Musk says 50-50 chance of uncrewed Starship to Mars by late 2026
Elon Musk has said that he believes there is a 50 percent chance that his Mars spacecraft will make its first uncrewed voyage to the red planet at the end of 2026, just two days after the latest test-flight setback for his SpaceX firm.
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
7 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump says US will lift steel tariffs to 50 percent at Pennsylvania rally
United States President Donald Trump has announced his administration is raising tariffs on steel imports from 25 percent to 50 percent. Speaking to steelworkers and supporters at a rally outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Trump framed his latest tariff increase as a boon to the domestic manufacturing industry. 'We're going to bring it from 25 percent to 50 percent, the tariffs on steel into the United States of America, which will even further secure the steel industry in the United States,' Trump told the crowd. 'Nobody's going to get around that.' How that tariff increase would affect the free-trade deal with Canada and Mexico – or a separate trade deal struck earlier this month with the United Kingdom – remains unclear. Also left ambiguous was the nature of a deal struck between Nippon Steel, the largest steel producer in Japan, and the domestic company US Steel. Still, Trump played up the partnership between the two companies as a 'blockbuster agreement'. ' There's never been a $14bn investment in the history of the steel industry in the United States of America,' Trump said of the deal. Friday's rally was a return to the site of many election-season campaign events for Trump and his team. In 2024, Trump hinged his pitch for re-election on an appeal to working-class voters, including those in the Rust Belt region, a manufacturing hub that has declined in the face of the shifting industry trends and greater overseas competition. Key swing states like Pennsylvania and Michigan are located in the region, and they leaned Republican on election day, helping to propel Trump to a second term as president. Trump, in turn, has framed his 'America First' agenda as a policy platform designed to bolster the domestic manufacturing industry. Tariffs and other protectionist policies have played a prominent part in that agenda. In March, for instance, Trump announced an initial slate of 25-percent tariffs on steel and aluminium, causing major trading partners like Canada to respond with retaliatory measures. The following month, he also imposed a blanket 10-percent tariff on nearly all trade partners as well as higher country-specific import taxes. Those were quickly paused amid economic shockwaves and widespread criticism, while the 10-percent tariff remained in place. Trump has argued that the tariffs are a vital negotiating tool to encourage greater investment in the US economy. But economists have warned that attempting a 'hard reset' of the global economy – through dramatic tax hikes like tariffs – will likely blow back on US consumers, raising prices. Rachel Ziemba, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said the latest tariff hike on steel also signals that negotiating trade deals with Trump may result in 'limited benefits', given the sudden shifts in his policies. Further, Friday's announcement signals that Trump is likely to continue doubling down on tariffs, she said. 'The challenge is that hiking the steel tariffs may be good for steel workers, but it is bad for manufacturing and the energy sector, among others. So overall, it is not great for the US economy and adds uncertainty to the macro outlook,' Ziemba explained. Trump's tariff policies have also faced legal challenges in the US, where businesses, interest groups and states have all filed lawsuits to stop the tax hikes on imports. On Thursday, for instance, a federal court briefly ruled that Trump had illegally exercised emergency powers to impose his sweeping slate of international tariffs, only for an appeals court to temporarily pause that ruling a few hours later. Before the tariff hike was announced, Friday's rally in Pittsburgh was expected to focus on Nippon Steel's proposed acquisition of US Steel, the second largest steel producer in the country. 'We're here today to celebrate a blockbuster agreement that will ensure this storied American company stays an American company,' Trump said at the outset of his speech. But the merger between Nippon Steel and US Steel had been controversial, and it was largely opposed by labour unions. Upon returning to the White House in January, Trump initially said he would block the acquisition, mirroring a similar position taken by his predecessor, former US President Joe Biden. However, he has since pivoted his stance and backed the deal. Last week, he announced an agreement that he said would grant Nippon only 'partial ownership' over US Steel. Speaking on Friday, Trump said the new deal would include Nippon making a '$14bn commitment to the future' of US Steel, although he did not provide details about how the ownership agreement would play out. 'Oh, you're gonna be happy,' Trump told the crowd of steelworkers. 'There's a lot of money coming your way.' The Republican leader also waxed poetic about the history of steel in the US, describing it as the backbone of the country's economy. 'The city of Pittsburgh used to produce more steel than most entire countries could produce, and it wasn't even close,' he said, adding: 'If you don't have steel, you don't have a country.' For its part, US Steel has not publicly communicated any details of a revamped deal to investors. Nippon, meanwhile, issued a statement approving the proposed 'partnership', but it also has not disclosed terms of the arrangement. The acquisition has split union workers, although the national United Steelworkers Union has been one of its leading opponents. In a statement prior to the rally, the union questioned whether the new arrangement makes 'any meaningful change' from the initial proposal. 'Nippon has maintained consistently that it would only invest in US Steel's facilities if it owned the company outright,' the union said in a statement, which noted firmer details had not yet been released. 'We've seen nothing in the reporting over the past few days suggesting that Nippon has walked back from this position.' The rally on Friday comes as Trump has sought to reassure his base of voters following a tumultuous start to his second term. Critics point out that steel prices have risen in the US by roughly 16 percent since Trump took office, and his Republican Party faces potentially punishing congressional elections in 2026.
