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…
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
Elon Musk
The Starship V3 static fire everyone was waiting for just happened
SpaceX completed a full duration of Starship V3 today clearing the path for Flight 12.
SpaceX is that much closer to launching their next-gen Starship after completing today’s full duration static fire out of Starbase, Texas. This marks a direct signal that Flight 12, the maiden voyage of Starship V3, is imminent. SpaceX confirmed the test on X, posting that the full duration firing was completed ahead of the vehicle’s next flight test.
The road to today started on March 16, when Booster 19 completed a shorter 10-engine static fire, also at the newly constructed Pad 2. That test ended early due to a ground systems issue but confirmed all installed Raptor 3 engines started cleanly. Booster 19 returned to the Mega Bay, received its remaining 23 engines for a full complement of 33, and rolled back out this week for the complete test campaign. Musk confirmed earlier this month that Flight 12 is now 4 to 6 weeks away.
Countdown: America is going back to the Moon and SpaceX holds the key to what comes after
The numbers behind the world’s most powerful rocket are genuinely hard to put in context. Each Raptor 3 engine produces roughly 280 tons of thrust, and with all 33 firing simultaneously from the super heavy booster, this generates approximately 9,240 tons of combined thrust, more than any rocket in history. For context, that’s enough thrust to lift the entire Empire State Building, and then some. V3 stands 408 feet tall and can carry over 100 tons to low Earth orbit in a fully reusable configuration. The V2 generation topped out at around 35 tons.
Historically, a successful full-duration static fire is the last major ground milestone before launch. SpaceX has followed this pattern with every Starship iteration since the program began in 2023. Musk has been direct about the ambition behind all of it. “I am highly confident that the V3 design will achieve full reusability,” he wrote on X earlier this year. Full reusability of both stages is the foundation of SpaceX’s plan to make regular flights to the Moon and Mars economically viable. Today’s test brings that goal one significant step closer.
Starship V3 delivers on two most critical promises of full reusability and in-orbit refueling. The reusability case is straightforward, and one we have seen with Falcon 9 wherein the rocket can fly again within a day rather than building a new one for every mission. It’s the only economic model that makes frequent lunar cargo runs viable. The in-orbit refueling piece is less obvious but equally essential. To reach the Moon with enough payload, Starship requires roughly ten dedicated tanker flights to fuel up a propellant depot in low Earth orbit before it can even begin its journey to the lunar surface. That capability has never been demonstrated at scale, and Flight 12 is the first step toward proving it works. As Teslarati reported, NASA’s Artemis II crew completed a historic lunar flyby earlier this month, the first humans to travel beyond low Earth orbit since 1972, but getting astronauts to actually land and eventually supply a permanent Moon base requires a cargo pipeline that only a fully reusable, refuelable Starship V3 can deliver at the volume and cost NASA’s plans demand.
SpaceX Starship full duration static fire on April 14, 2026 from Starbase, Texas (Credit: SpaceX)
Tesla bolsters App with new safety, insurance, and storage features
Tesla Robotaxi-only Superchargers are starting to appear
