ArticleScientific reports2024
About feasibility of SpaceX's human exploration Mars mission scenario with Starship.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Space Research Ethics.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Toward Building Sustainable Mars Infrastructure: A COGlobal challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2026Article
- A membrane Sabatier system for water recovery and rocket propellant production.Nature communications · 2025Article
- 3 months transit time to Mars for human missions using SpaceX Starship.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After decades where human spaceflight missions have been reserved to low Earth orbit, recent years have seen mission proposals and even implemented plans, e.g. with the mission Artemis I, for returning to the lunar surface. SpaceX has published over various media (e.g., its official website, conference presentations, user manual) conceptual information for its reusable Starship to enable human exploration missions to the Martian surface by the end of the decade. The technological and human challenges associated with these plans are daunting. Such a mission at that distance would require excellent system reliability and in-situ-resource utilization on a grand scale, e.g. to produce propellant. The plans contain little details however and have not yet been reviewed concerning their feasibility. In this paper we show significant technological gaps in these plans. Based on estimates and extrapolated data, a mass model as needed to fulfill SpaceX's plans could not be reproduced and the subsequent trajectory optimization showed that the current plans do not yield a return flight opportunity, due to a too large system mass. Furthermore, significant gaps exist in relevant technologies, e.g. power supply for the Martian surface. It is unlikely that these gaps can be closed until the end of the decade. We recommend several remedies, e.g. stronger international participation to distribute technology development and thus improve feasibility. Overall, with the limited information published by SpaceX about its system and mission scenario and extrapolation from us to fill information gaps, we were not able to find a feasible Mars mission scenario using Starship, even when assuming optimal conditions such as 100% recovery rate of crew consumables during flight.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.