Al Jazeera
7 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What is Project Esther, the playbook against pro-Palestine movement in US?
Washington, DC – When the Heritage Foundation, a prominent right-wing think tank in the United States, released a playbook last year for how to destroy the Palestine solidarity movement, it did not garner much attention. But more than eight months later, the policy document – known as Project Esther – now faces heightened scrutiny from activists and media outlets, in part because President Donald Trump appears to be following its blueprint. The authors of Project Esther have presented their report as a set of recommendations for combating anti-Semitism, but critics say the document's ultimate aim is to 'poison' groups critical of Israel by painting them as Hamas associates. Project Esther was created as a response to growing protests against the US support for Israel's war on Gaza, which United Nations experts and rights groups have described as a genocide. So, what is Project Esther, and how is it being applied against activists? Here is a look at the document and its ongoing implications for the US. The Heritage Foundation is an influential conservative think tank in Washington, DC, whose stated mission is to 'formulate and promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense'. Yet, critics argue that Project Esther calls for government interference to curb individual freedoms, including the rights to free speech and association when it comes to opposing Israeli government policies. According to a New York Times report published earlier this month, the project is overseen by Victoria Coates, a vice president at the Heritage Foundation who served as deputy national security adviser during Trump's first term. The Heritage Foundation is also behind Project 2025, which critics describe as an authoritarian playbook for the second Trump presidency. Ahead of the elections last year, Democrats repeatedly invoked Project 2025 to criticise Trump, but the then-candidate distanced himself from the document. The initiative says that it aims to 'dismantle the infrastructure that sustains' what it calls the 'Hamas Support Network' within 24 months. The authors claim that groups engaged in advocacy for Palestinian rights are members of the Hamas Support Network (HSN). They define the supposed network as 'people and organizations that are both directly and indirectly involved in furthering Hamas's cause in contravention of American values and to the detriment of American citizens and America's national security interests'. In short, the document alleges that the 'pro-Palestinian movement' is 'effectively a terrorist support network'. No. There is no such network in the US, which has stern laws against providing material support to groups designated as 'terrorist organisations', including Hamas. Beth Miller – the political director at Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), a group that the Heritage Foundation names as part of the network – called Project Esther's allegations 'outlandish'. 'It exposes the length of lies and of absurdity that they are going through to try to tear down the Palestinian rights movement,' Miller told Al Jazeera. The Heritage Foundation did not respond to Al Jazeera's request for comment. The document calls for a multi-faceted campaign against supporters of Palestinian rights, targeting them legally, politically and financially. The initiative outlines 19 goals that it labels as 'desired effects'. They include denying Palestinian rights supporters who are not US citizens access to universities, ensuring that social media platforms do not allow 'anti-Semitic content', and presenting evidence of 'criminal activity' by Palestine advocates to the executive branch. It also calls for refusing to grant permits for protests organised in support of Palestinian rights. Project Esther suggests that Israel's backers should conduct 'legal, private research' into pro-Palestine groups to 'uncover criminal wrongdoing' and undermine their credibility. 'We must wage lawfare,' it reads, referring to the tactic of using litigation to pressure opponents. It appears to be the case. 'The phase we're in now is starting to execute some of the lines of effort in terms of legislative, legal and financial penalties for what we consider to be material support for terrorism,' Coates told The New York Times. Trump's crackdown on college protests seems to align with what Project Esther is trying to achieve. For example, the US administration has been revoking the visas of foreign students critical of Israel. This echoes a proposal in Project Esther, which calls for identifying students 'in violation of student visa requirements'. The Heritage Foundation also extensively cites Canary Mission – a website dedicated to doxxing and smearing pro-Palestine students – in its footnotes for Project Esther. The Trump administration is also suspected of relying on the website, along with other pro-Israel groups, to identify students for deportation. In addition, Project Esther singles out the 'Middle East/North Africa or Islamic studies' programmes as having professors who are 'hostile to Israel'. The Trump administration has been pressuring elite universities to revamp academic departments, including Middle East studies programmes, that it views as biased in favour of Palestinians. Columbia University, for instance, appointed a provost to review its programmes at Trump's request, 'starting immediately with the Middle East' department. The White House did not respond to Al Jazeera's request for comment. The initiative explicitly identifies several Arab, Muslim and progressive Jewish organisations as well as student groups as part of the so-called Hamas Support Network. The initiative claims that 'the network revolves around' American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), an educational and civic advocacy group. Osama Abuirshaid, AMP's executive director, said Project Esther points the finger at the group because it has 'Muslim' in its name, playing on Islamophobic bigotry. 