conference paper presentation template

Got any suggestions?

We want to hear from you! Send us a message and help improve Slidesgo

Top searches

Trending searches

26 templates

great barrier reef

17 templates

15 templates

football soccer

22 templates

18 templates

49 templates

Conference Presentation templates

Having a conference due soon is always a stressful moment but you can make it more easy-going with a cool presentation with exactly what you need give a presentation about your next conference with one of these templates carefully designed for the occasion choose the one of your taste which suits your concept and company best.

It seems that you like this template!

Premium template.

Unlock this template and gain unlimited access

Conference Pitch on Business and Economics

It will be a good conference if you accompany it with a good visual support, like this presentation! If you have checked your calendar, you have seen that in two weeks you have to give a conference on business and economy and you need a template to highlight the most...

Simple Conference Style Presentation

Download the Simple Conference Style Presentation presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic...

Watercolor Conference Style Presentation

Download the Watercolor Conference Style Presentation presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic...

Power of Positive Thinking Conference

The power of a positive thinking conference is where positivity meets productivity. Attendees will leave with a renewed outlook, an arsenal of practical techniques and the confidence to turn their dreams into reality! From learning how to make your mindset work for you to getting creative for your business, your...

Geopolitic Conference

Explore the complex and dynamic world of international politics and global affairs with this geopolitical conference Google Slides and PowerPoint template. With its unique color palette of muted blue and beige and topographic line illustrations, it is the perfect tool to help you create a visually stunning and engaging presentation...

Creative Conference Style Presentation

Download the Creative Conference Style Presentation presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic...

Business Conference Brochure

"Hello, would you like to come to our conference? Here's a brochure with the program and the timetable, be sure not to miss it!". Design the brochure that is mentioned in this hypotetical scenario and include the essential information that any person interested might need. It's creative, it grabs attention...

Skin Diseases Conference

A conference on skin diseases could bring together some of the leading experts in the field from around the world. Attendees would learn about the latest treatments, research, and developments in skin disease prevention, diagnosis, and management. There would be a variety of presenters from hospitals, universities, and non-profits who...

Download the "Simple Conference Style Presentation" for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic resources....

Conference Planning Meeting

The conference is coming up soon. Quick, you need to plan ahead and hold a meeting to discuss how to prepare for it! Since you'll need a presentation, download this one and customize it. To make your life easier, we've added all kinds of layouts: from calendars and timelines to...

Conference Planning Meeting Infographics

Is there anything more stressful than planning a whole conference? Not that we can think of, really… but on the plus side, we’ve figured out a way to make your conference planning meeting a good bit less tedious: This collection of infographics specifically designed around everything that needs to be...

Abstract Conference Style Presentation

Download the Abstract Conference Style Presentation presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic...

Elegant Conference Style Presentation

Download the Elegant Conference Style Presentation presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic...

Formal Conference Style Presentation

Download the "Formal Conference Style Presentation" presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic...

Medical Conference Style Presentation

Download the "Medical Conference Style" presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides. Healthcare goes beyond curing patients and combating illnesses. Raising awareness about diseases, informing people about prevention methods, discussing some good practices, or even talking about a balanced diet—there are many topics related to medicine that you could be sharing...

Colombian Culture Conference

Download the Colombian Culture Conference presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides. The world of business encompasses a lot of things! From reports to customer profiles, from brainstorming sessions to sales—there's always something to do or something to analyze. This customizable design, available for Google Slides and PowerPoint, is what you...

Conference Meeting on Accountants

Accountants play an important role within companies, as they are responsible for ensuring that finances are running smoothly. It’s always important to share knowledge, new tools, tricks, etc. So why not hold a conference that brings together the maximum number of accountants? In this template you will find the resources...

• Page 1 of 6

Register for free and start editing online

Conference Presentation Templates

Ignite inspiration and growth by uniting thought leaders and audiences in enlightening discussions and a collaborative atmosphere with Venngage’s professionally crafted conference presentation templates.

Other presentation templates

• Pitch decks
• User persona
• Brand guidelines
• Professional
• Group project
• Valentine's day
• Book report
• Mother's day
• Father's day
• Visual chart
• Architecture
• Social media
• Advertising

Conference Presentation Design Templates

Popular template categories

• Infographics
• White papers
• Letterheads
• Newsletters
• Business cards
• Human resources
• Certificates
• Invitations
• Table of contents
• Magazine covers
• Price lists
• Album covers
• Book covers
• See All Templates

Conference Papers

What this handout is about.

This handout outlines strategies for writing and presenting papers for academic conferences.

What’s special about conference papers?

Conference papers can be an effective way to try out new ideas, introduce your work to colleagues, and hone your research questions. Presenting at a conference is a great opportunity for gaining valuable feedback from a community of scholars and for increasing your professional stature in your field.

A conference paper is often both a written document and an oral presentation. You may be asked to submit a copy of your paper to a commentator before you present at the conference. Thus, your paper should follow the conventions for academic papers and oral presentations.

Preparing to write your conference paper

There are several factors to consider as you get started on your conference paper.

Determine the structure and style

How will you structure your presentation? This is an important question, because your presentation format will shape your written document. Some possibilities for your session include:

• A visual presentation, including software such as PowerPoint or Prezi
• A paper that you read aloud
• A roundtable discussion

Presentations can be a combination of these styles. For example, you might read a paper aloud while displaying images. Following your paper, you might participate in an informal conversation with your fellow presenters.

You will also need to know how long your paper should be. Presentations are usually 15-20 minutes. A general rule of thumb is that one double-spaced page takes 2-2.5 minutes to read out loud. Thus an 8-10 page, double-spaced paper is often a good fit for a 15-20 minute presentation. Adhere to the time limit.  Make sure that your written paper conforms to the presentation constraints.

Consider the conventions of the conference and the structure of your session

It is important to meet the expectations of your conference audience. Have you been to an academic conference previously?  How were presentations structured? What kinds of presentations did you find most effective? What do you know about the particular conference you are planning to attend? Some professional organizations have their own rules and suggestions for writing and presenting for their conferences. Make sure to find out what they are and stick to them.

If you proposed a panel with other scholars, then you should already have a good idea of your panel’s expectations. However, if you submitted your paper individually and the conference organizers placed it on a panel with other papers, you will need additional information.

Will there be a commentator? Commentators, also called respondents or discussants, can be great additions to panels, since their job is to pull the papers together and pose questions. If there will be a commentator, be sure to know when they would like to have a copy of your paper. Observe this deadline.

You may also want to find out what your fellow presenters will be talking about. Will you circulate your papers among the other panelists prior to the conference? Will your papers address common themes? Will you discuss intersections with each other’s work after your individual presentations? How collaborative do you want your panel to be?

Analyze your audience

Knowing your audience is critical for any writing assignment, but conference papers are special because you will be physically interacting with them. Take a look at our handout on audience . Anticipating the needs of your listeners will help you write a conference paper that connects your specific research to their broader concerns in a compelling way.

What are the concerns of the conference?

You can identify these by revisiting the call for proposals and reviewing the mission statement or theme of the conference. What key words or concepts are repeated? How does your work relate to these larger research questions? If you choose to orient your paper toward one of these themes, make sure there is a genuine relationship. Superficial use of key terms can weaken your paper.

What are the primary concerns of the field?

How do you bridge the gap between your research and your field’s broader concerns? Finding these linkages is part of the brainstorming process. See our handout on brainstorming . If you are presenting at a conference that is within your primary field, you should be familiar with leading concerns and questions. If you will be attending an interdisciplinary conference or a conference outside of your field, or if you simply need to refresh your knowledge of what’s current in your discipline, you can:

• Read recently published journals and books, including recent publications by the conference’s featured speakers
• Talk to people who have been to the conference
• Pay attention to questions about theory and method. What questions come up in the literature? What foundational texts should you be familiar with?
• Review the initial research questions that inspired your project. Think about the big questions in the secondary literature of your field.
• Try a free-writing exercise. Imagine that you are explaining your project to someone who is in your department, but is unfamiliar with your specific topic. What can you assume they already know? Where will you need to start in your explanation? How will you establish common ground?

Contextualizing your narrow research question within larger trends in the field will help you connect with your audience.  You might be really excited about a previously unknown nineteenth-century poet. But will your topic engage others?  You don’t want people to leave your presentation, thinking, “What was the point of that?” By carefully analyzing your audience and considering the concerns of the conference and the field, you can present a paper that will have your listeners thinking, “Wow! Why haven’t I heard about that obscure poet before? She is really important for understanding developments in Romantic poetry in the 1800s!”

Writing your conference paper

I have a really great research paper/manuscript/dissertation chapter on this same topic. Should I cut and paste?

Be careful here. Time constraints and the needs of your audience may require a tightly focused and limited message. To create a paper tailored to the conference, you might want to set everything aside and create a brand new document.  Don’t worry—you will still have that paper, manuscript, or chapter if you need it. But you will also benefit from taking a fresh look at your research.

Citing sources

Since your conference paper will be part of an oral presentation, there are special considerations for citations. You should observe the conventions of your discipline with regard to including citations in your written paper. However, you will also need to incorporate verbal cues to set your evidence and quotations off from your text when presenting. For example, you can say: “As Nietzsche said, quote, ‘And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you,’ end quote.” If you use multiple quotations in your paper, think about omitting the terms “quote” and “end quote,” as these can become repetitive. Instead, signal quotations through the inflection of your voice or with strategic pauses.

Organizing the paper

There are numerous ways to effectively organize your conference paper, but remember to have a focused message that fits the time constraints and meets the needs of your audience. You can begin by connecting your research to the audience’s concerns, then share a few examples/case studies from your research, and then, in conclusion, broaden the discussion back out to general issues in the field.

Don’t overwhelm or confuse your audience

You should limit the information that you present. Don’t attempt to summarize your entire dissertation in 10 pages. Instead, try selecting main points and provide examples to support those points. Alternatively, you might focus on one main idea or case study and use 2-4 examples to explain it.

Check for clarity in the text

One way to anticipate how your ideas will sound is to read your paper out loud. Reading out loud is an excellent proofreading technique and is a great way to check the clarity of your ideas; you are likely to hear problems that you didn’t notice in just scanning your draft.  Help listeners understand your ideas by making sure that subjects and verbs are clear and by avoiding unnecessarily complex sentences.

Include verbal cues in the text

Make liberal use of transitional phrases like however, therefore, and thus, as well as signpost words like first, next, etc.

If you have 5 main points, say so at the beginning and list those 5 ideas. Refer back to this structure frequently as you transition between sections (“Now, I will discuss my fourth point, the importance of plasma”).

Use a phrase like “I argue” to announce your thesis statement. Be sure that there is only one of these phrases—otherwise your audience will be confused about your central message.

Refer back to the structure, and signal moments where you are transitioning to a new topic: “I just talked about x, now I’m going to talk about y.”

I’ve written my conference paper, now what?

Now that you’ve drafted your conference paper, it’s time for the most important part—delivering it before an audience of scholars in your field!  Remember that writing the paper is only one half of what a conference paper entails. It is both a written text and a presentation.

With preparation, your presentation will be a success. Here are a few tips for an effective presentation. You can also see our handout on speeches .

Cues to yourself

Include helpful hints in your personal copy of the paper. You can remind yourself to pause, look up and make eye contact with your audience, or employ body language to enhance your message. If you are using a slideshow, you can indicate when to change slides. Increasing the font size to 14-16 pt. can make your paper easier to read.

Practice, practice, practice

When you practice, time yourself. Are you reading too fast? Are you enunciating clearly? Do you know how to pronounce all of the words in your paper? Record your talk and critically listen to yourself. Practice in front of friends and colleagues.

If you are using technology, familiarize yourself with it. Check and double-check your images. Remember, they are part of your presentation and should be proofread just like your paper.  Print a backup copy of your images and paper, and bring copies of your materials in multiple formats, just in case.  Be sure to check with the conference organizers about available technology.

Professionalism

The written text is only one aspect of the overall conference paper. The other is your presentation. This means that your audience will evaluate both your work and you! So remember to convey the appropriate level of professionalism.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Adler, Abby. 2010. “Talking the Talk: Tips on Giving a Successful Conference Presentation.” Psychological Science Agenda 24 (4).

Kerber, Linda K. 2008. “Conference Rules: How to Present a Scholarly Paper.” The Chronicle of Higher Education , March 21, 2008. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Conference-Rules-How-to/45734 .

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

• Search entire site
• Search for a course
• Browse study areas

Analytics and Data Science

• Data Science and Innovation
• Postgraduate Research Courses
• Business Research Programs
• Undergraduate Business Programs
• Entrepreneurship
• MBA Programs
• Postgraduate Business Programs

Communication

• Animation Production
• Business Consulting and Technology Implementation
• Digital and Social Media
• Media Arts and Production
• Media Business
• Media Practice and Industry
• Music and Sound Design
• Social and Political Sciences
• Strategic Communication
• Writing and Publishing
• Postgraduate Communication Research Degrees

Design, Architecture and Building

• Architecture
• Built Environment
• DAB Research
• Public Policy and Governance
• Secondary Education
• Education (Learning and Leadership)
• Learning Design
• Postgraduate Education Research Degrees
• Primary Education

Engineering

• Civil and Environmental
• Computer Systems and Software
• Engineering Management
• Mechanical and Mechatronic
• Systems and Operations
• Telecommunications
• Postgraduate Engineering courses
• Undergraduate Engineering courses
• Sport and Exercise
• Palliative Care
• Public Health
• Nursing (Undergraduate)
• Nursing (Postgraduate)
• Health (Postgraduate)
• Research and Honours
• Health Services Management
• Child and Family Health
• Women's and Children's Health

Health (GEM)

• Coursework Degrees
• Clinical Psychology
• Genetic Counselling
• Good Manufacturing Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Speech Pathology
• Research Degrees

Information Technology

• Business Analysis and Information Systems
• Computer Science, Data Analytics/Mining
• Games, Graphics and Multimedia
• IT Management and Leadership
• Networking and Security
• Software Development and Programming
• Systems Design and Analysis
• Web and Cloud Computing
• Postgraduate IT courses
• Postgraduate IT online courses
• Undergraduate Information Technology courses
• International Studies
• Criminology
• International Relations
• Postgraduate International Studies Research Degrees
• Sustainability and Environment
• Practical Legal Training
• Commercial and Business Law
• Juris Doctor
• Legal Studies
• Master of Laws
• Intellectual Property
• Migration Law and Practice
• Overseas Qualified Lawyers
• Postgraduate Law Programs
• Postgraduate Law Research
• Undergraduate Law Programs
• Life Sciences
• Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• Postgraduate Science Programs
• Science Research Programs
• Undergraduate Science Programs

Transdisciplinary Innovation

• Creative Intelligence and Innovation
• Diploma in Innovation
• Postgraduate Research Degree
• Transdisciplinary Learning

Create a Conference Presentation

Common types of conference presentations.

