SpaceX
There are many challenges involved in a mission to Mars. What are they and what technology is SpaceX working on to address them?
The concept of sending humans to Mars has been an exciting idea for decades, and the direction of space travel in the 21st century is finally presenting the possibility of actually making that happen. Of course, once everyone let the seriousness of such a journey sink in, the question of feasibility has inevitably come to the table for open discussion with the goal of finding realistic solutions.
It’s interesting enough to simply review the missions of all the Mars hopefuls (Part 1), but now that the reviews are in, it’s the details that are driving the discussion. After all, even the casual observer knows that deep space travel presents challenges such as long-term zero gravity and the ever-popular doom-and-gloom danger of cosmic radiation.
[Say that last one in a loud, booming voice for extra effect.]
Before breaking down any specifics, I want to acknowledge that there’s more than just a twelve-step program to getting to Mars (twelve being the obligatory “go-to” number). It requires an entire infrastructure of capabilities that build upon and support one another. However, I’m taking a leap of faith by assuming that inevitably anyone making a successful trip to Mars will have partnerships in place to tap into such an infrastructure. It’s the larger components of the specific missions that I’m focusing on here.
Outlining the Challenges for a Mission to Mars
Credit: NASA
NASA has a dedicated “Space Technology Mission Directorate” (STMD) charged with developing the capabilities needed to achieve the missions and goals NASA is given.
With the red planet as one of the big missions of the day (meaning Mars obviously, although Pluto has also been determined to be red), there’s no shortage of PowerPoints, panels, and interviews to source for what’s being worked on. I’ll follow their lead for discussion.
Transportation
Falcon 9 launch | Credit: SpaceX
First and foremost, in order to explore Mars, we’ve got to get there and (arguably) back. Depending on the length of stay and mission purpose, the cargo needs are going to play a part in the “how” part of this puzzle piece. Small stuff, no sweat (relative to general space traveler sweat levels). Big stuff? Now we’ve got issues.
Propulsion
Propulsion has been an interesting discussion to watch from the sidelines, mainly due to the debate over the types of systems available versus the types of systems thought to be needed. General mission discussions tend towards a six to eight month flight time each way plus a year and a half or so on the surface, but there are those advocating for shorter flight times to mitigate hazard exposure and reduce cargo needs.
Current rocket fuels can speed things along, but only at the expense of high fuel consumption. Nuclear fusion (and fission) systems are in the works which would theoretically reduce the flight time to Mars to approximately three months, but the timeframe needed to fully develop and test such new technologies isn’t a big crowd pleaser.
The methane-based nature of SpaceX’s Raptor engine for their speculated Mars Colonial Transport doesn’t really lend either way to this debate because using methane is a choice surrounding resource availability rather than power levels. Since methane can be harvested and manufactured on Mars, it reduces the need to carry as much fuel from Earth on missions, thus lowering costs. Methane-based fuel generation is also one of the key parts of the Mars Society’s “Mars Direct” proposal.
Entry, Descent, and Landing
Given the fact that we’ve sent several rovers to Mars already, it might be surprising that getting a craft from orbit to the Martian surface is actually a huge challenge. A quick survey of our recent history certainly makes the case for landing to be a non-issue, so what’s the deal?
Apollo landing module | Credit: NASA
Yes, we land heavy things on Earth all the time, but we do so with an atmosphere about 99% thicker than the one on Mars. The lack of air pressure and wind on Mars means that there isn’t any real air resistance to aid in slowing down a massive descending craft nor is there any wind to tap into for a glider or parachute to be very effective.
What about the moon?
There’s virtually no atmosphere there, either, yet we landed quite a bit of cargo during the Apollo program. That explanation would be gravity. The moon has less than half the gravity that Mars does, which is less than 20% that of Earth. The difference in power required to land a crew module on the moon vs. Mars could maybe be compared to landing a mini Falcon 9 with a micro drone onto a piece of plywood in the middle of a swimming pool versus dropping, say, a child-sized Tesla Model S. Maybe not, but it’s fun to think about. So cute…
In 2012, NASA landed the rover “Curiosity” on the Martian surface using a very complicated parachute-plus-propulsion crane system. The existence of such technology somewhat gives the impression that landing things on Mars is already a solved problem. If what we’re landing is about the mass of a small car, this impression is true, but if we are landing anything significantly larger, such as a capsule carrying humans for example, then the problem is still a problem as larger masses require greater counterforce to slow down their descent.