'American Muslims for Palestine is an easy target. Given the Islamophobic tendencies, it's easy to assume guilt of American Muslims, Palestinians. That's a name that sticks,' Abuirshaid told Al Jazeera. He added that the group is also a target because it is effective and has a 'solid constituency'. 'If they can cripple and bring down AMP, that will have a chilling effect within the movement. So they think, if they can bring us down, other organisations will stop working on Palestine solidarity,' Abuirshaid said. Tariq Kenney-Shawa, a US policy fellow at Al-Shabaka, a Palestinian think tank, said Project Esther targets universities because Israel is bleeding support among young people in the US. 'That's why there's such an overwhelming focus on universities and college campuses,' he told Al Jazeera's The Take podcast. Kenney-Shawa explained that support for Israel's war on Gaza has been trending downwards across US demographics. But on college campuses, the change is more pronounced. 'While this change is absolutely across the political spectrum, it's obviously a lot more acute in the left and among young Americans,' Kenney-Shawa said. A recent poll from the Pew Research Center showed that 53 percent of US respondents had negative views of Israel, a number that rises to 71 percent among Democrats below the age of 50. Advocates say that, in the immediate future, the crackdown on the Palestine solidarity movement threatens the safety and wellbeing of activists, especially foreign students. But it has also sparked a backlash. 'The extreme nature of these attacks has also emboldened people to defiantly continue to speak out in the face of these attacks,' JVP's Miller said. 'And it has actually, in many cases, awoken people – who weren't paying attention before – to the hypocrisy that has so long existed in the willingness to silence and censor Palestinian rights activists.' Earlier in May, several right-wing lawmakers and Trump allies came out in opposition of a bill that aimed to expand restrictions on boycotts of Israel, citing free speech concerns. Abuirshaid echoed Miller's comments. He acknowledged that the media attacks, arrests and lawsuits against advocates and student protesters have been 'distracting' from the mission of focusing on Palestine. However, he added, 'I'm going to be clear: It's energising us to continue this fight.'
Al Jazeera
7 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
PBS sues Trump for stripping its funds
PBS has filed a lawsuit against United States President Donald Trump and other administration officials to block his order stripping federal funding from the 330-station public television system, three days after NPR did the same for its radio network. In its lawsuit filed on Friday, PBS relied on similar arguments, saying Trump was overstepping his authority and engaging in 'viewpoint discrimination' because of his claim that PBS's news coverage is biassed against conservatives. 'PBS disputes those charged assertions in the strongest possible terms,' lawyer Z W Julius Chen wrote in the suit, filed in US District Court in Washington, DC. 'But regardless of any policy disagreements over the role of public television, our Constitution and laws forbid the President from serving as the arbiter of the content of PBS's programming, including by attempting to defund PBS.' It was the latest of many legal actions taken against the administration for its moves, including several by media organisations impacted by Trump's orders. PBS was joined as a plaintiff by one of its stations, Lakeland PBS, which serves rural areas in northern and central Minnesota. Trump's order is an 'existential threat' to the station, the lawsuit said. A PBS spokesman said that 'after careful deliberation, PBS reached the conclusion that it was necessary to take legal action to safeguard public television's editorial independence, and to protect the autonomy of PBS member stations'. Through an executive order earlier this month, Trump told the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies to stop funding the two systems. Through the corporation alone, PBS is receiving $325m this year, most of which goes directly to individual stations. The White House deputy press secretary, Harrison Fields, said the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers' dime. 'Therefore, the President is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS,' Fields said. 'The President was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective.' PBS, which makes much of the programming used by the stations, said it gets 22 percent of its revenue directly from the feds. Sixty-one percent of PBS's budget is funded through individual station dues, and the stations raise the bulk of that money through the government. Trump's order 'would have profound impacts on the ability of PBS and PBS member stations to provide a rich tapestry of programming to all Americans', Chen wrote. PBS said the US Department of Education has cancelled a $78m grant to the system for educational programming, used to make children's shows like Sesame Street, Clifford the Big Red Dog and Reading Rainbow. For Minnesota residents, the order threatens the Lakeland Learns education programme and Lakeland News, described in the lawsuit as the only television programme in the region providing local news, weather and sports. Besides Trump, the lawsuit names other administration officials as defendants, including Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. PBS says its technology is used as a backup for the nationwide wireless emergency alert system. The administration has fought with several media organisations. Government-run news services like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are struggling for their lives. The Associated Press has battled with the White House over press access, and the Federal Communications Commission is investigating television news divisions.