• Full paper  - The length of a full paper is variable, usually between 20 and 40 min, and rarely exceeds one hour. A full paper may be followed by question time.
• Short paper  - This type of conference presentation can be as short as 10 min, and very often it is one in a series of short papers in a 1- or 2-hour session on a particular conference sub-topic or theme, each followed by 10 minutes question time. Timing is crucial as it is common for short paper sessions to be carefully managed by timekeepers who will ‘terminate’ your paper after the allocated time.
• Workshop  - The emphasis of most workshops is on their practical nature. Their purpose is for participants to experience a strategy, a technique or a practical demonstration, and to have opportunities to question you about the value or workability of what you are presenting.
• Poster  - You prepare a poster of your work (one or more A1 displays, including diagrams, text, references or visuals). This is displayed in an area of the conference venue. Your poster may be staffed at particular times when you are required to be available to provide further information or answer questions about your poster.
• Discussion paper -  It is assumed that participants have read the paper. A summary is presented at the beginning of the paper (usually, but not always by the paper presenter), and the session consists mainly of a discussion or defence of the issues, questions and ideas raised in the paper.
• Panel presentation/discussion  - You are one of several people on a panel discussing a theme/topic related to the conference. Your role is to be an expert in a particular issue, topic, technology, strategy or you represent an institution, department or company. Normally you receive advanced notice of this, but sometimes you can be asked to be a panel member at the conference.
• Roundtable discussion  - This is a short paper presentation followed by the presenter facilitating/workshopping discussion with participants in groups.

Preparing your conference presentation

There are significant differences between a written paper, essay or report and a conference presentation. The introduction of a conference presentation should be considerably longer than that of a written text. Repetition is vital in a conference presentation. An audience needs to hear information several times and in slightly different forms to understand it, whereas in a written text the reader can refer back if necessary. Informal rather than formal language should be used in an oral conference presentation.

Think of a ‘catchy’ title as most conferences run parallel sessions and your presentation may compete with numerous presentations offered at the same time.

You will need to submit an abstract to the conference committee for your presentation to be accepted. If you have already written your paper, this task should be fairly easy as the abstract is a summary of the paper which is usually around 200–400 words . Ensure the issues, questions, thesis as well as the conclusion findings are clearly stated in the abstract.

In case the paper has not been written yet, prepare the abstract in such a way that you do not commit yourself to details that will not be addressed in the final paper.

Ensure that you follow guidelines set by the conference organizers regarding length, layout, references, etc. Write the paper as you would an essay, a report, or, more and more commonly, a journal article. The latter is particularly important if the conference proceedings are to be published (refereed or non-refereed). Check previous conference proceedings or journals in your field to ensure consistency with style, referencing, etc.

Presenting your conference presentation

When presenting your conference presentation you need to know your answers to the following questions:

• Is the purpose clearly stated: are you reporting, comparing, convincing, arguing, questioning…?
• Is the thesis/topic clearly stated: “In this paper, I want to report the findings of recent research which shows that under certain conditions, dolphins can be taught how to read simple text”?
• Are your main arguments/ideas supported with evidence?
• Are all the materials relevant to the topic?
• Have you demonstrated your knowledge of the subject?
• Is the level of technicality suited to the audience?
• How do you reply to audience’s questions: long questions, ‘mini papers’ disguised as questions…?

Organise your presentation

Most presentations are organised according to a predictable pattern. They have three main stages: introduction, body and conclusion (i.e. tell them what you are going to say; then say it; then tell them what you have said).

When a presentation does not have these clear sections, it can be very difficult for listeners to follow what is being said.

Introduction

This is the most crucial part of any presentation. You need to capture the audience’s interest in your topic and establish rapport with them. Your introduction should let the audience know what they are going to hear in the presentation. They need to know what to expect in order to get interested and to be able to follow you. Giving them an outline of your presentation in your introduction enables them to do this.

You need to:

• capture the audience’s attention with a question, quotation, anecdote, or interesting statistic, etc.
• main theme or main argument
• main points you will cover and the order in which you will cover them.

The body of your presentation must be clearly organised with the main points highlighted. One effective technique is to number your ideas. Any idea which is new to your audience needs to be presented simply with supportive evidence or examples which will make it more easily understood. Each important idea should be presented several times in different ways within the body of your presentation. Your audience needs several opportunities to absorb the full meaning and the significance of the most important ideas. It is also important to state the links between your ideas clearly.

The body is where you develop your main ideas/argument, using supporting ideas/evidence. Use techniques that make it easy for the listener to follow your talk:

• number your ideas: “ There are three main factors... ”
• arrange your ideas in logical order, such as chronological; cause and effect; problem–solution
• use transitional devices to help the audience follow the direction of your talk: “ secondly…; another important point is...; on the other hand…; I would now like to move on and look at another aspect of the research.. .”
• state the main idea
• refer to experts, provide examples to illustrate the idea
• provide statistics, facts, tell anecdotes (if time permits)
• provide case studies, etc.
• repeat important ideas using different words so the audience has several opportunities to absorb them
• don’t make the information too dense – remember the audience is listening, not reading!

The conclusion sums up main points. The conclusion should reinforce the central ideas of the presentation and signal a forceful ending. A weak, inconclusive or apologetic closing detracts from a good presentation. You should show in your conclusion that you have covered all the points that you said you would in your introduction. You should also show that you are confident, and that you have communicated effectively.

It is important to have a strong conclusion so the audience is left with a good impression.

• Summarise the main ideas of your presentation.
• Don’t introduce any new ideas.
• Work towards a strong ending – don’t finish abruptly or say ‘That’s all’. Perhaps leave the audience with something to think about.

Presentation Tips

Advance preparation.

The more you know about your audience, the more likely you will be able to give an effective presentation. Try to find out as much as you can about who will be there, what their background is, why they will be coming, and how much they will already know about the topic. Go to the room where you will make your presentation and get a feel of its size, acoustics, seating, etc. If you can, familiarise yourself with the equipment in the room.

Clear pronunciation

Your voice must be clear and distinct. If you know you have difficulty with pronunciation, speak a little more slowly than usual. Use intonation, stress, changes in pace (slow down at important points, speed up at details, anecdotes) and pause to keep the listeners’ attention, and focus attention on important points.

Body language

It has been estimated that 75% of meaning transferred is non-verbal.  Try to maintain eye contact with your audience as this helps keep your audience engaged. Focus on standing straight and directly facing your audience, using hand gestures to emphasise important information.

Visual aids 

A presentation can be enhanced by the effective use of overhead transparencies (slides), charts, pictures, posters or PowerPoint presentations (with limited graphic/sound gimmicks). They provide variety and can help reinforce points made. However, you are still the main communicator of your message. Be familiar with your visual aids, refer to them specifically and only display them when you are referring to them, otherwise they will only be a distraction.

• Physical charts, graphs, pictures, etc.: ensure that the size is appropriate for a large room. If necessary, back up with handouts.
• Video: ensure the segment shown is not too long in relation to the overall length of your presentation.
• Limit the amount of material on each visual: your listeners should be able to read and understand a visual in five seconds or less.
• Be sure your visuals are large enough to be seen by everyone: the lettering should usually be minimum 20-22 pt. font.
• Use diagrams, graphs and charts instead of words where possible.
• Eliminate unnecessary detail from diagrams, graphs and charts.

Expression and style

Try to speak to your audience using notes rather than memorising or reading your presentation. In order to do this, you will have to practise your presentations as many times as you can. If possible, perform in front of an audience. Otherwise, practise in front of a mirror or record yourself on your phone. This will also give you an idea of how long your presentation will take.

Use a conversation style to make your audience feel personally involved. Each time you use the word ‘you’, the audience feels compelled to pay attention.  

Back to top

Adapted from Barthel, A. 2010, ‘Presenting a conference paper’, ELSSA Centre, University of Technology Sydney.   

UTS acknowledges the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, the Boorooberongal people of the Dharug Nation, the Bidiagal people and the Gamaygal people, upon whose ancestral lands our university stands. We would also like to pay respect to the Elders both past and present, acknowledging them as the traditional custodians of knowledge for these lands.

Home PowerPoint Templates PowerPoint Themes Conference PowerPoint Template

Conference PowerPoint Template

The Conference PowerPoint Template is a slide deck for preparing an engaging conference presentation. A conference is a formal meeting of technical professionals where new ideas, theories, or research are presented and discussed to test their validity and significance in a particular field. Thus, a conference presentation is crucial when showing your research work before the attendees. Professionals try to keep this presentation concise yet comprehensive to elaborate on everything they have found during their work. We have created this 100% editable conference presentation template for our science, tech, and corporate users. They can easily download the template in a single click and prepare winning conference presentations. All slides carry uniform background settings and color themes that can be modified according to the presentation needs. 

Our Conference PowerPoint Template begins with a cover slide carrying a human illustration and a title segment. The second slide is to present the agenda points. It displays a vertical timeline design to showcase the main discussion points of the presentation. The next slide is to mention the introduction or abstract of the publication. Users can add an image with a blue color overlay. The following slides of this Conference PowerPoint template showcase the subjects, objectives, methodology, results of findings, charts & data, and next steps or future opportunities. 

These slides have customizable numbering segments, vertical & horizontal flow diagrams with icons, and data-driven charts for presenting the statistical values. Presenters can conveniently enter the values and display them for presentation. Two attractive slides are also added for the conclusion and acknowledgments. So, professionals from every field can use this slide deck for conference presentations. Download and try this Conference template for PowerPoint & Google Slides. You can also check our Free Conference presentation template for preparing simple conference presentations. Download and try it now!

You must be logged in to download this file.

Favorite Add to Collection

Details (13 slides)

Supported Versions:

Subscribe today and get immediate access to download our PowerPoint templates.

Related PowerPoint Templates

Corporate Executive Summary PowerPoint Template

Dropshipping PowerPoint Template

IT Playbook PowerPoint Template

Sales Enablement Plan Presentation Template

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Conference Presentations

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

This resource provides a detailed overview of the common types of conference papers and sessions graduate students can expect, followed by pointers on presenting conference papers for an audience. 

Types of conference papers and sessions

Panel presentations are the most common form of presentation you will encounter in your graduate career. You will be one of three to four participants in a panel or session (the terminology varies depending on the organizers) and be given fifteen to twenty minutes to present your paper. This is often followed by a ten-minute question-and-answer session either immediately after your presentation or after all of the speakers are finished. It is up to the panel organizer to decide upon this framework. In the course of the question-and-answer session, you may also address and query the other panelists if you have questions yourself. Note that you can often propose a conference presentation by yourself and be sorted onto a panel by conference organizers, or you can propose a panel with a group of colleagues. Self-proposed panels typically have more closely related topics than conference-organized panels.

Roundtables feature an average of five to six speakers, each of whom gets the floor for approximately five to ten minutes to speak on their respective topics and/or subtopics. At times, papers from the speakers might be circulated in advance among the roundtable members or even prospective attendees.

Workshops feature one or a few organizers, who usually give a brief presentation but spend the majority of the time for the session facilitating an activity that attendees will do. Some common topics for these sessions typically include learning a technology or generating some content, such as teaching materials.

Lightning talks (or Ignite talks, or Pecha Kucha talks) are very short presentations where presenters' slide decks automatically advance after a few seconds; most individual talks are no longer than 5 minutes, and a lightning talk session typically invites 10 or more presenters to participate over the course of an hour or two rather than limiting the presenters like a panel presentation. A lightning talk session will sometimes be held as a sort of competition where attendees can vote for the best talk. 

SIGs (Special Interest Groups) are groups of scholars focused on a particular smaller topic within the purview of the larger conference. The structure of these sessions varies by conference and even by group, but in general they tend to be structured either more like a panel presentation, with presenters and leaders, or more like a roundtable, with several speakers and a particular meeting agenda. These styles resemble, respectively, a miniconference focusing on a particular topic and a committee meeting. 

Papers with respondents are structured around a speaker who gives an approximately thirty-minute paper and a respondent who contributes their own thoughts, objections, and further questions in the following fifteen minutes. Finally, the speaker gets that same amount of time to formulate their reply to the respondent.

Poster presentations ask participants to visually display their ideas on a research poster, which is typically displayed with other research posters in a specific area at a conference. The poster needs to be understandable on its own (without the author) as viewers sometimes look through the posters outside the bounds of the poster session, which is a scheduled period of time where poster authors stand with their posters and engage viewers in conversation about the work. Research posters have long tended to follow common templates for design, but in recent years some scholars have begun challenging these templates for improved usability (for example, the Better Poster campaign as described here  or the APA template based on the original, here.

You can read more about research posters on our resource here .

Presenting the conference paper

Aim to take less time than you are given! If your presentation slot is 15 minutes, aim for 13 or 14 when you practice. A little leeway and a slightly shorter presentation is a courtesy to your audience and to your fellow presenters, and will not at all imply that you are unprepared or unprofessional — in fact, being able to keep well within your allotted time is the mark of a good presenter.

