Musk says 50-50 chance of uncrewed Starship to Mars by late 2026
Musk presented a detailed Starship development timeline in a video posted online by his Los Angeles area-based rocket company on Thursday.
The South African-born billionaire and SpaceX owner said his latest timeline for reaching Mars depended on whether the craft can complete several challenging technical feats during testing, specifically a post-launch refuelling manoeuvre in Earth's orbit.
In a video on social media platform X, which he also owns, Musk said his Starbase industrial complex and rocket launch facility in Texas was the 'gateway to Mars'.
'It is where we are going to develop the technology necessary to take humanity and civilisation and life as we know it to another planet for the first time in the four and a half billion year history of Earth,' he said.
The end of 2026 is when a slim window opens offering the closest trip between Earth and Mars, as the planets align around the sun once every two years. This shorter distance would take seven to nine months to transit by spacecraft.
The first flight to Mars would carry a simulated crew consisting of Tesla-built humanoid Optimus robots. Human crews would then follow in the second or third landings.
In the video, Musk said he believed there was a 50-50 chance SpaceX would meet the 2026 deadline for the first mission. He added that if Starship was not ready by that time, SpaceX would wait another two years before trying again.
Musk's announcement comes just a day after he confirmed his departure from the administration of United States President Donald Trump, following a tumultuous few months in which his various businesses – including SpaceX and electric car maker Tesla – have come under growing strain.
Musk's unofficial role leading Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has placed him in the crosshairs, as he has faced intense criticism for overseeing what has been decried as haphazard cuts to government programmes.
Faced with plunging stock prices and shareholder concern – most notably at Tesla – Musk said this week he would scale back his government role to focus on his private ventures.
In 2016, Musk said he wanted to send an uncrewed SpaceX vehicle to Mars as early as 2018, while he was targeting 2024 to launch the first crewed mission there.
But the mercurial entrepreneur's ambitions for interplanetary exploration have been beset by repeated setbacks over recent years.
Most recently, on Tuesday, Musk was due to deliver a live webcast from the company's Starbase in Texas following a ninth test flight of Starship that evening.
But the speech was cancelled without notice after Starship spun out of control and disintegrated about 30 minutes after launch, roughly halfway through its flight path, failing to achieve some of its most important test goals.
The mega-rocket re-entered the Earth's atmosphere earlier than planned on Wednesday after a fuel leak triggered uncontrollable spinning in space, according to the Reuters news agency.
Posting on X after the failed flight, Musk said the test produced a lot of 'good data to review' as he promised a faster launch 'cadence' for the next several attempts.
There was also a failed launch in January – when the craft blew up moments after liftoff, raining debris over parts of the Caribbean and forcing commercial jetliners to change course – as well as in March.
Musk, who has spent billions of dollars on Starship's development, says the initiative is part of SpaceX's plan to colonise Mars.
The firm is also working with US government agency NASA to return humans to the Moon in 2027 onboard Starship, more than half a century since astronauts last walked on the lunar surface in 1972.
These efforts are a stepping stone towards launching NASA astronauts to Mars sometime in the 2030s.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump signs order authorising military action against cartels: Reports
President Donald Trump has secretly signed an order directing the military to take action against drug-smuggling cartels and other criminal groups from Latin America, according to a report in The New York Times. The newspaper's report on Friday appeared to confirm statements earlier in the week from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who signalled the US military had approval to take aggressive action against cartels. 'It allows us to now target what they're operating and to use other elements of American power, intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense, whatever … to target these groups if we have an opportunity to do it,' Rubio said on Thursday. 'We have to start treating them as armed terrorist organisations, not simply drug-dealing organisations.' The news, however, has spurred concern that the military could be deployed within the US and abroad to combat sanctioned criminal groups like the Sinaloa Cartel, Tren de Aragua and Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). The Trump administration has designated such entities as 'foreign terrorist organisations', putting them in the same category as groups like al-Qaeda, ISIL (ISIS) and Boko Haram. But a US government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the news agency Reuters that no military action appeared imminent. Mexico responds to intervention fears Still, during a Friday morning news conference, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum faced questions about the risk of US intervention on her country's soil. She acknowledged that her government had received information about the coming order from the Trump administration. But Sheinbaum denied that the result would be the US military operating on Mexican territory. She emphasised that her country is not at risk of US intervention. 'There will be no invasion of Mexico,' Sheinbaum said. 'We were informed that this executive order was coming and that it had nothing to do with the participation of any military personnel or any institution in our territory.' The Mexican leader has previously warned that any US military activity on Mexican territory would be a serious violation of the country's sovereignty. The possibility, however, has been raised in the past, particularly by politicians on the US right. In 2023, for instance, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis — then a candidate for president — repeatedly pledged to authorise use of force against drug cartels on Mexican soil. Other Republican politicians, like Representative Dan Crenshaw, also proposed legislation to greenlight military action against the cartels. Such claims have been met with anger in Mexico, where a long history of US intervention has contributed to a strong belief in the need to uphold national sovereignty. Still, in May, Trump confirmed that, earlier this year, he offered to send US troops to help combat drug trafficking in Mexico. For her part, Sheinbaum said she firmly rebuffed the idea. 