New Mars Forums

Assuming a launch profile based on SpaceX's Starship system, which uses Raptor engines and a methane CH4 propellant, a 40-tonne payload for a Mars transfer mission requires approximately 676 metric tonnes (mt) of propellant for the transit portion alone. However, the total fuel needed is significantly higher when considering all mission phases. The complex mission requires multiple propulsive burns and in-orbit refueling. A simplified estimate for a mission to transport a 40-tonne payload to Mars would involve the following phases: Launch from Earth to low-Earth orbit (LEO).On-orbit refueling in LEO.Trans-Mars Injection (TMI) burn to escape Earth's orbit.Entry, descent, and landing (EDL) at Mars.

To determine the methane CH4 and liquid oxygen LOX fuel requirement for a 40 metric ton (mt) ship landing on Mars, several factors must be calculated. The key steps are determining the change in velocity (delta-v) needed for the landing, applying the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, and calculating the specific masses of methane and oxygen based on the Raptor engine's characteristics. 

Assumptions for this calculation Initial ship mass: 40 mt (40,000 kg).
This is the dry mass of the ship plus any payload, but before the addition of landing propellant.Propulsive landing only: The calculation assumes no aerodynamic braking or very minimal atmospheric drag assistance. However, SpaceX's actual Starship landing profile uses substantial aerodynamic braking, which significantly reduces the propellant needed.

Raptor engine specific impulse (Isp):
An average vacuum Isp of 380 seconds is assumed for the Raptor Vacuum engines, which is more representative of a landing scenario than the sea-level variants.

Raptor engine mix ratio:
The Raptor engine uses liquid methane and liquid oxygen, typically at a mass ratio of 1:3.6 (methane to oxygen)

For a fully propulsive landing without using atmospheric drag, a Mars landing requires a delta-v Delta V of approximately 4.5 to 6 km/s. If the ship uses supersonic retro-propulsion with atmospheric braking, the required propulsive delta-v is much lower, possibly as low as 75 m/s, although this is very dependent on the entry velocity. 

The total propellant mass is approximately 5.5 mt. We use the Raptor engine's mix ratio of 1:3.6 for methane CH4 to oxygen LOX by mass. 

Based on the assumptions, the approximate fuel requirements for a 40 mt ship using two Raptor engines for a propulsive Mars landing would be: 
Total propellant: 5.5 mt
Methane CH4: 1.2 mt
Liquid oxygen LOX: 4.3 mt

For a 40-metric-ton (mt) ship returning to Earth from Mars using two Raptor engines, the estimated propellant requirement is approximately 194.2 mt of methalox (liquid methane and liquid oxygen). This calculation assumes a propellant depot is available in Mars orbit and that the engines are vacuum-optimized Raptor variants.
This is an estimate based on the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation and can be affected by factors such as mission profile and gravity losses.

This estimate relies on three key parameters: 

Mass of the spacecraft: 40 mt.
This is the "dry mass" m_{f} in the rocket equation, representing the ship, cargo, and all components except for the propellant.

Specific impulse Isp of the engines:
The vacuum-optimized Raptor engines (RVac) have a specific impulse of approximately 380 seconds.

Delta-v required for the maneuver:
The delta-v needed to launch from the Martian surface to a trans-Earth injection (TEI) trajectory is approximately 4.27 km/s. 

Adjusting for a 20% methane/80% oxygen mix Raptor engines use a methalox propellant mix, which consists of approximately 20% methane (fuel) and 80% liquid oxygen (oxidizer) by mass. The total propellant mass is the combination of the fuel and oxidizer. 
Total propellant mass m_{p}: 86 mt
Fuel (methane) mass: 0.20 * 86 mt = 17.2 mt
Oxidizer (liquid oxygen) mass: 0.80 * 86 mt = 68.8 mt 
Assumptions and other considerations The calculated fuel requirement is a theoretical minimum based on the ideal rocket equation. Several factors can increase the actual fuel mass needed: 

Atmospheric drag on Mars:
While the Martian atmosphere is thin, it can cause some drag during ascent, requiring a small amount of extra propellant.

Gravity losses:
The effect of gravity pulling against the rocket during its ascent and burn means the rocket must use additional propellant to counteract this force. The 4.27 km/s figure already accounts for typical gravity losses, but actual losses can vary.