Make sure you speak slowly and clearly, using accessibility aids if available such as a microphone or closed captioning on a slide deck. Many presenters have begun bringing accessibility copies of their talks, which are printed transcripts of the talk using a larger font for audience members who need them. It is also becoming increasingly common for presenters at conferences to share their slides and copies of their talk via a shortened link or QR code found on the bottom of the slides so that audiences may access them later or even while they are in your session.

The conventions for presentation differ based on field. Some fields tend toward reading papers aloud with very little audiovisual accompaniment; others use slide decks; others speak extemporaneously. You can find out more about typical practices in your field by attending conferences yourself and by asking mentors. Generally, you will be able to improve the accessibility of your presentation if you have a visual accompaniment and prepared remarks.

Even in fields where presenters tend to read papers verbatim, it is rarely a good idea to bring a paper from a class or another research paper you have written without editing it for an oral presentation. Seminar papers tend to be too long to read in 15 minutes, and often lead to graduate students surpassing their time limits. Moreover, research papers are meant to be read — they lack the kinds of repetition and simple sentence structure that are more beneficial to listeners. Finally, conference presentations do not serve the same purposes as most class papers — typically in a class, you're expected to show that you have understood the material, but at a conference, listeners are more interested in hearing what contributions you have that might help them in their own research. It's typical to move the bulk of your literature review to an appendix or another document so that you can discuss other scholarship in the area if it comes up in the Q&A, but during your presentation you're left free to focus on your own methods and findings. (Many presenters will even say: "I'm skipping a lot of [X material] for the sake of time, but I'm happy to discuss it later with anyone who's interested.")

Since you will present your paper orally, you may repeat important points and say more about the structure of the essay than a written submission to a journal (or a paper for your undergraduate or graduate courses) would require. This often means signposting orally when you are moving to a new section of the paper or when you are shifting to a new idea. The thesis of your paper should come early in your presentation to give listeners a clear understanding of what is to follow. At this point, you may also overview or forecast your paper and tell listeners how you will move from one argument to the next. It is generally advised to quickly summarize your important points in a bulleted list at the end of your presentation to remind everyone of the two or three most essential arguments or findings.

If you use a slide presentation, you may want to follow the guidelines presented in the OWL resource, Designing an Effective PowerPoint Presentation .

Present Your Paper

Get ready to present your paper at a conference. A key part of the research and review process is presenting and defending your work in front of peers at a conference.

The first step in getting ready to present your paper is to determine what key message you want to communicate to your audience. Most conference presentations are 10-20 minutes long, so you will not have time to present all the details of your work. The objective of your presentation is to get people interested in your work, not to explain it to them fully.

Organize your talk with these tips:

• Begin by stating the purpose or goal of your research. Tell the audience why your work is important.
• Provide a very brief literature review. This will give the audience some context.
• Move on to the main points of your own research.
• Conclude by reiterating the importance of your research and emphasizing the key points.

Tips for Creating Presentation Slides

Remember that your slides do not have to tell the story on their own. Slides are meant to illustrate your work, not explain it entirely.

• Use graphics where possible. Limit text to phrases and bullet points, rather than full sentences.
• Once you have drafted your slides, record yourself practicing your talk with the slides so that you can identify areas for improvement.
• Be sure to stay within your time limit and leave time for questions from the audience.

All Formats

• Graphic Design

Presentation

11+ conference presentation templates.

About to do a conference presentation and are in need for some presentation templates ? Worry not, for on our website, we here provide ample samples you could check out. Our templates are high quality, free of charge, easily accessible, reusable, and provide accurate content, which can aid you in creating your own without taking too much time.

Free Conference Presentation Proposal Template

• Google Docs
• Apple Pages

Conference Presentation Template

• Illustrator
• Google Slides
• Apple Keynote

Education Conference Presentation Template

Academic Conference Presentation Template

Free Conference Poster Presentation Template

Free Conference Oral Presentation Template

Conference Paper Presentation Template

Conference Presentation Template in Powerpoint

What Is a PowerPoint Presentation?

Advantages of powerpoint presentations.

• Practices multiple learning styles.
• Increases visual impact to audience.
• Provides a clear visual.
• Important details can be highlighted.
• Analysis is easier with clear visuals.
• Increase creativity.

Technical Conference Presentation Template

Conference Presentation Proposal Template

Free Conference Presentation Template

Conference Presentation Slides Template

Give a Presentation

• Implement the 5-5-5 rule. This pertains to having no more than 5 words on the title, 5 bullet points per slide, and 5 words each slide. This reminder makes the presentation clean and allows the audience to grab the point of the topic quickly.
• Use simple font styles and colors. Although there is a wide array of font designs on the software, it is always clever to keep a clean-looking slide. This prevents confusion from the audience, and can provide formality.
• Be consistent with the design and color scheme of the slides.
• Use backgrounds that complement the font.
• Learn your topic ahead of time to be able to answer follow-up questions more efficiently.
• Summarize your information and do not read each word that may be written on each slide.

More in Presentation

Art director portfolio presentation template, art director portfolio presentation, presentation handout template, conference agenda template, business leadership conference presentation template, online conference presentation template, digital conference presentation template, environment presentation template, research conference presentation template.

• 60+ Prezi Templates – Free Sample, Example Format Download!
• FREE 21+ Company Presentation Templates in PPT | PSD | EPS | Keynote
• 4+ Job Presentation Templates
• 12+ Marketing Presentation Templates
• 10+ Church Presentation Templates in Keynote | Powerpoint | PDF
• 11+ Nonprofit Presentation Templates in PDF
• 14+ Sales Presentation Templates
• How to Create a Presentation [10+ Templates]
• 10+ Presentation Templates in PPT
• 10+ Presentation Templates in Keynote
• 18+ Presentation Templates
• 8+ Pitch Deck Presentation Templates
• 14+ Notable Keynote Presentation Designs & Templates – PSD, AI
• 15+ Perfect Prezi Templates for Outstanding Presentations
• 7+ Financial Presentation Templates

File Formats

Word templates, google docs templates, excel templates, powerpoint templates, google sheets templates, google slides templates, pdf templates, publisher templates, psd templates, indesign templates, illustrator templates, pages templates, keynote templates, numbers templates, outlook templates.

• Publication Recognition

How to Make a PowerPoint Presentation of Your Research Paper

• 4 minute read

Table of Contents

A research paper presentation is often used at conferences and in other settings where you have an opportunity to share your research, and get feedback from your colleagues. Although it may seem as simple as summarizing your research and sharing your knowledge, successful research paper PowerPoint presentation examples show us that there’s a little bit more than that involved.

In this article, we’ll highlight how to make a PowerPoint presentation from a research paper, and what to include (as well as what NOT to include). We’ll also touch on how to present a research paper at a conference.

Purpose of a Research Paper Presentation

The purpose of presenting your paper at a conference or forum is different from the purpose of conducting your research and writing up your paper. In this setting, you want to highlight your work instead of including every detail of your research. Likewise, a presentation is an excellent opportunity to get direct feedback from your colleagues in the field. But, perhaps the main reason for presenting your research is to spark interest in your work, and entice the audience to read your research paper.

So, yes, your presentation should summarize your work, but it needs to do so in a way that encourages your audience to seek out your work, and share their interest in your work with others. It’s not enough just to present your research dryly, to get information out there. More important is to encourage engagement with you, your research, and your work.

Tips for Creating Your Research Paper Presentation

In addition to basic PowerPoint presentation recommendations, which we’ll cover later in this article, think about the following when you’re putting together your research paper presentation:

• Know your audience : First and foremost, who are you presenting to? Students? Experts in your field? Potential funders? Non-experts? The truth is that your audience will probably have a bit of a mix of all of the above. So, make sure you keep that in mind as you prepare your presentation.

Know more about: Discover the Target Audience .

• Your audience is human : In other words, they may be tired, they might be wondering why they’re there, and they will, at some point, be tuning out. So, take steps to help them stay interested in your presentation. You can do that by utilizing effective visuals, summarize your conclusions early, and keep your research easy to understand.
• Running outline : It’s not IF your audience will drift off, or get lost…it’s WHEN. Keep a running outline, either within the presentation or via a handout. Use visual and verbal clues to highlight where you are in the presentation.
• Where does your research fit in? You should know of work related to your research, but you don’t have to cite every example. In addition, keep references in your presentation to the end, or in the handout. Your audience is there to hear about your work.
• Plan B : Anticipate possible questions for your presentation, and prepare slides that answer those specific questions in more detail, but have them at the END of your presentation. You can then jump to them, IF needed.

What Makes a PowerPoint Presentation Effective?

You’ve probably attended a presentation where the presenter reads off of their PowerPoint outline, word for word. Or where the presentation is busy, disorganized, or includes too much information. Here are some simple tips for creating an effective PowerPoint Presentation.

• Less is more: You want to give enough information to make your audience want to read your paper. So include details, but not too many, and avoid too many formulas and technical jargon.
• Clean and professional : Avoid excessive colors, distracting backgrounds, font changes, animations, and too many words. Instead of whole paragraphs, bullet points with just a few words to summarize and highlight are best.
• Know your real-estate : Each slide has a limited amount of space. Use it wisely. Typically one, no more than two points per slide. Balance each slide visually. Utilize illustrations when needed; not extraneously.
• Keep things visual : Remember, a PowerPoint presentation is a powerful tool to present things visually. Use visual graphs over tables and scientific illustrations over long text. Keep your visuals clean and professional, just like any text you include in your presentation.

Know more about our Scientific Illustrations Services .

Another key to an effective presentation is to practice, practice, and then practice some more. When you’re done with your PowerPoint, go through it with friends and colleagues to see if you need to add (or delete excessive) information. Double and triple check for typos and errors. Know the presentation inside and out, so when you’re in front of your audience, you’ll feel confident and comfortable.

How to Present a Research Paper

If your PowerPoint presentation is solid, and you’ve practiced your presentation, that’s half the battle. Follow the basic advice to keep your audience engaged and interested by making eye contact, encouraging questions, and presenting your information with enthusiasm.

We encourage you to read our articles on how to present a scientific journal article and tips on giving good scientific presentations .

Language Editing Plus

Improve the flow and writing of your research paper with Language Editing Plus. This service includes unlimited editing, manuscript formatting for the journal of your choice, reference check and even a customized cover letter. Learn more here , and get started today!

• Manuscript Preparation

Know How to Structure Your PhD Thesis

• Research Process

Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?

You may also like.

What is a Good H-index?

What is a Corresponding Author?

How to Submit a Paper for Publication in a Journal

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to make a scientific presentation

Scientific presentation outlines

Questions to ask yourself before you write your talk, 1. how much time do you have, 2. who will you speak to, 3. what do you want the audience to learn from your talk, step 1: outline your presentation, step 2: plan your presentation slides, step 3: make the presentation slides, slide design, text elements, animations and transitions, step 4: practice your presentation, final thoughts, frequently asked questions about preparing scientific presentations, related articles.

A good scientific presentation achieves three things: you communicate the science clearly, your research leaves a lasting impression on your audience, and you enhance your reputation as a scientist.

But, what is the best way to prepare for a scientific presentation? How do you start writing a talk? What details do you include, and what do you leave out?

It’s tempting to launch into making lots of slides. But, starting with the slides can mean you neglect the narrative of your presentation, resulting in an overly detailed, boring talk.

The key to making an engaging scientific presentation is to prepare the narrative of your talk before beginning to construct your presentation slides. Planning your talk will ensure that you tell a clear, compelling scientific story that will engage the audience.

In this guide, you’ll find everything you need to know to make a good oral scientific presentation, including:

• The different types of oral scientific presentations and how they are delivered;
• How to outline a scientific presentation;
• How to make slides for a scientific presentation.

Our advice results from delving into the literature on writing scientific talks and from our own experiences as scientists in giving and listening to presentations. We provide tips and best practices for giving scientific talks in a separate post.

There are two main types of scientific talks:

• Your talk focuses on a single study . Typically, you tell the story of a single scientific paper. This format is common for short talks at contributed sessions in conferences.
• Your talk describes multiple studies. You tell the story of multiple scientific papers. It is crucial to have a theme that unites the studies, for example, an overarching question or problem statement, with each study representing specific but different variations of the same theme. Typically, PhD defenses, invited seminars, lectures, or talks for a prospective employer (i.e., “job talks”) fall into this category.

➡️ Learn how to prepare an excellent thesis defense

The length of time you are allotted for your talk will determine whether you will discuss a single study or multiple studies, and which details to include in your story.

The background and interests of your audience will determine the narrative direction of your talk, and what devices you will use to get their attention. Will you be speaking to people specializing in your field, or will the audience also contain people from disciplines other than your own? To reach non-specialists, you will need to discuss the broader implications of your study outside your field.

The needs of the audience will also determine what technical details you will include, and the language you will use. For example, an undergraduate audience will have different needs than an audience of seasoned academics. Students will require a more comprehensive overview of background information and explanations of jargon but will need less technical methodological details.

Your goal is to speak to the majority. But, make your talk accessible to the least knowledgeable person in the room.

This is called the thesis statement, or simply the “take-home message”. Having listened to your talk, what message do you want the audience to take away from your presentation? Describe the main idea in one or two sentences. You want this theme to be present throughout your presentation. Again, the thesis statement will depend on the audience and the type of talk you are giving.

Your thesis statement will drive the narrative for your talk. By deciding the take-home message you want to convince the audience of as a result of listening to your talk, you decide how the story of your talk will flow and how you will navigate its twists and turns. The thesis statement tells you the results you need to show, which subsequently tells you the methods or studies you need to describe, which decides the angle you take in your introduction.

➡️ Learn how to write a thesis statement

The goal of your talk is that the audience leaves afterward with a clear understanding of the key take-away message of your research. To achieve that goal, you need to tell a coherent, logical story that conveys your thesis statement throughout the presentation. You can tell your story through careful preparation of your talk.

Preparation of a scientific presentation involves three separate stages: outlining the scientific narrative, preparing slides, and practicing your delivery. Making the slides of your talk without first planning what you are going to say is inefficient.