SpaceX Gives Back
Falcon 9 first stage landing | Credit: SpaceX
SpaceX’s focus on developing propulsive landing systems is aiming to solve the problem of counterforce. This is actually an area where SpaceX is supporting NASA’s Journey to Mars (instead of the other way around) via the data obtained from their Falcon 9 landings to date. One of NASA’s proposed solutions is a “supersonic retropropulsion” system, meaning periodic firing of the engines on a craft to counter the speed resulting from a trip through the (small) Martian atmosphere. To date, NASA hasn’t been able to test this type of technology in an environment similar to what would be encountered on Mars whereas SpaceX has. By studying the results of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 first stage landings, NASA can use the information gathered for their retropropulsive system designs.
Back scratchers, unite!
Crew Systems
Apollo capsule in clean room | Credit: SDASM Archives
The crew ships under development for taking astronauts to Mars have a number of requirements to meet to be successful transports, and from the information available thus far, their progress seems to be moving along swimmingly. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon has been announced with photos and basic details provided, and NASA’s Orion capsule has enjoyed a marketing campaign providing numerous details for quite some time now.
Dragon capsule during hover test | Credit: SpaceX
The primary improvements in both capsule designs over the Apollo age seem to be more room, better heat shields, better software, and glass cockpits (i.e., touch screens). Crew Dragon can also hover (eventually landing) and blast off from its rocket transport in an emergency event. The aesthetics are pretty swank as well. Why isn’t there anything vastly different from what we’ve already done?
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Crew Cargo & Environmental Systems
Environmental systems and supplies to keep human travelers alive and (mostly) happy have been generally worked out via prior orbital missions, especially on the long-term International Space Station (ISS) ones. However, there are a few added “catches” that a mission to Mars throws in.
ISS | Credit: NASA on The Commons
First, the ISS is able to maintain long-term human crews due to regular cargo resupply missions. The travel distance for Mars-bound astronauts will render such types of delivery schedules unavailable. No cargo deliveries mean carrying all the cargo required for the entire trip, something that generally demands multiple rocket launches for supply assembly before heading out.
Other than the higher expense of multiple launches, this seems to just be a matter of logistics and cost effectiveness rather than capability. SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy was certainly designed with these cargo requirements in mind considering the power packed into its engines.
Second, life support system technology has been developed and advanced over the years on the ISS, but it requires a lot of maintenance to upkeep. Perhaps the life support systems on the new crew capsules will endure for longer than the systems on the ISS as they have the data available to design around, but in the event that upkeep is just a fact of life that can’t be prevented, crews will surely undergo the training to perform repairs as needed as they are now.
As development in the space industry continues, these issues may become minimal. For instance, short-term resupply missions could eventually become available as travel time to Mars decreases with more efficient and powerful propulsion systems. The development of photon propulsion via lasers is ongoing, the goal being to accelerate around 220 pounds of unmanned spacecraft to 25% the speed of light for a three-day trip to Mars. That could almost translate into a sort of Mars-based Amazon Prime. I see what you’re up to, Jeff Bezos!
SpaceX also plans on making regular cargo missions to Mars a bi-annual affair, so as long as supplies and equipment can last for the 26-month(ish) window between launches, it’s Mars-certified.
Zero Gravity Impacts
Astronaut Ed White on a spacewalk | Credit: NASA on The Commons
When astronauts return from long-term zero gravity, their bodies have to acclimate after changes despite attempts to mitigate the effects through exercise regimens. If you’re just going from Earth to space and then Earth again, no big deal really. But going from Earth to space and then Mars? There won’t be a team of medical professionals ready to drag the astronauts out of the capsule and tell them to take it easy for a while.
That’s kind of an amusing image, actually. The Red Dragon capsule lands but everyone inside is all laid out looking like they are badly hungover from the prior night’s club hopping. Throw in some glitter for Instagram? Sorry, I’m digressing…
What exactly are the effects of long-term zero gravity on the human body? According to NASA, muscles (including the heart) can atrophy at a rate of 5% per week, bones at 1% per month, and about 22% of blood volume is lost. These are generally recoverable, but it takes about as long to recover a muscle as it did to lose it, and bone can take two to three years to grow back if it does at all. The lower Mars gravity would probably mean an easier recovery process, but there’s still a process involved and the entire crew is affected. Not even regular exercise can mimic all of the (needed) effects that gravity has on the body.
Space colony concept art | Credit: NASA on The Commons
The concept of using a rotating space craft to mitigate this problem is seen so often in movies and space habitat designs that one might think it’s a “given” that some version of it will be used for Mars travel. In fact, The Mars Society’s “Mars Direct” plan even advocates for a rotating craft which uses the spent upper stage of the rocket as an anchor to spin the crew capsule around for artificial gravity simulation.