'I told him, 'No, President Trump, our territory is inviolable, our sovereignty is inviolable, our sovereignty is not for sale,'' she said at the time. Wide consequences for the region Trump's heavy-handed approach has also caused frustration in other parts of Latin America, as well as thorny legal and ethical issues. Since taking office for a second term in January, Trump has repeatedly stretched the bounds of executive power by claiming that the US faces an 'invasion' of criminal immigrants, thereby authorising him to take extreme action. But legal experts say it is unclear what the US military might be able to do within the constraints of domestic and international law. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the military from being used as a domestic policing force. Local and federal law enforcement are, therefore, the entities that helm operations on domestic soil to disrupt and arrest gangs. International laws, meanwhile, restrict military actions abroad except in instances of self-defence. The United Nations charter, for instance, includes language that calls on its members to refrain from 'the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state'. Attacking people outside of combat situations might also infringe upon international humanitarian law. Critics have also questioned the efficacy of taking such a strong-armed approach to gangs, drug cartels and other groups. After Trump designated many such groups as 'terrorist organisations', human rights groups pointed out that civilians who live in gang-controlled territory could inadvertently be sanctioned, as they are often forced to pay the gangs through coercion. Reports that Trump signed the authorisation for military action also come at a tense time for US-Latin American relations. The US president recently placed high tariffs on Brazil, in an effort to end a trial against his right-wing ally Jair Bolsonaro over his alleged involvement in a coup plot. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called Trump's actions 'unacceptable' and described them as an effort to interfere in the sovereignty of another country.
Al Jazeera
7 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why have blue whales stopped singing? The mystery worrying scientists
Whale songs are far removed from the singing that humans are used to. Unlike our musical sounds, those produced by whales are a complex range of vocalisations that include groans, clicks and whistles and that can sound like anything from the mooing of a cow to the twitter of a bird. These vocalisations can be so powerful that they can be heard as far as 10km (6 miles) away, and can last for half an hour at a time. But while they may not be exactly dancing material, whale songs are critical for communication: between males and females during mating, or among a school of whales migrating. For researchers, these complex sounds are a window into whale behaviour, even if humans don't yet know exactly how to decode them. The frequency of songs and their intensity can signal various things: an abundance of food, for example. In recent studies, however, researchers have been alarmed to find that blue whales, the largest whales and, indeed, the largest mammals on Earth, have stopped singing at specific times. Their eerie quietness, scientists say, is a signal that ocean life is changing fundamentally. The most recent study, conducted by scientists from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California in the US and published in February, examined three types of whales. Researchers found that blue whales, in particular, have become more vulnerable to this change. What have researchers found, and where? At least two studies between 2016 and 2025 have found similar behaviour: blue whales have reduced their singing for stretches of time. The first study, conducted in the sea waters between the islands of New Zealand between 2016 and 2018, was led by scientists from the Marine Mammal Institute at Oregon State University in the US. Over that period of time, researchers tracked specific blue whale vocalisations linked to feeding (called D-calls) and mating (called patterned songs). Researchers used continuous recordings from underwater devices called hydrophones, which can log sounds over thousands of kilometres, and which were placed in the South Taranaki Bight – a known foraging spot for blue whales off the west coast of New Zealand. They discovered that during some periods, particularly in the warmer months of spring and summer when whales usually fatten up, the frequency and intensity of sounds related to feeding activity dropped – suggesting a reduction in food sources. That decline was followed by reduced occurrences of patterned songs, signalling a dip in reproductive activity. 'When there are fewer feeding opportunities, they put less effort into reproduction,' lead researcher Dawn Barlow told reporters. The results of that study were published in the journal Ecology and Evolution in 2023. Then, in a study published in the scientific journal PLOS One in February this year, researchers tracked baleen whale sounds in the California Current Ecosystem, the area in the North Pacific Ocean stretching from British Columbia to Baja California. Blue whales are a type of baleen whale, and the study focused on them, alongside their cousins, humpback whales and fin whales. Over six years starting in 2015, the scientists found distinct patterns. Over the first two years, 'times were tough for whales', lead researcher John Ryan, of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California, noted in a press statement, as the whales, particularly blue whales, were found to be singing less. Over the next three years, however, all three whale species were back to singing more frequently, the study noted. Why are blue whales singing less? Both studies found one main reason for the reduction of whale song: food or, in this case, the lack of it. It turns out that the research, conducted between 2015 and 2020, captured periods of extreme marine heatwave events that killed off krill, the small shrimp-like animals that blue whales feed on. Those heatwaves are part of a looming environmental catastrophe scientists have been warning about: ongoing global warming marked by increases in global average temperatures, and caused by high-emission human activities, chief among them being the burning of fossil fuels. Scientists say the world could soon reach a tipping point at which there will be irreversible change to the planet. Already, 2016, 2023 and 2024 have been recorded as the warmest years ever. Why are food sources disappearing for whales? Krill, which blue whales primarily feed on, are highly sensitive to heat and can all but vanish during heatwaves, the studies found. Their movement patterns also change drastically: instead of