Here, we provide a 4 step guide to writing your scientific presentation:

• Outline your presentation
• Plan your presentation slides
• Make the presentation slides
• Practice your presentation

Writing an outline helps you consider the key pieces of your talk and how they fit together from the beginning, preventing you from forgetting any important details. It also means you avoid changing the order of your slides multiple times, saving you time.

Plan your talk as discrete sections. In the table below, we describe the sections for a single study talk vs. a talk discussing multiple studies:

The following tips apply when writing the outline of a single study talk. You can easily adapt this framework if you are writing a talk discussing multiple studies.

Introduction: Writing the introduction can be the hardest part of writing a talk. And when giving it, it’s the point where you might be at your most nervous. But preparing a good, concise introduction will settle your nerves.

The introduction tells the audience the story of why you studied your topic. A good introduction succinctly achieves four things, in the following order.

• It gives a broad perspective on the problem or topic for people in the audience who may be outside your discipline (i.e., it explains the big-picture problem motivating your study).
• It describes why you did the study, and why the audience should care.
• It gives a brief indication of how your study addressed the problem and provides the necessary background information that the audience needs to understand your work.
• It indicates what the audience will learn from the talk, and prepares them for what will come next.

A good introduction not only gives the big picture and motivations behind your study but also concisely sets the stage for what the audience will learn from the talk (e.g., the questions your work answers, and/or the hypotheses that your work tests). The end of the introduction will lead to a natural transition to the methods.

Give a broad perspective on the problem. The easiest way to start with the big picture is to think of a hook for the first slide of your presentation. A hook is an opening that gets the audience’s attention and gets them interested in your story. In science, this might take the form of a why, or a how question, or it could be a statement about a major problem or open question in your field. Other examples of hooks include quotes, short anecdotes, or interesting statistics.

Why should the audience care? Next, decide on the angle you are going to take on your hook that links to the thesis of your talk. In other words, you need to set the context, i.e., explain why the audience should care. For example, you may introduce an observation from nature, a pattern in experimental data, or a theory that you want to test. The audience must understand your motivations for the study.

Supplementary details. Once you have established the hook and angle, you need to include supplementary details to support them. For example, you might state your hypothesis. Then go into previous work and the current state of knowledge. Include citations of these studies. If you need to introduce some technical methodological details, theory, or jargon, do it here.

Conclude your introduction. The motivation for the work and background information should set the stage for the conclusion of the introduction, where you describe the goals of your study, and any hypotheses or predictions. Let the audience know what they are going to learn.

Methods: The audience will use your description of the methods to assess the approach you took in your study and to decide whether your findings are credible. Tell the story of your methods in chronological order. Use visuals to describe your methods as much as possible. If you have equations, make sure to take the time to explain them. Decide what methods to include and how you will show them. You need enough detail so that your audience will understand what you did and therefore can evaluate your approach, but avoid including superfluous details that do not support your main idea. You want to avoid the common mistake of including too much data, as the audience can read the paper(s) later.

Results: This is the evidence you present for your thesis. The audience will use the results to evaluate the support for your main idea. Choose the most important and interesting results—those that support your thesis. You don’t need to present all the results from your study (indeed, you most likely won’t have time to present them all). Break down complex results into digestible pieces, e.g., comparisons over multiple slides (more tips in the next section).

Summary: Summarize your main findings. Displaying your main findings through visuals can be effective. Emphasize the new contributions to scientific knowledge that your work makes.

Conclusion: Complete the circle by relating your conclusions to the big picture topic in your introduction—and your hook, if possible. It’s important to describe any alternative explanations for your findings. You might also speculate on future directions arising from your research. The slides that comprise your conclusion do not need to state “conclusion”. Rather, the concluding slide title should be a declarative sentence linking back to the big picture problem and your main idea.

It’s important to end well by planning a strong closure to your talk, after which you will thank the audience. Your closing statement should relate to your thesis, perhaps by stating it differently or memorably. Avoid ending awkwardly by memorizing your closing sentence.

By now, you have an outline of the story of your talk, which you can use to plan your slides. Your slides should complement and enhance what you will say. Use the following steps to prepare your slides.

• Write the slide titles to match your talk outline. These should be clear and informative declarative sentences that succinctly give the main idea of the slide (e.g., don’t use “Methods” as a slide title). Have one major idea per slide. In a YouTube talk on designing effective slides , researcher Michael Alley shows examples of instructive slide titles.
• Decide how you will convey the main idea of the slide (e.g., what figures, photographs, equations, statistics, references, or other elements you will need). The body of the slide should support the slide’s main idea.
• Under each slide title, outline what you want to say, in bullet points.

In sum, for each slide, prepare a title that summarizes its major idea, a list of visual elements, and a summary of the points you will make. Ensure each slide connects to your thesis. If it doesn’t, then you don’t need the slide.

Slides for scientific presentations have three major components: text (including labels and legends), graphics, and equations. Here, we give tips on how to present each of these components.

• Have an informative title slide. Include the names of all coauthors and their affiliations. Include an attractive image relating to your study.
• Make the foreground content of your slides “pop” by using an appropriate background. Slides that have white backgrounds with black text work well for small rooms, whereas slides with black backgrounds and white text are suitable for large rooms.
• The layout of your slides should be simple. Pay attention to how and where you lay the visual and text elements on each slide. It’s tempting to cram information, but you need lots of empty space. Retain space at the sides and bottom of your slides.
• Use sans serif fonts with a font size of at least 20 for text, and up to 40 for slide titles. Citations can be in 14 font and should be included at the bottom of the slide.
• Use bold or italics to emphasize words, not underlines or caps. Keep these effects to a minimum.
• Use concise text . You don’t need full sentences. Convey the essence of your message in as few words as possible. Write down what you’d like to say, and then shorten it for the slide. Remove unnecessary filler words.
• Text blocks should be limited to two lines. This will prevent you from crowding too much information on the slide.
• Include names of technical terms in your talk slides, especially if they are not familiar to everyone in the audience.
• Proofread your slides. Typos and grammatical errors are distracting for your audience.
• Include citations for the hypotheses or observations of other scientists.
• Good figures and graphics are essential to sustain audience interest. Use graphics and photographs to show the experiment or study system in action and to explain abstract concepts.
• Don’t use figures straight from your paper as they may be too detailed for your talk, and details like axes may be too small. Make new versions if necessary. Make them large enough to be visible from the back of the room.
• Use graphs to show your results, not tables. Tables are difficult for your audience to digest! If you must present a table, keep it simple.
• Label the axes of graphs and indicate the units. Label important components of graphics and photographs and include captions. Include sources for graphics that are not your own.
• Explain all the elements of a graph. This includes the axes, what the colors and markers mean, and patterns in the data.
• Use colors in figures and text in a meaningful, not random, way. For example, contrasting colors can be effective for pointing out comparisons and/or differences. Don’t use neon colors or pastels.
• Use thick lines in figures, and use color to create contrasts in the figures you present. Don’t use red/green or red/blue combinations, as color-blind audience members can’t distinguish between them.
• Arrows or circles can be effective for drawing attention to key details in graphs and equations. Add some text annotations along with them.
• Write your summary and conclusion slides using graphics, rather than showing a slide with a list of bullet points. Showing some of your results again can be helpful to remind the audience of your message.
• If your talk has equations, take time to explain them. Include text boxes to explain variables and mathematical terms, and put them under each term in the equation.
• Combine equations with a graphic that shows the scientific principle, or include a diagram of the mathematical model.
• Use animations judiciously. They are helpful to reveal complex ideas gradually, for example, if you need to make a comparison or contrast or to build a complicated argument or figure. For lists, reveal one bullet point at a time. New ideas appearing sequentially will help your audience follow your logic.
• Slide transitions should be simple. Silly ones distract from your message.
• Decide how you will make the transition as you move from one section of your talk to the next. For example, if you spend time talking through details, provide a summary afterward, especially in a long talk. Another common tactic is to have a “home slide” that you return to multiple times during the talk that reinforces your main idea or message. In her YouTube talk on designing effective scientific presentations , Stanford biologist Susan McConnell suggests using the approach of home slides to build a cohesive narrative.

To deliver a polished presentation, it is essential to practice it. Here are some tips.

• For your first run-through, practice alone. Pay attention to your narrative. Does your story flow naturally? Do you know how you will start and end? Are there any awkward transitions? Do animations help you tell your story? Do your slides help to convey what you are saying or are they missing components?
• Next, practice in front of your advisor, and/or your peers (e.g., your lab group). Ask someone to time your talk. Take note of their feedback and the questions that they ask you (you might be asked similar questions during your real talk).
• Edit your talk, taking into account the feedback you’ve received. Eliminate superfluous slides that don’t contribute to your takeaway message.
• Practice as many times as needed to memorize the order of your slides and the key transition points of your talk. However, don’t try to learn your talk word for word. Instead, memorize opening and closing statements, and sentences at key junctures in the presentation. Your presentation should resemble a serious but spontaneous conversation with the audience.
• Practicing multiple times also helps you hone the delivery of your talk. While rehearsing, pay attention to your vocal intonations and speed. Make sure to take pauses while you speak, and make eye contact with your imaginary audience.
• Make sure your talk finishes within the allotted time, and remember to leave time for questions. Conferences are particularly strict on run time.
• Anticipate questions and challenges from the audience, and clarify ambiguities within your slides and/or speech in response.
• If you anticipate that you could be asked questions about details but you don’t have time to include them, or they detract from the main message of your talk, you can prepare slides that address these questions and place them after the final slide of your talk.

➡️ More tips for giving scientific presentations

An organized presentation with a clear narrative will help you communicate your ideas effectively, which is essential for engaging your audience and conveying the importance of your work. Taking time to plan and outline your scientific presentation before writing the slides will help you manage your nerves and feel more confident during the presentation, which will improve your overall performance.

A good scientific presentation has an engaging scientific narrative with a memorable take-home message. It has clear, informative slides that enhance what the speaker says. You need to practice your talk many times to ensure you deliver a polished presentation.

First, consider who will attend your presentation, and what you want the audience to learn about your research. Tailor your content to their level of knowledge and interests. Second, create an outline for your presentation, including the key points you want to make and the evidence you will use to support those points. Finally, practice your presentation several times to ensure that it flows smoothly and that you are comfortable with the material.

Prepare an opening that immediately gets the audience’s attention. A common device is a why or a how question, or a statement of a major open problem in your field, but you could also start with a quote, interesting statistic, or case study from your field.

Scientific presentations typically either focus on a single study (e.g., a 15-minute conference presentation) or tell the story of multiple studies (e.g., a PhD defense or 50-minute conference keynote talk). For a single study talk, the structure follows the scientific paper format: Introduction, Methods, Results, Summary, and Conclusion, whereas the format of a talk discussing multiple studies is more complex, but a theme unifies the studies.

Ensure you have one major idea per slide, and convey that idea clearly (through images, equations, statistics, citations, video, etc.). The slide should include a title that summarizes the major point of the slide, should not contain too much text or too many graphics, and color should be used meaningfully.

• IEEE Xplore Digital Library
• IEEE Standards
• IEEE Spectrum

• IEEE Brand Overview
• Frequently asked questions
• IEEE Master Brand and Logos
• Geo-unit & Section Resources
• IEEE Society Sub-Brand Resources
• IEEE Council Sub-Brand Resources
• Brand Identity Guidelines
• IEEE Style Guide and Requirements
• IEEE.org Content Review Guidelines
• Mobile/app and Responsive Design Guidelines
• Other Site Management Guidelines
• IEEE Website and Social Media Site Registration Form
• Social Media Overview
• Social Media Training Resources
• How to utilize collateral & templates

IEEE Corporate Presentation Templates

• Digital use collateral
• Print collateral and editable templates
• Promotional advertising collateral
• Website templates
• 140 years of IEEE—Marketing Toolkit
• Adapting Your Marketing Communications to the Environment Around You
• IEEE App Marketing Toolkit
• IEEE Collabratec Toolkit
• IEEE Day Toolkit
• IEEE Digital Marketing Campaign Toolkit
• IEEE Education Week Toolkit
• IEEE eLearning 50% Discount Toolkit
• IEEE Open Access Toolkit
• IEEE Periodical Journals Marketing Toolkit
• IEEE Publicity Toolkit
• IEEE Social Media and Communications Toolkit for Authors
• IEEE Social Media Toolkits
• IEEE Strategic Plan Toolkit
• IEEE Students Toolkit
• IEEE Volunteering Toolkit
• IEEE Your Professional Home Toolkit
• Promo Library
• IEEE branded virtual backgrounds for video conferencing tools
• IEEE Virtual UX Lab
• IEEE Brand Experience Bulletin
• Brand videos
• Digital Resources
• IEEE Experience Design Team Contact Form
• IEEE Brand Inquiries Form
• Frequently Asked Questions
• IEEE Experience Design Team Project Process
• Creative Portfolio
• Service level agreements
• Public visibility
• Print Collateral and Editable Templates
• IEEE Website Templates
• How to Utilize Collateral & Templates
• IEEE Website Templates Access Request Form
• Digital Use Collateral
• Promotional Advertising Collateral

Create new presentations and refresh existing ones by using the branded IEEE Corporate Presentation Templates. Templates are available in high resolution and basic formats and support fullscreen as well as widescreen display on Windows and Mac computers.

On this page:

IEEE Presentation Template Quick Start Guide

Primary presentation template - ieee blue, alternate color presentation templates.

• Additional Branded PowerPoint options

Report Templates

• NEW: IEEE Corporate PowerPoint Quick Start Guide
• PowerPoint options

Use the following basic versions of the IEEE presentation templates if you are working in areas with low internet bandwidth. Microsoft PowerPoint, Google Slides, and Keynote versions are available below.

IEEE Blue (Pantone 3015) - Microsoft PowerPoint Template (PPTX, 6.1 MB) IEEE Blue (Pantone 3015) - Google Slides Template IEEE Blue (Pantone 3015) - Keynote for Mac Template (7.9 MB)

These decks each contain a full set of slides in one color theme with coordinating imagery. Select IEEE Brand Blue or one of the 3 additional colors from the approved IEEE Brand Color Palette.