Engine inefficiencies:
The Isp value of 380s is an ideal figure, and the engine may not achieve this perfectly throughout the burn.Vehicle mass variations: A fully fueled ship is heavier and less agile than one with less fuel.

Assuming you are referring to a Starship-class vehicle with a mass of 66 metric tons (mt) and three Raptor engines, a propulsive landing on Earth would require approximately 3–6 tons of liquid methane and liquid oxygen propellant. This is based on the following factors: 

Vehicle mass and engine thrust:
The mass of 66 mt is the dry weight of the spacecraft, excluding propellant. The final mass during landing would be higher, including any remaining payload and the three Raptor engines. Each Raptor engine is capable of at least 230 tons of thrust, giving a three-engine cluster significant propulsive capability.

Delta-V for landing:
A propulsive landing on Earth requires a change in velocity (\(\Delta v\)) to transition from atmospheric braking to a final, controlled vertical descent. This terminal velocity is typically around 50–100 m/s.

Rocket equation and exhaust velocity:
You can estimate the required propellant using the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation:\(m_{fuel}=m_{final}\cdot (e^{\Delta v/v_{exhaust}}-1)\)For a Raptor engine, the exhaust velocity (\(v_{exhaust}\)) is about 3,500 m/s (from a specific impulse of 350s). The final mass (\(m_{final}\)) is the spacecraft's mass just before the final landing burn.

Propellant mass estimation:
Assuming a 70 mt final mass (including a small payload) and a 100 m/s burn:\(m_{fuel}=70\cdot (e^{100/3500}-1)\approx 2\ tons\)SpaceX's own internal analysis has produced slightly higher figures, around 6 tons, based on simulations and real-world results. This higher figure accounts for additional fuel reserves, engine gimballing, and safety margins. 

Breakdown of the landing process
A propulsive landing with this type of vehicle and engine setup would include these phases: 

Header tanks:
The fuel for the landing maneuver is drawn from smaller header tanks, which contain a fraction of the total propellant. This is more reliable and prevents the main tanks from sloshing. It also ensures the engines have a steady propellant flow, a key factor in successful propulsive landings.

"Belly-flop" maneuver:
During atmospheric reentry, the spacecraft enters a belly-flop orientation, using its body and control flaps to slow down. This reduces the need for propulsive braking.

"Landing flip" maneuver:
Shortly before touching down, the engines ignite and perform a flip maneuver to orient the spacecraft vertically for landing.

Precision and controls:
The final landing requires precise throttling and gimballing of the engines to counteract gravity and achieve a soft touchdown

“This finding is the direct result of NASA’s effort to strategically plan, develop, and execute a mission able to deliver exactly this type of science — the identification of a potential biosignature on Mars,”

For a 26-metric-ton (mt) spacecraft, the estimated fuel mass required for a propulsive landing on Mars is approximately 40 to 60 mt, bringing the total landing vehicle mass to 66–86 mt. This relies on significant aerodynamic deceleration in the Martian atmosphere before the final propulsive braking maneuver. The final mass varies based on the engine's efficiency and the exact landing trajectory. Fuel requirements for Mars landing Several factors influence the fuel mass needed to land a 26 mt spacecraft on Mars: Deceleration strategy: A Mars landing is a complex process known as Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL). Due to Mars's thin atmosphere, a propulsive-only landing is inefficient. Instead, spacecraft typically use a combination of methods, including:A protective aeroshell and heat shield to withstand atmospheric entry at high speed.A parachute to provide further slowing.A final rocket-powered braking phase for the precision touchdown.The 26 mt figure would refer to the mass of the final lander after shedding the heat shield and parachute system.Engine specific impulse (\(I_{sp}\)): The efficiency of the rocket engine is a critical factor, described by the specific impulse (\(I_{sp}\)).Higher \(I_{sp}\) engines, like those using liquid hydrogen and oxygen, provide more thrust per unit of fuel, but hydrogen is difficult to store.Methane and oxygen (\(\text{CH}_{4}/\text{O}_{2}\)) offer a lower \(I_{sp}\) but are easier to store and can be manufactured on Mars using in-situ resource utilization (ISRU). This trade-off is central to Mars mission architecture.Delta-V (\(\Delta v\)): The amount of total change in velocity required for the propulsive landing phase is roughly 3.8 km/s from orbit to the surface if parachutes aren't used, but is less when combined with aerodynamic braking. A higher \(I_{sp}\) reduces the propellant mass needed to achieve this \(\Delta v\). Architectural approaches Planetary mission planners have developed different architectures to manage the challenge of large-scale Mars landings: Heavy landers: An analysis of Mars landing vehicles for future human missions found that a total initial mass of 73.0 mt was needed to land a 10 mt payload, while a 25 mt payload (closer to your scenario) required an even larger vehicle. A significant portion of this mass would be propellant for the final descent phase.SpaceX Starship: SpaceX's Starship is designed to land payloads of 100 mt or more using a methane/oxygen engine system. In this architecture, the Starship tanker refuels the Mars-bound ship in Earth orbit, making propellant for landing part of a larger, refueled system.In-situ resource utilization (ISRU): Some mission architectures propose landing an initial vehicle with a fuel-manufacturing plant. This plant would use Martian resources (water ice and atmospheric \(\text{CO}_{2}\)) to produce methane and oxygen propellant for a later landing or for the return trip, significantly reducing the mass that needs to be transported from Earth/