staying together, as they usually do, krill disperse when it is hot, making them harder for predators like blue whales to find. Typically, when foraging, blue whales sing to others to signal that they have found swarms of krill. If there is no food to sing about, it makes sense that there will be no singing. Heatwaves can also trigger harmful chemical changes in the oceans that encourage the growth of toxic algae, which causes poisoning and death to mammals in the oceans and sea birds, researchers have previously found, suggesting that blue whales are also at risk of being poisoned. In the more recent study in California, researchers found that in the first two years when whales were singing less frequently, there was also a reduction in other fish populations. Are blue whales more vulnerable than other whales? The second period of three years witnessed a resurgence of krill and the other fish, along with more whale singing. When krill again declined, blue whales again sang less frequently, while singing from humpback whales continued, the study noted. 'Compared to humpback whales, blue whales in the eastern North Pacific may be more vulnerable due to not only a smaller population size but also a less flexible foraging strategy,' Ryan, the lead author of the California study said in a statement. 'These findings can help scientists and resource managers predict how marine ecosystems and species will respond to climate change,' he added. It is likely, both studies say, that blue whales need to spend more time and energy finding food when it is scarce, instead of singing. Are other animals changing their sounds? Studies have found that climate change is altering the sounds of several other species as well. Nature-related sounds, such as birdsong from certain species, could disappear altogether in some places as warming temperatures alter animal behaviour. For example, some animals might move permanently away from their traditional habitats. In New York, scientists found that over a century (1900-1999), four frog species changed their calling patterns, which males use to attract females for mating, and which are usually tied to the warming of spring and early summer. Over time, some frogs were calling about two weeks earlier than usual, researchers found, adding that it signified summer was arriving earlier.
Al Jazeera
10 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Have sections of the US Constitution gone missing from government website?
It didn't take long for internet sleuths to notice that something was missing on the Library of Congress website that annotates the United States Constitution. Reddit users pointed out on Wednesday that the website omitted text from some sections of Article 1, which include provisions about the right of habeas corpus as well as limits on congressional and state power. Using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, people found that the full text appeared on the Library of Congress website on July 17 but was missing in snapshots after that date. Some people mistakenly said President Donald Trump's administration removed these provisions from the constitution entirely without Congress's input. 'BREAKING: The official US government website has quietly removed Sections 9 and 10 of Article I from the Constitution,' one Threads post said on Wednesday. 'Let me say that again: They didn't amend the Constitution. They didn't debate it in Congress. They just erased two of the most protective sections; the ones that deal with habeas corpus, limits on federal power, and Congress's sole authority to set tariffs.' Altering the text on a website would not remove or erase sections of the constitution. It can be changed only through a formal amendment process, which begins in the US Congress, which can modify or replace existing provisions. The constitution's full text is also available on the websites for the National Archives and the nonprofit National Constitution Center. The amendment process outlined in Article 5 is the only way to alter the constitution. Any proposed amendment must first be approved by a two-thirds vote in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. Then it must be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures or via state ratifying conventions. Government website omits constitution sections On Wednesday about 11am in Washington, DC (15:00 GMT), the Library of Congress posted on X that the missing sections were 'due to a coding error'. 'We have been working to correct this and expect it to be resolved soon,' the post read. The website on Wednesday also displayed a banner that said: 'The Constitution Annotated website is currently experiencing data issues. We are working to resolve this issue and regret the inconvenience.' The institution issued an update on X a few hours later that the website was fixed. 'Missing sections of the Constitution Annotated website have been restored,' it said. 'Upkeep of Constitution Annotated and other digital resources is a critical part of the Library's mission, and we appreciate the feedback that alerted us to the error and allowed us to fix it.' Article 1 establishes the federal government's legislative branch. Its missing sections included portions of Section 8 and all of Sections 9 and 10, which largely focus on limits on congressional and state power. Before being restored, the text of Article 1 ended in Section 8, just before a line that lists Congress's ability to provide and maintain a navy. Section 9, which was temporarily deleted, details limits on congressional power. It addresses habeas corpus, the legal procedure that grants people in government custody the right to challenge their detention in court. The section says Congress may not suspend habeas corpus 'unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it'. Habeas corpus has been in the headlines during the second Trump administration. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told reporters in May that the administration was looking into suspending habeas corpus. Later that month, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrongly said habeas corpus is a right the president has to remove people from the US. Section 10, which was also temporarily removed, covers restrictions on US states, including regulating tariffs without Congress's consent. Our ruling A Threads post said an official US government website 'quietly removed Sections 9 and 10 of Article I from the Constitution' without input from Congress. On Wednesday, the Library of Congress's annotated website of the US Constitution was missing sections of Article 1. The library said the issue was related to a coding error, and it was corrected shortly afterwards. Website alterations do not affect US law or the constitution. The document can be changed only through a formal amendment process initiated by Congress. We rate this post false.