• Red (Pantone 200) - PowerPoint Template (PPTX, 12.4 MB)
• Red (Pantone 200) - Google Slides Template  

• Cyan - PowerPoint Template (PPTX, 9 MB)
• Cyan - Google Slides Template  

• Navy (Pantone 295) - PowerPoint Template (PPTX, 8.3 MB)
• Navy (Pantone 295) - Google Slides Template  

Additional Branded PowerPoint Options

These decks each contain a full set of slides each with a unique design theme. These include a title slide, divider slide, and text slide options. Some options have placeholders for sub-brand logos.

Abstract Polygons (PPTX, 10 MB)

Global View  (PPTX, 12.4 MB)

Brand Circuit (PPTX, 721 KB)

Event Series (PPTX, 57.2 MB)

If you have trouble downloading the files, please submit your request via the IEEE Experience Design Team Contact Form .

IEEE Report Template - Letter Sized (DOCX, 4.3 MB) IEEE Report Template - A4 Sized (DOCX, 3.3 MB )

Home | Sitemap | Contact | Accessibility | Nondiscrimination Policy | IEEE Ethics Reporting | IEEE Privacy Policy | Terms & Disclosures | Site Feedback

© Copyright 2024 IEEE – All rights reserved. A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.

is Mainsite

• Search all IEEE websites
• Mission and vision
• IEEE at a glance
• IEEE Strategic Plan
• Organization of IEEE
• Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
• Organizational Ethics
• Annual Report
• History of IEEE
• Volunteer resources
• IEEE Corporate Awards Program
• Financials and Statistics
• IEEE Future Directions
• IEEE for Industry (Corporations, Government, Individuals)

IEEE Climate Change

• Humanitarian and Philanthropic Opportunities
• Select an option
• Get the latest news
• Access volunteer resources (Code of Ethics, financial forms, tools and templates, and more)
• Find IEEE locations
• Get help from the IEEE Support Center
• Recover your IEEE Account username and password
• Learn about the IEEE Awards program and submit nomination
• View IEEE's organizational structure and leadership
• Apply for jobs at IEEE
• See the history of IEEE
• Learn more about Diversity, Equity & Inclusion at IEEE
• Join an IEEE Society
• Renew your membership
• Member benefits
• IEEE Contact Center
• Connect locally
• Memberships and Subscriptions Catalog
• Member insurance and discounts
• Member Grade Elevation
• Get your company engaged
• Access your Account
• Learn about membership dues
• Learn about Women in Engineering (WIE)
• Access IEEE member email
• Find information on IEEE Fellows
• Access the IEEE member directory
• Learn about the Member-Get-a-Member program
• Learn about IEEE Potentials magazine
• Learn about Student membership
• Affinity groups
• IEEE Societies
• Technical Councils
• Technical Communities
• Geographic Activities
• Working groups
• IEEE Regions
• IEEE Collabratec®
• IEEE Resource Centers
• IEEE DataPort
• See the IEEE Regions
• View the MGA Operations Manual
• Find information on IEEE Technical Activities
• Get IEEE Chapter resources
• Find IEEE Sections, Chapters, Student Branches, and other communities
• Learn how to create an IEEE Student Chapter
• Upcoming conferences
• IEEE Meetings, Conferences & Events (MCE)
• IEEE Conference Application
• IEEE Conference Organizer Education Program
• See benefits of authoring a conference paper
• Search for 2025 conferences
• Search for 2024 conferences
• Find conference organizer resources
• Register a conference
• Publish conference papers
• Manage conference finances
• Learn about IEEE Meetings, Conferences & Events (MCE)
• Visit the IEEE SA site
• Become a member of the IEEE SA
• Find information on the IEEE Registration Authority
• Obtain a MAC, OUI, or Ethernet address
• Access the IEEE 802.11™ WLAN standard
• Purchase standards
• Get free select IEEE standards
• Purchase standards subscriptions on IEEE Xplore®
• Get involved with standards development
• Find a working group
• Find information on IEEE 802.11™
• Access the National Electrical Safety Code® (NESC®)
• Find MAC, OUI, and Ethernet addresses from Registration Authority (regauth)
• Get free IEEE standards
• Learn more about the IEEE Standards Association
• View Software and Systems Engineering Standards
• IEEE Xplore® Digital Library
• Subscription options
• IEEE Spectrum
• The Institute
• Proceedings of the IEEE
• IEEE Access®
• Author resources
• Get an IEEE Xplore Digital Library trial for IEEE members
• Review impact factors of IEEE journals
• Request access to the IEEE Thesaurus and Taxonomy
• Access the IEEE copyright form
• Find article templates in Word and LaTeX formats
• Get author education resources
• Visit the IEEE Xplore digital library
• Find Author Digital Tools for IEEE paper submission
• Review the IEEE plagiarism policy
• Get information about all stages of publishing with IEEE
• IEEE Learning Network (ILN)
• IEEE Credentialing Program
• Pre-university
• IEEE-Eta Kappa Nu
• Accreditation
• Access continuing education courses on the IEEE Learning Network
• Find STEM education resources on TryEngineering.org
• Learn about the TryEngineering Summer Institute for high school students
• Explore university education program resources
• Access pre-university STEM education resources
• Learn about IEEE certificates and how to offer them
• Find information about the IEEE-Eta Kappa Nu honor society
• Learn about resources for final-year engineering projects
• Access career resources

Conferences

Ieee sponsors over 2,000 annual conferences and events worldwide, curating cutting-edge content for all of the technical fields of interest within ieee..

Expand All | Collapse All

• > Search for 2025 conferences
• > Search for 2024 conferences
• > Find conference organizer resources
• > Apply for IEEE sponsorship
• > Publish conference papers
• > Manage conference finances
• > Learn about IEEE Meetings, Conferences & Events (MCE)

• Register now
• Search all IEEE conferences

Registration is open—register today!

• 2024 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC)
• 2024 IEEE AUTOTESTCON
• 2024 IEEE SustainTech Expo: Technology Solutions for a Sustainable Future (SustainTech)

Calls for Papers

• 2024 IEEE Asian Solid-State Circuits Conference (A-SSCC)
• 2024 31st IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Circuits and Systems (ICECS)

IEEE Conferences, Events & Experiences

IEEE Conferences, Events & Experiences (CEE) is a dedicated partner made up of event industry experts driven to shape innovative and high-quality events.

CEE specializes in event management including registration, audience development, and program design, as well as sponsorship, publications, and financial management for over 2,000 annual events worldwide.

• Visit the CEE website

The CEE team is available to assist you.

Email  [email protected]  with questions or concerns, or call: Toll-Free: +1 855 340 4333 (US & Canada) Toll: +1 732 562 3878 (worldwide)

Virtual Events team  

• View the presentation (PPTX, 3 MB)

IEEE Conference Application  

• Submit an IEEE Conference Application
• View tutorials on the IEEE Conference Application
• Read about the IEEE Conference Application

Conference publications

IEEE produces cutting-edge conference publications in various technology areas that are recognized by academia and industry worldwide. Articles submitted for publication follow a paper-selection process and are peer reviewed before they are published.

• Learn more about IEEE conference publications (PDF, 2 MB)
• Browse conference publications in the IEEE Xplore® Digital Library
• Learn more about the IEEE Conference Publications Committee

Calls for papers

IEEE provides the right forum for authors and speakers to present their work at various annual conferences worldwide. IEEE continuously updates its database with opportunities to submit abstracts and papers.

• Search for upcoming call for papers deadlines in your field of interest

IEEE Conferences Committee

* IEEE volunteers and staff must use their IEEE Account to access content within the IEEE Technical Activities Operations site. In some instances, access to certain content areas is further limited based on IEEE volunteer roles.

• Learn more about the IEEE Conferences Committee (PDF, 2 MB)
• Search for IEEE Committee Meetings - use filter: IEEE Conferences Committee (sign-in required)
• View IEEE Organizational Roster - IEEE Conferences Committee (sign-in required)

Local meetings and events

IEEE provides its members and volunteers with networking and interaction opportunities through local meetings and events hosted by the local Sections, Chapters, and other regional governing bodies.

• Find a local Section or Chapter meeting

Related Information >

Join/Renew IEEE or a Society

Receive member access to select content, product discounts, and more.

• Review all member benefits

The IEEE App

Let's stay connected.

• Download today

Sustainable events

Find guidance, online tools, and resources for designing and supporting sustainable IEEE events.

IEEE is committed to helping combat and mitigate the effects of climate change.  

• See what's new on the IEEE Climate Change site

• Study program
• Team & Faculty
• Distinguished Guest Lectures
• Information request
• International
• Accomodation
• Scholarships & Grants
• IT-Services
• Study Program
• Consultation
• Application and Admission
• Biotechnology & Food Engineering
• Business & Management
• Management, Communication & IT
• Management & Law
• Social Work
• Entrepreneurship, Tourism & Leisure Business
• Mechatronics, Design & Innovation
• Environmental, Process & Energy Engineering
• Industrial Engineering & Management
• Social, Health & Public Management
• Business Administration
• Digital Business & Software Engineering
• Business & Management Part-time
• Q&A on the dual study program
• Medical, Health and Sports Engineering
• Biotechnology
• Entrepreneurship & Tourism
• European Health Economics & Management
• International Health & Social Management
• Social Work, Social Policy & Management
• International Business & Law
• International Business & Management
• Food Technology & Nutrition
• Mechatronics – Smart Technologies
• Business Psychology & Management
• Medical & Sports Technologies
• Mechatronics – Automation, Robotics & AI
• Executive Education
• Executive PHD
• MSc | DBA Double Degree Program
• Part-time study programs
• Apply Online
• Research at MCI
• Cooperations
• Entrepreneurship & Start-ups
• Digital Transformation
• Entrepreneurship
• Family Business
• Responsibility & Sustainability
• Social & Health Care Services
• University, Output & Impact
• Electronics & Data Analytics
• Energy & Process Technologies
• Fluids & Mechanics
• Food science & Biotechnology
• Health Tech
• Smart Production & Organization
• Application & Admission
• Doctoral Programs
• Executive Master
• eSTUDY BACHELOR GENERAL MANAGEMENT
• eStudy Micro Credentials
• eStudy Certificate Courses
• eStudy Bachelor Professional eCommerce
• Corporate Communications
• Digital Business Analytics & Digital Strategies
• General Management
• Human Resource Management
• Innovation Management
• Controlling & Business Management
• Business AI
• Management, Psychology & Leadership
• Patent & License Management
• Sales Management
• Entrepreneurship & Digital Innovation
• Strategic Management
• Systemic Leadership Psychology
• Tourism, Destination & Leadership
• Women's Leadership Program
• Tourism Management
• Health Management
• Green Transition & ESG-Management
• Strategic Foresight & FutureS Thinking
• Mindful Leadership
• Blockchain for Business
• Conversation Management
• Agile Leadership
• Leading without Fighting
• Better Finish than Finished
• Corporate Digital Learning
• Digitales Marketing & Sale
• Social Media
• Social Media: Social Media Analytics
• Social Media: Social Media Strategy
• Business Analytics: Tools, Systems & Services
• Project Management: Methodological Competence
• Marketing Performance Measurement
• Change Management in Practice
• Business Modell Innovation
• The Logic of Strategy & Operationalization
• Design Thinking & Innovation Lab
• Stakeholder Relationship Management
• Ideas Management
• Business Ethics
• Be never again speechless
• Leadership & Self-Development
• Corporate Management & Entrepreneurship
• Marketing & Sales
• Project Management & Communication
• Agile Project Management
• Customer Journey Management
• Data Storytelling
• Digitalization in Distribution
• Communication Management Seminar Series
• Communication Management - Communication Strategy
• Communication Management - Communication trends in the digital world
• Meeting Management
• Sustainability as a core element of companies and organizations
• Rhetoric and Body Language
• Social Competence in Projects
• Virtual Reality
• Videomarketing
• Conduct conversations in a relaxed and confident manner
• Employer branding in the implementation
• Agile Management Control
• Change Management in the VUCA world
• Presenting professionally
• Employer Branding as a success factor
• Market Communications
• Personal development for leadership
• Sales Psychology
• Data Science, Analytics and AI for decision makers
• Remote Teamwork
• Success factor Diversity
• ReStart: New opportunities through digital transformation and sustainability
• From practice – for practice: leading in times of digital change
• Technical training
• Programs for companies
• Programs for universities
• Academic Council
• Teaching & Learning
• Awards Team & Faculty
• Awards Students
• Notifications of Accreditation
• PRME Video Competition
• PRME Videocontest Winner
• Surveys & Rankings
• Studying Online & Blended Learning at MCI
• Learning & Teaching
• Assurance of learning in teaching
• Teaching Community
• MCI Advisory Board
• Code of Conduct
• Responsibility
• Why work with MCI
• Join our Team
• Partner Universities
• MCI x RAIDERS TIROL
• Lifelong Learning
• Alumni Weekend
• 25 Years MCI
• List of graduates
• Alumni of the month
• Success Stories
• alumni4students
• Universities
• Media Feedback
• Logos & Images

ISCONTOUR 2024 - International Student Conference in Tourism Research at MCI

In addition to exciting paper presentations and keynote speeches, a culinary and social programme awaited the participants..

In cooperation with the MCI and the IMC University of Applied Sciences Krems, the ISCONTOUR took place for the 11th time this year on 13 and 14 May 2024. As an international student conference, graduates were given a platform to present their research results and exchange knowledge. This year, the submitted papers were divided into the research areas of Innovations in Tourism, Niche Tourism, Tourism Management & Leadership, Destination Management, Digital Marketing, Digital Transformation, Consumer Behaviour, Hospitality Management and Sustainable Tourism Management.

Innovative tourism approaches were also discussed in research methodology workshops as part of the programme. The high-level keynote speakers Astrid Steharnig-Staudinger (GF Österreich Werbung) and Kurt Matzler (University of Innsbruck) provided impressive insights into the topics of "Tourism in Austria and its challenges" and "The high performance mindset - race across America".