AI Overview
Robert Zubrin proposes integrating his "Mars Direct" philosophy with SpaceX's Starship through the "Starboat," a smaller, reusable vehicle that serves as a surface-to-orbit shuttle for early Mars missions, reducing the need for the large Starship to land on the planet. The Starboat would use less propellant, operate as a mini-Starship with a smaller crew, and act as a shuttle for a Starship parked in Mars orbit, making Mars exploration more flexible and efficient. This approach provides a pathway for early human missions to Mars by leveraging the reusable infrastructure of a larger Starship in orbit and the efficiency of a smaller vehicle for surface operations.
Zubrin's Mars Direct and the Starboat
Mars Direct Philosophy:
Zubrin's original Mars Direct plan emphasized a "live-off-the-land" approach, utilizing a nuclear-powered rover to produce fuel on Mars for the Earth Return Vehicle (ERV).
Starboat Concept:
The Starboat is Zubrin's adaptation of this idea to the SpaceX Starship architecture, envisioning a smaller version of the Starship as a dedicated surface-to-orbit shuttle.
Key Aspects of the Starboat for Mars Missions
Reduced Propellant Needs:
The Starboat requires significantly less propellant to land on Mars and return to orbit compared to the full-size Starship.
Efficient Surface Operations:
Instead of a large Starship landing on Mars, a Starship could remain in orbit, and the Starboat would shuttle crews and cargo between the surface and the orbiting Starship.
Flexibility and Crew Size:
The smaller size of the Starboat makes it more suitable for early, smaller-crew missions focused on establishing infrastructure on Mars.
Refueling and Reusability:
The Starboat's high reusability and lower fuel requirements would make missions more efficient.
How it Works with Starship
Orbital Starship: A full-sized Starship is sent to Mars orbit and remains there as a "parked" asset.
Starboat as a Shuttle: The smaller Starboat would launch from Earth (potentially fully fueled by a single Starship), travel to Mars, and then perform the surface-to-orbit shuttle role.
Surface-to-Orbit Transport: The Starboat's primary role would be ascending from the Martian surface to the orbiting Starship, requiring less propellant than a full Starship would for the same task.
This concept offers a more scalable and efficient approach to early human Mars exploration, aligning with Zubrin's core principles of resourcefulness and efficiency

Robert Zubrin talks about reducing the mass of SpaceX Starship by a factor of 5 for a Starboat mini-Starship. The linear dimensions would scale by the cube root of 1/5 ≈ 0.58. This gives a diameter of 9 × 0.58 ≈ 5.2 meters. The mass would then be 1320 / 5 = 264 tons (assuming proportional scaling of dry mass and propellant). For a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.91, the required thrust is 0.91 × 264 ≈ 240 tons. One Raptor (200 tons thrust) is slightly insufficient, while two Raptors (400 tons) provide excess thrust, yielding a ratio of 400 / 264 ≈ 1.52, which is reasonable for an upper stage. There are more advanced Raptors where one engine could get the thrust.