Since nothing looked like it would “spin” on the Dragon and Falcon Heavy media releases nor did there seem to be much room for a treadmill, I was really curious about what SpaceX’s answer to long term zero gravity was. From what I’ve read, it isn’t seen as a real problem or “show stopper”, if you will. Again, I’m missing a direct source to cite for any Elon or SpaceX comment on the issue, but from commentary around the web, it seems that the issue has surfaced in public discussions with no particular technology addressed to overcome it.
Perhaps this is one more thing we will see come September when SpaceX’s Mars Colonial Transporter plans are revealed. I can’t imagine that one hundred body-worn, space-traveling colonists wouldn’t be a problem needing to be addressed.
Surface Power
When it comes to any sort of space travel, solar seems to be one of the “go to” choices for power sourcing outside of propulsion. Unfortunately, when it comes to Mars exploration, solar power alone may not be enough. For one thing, Mars receives less than half the sunlight that Earth does, and most of that sunlight is only available in certain regions of the planet such as around the equator. Frequent light-blocking dust storms are also a problem. NASA’s STMD has outlined advanced batteries, regenerative fuel cells, fission nuclear systems, and solar arrays as the choice technologies for development in the area of surface power.
Nuclear power plant | Credit: US National Archives
Now, I admit that I don’t have all the time in the world to watch every Elon Musk video in existence (although I do enjoy the convenience of a YouTube channel with nearly all of them compiled), but I haven’t had much luck finding original sources of either Elon or a SpaceX executive directly commenting on the subject of surface power. I’m sure something is out there either eluding me or that I’ve forgotten I’ve seen.
Crew Dragon uses solar arrays attached to its trunk during flight for power, but the trunk is jettisoned prior to reentry (or entry when talking about Mars). I could make an educated guess based on the connections between Elon Musk and Solar City, Tesla, and the methane-based Raptor engines to presuppose that solar power, advanced batteries, and methane fuel generation are part of SpaceX’s surface power plans, but in the end it’s just a guess. Also, if Raptor is using a methane-based fuel because it can be resourced outside of Earth, I’d imagine that surface power would tie into that same manufacturing capability.
ISS solar panels | Credit: NASA on The Commons
Mars One plans to utilize solar power for its surface power needs, specifically “thin film solar photovoltaic panels”. There isn’t much detail about their required panel size available, only that they should have the ability to be rolled up and transported elsewhere if need be. Finally, as I mentioned previously, the “Mars Direct” plan advocates tapping into fuel generation structures that manufactures a Methane-Oxygen bi-propellant.
Overall, it seems everyone is likely on a similar page regarding power sources – nothing crazy or unheard of, unless you think nuclear anything is too risky.
Coming Up on Countdown to Mars…
Wernher von Braun and Walt Disney | Credit: NASA on The Commons
Cosmic space radiation! There’s so much on this topic, it’s worth an entire piece on its own. Spoiler alert: Elon doesn’t seem to be worried about that issue. Why not?
Also, stay tuned for a (theoretical) discussion on future Martian government…
Did you know that Werner von Braun had a fictional tale of a Martian society wherein the elected Martian leader was called “The Elon”? It’s almost as though he really did take a trip on that Nazi time traveling bell thing…
SpaceX’s Raptor engine family has steadily increased sea-level thrust while simultaneously reducing mass, turning iterative engineering gains into substantially higher performance for the Super Heavy booster. CEO Elon Musk shed more light on how powerful Raptor 4 will be, and it’s pretty crazy.
Raptor 1 delivered 185 metric tons of thrust at roughly 2,080 kilograms, while Raptor 2 raised that to 230 tons while cutting mass to about 1,630 kilograms. SpaceX data for Raptor 3 lists a target of 280 tons at 1,525 kilograms (with further reductions in associated vehicle hardware), while operational flight ratings have been cited near 250 tons.
This morning, Elon Musk stated that Raptor 4 is expected to reach 300 tons of sea-level thrust at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3. Across these versions, thrust has risen by more than 60 percent from the first engines while engine mass has fallen, producing a sharp improvement in thrust-to-weight ratio. This is a true testament to how great SpaceX engineering has been:
🚀 Elon says Raptor 4 will make 300 tons of thrust at sea level at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3.