The two-day conference attracted participants from over 20 different countries and inspired students & alumni from Europe, Africa and Asia. Next year's conference will take place on 19/20 May 2025 in Krems. You can find more information about the Iscontour at http://www.etourism-students.com/Iscontour/

Dean Hubert Siller (MCI) und Christian Maurer (IMC Krems) with the participants of ISCONTOUR 2024. photo: MCI Tourism

Hubert Siller (MCI) Kurt Matzler (Uni Innsbruck, Astrid Steharnig-Staudinger (Austrian National Tourist Office) und Christian Maurer (IMC Krems) at the ISCONTOUR 2024. photo: MCI Tourism

Kick-off Social Networking Programme - Hungerburg & Nordkette photo: MCI Tourism

Julia Vögele (MCI) with students at her research-workshop.photo: MCI Tourism

Where do the participants come from? photo: MCI Tourism

Lightbox-Gallery

• ISCONTOUR - International Student Conference in Tourism at MCI
• Master "Entrepreneurship & Tourism"
• Bachelor "Entrepreneurship, Tourism & Leisure Business"

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 23 May 2024

About feasibility of SpaceX's human exploration Mars mission scenario with Starship

• Volker Maiwald 1 ,
• Mika Bauerfeind 2 ,
• Svenja Fälker 3 ,
• Bjarne Westphal 4 &
• Christian Bach 3  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  11804 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

7833 Accesses

102 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Aerospace engineering
• Mechanical engineering

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

The solar dynamo begins near the surface

Metals strengthen with increasing temperature at extreme strain rates

The refinery of the future

Introduction.

In 1952 Wernher von Braun published The Mars Project 1 , the first feasibility study and technical, non-fictional scenario for a human mission to Mars, describing how a crew of 70 people would reach Mars and stay on its surface for more than a year. The Martian Piloted Complex was a soviet study for a Mars mission, drafted by Mikhail Tikhonravov in 1956 over the course of several years. Using a spacecraft that would be assembled with 25 N1 rockets, the never successful soviet launch vehicle for lunar missions, a six-person crew would conduct a 900-day mission to Mars.

Numerous more studies for human Mars missions were conducted by different actors, national, commercial and academic over the course of the past decades. No study ever led to an actual mission. It is a truism that technologically, economically, psychologically and physiologically any other human explorative endeavor pales before a crewed mission to Mars. Life-support systems (LSS) capable of ensuring human survival for several years, do not yet exist with sufficient reliability. In-situ resource utilization (ISRU), e.g. to supply missions with fuel, water and oxygen on the Martian surface, has only been tested under lab conditions. Pro-longed stay in micro-gravity negatively affects the health of the human crew and countermeasures have to be developed.

SpaceX Starship is a spacecraft in development, which is intended to be used for the first human landing on the lunar surface in more than five decades and according to SpaceX’s owner, Elon Musk, will also be the enabler for the first human Mars mission 2 . The most recent information about a possible launch date for such a human exploration mission has been a Tweet from 2022, which mentions that his plan envisions such a human mission in 2029 2 . The last excursion beyond LEO has happened 50 years ago and the currently planned lunar missions have not yet reached an operational phase with crew. Artemis has conducted a lunar orbital mission, Gateway is currently still in development. With that status, plans for a human Mars mission, especially in that time frame warrant close inspection.

Artemis’ Orion vehicle and Gateway use similar systems, e.g. concerning life-support, partially developed from the International Space Station (ISS) 3 , forming an integrated path of different mission scenarios, lunar and Martian exploration. Gateway’s early configuration will consist of the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE), which has been contracted to Maxar, and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) 4 . Currently the launch of both modules is planned for 2025 5 . The PPE equips Gateway with a 60 kW solar array as well as an electrical propulsion system for orbit control 6 . It will also act as communication relay for communication between Moon and Earth and link Gateway with Earth 4 .

Published mission scenarios for Starship rely heavily on refueling, including on the Martian surface using ISRU to supply the fuel needed for the return flight to Earth 7 . Reliance on such technology for the return flight mandates a significant reliability to avoid stranding the crew on Mars. Setting up such an infrastructure on the Martian surface poses an own challenge, as such infrastructure exceeds anything ever transported beyond LEO. Other options, e.g. using refueling depots are not published by SpaceX. These are some challenges which have to be overcome for a successful Mars mission utilizing Starship, specifically—in addition to those previously mentioned general challenges.

Motivation, goals and approach

The prominence of Starship in current mission plans, e.g. as Human Landing System for Artemis III on the lunar surface, and its intended role within Mars mission plans warrant an analysis concerning the feasibility of such Mars missions. This goes along with establishing an understanding of mission efficiency sensitivity and effectiveness concerning parameters such as launch date. The goal of the work is a profound understanding of current gaps in the mission architecture and system design and to provide recommendations to remedy these gaps. The basic premise is to assume how a mission based on the scenario painted by SpaceX would work out and if it is plausible. This requires a compilation of statements and data about this scenario and careful analysis—where necessary with extrapolation—of this data, including e.g. trajectory calculations. Based on these a statement about the plausibility, feasibility of the mission as drawn out by SpaceX for its Starship, can be and is made.

First, data is compiled about the current mission scenario, where necessary data is extrapolated and assumptions are used to fill gaps in the data. This compiled baseline is then weighed against the requirements of the Mars mission as provided by the current scenario 7 . A mass budget is established and from that a trajectory analysis used to determine e.g. propellant needs to be covered by ISRU on the Martian surface. Subsequently, the feasibility is analyzed and discussed e.g. considering the technology readiness level of the required technologies, available payload mass or \(\Delta v\) and thus propellant mass required. The major questions to be answered are:

Is the mass information provided by SpaceX plausible?

Is the propellant mass as given by SpaceX plausible for the given mission scenario(s)?

Is the time of flight (ToF) aimed at by SpaceX plausible?

What is the energy need for ISRU activities on the Martian surface and how can it be satisfied?

Overall, gaps shall be identified and discussed, how these gaps can be closed to improve the feasibility of a Mars mission using SpaceX Starship. The feasibility of Starship is evaluated based on the numbers given in Table 1 , as published by SpaceX. More context on these numbers is given in the following sections of this work.

Paper outline

Section " Analysis method " describes the method used for the analysis of feasibility for SpaceX Starship. Subsequently, in Section " Results " the results are shown, first describing the mass budget as a basic representation of Starship for further analysis. Special emphasis is given on the trajectory analysis and ISRU. The latter is an essential part of the mission design, a key element for feasibility as it reduces the amount of fuel (and potentially other materials) to be taken along by Starship to Mars. In Section " Discussion " the results are discussed, evaluating the plausibility of the current scenario and certain key aspects, e.g. ISRU providing fuel, technology readiness (for the envisioned time frame of 2029) and adding recommendations for keeping that schedule and improving mission feasibility. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the findings of this work.

Analysis method

First, a literature review is conducted to compile available data on Starship’s system and mission design. The found information is filtered, based on recency and reliability. From this a baseline design for Starship and the mission scenario is selected, which will be used for the subsequent analysis. The mass budget is set up using the European Space Agency’s (ESA) margin philosophy for feasibility studies of science missions 13 . Specifically, this means that an overall 20% margin is assumed for the system mass—this accounts for additional, currently unforeseen elements, e.g. additional batteries, tank size changes. On component level, margins can be described with three levels:

5%—off the shelf items, i.e. items are essentially unchanged and the margin covers only additional bolts, screws and similar elements

10%—to be modified, i.e. items with heritage are used as baseline, but need changes for new functionalities or performance improvement

20%—to be developed, i.e. the estimate is quite inaccurate as the element is to be developed from scratch, even though some comparable element might exist to derive parameters from

The process is partly iterative as the data is interdependent, e.g. the amount of propellant to be generated depends on the amount of propellant needed for the transfer, which is a function of the system mass, but also e.g. launch date.

This philosophy has been picked for reasons of familiarity by the authors and due to the unprecedented nature of the proposed Mars mission. It is not reflecting the assumption that that design philosophy will be applied by SpaceX, but merely serves our own estimations.

Starship system and payload masses

To review the feasibility of Starship’s Mars mission as proposed by SpaceX, all relevant data for the spacecraft were compiled first. This data was obtained from publications by SpaceX (e.g. 7 , 14 , 15 ) or about SpaceX (e.g. 9 , 10 , 16 ) where the former were not available. In case of contradicting information, the most recent one was selected, to consider possible updates on the design. Where no information was available about Starship, data was extrapolated from existing systems, e.g. based on Orion technology. The system design also includes ISRU-technology.

Since the topic of Starship is still new and subject to recurring changes, the search was conducted purely via digital sources, including video interviews of Elon Musk, e.g. 10 , or presentations, e.g. 17 . In the search for further components and technologies for Starship, NASA and other space companies’ references were consulted for information on existing elements and those in development. In addition, further requirements have been set for the Starship that still have to be fulfilled.

Subsequently, the following steps were taken:

Definition of the subsystems,

Set-up of the respective system designs,

Estimation of mass and power budgets where possible,

Estimation of mass related to crew and consumables, assuming the best case of 100% recoverable consumables.

With this compiled system design, the mission feasibility concerning the given mission scenario has been analysed and evaluated subsequently. For the feasibility analysis the most relevant key figures have been identified, which can be addressed with the available information. Since Orion is currently the most analogue spacecraft based on its exploration mission purpose, elements, which could not be determined in mass in any other manner, were extrapolated based on mass information of Orion, as compiled in Table 2 (based on 18 ). Another option as basis for extrapolation has been Lunar Gateway. However, during preparation of this work, specified data about Gateway has been scarce and not available in the detail needed for the intended extrapolation. Furthermore, the mission purpose of Orion—designed as human exploration vehicle for missions beyond LEO, including Mars 19 (even though not with using only the capsule)—is more akin to that of Starship than the mission of Lunar Gateway which is intended to be an outpost in lunar orbit.

Trajectory analysis

For the trajectory analysis, baseline data is taken from literature to establish a mission scenario. This mission scenario is used to calculate fitting trajectories, searching for minimum Δ v mission opportunities and those with minimum Time of Flight (ToF) to find those fitting SpaceX published flight times with goals of 80 days and even 30 days 20 . All calculations were conducted with parameter values for standard parameters as given in Table 3 .

In general, the trajectory analysis of an interplanetary mission can be broken down to the problem of given departure and arrival position vectors, as well as the ToF between them. Finding the trajectory between Earth and Mars has been accomplished using a Lambert solver based on an algorithm developed by Battin and Vaughan 21 and was implemented in Matlab according to the pseudocode provided by Vallado and McClain 22 . It uses the position vectors of Earth (on departure date) and Mars (on departure date+ToF). The position vectors are modeled with the use of mean orbital elements.

Mean orbital elements are time dependent, linear functions that describe the run of the six Keplerian elements over a long time-interval. The values that describe the functions have been compiled and presented by Seidelmann 23 . The Lambert solver then returns the Δ v -values for the necessary maneuvers at Earth and Mars to connect the two planets with an elliptic transfer trajectory. This does not account for the influence of Earth’s and Mars’ gravitation on Starship, therefore the values are adapted with the use of patched conics. Since SpaceX plans to refuel the Starships in LEO, the orbital altitude must be chosen high enough to not deorbit due to the atmospheric drag. An orbital radius of 6878 km and hence an altitude of 500 km has thus been selected. In order to travel on the elliptic trajectory, Starship must leave LEO on a hyperbolic trajectory in relation to Earth. At the perigee of the hyperbola, Starship must have the velocity \({v}_{p,E}\) :

where \({v}_{\infty ,E}\) must be equal to the velocity at Earth’s heliocentric position as returned by the Lambert solver, \({\mu }_{E}\) is the gravitational parameter of Earth and \({r}_{p,E}\) is the hyperbola’s pericenter distance at Earth. Therefore, the needed Δ v- value of the boost to be performed by Starship at the transfer orbit injection (TOI) maneuver is:

During the flight to Mars, interplanetary probes in the past have conducted trajectory correction maneuvers (TCM), with the magnitude of Δ v ranging up to 33 m/s for the Pathfinder mission 24 . Considering the relatively low achieved landing accuracy of 30 km 24 , it can be assumed that Starship will need a higher Δ v C to ensure precise landing, e.g. close to installed infrastructure. We therefore estimated the total Δ v for all TCM during the flight to Mars to be 200 m/s.

When approaching Mars, Starship is travelling on a hyperbolic Keplerian orbit with respect to Mars. It is designed to remove 99% of its kinetic energy purely with aerobraking when the velocity at the perigee of the arrival hyperbola does not exceed 7.5 km/s 25 . In order to be able to use aerobraking, Lu suggests that the perigee should be at an orbital altitude of 129 km 26 . If the perigee velocity is higher, the velocity in excess must be removed by a propulsive maneuver. Therefore, the Δ v for the Mars orbit insertion (MOI) maneuver is described by the following equation for a perigee velocity larger than 7.5 km/s:

Again, \({v}_{\infty ,M}\) must be equal to the velocity at Mars’ heliocentric position as of the results by the Lambert solver. After this maneuver, Starship enters its landing phase. The required Δ v for landing is dependent on the payload mass and the graphs by SpaceX show a linear relation between payload mass and Δ v 12 . Extraction of the values from the slides gives the following empirical equation to describe the required Δ v for landing with respect to the payload mass:

Now, one can put together the four Δ v maneuvers to obtain the total required Δ v for a transfer from LEO to the Martian surface. To make the results more robust, Δ v margins according to the ESA standards 13 have been applied to the results.

As described above, the position vectors depend on the departure date and the ToF, therefore one can form tuples of these two variables and calculate the total required Δ v for a transfer to Mars for different dates and ToF. The step size for both variables was chosen to be twelve hours. If the Δ v value for a tuple is exceeding the maximum capacity, the value is set to ‘Not a Number’ in the code. Another important figure of merit for evaluating the feasibility of SpaceX’ plans is the maximum payload mass that can be brought to the Martian surface. Since most of the trajectories will not consume all of the Δ v available, the payload mass that is carried on these trajectories can be increased. Mathematically, the maximum payload mass is the mass for which the two sides of the following equations equal:

This equation cannot be solved analytically and therefore, one must increase the payload mass starting from 100 metric tons (MT) until the right side of the equation is less than 1 m/s lower than the left side. This mass value is then considered to be the maximum.