Mars surface to Earth using 120 tons of propellant or perform a low-Mars-orbit rendezvous using just 50 tons of propellant, with a single tanker in low Mars orbit being able to support five such return flights. It could also be lifted to Earth orbit fully fueled by a single Starship and sent directly to Mars with five tons of cargo without any Earth-orbit refueling, or 25 tons of cargo with a single tanker refueling.

Mars Landing and Operations
Efficient Design: The Starboat needs five times less propellant than the Starship for landing on Mars and returning to orbit. For comparison, refueling the Starship on Mars requires approximately 600 tons of propellant, while Zubrin’s Mars Direct plan uses vehicles needing only about 120 tons.

By a rough estimate, to make the 600 metric tons of propellant required to refuel the Starship once on Mars within a year and a half would require a power source with an average round-the-clock output of 600 kilowatts. A solar array that could do that would cover 60,000 square meters — that’s over 13 football fields in size — and weigh about 240 metric tons. It would require three Starship flights just to deliver such a solar array to Mars, and it would then be a major burden to deploy and maintain. A more practical alternative would be to use nuclear power. We could imagine a plausible reactor design at this power level with a mass of about ten tons.

NASA is gearing up to send its first astronauts toward the moon in five decades.

The Artemis II mission is currently set for early next year and will use NASA’s next-generation SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft.

Although none of the four crew members will be stepping foot on the lunar surface, they will come The much-anticipated mission will take about 10 days from launch to splashdown, making it 15 days shorter than the uncrewed Artemis I mission in 2022 that operated as a test run for Artemis II.

NASA has just shared an update on its preparations for Artemis II, focusing on some of the improvements made to the SLS rocket and the Orion since the Artemis I mission.

As with the SLS rocket’s first flight three years ago, the 322-feet-tall (98-meter) still comprises a central core stage, four RS-25 main engines, two five-segment solid rocket boosters, the ICPS (interim cryogenic propulsion stage), a launch vehicle stage adapter to hold the ICPS, and an Orion stage adapter connecting SLS to the Orion spacecraft.

NASA said that as the SLS rocket heads skyward next year, it will jettison the spent boosters four seconds earlier than it did in the Artemis I ascent. Dropping the boosters a little earlier will reduce the weight that the core stage needs to carry after booster separation. The saved weight should allow the rocket to carry more cargo or heavier payloads to space, and the Artemis II flight will allow engineers to compare data to confirm their calculations.as close as 4,000 miles (around 6,440 km) of it before flying around the moon and returning home.

The SLS rocket’s maiden flight in the Artemis I mission experienced unsteady airflow that caused higher-than-expected vibrations near the solid rocket booster attachment points, and so NASA has added a pair of six-foot-long aerodynamic surfaces for a smoother ascent. 

Upgrades to the flight system include optical targets fitted to the ICPS that will function as visual cues for the four Orion astronauts when they come to manually pilot the spacecraft around the rocket’s upper stage, at the same time practicing maneuvers to gather data for docking operations for the future Artemis III mission. During that mission, which is currently set for 2027, the Orion will link up with SpaceX’s Starship spacecraft for a crewed lunar landing — the first since 1972.

The rocket’s navigation system has also been enhanced — alongside improvements to its communications capabilities — by repositioning antennas on the rocket to ensure continuous communication with NASA personnel on Earth.

Notably, the emergency abort system has been refined to add a time delay to the self-destruct sequence. This will give the Orion and its crew more time to move clear of the rocket in the event of an abort, better protecting the astronauts from any destructive actions that occur soon after.

Other improvements include work on the core stage power distribution control unit, which controls power to the rocket’s other electronics and protects it from electrical hazards.

“While we’re proud of our Artemis I performance, which validated our overall design, we’ve looked at how SLS can give our crews a better ride,” said John Honeycutt, NASA’s SLS program manager.

Honeycutt added that some of the changes have been made in response to specific Artemis II mission requirements, while others are the result of ongoing analysis and testing, as well as insights gained from the Artemis I voyage.

he Artemis II crew includes NASA’s Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, and Christina Koch, together with Jeremy Hansen of the Canadian Space Agency. The four astronauts have been in training since they were announced as the Artemis II crew in 2023.