How far Raptor has come:
Raptor 1: 185 tf, 2,080 kg
Raptor 2: 230 tf, 1,630 kg
Raptor 3: 250 tf, 1,525 kg
Raptor 4: 300 tf33 on Super Heavy = ~9,900 tf, nearly 3x Saturn V https://t.co/HQDswZhyvL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
With 33 engines on SuperHeavy, the jump from earlier versions to a 300-ton Raptor 4 would produce roughly 9,900 metric tons of total liftoff thrust, nearly three times the Saturn V’s approximately 3,400 metric tons from its five F-1 engines.
This is not just a larger number on a data sheet, either, as sea-level thrust is the force available the moment the vehicle leaves the pad. This is when it is heaviest and still deep in Earth’s gravity well and dense atmosphere.
Higher levels of sea-level thrust directly improves the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of the full stack. A higher ratio produces faster acceleration off the pad, which shortens the time the rocket has to spend fighting gravity, and gravity losses during the first minute or two of the flight are a major drain on total available delta-v. Every second shaved off of that early climb preserves more propellant energy for reaching orbital velocity or for carrying extra payload.
Because Super Heavy’s engine count is constrained by vehicle diameter and packing density, increasing thrust per engine is the most straightforward way to raise total liftoff performance without redesigning the booster structure or design.
The same-mass target for Raptor 4 is equally important. Holding engine mass roughly constant while raising thrust improves the engine’s own thrust-to-weight ratio and reduces the structural and propellant mass fraction that must be carried solely to support the engines.
Earlier Raptor iterations also simplified or eliminated extensive vehicle-side hardware such as heat shields. These gains compound: more force for less installed mass leaves additional capacity for propellant, payload, or operational margins such as engine-out capability.
For Starship’s architecture, the practical effects are large. Greater liftoff thrust supports heavier vehicles, larger propellant loads, and higher payloads to low Earth orbit, figures SpaceX has targeted in the 100-plus-ton reusable range. That capacity underpins orbital refueling, lunar missions, and eventual Mars cargo and crew flights.
Continued growth in sea-level thrust therefore tightens the gap between theoretical rocket performance and the high flight rates and reusability needed to make large-scale space transport practical.
Tesla expanded its Robotaxi geofence in Houston, Texas, today, enlarging the service area and drawing a new rocket-shaped boundary across the city’s northwestern and central parts.
Although CEO Elon Musk said it was just a coincidence, the expansion seems to be an ode to SpaceX and its potential merger with Tesla.
🚨 Tesla has just expanded its Robotaxi geofence in Houston
It looks a lot like a rocket — we all remember the shape in Austin 🤣 https://t.co/cFOPEuiJ4u
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
The official Tesla Robotaxi account announced the change with the lines “Houston, we have liftoff” and “Bigger service area now live,” pairing them with a map overlay.
The prior white geofence, roughly 25 square miles covering Jersey Village, Harvest Bend, and the Willowbrook corridor along U.S. 290 and State Highway 249, now sits inside a larger blue zone that stretches southeast toward Bellair and closer to central Houston.
Houston’s Robotaxi service launched on April 18, 2026, the same day as Dallas, as Tesla’s first unsupervised public expansion beyond Austin. From the start, the vehicles were Model Ys running without anyone in the front seats, booked through the dedicated Tesla Robotaxi app and open to the public inside the geofence.
Trackers measured the initial zone at about 25 square miles; by late September it had not grown substantially. Community and registry data indicated a modest local fleet of unsupervised Model Ys, while dozens to nearly 200 Cybercabs, the purpose-built, steering-wheel-free two-seaters, have been spotted staging and testing in Houston lots, though public Cybercab rides remain limited to Austin for now.
Across the broader Robotaxi program, Tesla began public Robotaxi rides in Austin in June 2025, as a small geofence and vehicles with safety monitors became available for a ride-hailing service. Later on, Tesla removed the monitors and steadily expanded the service area until it covered most of the Austin metro area.
Unsupervised Robotaxi services now run in six cities: Austin, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa. Cumulative driverless miles reported by the company have reached several million. The Cybercab entered public service in Austin in early September 2026 and has scaled rapidly there. The company has also said that Dallas is next for Cybercab rides in November, with further cities and 24/7 hours targeted by year-end, plus fleet-operator sales of the vehicle.
Waymo also operates a fully driverless service in Houston, which has been open to the public since August of this year.
The Houston expansion continues Tesla’s pattern of starting with tightly controlled validation zones before widening coverage as real-world data accumulates, while the rocket motif on the map underscores the company’s habit of injecting visual flair into its autonomy rollout.
Riders inside the new boundary can request unsupervised Model Y trips in the Robotaxi app; exact operating hours and further Cybercab availability remain subject to app updates and company statements.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
How SpaceX Is raising Raptor’s sea-level thrust while holding engine mass steady