Lambert solver

In order to solve Lambert’s problem for the transfer between Earth and Mars, we implemented a Lambert solver in Matlab. As mentioned before, we used the algorithm provided by Vallado and McClain to solve the Lambert’s equation:

where \(E\) marks the eccentric anomaly of each planet, respectively, \(e\) the eccentricity of the transfer ellipse, \(a\) the semi-major axis of the transfer ellipse and \({\mu }_{S}\) the gravitational parameter of the sun. One can re-arrange this equation as shown by Prussing and Conway 27 , which allows the following formulation of Eq. ( 7 ):

As \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\) are both functions dependent only on \(a\) and the two position vectors, Eq. ( 8 ) allows to directly link the desired time of flight \(\Delta t\) and the transfer trajectory. This is the general formulation of the Lambert’s equation and the basic equation the algorithm aims to solve. We implemented a Lambert solver based on the algorithm developed by Battin and Vaughan 21 and directly mirroring the pseudocode presented by Vallado and McClain 22 . In the loop-section of the code as provided by Vallado and McClain, the stopping condition is defined as: “Until x stops changing”. We decided to implement this condition in a while-loop in Matlab that stops when two consecutive values of x differ less than \({10}^{-12}\) . Inside of the loop, two continued fractions are evaluated, where we decided to use \({c}_{\eta }\) up until n  = 6 and \({c}_{U}\) up until n  = 11.

Since the code needs a quantization of the departure date as well as the time of flight, both are evaluated in steps of 24 h. For each possible combination of departure date within a launch opportunity and time of flight, the aforementioned algorithm is evaluated, and the Δv is retrieved.

Return flight

The return flight was modeled with the same approach as the flight from Earth to Mars, with respect to the Lambert solver and the patched conics. The main, and key, difference is that for the return flight, Starship needs to ascent into a Low Mars Orbit (LMO) by itself. Regarding the Δv for such a maneuver, SpaceX does not disclose any information. Therefore, we decided to collect data from different sources and studies and extrapolated values for Starship from this dataset.

We assume that Starship will ascend into a 250 km-altitude, circular orbit. This orbit around Mars has a velocity of 3430 m/s. During the ascent, Starship (or any spacecraft in general) is exposed to losses that decelerate its movement and need to be overcome by further Δv. One distinguishes between gravitational and atmospheric losses, where gravitational losses are a result of the gravitational attraction of Mars and atmospheric losses are a result of drag.

One can express the Δv to reach an LMO can be expressed as follows.

While the first part of the equation is a constant, the second part is dependent on the spacecraft.

In general, the main figure that influences losses during ascent, is the thrust-to-weight-ration (TWR) of the spacecraft. The higher the TWR is, the faster the spacecraft will ascend, leading to lower gravitational losses since the time spent being exposed to high gravitational forces is shorter. On the other hand, since it reaches higher velocities within the atmosphere, the drag is—and hence the atmospheric losses are—higher. For a lower TWR, the effects apply vice versa.

Before we evaluate the data available, it is important to know the TWR of Starship on Mars. We assume a wet mass of 1310.5 MT for the return flight, what is equivalent to a weight of 4,835,745 N on the Martian surface. The thrust of Starship is given with 1500 tf (tonne-force) by SpaceX 31 . This is equivalent to a thrust of 13,629,975 N. Therefore, the TWR of Starship is 2.819 on the Martian surface.

Detailed information is available for four design studies of a Mars ascent vehicle (MAV). The numbers are presented in the Table 4 table along the subsequently derived values for the respective TWR and losses in Δ v . With these, a quadratic fit yields the following equation for the \({\Delta v}_{Losses}\) (y) depending on the TWR (x).

Therefore, the delta-v for the losses of Starship can be assumed to be 1352 m/s. This allows us to directly express the needed Δ v to reach an LMO with Eq. ( 9a ).

The landing on Earth requires around 100 m/s 25 , while the maximum allowable velocity at the periapsis of the hyperbola is 12.5 km/s. According to the previously presented equation for the flight from Earth to Mars, the total Δv for the return flight can be expressed with the following equation.

The analysis for the return flight from Mars to Earth is executed analogously as for the flight from Earth to Mars.

ISRU analysis

The initial steps of the analysis, see Sections " Starship system and payload masses " and " Trajectory analysis ", will provide the consumable mass and propellant mass that has to be recovered from Martian resources applying ISRU. Deriving the data and evaluating the feasibility for the infrastructure on the Martian surface is approached similarly to the system design, as described in Sections " Starship system and payload masses ". The following steps are undertaken:

Review of state-of-the-art systems as data basis,

Extrapolating mass and power properties for the required ISRU systems,

Extrapolating mass for the power systems on the Martian surface,

Extrapolating mass for the transportation systems on the Martian surface.

These steps assume that an adaptation of the currently available or developed systems to the needs as present in the outlined mission scenario is possible.

Evaluation of feasibility

Once all data is compiled by either literature review or calculation, the results are compared to the statements and plans of SpaceX and how they fit. This concerns e.g. mission durations fitting the time needed for ISRU-produced propellant, minimum possible flight times or mission opportunities. It is analyzed if this mission is feasible and if not, which recommendations can be made to improve feasibility.

Baseline mission scenario

The baseline scenario for the mission as intended by SpaceX is given in Fig.  1 , which is based on 7 . For our purpose we assume two uncrewed missions carrying equipment, e.g. for power generation and ISRU, will launch from Earth in 2027 and two uncrewed and two crewed Starships will travel to Mars in 2029 32 , 33 , similar to the initial concept 7 , but with a postponed time frame. Starship will launch (1) from Earth and stay in LEO (2), while the main stage returns to Earth (3) and is reused for launching a cargo version of Starship, which subsequently refuels (5) the crewed vessel. This is repeated until sufficient propellant is on board. Starship transfers to Mars (6), where it uses aerobraking in Mars’ atmosphere (7) to reduce its velocity for landing (8). During the stay, ISRU technology produces propellant (9) until Starship launches again (10) into a Mars orbit (11). A transfer orbit injection burn sends Starship on its way to Earth (12), where again aerobraking is used (13) to accomplish landing (14).

The current baseline scenario for a Mars mission using SpaceX Starship. 1 – Starship launches from Earth. 2 – It reaches LEO, waiting for refueling. 3 – the main stage returns to Earth to be equipped with a cargo version of Starship. 4 – the cargo Starship launches into LEO. 5 – the main stage returns to Earth, while the crewed Starship is refueled. This is repeated until the propellant is sufficient for a Mars mission. 6 – Transfer to Mars. 7 – Aerobraking in Mars atmosphere and 8 – Landing. 9 – During stay on Mars, ISRU is used for propellant generation. 10 – launch from Mars 11 – into a circular orbit and subsequent 12—return to Earth. 13 – Aerobraking is used for 14 – landing on Earth. [Source: Mars and Earth images: NASA, public domain, overall image: own, with information based on 7 ].

SpaceX does not provide information about e.g. orbit altitudes; therefore, we assume a 500 km (altitude) circular orbit for (2). This way, there is sufficient time for refueling, even in case of some launch failure for the subsequent launches, without risking decay of orbit into a realm where Starship can no longer stay on orbit. Also, this is above the ISS, i.e. the risk of collision is reduced. Overall, this orbit altitude has almost no effect on e.g. Δ v and therefore can be set arbitrarily. The altitude at Mars at arrival is not fixed, but determined by the maximum possible velocity at closest approach, which is 7.5 km/s according to SpaceX 7 . For the return flight, an initial orbit altitude at Mars (11) is assumed to be 200 km. The approach at Earth (13) occurs at 12.5 km/s maximum [ 12 , p. 38], but may not go below 500 km orbit altitude to avoid collision with ISS. As a baseline, the crewed version is assumed to carry 12 persons, but it will also be reviewed for the effect of carrying 100 persons [ 8 , p. 5].

For further calculations regarding the mass budget, the following nominal mission values are assumed, based on this given mission scenario. These assumptions are are: ToF of 180 d for flight to Mars and back to Earth, as well as 500 d of surface time. Actual times might differ in the trajectory analysis, but these are assumed as baseline. The ascent to Earth orbit is not regarded as refueling means that the actual mission from a budget point of view starts in LEO.

Starship mass budget

In the following, the mass budget of Starship as derived within this work is explained. It is based on existing information where available and extrapolated for the remaining values. The goal is to determine a plausible mass budget for the Starship system and subsequently compare it to the proposed values by SpaceX, resp. determine its fit for the mission scenario given by SpaceX.

Starship system mass

Starship can carry a payload mass of 100 MT into LEO 34 . A detailed mass budget for Starship itself has not been published by SpaceX. Based on public statements, SpaceX targets at a system dry mass of 100 MT, which includes all subsystems 11 . Assuming a 20% system margin according to ESA standards 13 , this means there are 83.333 MT of mass available for actual subsystems. Of these 4.167 MT are harness, when setting that mass as 5% of the system dry mass without margin, following the same standard 13 . While other numbers have been published in the past, SpaceX gives the propellant mass as 1200 MT on its website 31 . Being the most recent number, this is taken as baseline. Of these, 2% are assumed to be residuals, i.e. not available for actual maneuvers, as stated by ESA standard 13 . Therefore, 1176.47 MT of propellant are available for orbit maneuvers. A summary of these values is given in Table 5 for reference.

In the following an estimate for the subsystems is set up, based on information given by SpaceX where possible or extrapolated from other information, mostly about Orion (see following paragraphs for details), and calculations where necessary. Subsequently, a mass budget is determined and compared to the budget in Table 5 .

Protection and structure

To minimize the radiation and risk exposure of the crew on a long duration mission to Mars, different protection measures have to be included in the spacecraft. Materials protective against cosmic and solar radiation are e.g. water, polyethylene and aluminium, whereby elements with hydrogen, such as the first two, have a particularly protective effect for both types of radiation 35 . The importance of crew sleeping compartments and control centre leads to the assumption of a polyethylene cover. Furthermore, it is assumed that water pipes (e.g. for water supply and waste water transport) cover as much habitable volume as possible. To minimize the necessary mass, on-board equipment and cargo, e.g. food, are used for radiation protection as well. In the event of a solar flare, similarly to Orion 36 , cargo and food can be used for shelter. Further it was mentioned by SpaceX too that a “central … solar storm shelter 17 ” would be provided for the crew. Details were not given.

The habitable volume of the Orion capsule is 9 m 3 and the total pressurized volume is 20 m 3 37 . For Starship’s first missions with a crew of twelve, 16% reduction for elements not scaling linearly (e.g. 4 people need one toilet, 12 need not 3 toilets) are assumed, i.e. ten times the volume of Orion for larger cabins and rooms are assumed. Thus, for the model approximately 90 m 3 habitable and 200 m 3 total pressurized volume are assumed. The pressurized volume of ISS is 1005 m 3 for comparison 38 . With a usable diameter of the payload section of 8 m [ 8 , p. 2] and thus a base area of about 50 m 2 , the pressurised area is 4 m high, which corresponds to about two habitable floors. The surface area of this cylinder is consequently calculated to:

It is assumed that the area specific mass of the polyethylene layer is 20 g/cm 2 (200 kg/m 2 ) with a thickness of 0.217 m [ 39 , p. 28]. The mass of this shielding is therefore 30 MT. Note only one top side is assumed to be needed to be covered, as the lower side is covered by spacecraft systems and thus is already shielded.

Woolford & Bond report on the habitable volume necessary for human spaceflight missions, which is a function of mission duration, but reaches a plateau at about six to seven months 40 . They provide a so-called performance limit, which is needed if the crew is supposed to conduct tasks and activities, which go beyond survival and also an optimal range. For mission durations of 3 months, the optimum is about 15.5 m 3 , the performance limit is about 7 m 3 40 . For six months, the values are 20 m 3 resp. 11.3 m 3 40 . For 12 crew members, this means, the minimum volume for a 90-day mission is 84 m 3 , the optimal is 186 m 3 . For 180-day missions, which is a realistic flight time at least for some missions, see Section " Trajectory analysis ", the values are 135.6 m 3 resp. 240 m 3 . The assumed 90 m 3 of this paper thus on the lower range and from a mass budget point of view on the optimistic side. In turn, SpaceX reported previously that they expect a pressurized volume of 825 m 3 for “40 cabins 17 ”. A crew size was not given, but with 40 cabins would exceed the here assumed 12 person crew, i.e. the 825 m 3 are not regarded.

For micro-meteoroid protection, Starship, similar to the Columbus module of the ISS, is assumed to have a protective layer reinforced with Kevlar and Nextel, a so-called Stuffed Whipple Shield (SWS), which bursts incoming objects with three layers of protective material and thus prevents them from penetrating 41 .

The three layers consist of two bumper shields (BS) and the back wall (BW). Since Starship, unlike the Columbus module, will only be in space and on Mars for approximately 2.5 years, the values are oriented to those of the module but have been reduced. For example, the outer layer of the SWS should consist of a 2 mm thick Al 6061-T6 aluminium layer with an areal density of 0.6 g/cm 2 and the intermediate stuffing of two layers of Nextel 312 AF-62 with 0.2 g/cm 2 as well as eight layers of Kevlar 129 Style 812 with 0.4 g/cm 2 41 . On the outer walls of the crewed Sect. (100 m 2 , see Eq. ( 7 ), the back wall should not consist of an aluminium layer, but instead of the polyethylene layer of the radiation shielding. In this way, mass can be saved. This results in 1.2 g/cm 2 (12 kg/m 2 ) and therefore 1.2 MT for the SWS around the crewed section of Starship. For the remaining part of Starship, 3 mm thick Al 2219-T851 aluminium with 0.8 g/cm 2 is to be used as the back wall 41 . For simplification, a height of 40 m is assumed without protection of the engine area, which results in an outer skin of 1005 m 2 with the same base area of 50 m 2 according to Eq. ( 7 ). With an areal density for this protection of 2 g/cm 2 (20 kg/m 2 ), it results in a mass of 20.1 MT, adding 10% margin, this leads to 22.1 MT. Figure  2 shows the described structure of the SWS for Starship. The dimensions refer to the aluminium and not the polyethylene layer with a thickness of 0.217 m of the crewed section, as this is considerably thicker. However, the distances between the individual layers should be identical.

