much of the hyperbolic media coverage that followed failed to properly frame the true challenges of terraforming the Red Planet.
Keeping the cart behind the horse
Before anything else, it’s critical to take a step back from the idea of terraforming and consider the simpler facts of any human presence on Mars. First, the rationale for a permanent human presence on Mars is largely independent of the environmental conditions on the planet – it’s a huge help to have basic resources available in situ (on site), but the difficulty of surviving in a given non-Earth environment is immaterial to the human desire to both explore and survive.
Assuming we humans really do want to ensure that a subset of ourselves can independently survive any truly global catastrophe on Earth, be it natural or artificial, we will find a way to do so in even the harshest of environments. Living on Mars would be downright luxurious compared to life aboard the International Space Station, thanks largely to ~1/3rd Earth gravity, accessible natural resources to replenish consumables, an Earthlike day and night cycle, considerably more forgiving temperature extremes, and much more.
-
- The ISS orbits just a few hundred miles above the surface of the Earth and hosts an average of six crewmembers at any given moment. (NASA)
-
- The massive BFR spaceship docked to the International Space Station. (SpaceX)
Despite the inhospitable conditions, human presence aboard the ISS has been uninterrupted for nearly 20 years, even though the average stay per crewmember sits around six months. The ISS also has the luxury of a 90 minute day/night cycle, 100% unfiltered sunlight for peak solar panel efficiency, regular resupply missions from Earth, and an escape route in the event of a catastrophic failure. That escape method (Soyuz capsules docked to the station) has not once been used, aside from a handful of instances where crew boarded their escape vehicles as a cautionary measure during unusually risky space debris events, an absolute non-issue on Mars’ surface.
Put simply: if humans can live in orbit for long periods, they can also survive on Mars with at least the same level of difficulty.
Getting there is the hardest part
By taking natural resources available on Mars (namely water and carbon dioxide) and using them to repopulate the planet’s withered atmosphere, it has long been hoped that the Martian surface might be brought much closer to that of Earth, with a thicker atmosphere translating into familiar air pressure and a far warmer climate. In its current state, humans would always need to wear pressure suits and carry oxygen when traveling beyond their Martian habitats, as Mars’ 0.06 bar atmosphere would be approximately as forgiving as the naked vacuum of space and only moderately warmer.
https://twitter.com/_TheSeaning/status/1026194288886071296
Terraforming could potentially alleviate those significant points against the Red Planet, although updated research published this year (2018) appears to indicate otherwise. In reality, Jakosky and Edwards’ study simply emphasizes and adds on to what should already have been wildly apparent – making desolate planets Earthlike is almost invariably going to be an unfathomably difficult (but by no means impossible) challenge, and is most likely beyond the reach of present-day humanity.
-
- Effectively unreleased, an updated Mars colonization video shown in 2018 replaces 2016’s ITS with the newer BFR design. (SpaceX)
-
- Artist David Romax’s jaw-dropping rendition of a BFR burning to Mars orbit. The craft’s various curves and hull complexities will likely rely on cutting-edge composite joining tech to function. (Gravitation Innovation)
-
- A Crew BFS (Big F____ Spaceship) pictured landing on Mars. (SpaceX)
It also happens to be the case that terraforming as a concept is utterly irrelevant without the means to get to and – more importantly – transport respectable amounts of cargo to the bodies one hopes to one day transform. SpaceX’s BFR transportation system is one such acknowledgment of that problem – the issue with Mars colonization or really any basic human presence at all is not surviving after arrival, but instead actually getting there in the first place and doing so without taking decades or bankrupting entire nations.
Extremely affordable transport to, from, and between orbits happen to be the most unequivocal requirement for both a permanent human presence on other planets and have any hope at all of terraforming them, but it just so happens that the latter is 100% irrelevant and impossible without the former. Let’s seriously worry and argue about terraforming Mars once we can do so from the surface of the Red Planet and focus first on getting there.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet (including fairing catcher Mr Steven) check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