Stuffed Whipple Shield for Starship with two bumper shields (BS) and one back wall (BW), after 41 .

Furthermore, Starship must be designed and built in such a way that its structure can carry the payload of up to 100 MT with empty tanks, because they will be almost empty by the time it arrives on Mars. To estimate the mass of the remaining structure, the simplification is made that Starship is a 50 m high cylinder with a diameter of 9 m and thus, similarly to Eq. ( 10c ), a surface area of 1541 m 2 . Since this shape is larger than the one of Starship, additional structural elements within the fuselage are compensated for. As with the current prototypes, 3 mm thick 304L stainless steel is used for Starship’s outer skin 42 , which has a density of 8000 kg/m 3 43 . For the calculation of the outer skin, the areal density is needed, which is the density multiplied by the thickness of the material and thus amounts to 24 kg/m 2 for the stainless steel used. This results in a mass of 37 MT. With a 10% margin, e.g. for internal structure elements, the structural mass is estimated at 40.7 MT.

For the thermal protection Pica-X is used 44 . It has a density of 0.27 g/cm 3 and typically has a thickness of 6 cm in a heat shield 44 . Assuming a cylinder of 9 m diameter and 48 m height 17 , as Starship’s size (not regarding the conic nature of its upper part, due to lack of measurement data for that), this yields a surface area of 1357.2 m 2 . Covering that with 6 cm of PICA-X heat shield would mean a volume of 81.43 million cm 3 . With the given density, this would result in a mass for the thermal protection of 22 MT. Assuming not every part needs to be covered with the full 6 cm, but on average 3 cm, would result in 11 MT for the heat shield.

Environmental control and life-support system (ECLSS), accommodation and thermal protection

The life-support system, accommodation and thermal control is not provided for Starship by official sources. For Orion, a mass of 1.2 MT is given as mass for these subsystems 18 . It is assumed that these scale with the crew size, e.g. as the amount of CO 2 produced by the crew is one driver for the ECLSS and that scales with the crew size. Thus, for this calculation this leads to a mass of 3.6 MT (12-person crew, instead of 4-person crew). This is a rough estimate as certain mission parameters are different, e.g. mission duration. Since the value given in 18 is an estimate as well, no further margin is added here. The Orion ECLSS is also the basis for the ECLSS system of the Lunar Gateway’s Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) module 45 . Mera et al. 45 state that the operation of the ECLSS for longer mission durations than 30 days concern e.g. the exercise mode and removal of trace contaminants, but indicate that no substantial system change is needed for that. Indications for scaling the system to larger crews and volume are not provided in the paper, so that we remain with the conservative estimate given above.

For thermal insulation, Multi-Layer Insulation (MLI foil) is assumed, which provides additional low radiation shielding. The MLI foil encloses the entire Starship except for the engine bay and the entire crew area. The 40 m high cylinder with a surface area of 1005 m 2 already mentioned is therefore used as an assumption for the volume to be enclosed, to which the floor and ceiling of the crewed area with 50 m 2 each are added. The surface area to be covered is thus 1105 m 2 . Good insulation is to be provided by 40 layers of MLI with a surface density of 0.2 g/cm 2 (2 kg/m 2 ) 41 . The mass of the required MLI is thus 2.21 MT.

For additional protection against strong solar storms, special vests are to be available on-board Starship, which should be worn when a solar flare occurs. One such vest is the AstroRad vest, which will be tested on the Artemis missions. The mass of a vest depends on the size of the person wearing it. On average, it weighs 27 kg 46 , which corresponds to a mass of 324 kg for a crew of twelve. Furthermore, the ECLSS is to be expanded to include a radiation warning system that will warn the crew when solar storms occur and they have to seek shelter. The HERA (Hybrid Electronic Radiation Assessor) radiation warning system, which is used on board the Orion capsule, will be used for this purpose 36 .

Comms/avionics

For communication and avionics, a similar system as for Orion is assumed, lacking further references and information. The mission profile is similar, although not identical, therefore, the system is not scaled up. For instance, an increased crew size would not necessarily lead to an increase in communication data to be sent or commands to be handled by the system. Therefore, the value for Orion is selected, i.e. 0.6 MT 18 . Again, as this is already an estimated value, no further margin is added.

It has to be noted that the currently intended mission profiles for Orion (lunar environment) and this analysed Mars mission, differs in solar distance, which affects the link budget of the communication system. Considering Mars’ distance of about 1.5 AU and that of Earth of about 1 AU, this means maximum distance would be about 2.5 AU, i.e. resulting in a signal strength of about 1/6 (~ 1/d 2 ). This change can be compensated by directiveness of antenna, antenna size, increase in transmitter power or accepting a reduced amount of transmitted data. Especially during transfer, where no significant scientific activities are to be assumed, this change in the link budget does not warrant a larger system. In a Mars environment, communication satellites could also be used as relays for Earth communication, allowing a similar system without further losses. More detailed information about Orion’s communication system is not available, but NASA press releases explain that the current Orion communication system is intended for use beyond the lunar environment 47 .

Solar arrays, which are stowed in the engine area during launch and landing and are deployed during the flight, are responsible for the power generation during the flight. Therefore, they must not only be deployable but also retractable. Similar to the Orion capsule, the solar arrays are supposed to have a mechanism that allows them to constantly align themselves with the sun so that they can deliver full power.

Orion’s four 7 m long and 2 m wide solar arrays, each consisting of three foldable panels, provide 11.2 kW of power for a crew of four people 48 . Therefore, Starship’s solar arrays should have about ten times the power, 100 kW. In addition, the radiation intensity decreases by about half during the flight to Mars. In order for the solar arrays to deliver the required power near Mars, they need to deliver at least twice as much power near Earth. With some margin for failing solar cells, for example, an output of around 250 kW is required near the Earth. One solar panel that should be able to deliver this amount of power is the MegaFlex from Northrop Grumman, which is foldable and unfolds into a round panel by rotating 360°. The MegaFlex is a scalable system that is currently still being tested, but its smaller version—the UltraFlex—is already being used on, for example, the Cygnus spacecraft and the InSight lander on Mars 49 . So, the technology is already proven and has a flight heritage. A system consisting of two MegaFlex arrays, each with a diameter of around 24 m, should be able to deliver this power 49 , 50 . Together, the two arrays have a mass of about 2 MT 49 . To this a 5% margin is added, as the system is already developed.

As with Orion, lithium-ion batteries are to be used to store surplus energy. They have a high energy density and can power Starship in the absence of sunlight and as a back-up 51 . SpaceX could use batteries from Tesla here. It is assumed that the batteries have to provide power over a time span of 6 h in case of a power loss which results with a power of 100 kW in a required battery size of 600 kWh. The 6 h are assumed as no public figure provides information about duration of assumed emergencies. For redundancy there should be second a battery pack with the same size. With the use of the 100-kWh battery from Tesla, which has a mass of 625 kg 52 , and a factor of 1.2 for aging and recharging this results in a mass of 9 MT for the batteries in total. Here as well, a 5% margin is assumed.

The assumed total mass of the EPS, including the solar arrays and a margin of 10% for additional components (e.g. cables), is approximately 12 MT.

The propulsion system is based on 6 Raptor engines, each with a mass of 2 MT 10 . It is also using a cryogenic propellant tank, which has to house 1200 MT of propellant 31 . Super Heavy, i.e. the main stage for Starship’s ascent from Earth, has a tank for 3600 MT of propellant with a mass of 80 MT 10 . As there are no further details on the tank system, it must be assumed that the masses given already include the systems for cryogenic propellant storage. Assuming SpaceX will use the same technology for the tank in Starship, the following estimate is made.

The tank mass \({m}_{T}\) can be expressed as:

where \({S}_{T}\) is the tank’s surface, \({d}_{T}\) the tank’s wall thickness and \({\rho }_{T}\) the material density. It is assumed that the material and thus density of both tanks (Super Heavy and Starship) are identical. Furthermore, it is assumed that the inside pressure and loads (e.g. during launch) to be withheld are similar as well, i.e. the wall thickness is also assumed to be identical for both tank types. Therefore, for our calculations is true, that:

Assuming a spherical tank and using formulas for sphere volume ( \(=4/3 \cdot \pi \cdot {r}^{3}\) ) and surface ( \(=4 \cdot \pi \cdot {r}^{2}\) ), one can write for the relations between the two:

Considering the propellant mass of 1/3 in comparison to Super Heavy, the Volume of the tanks is regarded as:

where the index S denominates Starship and SH Super Heavy. From this relation one can derive that:

Using Eqs. ( 14 ) and ( 15 ), this leads to:

With Eq. ( 12 ) follows:

Using the ESA margin for to be modified components, i.e. 10% 13 , this leads to a tank mass for Starship of 20.3 MT. The Helium tanks for the cold gas reaction thrusters 10 are assumed as 5 MT, this is an estimate as a suitable reference is not available. For the reaction control system (RCS) it is assumed, that 50 RCS thrusters are used for Starship, since the smaller Space Shuttle had 44 53 . There should be two pairs of five thrusters in the front and rear on each side of the flaps, five thrusters in the front in flight direction and five thrusters in the rear against flight direction (aligned like the main thrusters). As a rough estimate for the mass of a thruster, the 220 N RCS thruster of the Orion capsule is used, which has a mass of approximately 2 kg 54 . This results in a mass of approximately 100 kg for Starship’s RCS thrusters. With the 10% margin this results in 5.5 MT for the helium tanks and 0.11 MT for the thrusters respectively. As the raptor engines are mostly developed, only a 5% margin is assumed 13 . This subsystem also requires piping, which is included in the numbers for harness (see Table 5 ).

Crew and consumables

To support a crew of 12 astronauts on their long duration trip to mars, different crew and consumable elements need to be considered. The final crew and payload mass depend highly on the number of astronauts and the time of flight. Therefore, an overview of required masses per astronaut and per astronaut-day is established and shown in Table 6 .

As no detailed information on crew and consumable masses are provided by SpaceX, the mass values for the listed elements are selected based on literature research 18 , 55 , 56 , 57 . The compared values often contain a large scale of deviations depending on the given assumptions. The selected values in Table 6 are assumed to be suitable to establish a first mass model of the described mars mission scenario but may be subject to change. The improvement of life support technologies towards a closed loop system is an important step in realizing long term interplanetary missions. As SpaceX has not yet published any detailed information about the type and quality of recovery systems, that will be used on their mission to mars, a best-case rate of 100% recovery for gases, fluids and solids is assumed to establish a reference mass.

The total consumable mass per person per day m consumables can be calculated using the given recovery factor k rec from Table 6 in formula ( 21 ).

A recovery rate of 100% means, that in theory the systems are able to use an initial payload mass required for 12 astronauts for one day and completely recover it. Therefore, the system is by calculation able to supply the crew without any additional storage or resupply for the entire mission duration. The consumable mass m consumables per person per day turns to zero.

The calculation of the crew and consumable mass on a mission with a closed loop ECLSS System can be derived using Eqs. ( 21 ) and ( 22 ) and are given in Table 7 .

While the astronaut masses and the mass of the scientific payload are relevant for the transfer trips, they can be neglected during the surface stay. Here, only the plain consumable masses are relevant to examine the necessary resupply capacities. In the given equations k safety represents the safety factor, n astronauts represents the number of astronauts, m astronaut represents the mass assumed per astronaut (200 kg according to Table 6 ), m science represents the mass of the scientific payload (100 kg according to Table 6 ), TOF represents the Time of Flight in days and m consumables represents the mass of consumables required per person per day. As m consumables turns to zero for a recovery rate of 100% the total required consumable mass is not dependent on the ToF anymore.

With the bottom up estimates as formulated in the previous sections a mass budget summary can be formulated. This is shown in Table 8 . The total on orbit mass adds to 1510.5 MT, of which 1200 MT are propellant and 100 MT payload and the 12 person crew and their consumables for an ToF of 180 d. This is assuming that 100% of consumables can be recovered by the ECLSS of Starship for the flight. Overall, the total mass on orbit is exceeding the proposed mass summary by SpaceX by more than 100 MT. This is summarized in Table 9 and input for the trajectory calculations in the following section.

The usable propellant mass is 1176.47 MT (see Section " Starship system mass ") and the specific impulse is 378 s 11 . The ratio of launch mass \({m}_{0}\) (the sum of propellant mass, system mass and payload mass) to dry mass \({m}_{d}\) (the launch mass minus the propellant available for orbit maneuvers) is:

The maximum attainable Δ v with one fully fueled Starship thus follows, using the rocket equation 27 , to:

Any trajectory requiring more Δ v than that cannot be flown by Starship during its Mars mission with the baseline Starship design as given in Section " Starship system mass ". Without the 2% of propellant left as residuals in the tanks, the mass ratio would actually be 4.865 and \({\Delta v}_{max}\) would become 5864 m/s. Imperfect propellant use leads to losses of more than 275 m/s in Δ v .

Results in nominal configuration

Due to the varying alignment of the two planets, the needed Δv is changing over the course of a 15-year cycle. In general, a transfer becomes feasible every 22 months, an event that is called launch opportunity. Such launch opportunities stay open for 45 to 160 days in the case of Starship. Each launch opportunity was examined with respect to three performance parameters:

The local minimum Δv for which a transfer becomes possible with a maximum time of flight of 180 days and a payload mass of 100 MT

The local minimum time of flight for which a transfer becomes possible without exceeding the maximum obtainable Δv value of 5588 m/s and a payload mass of 100 MT

The maximum payload mass that can be brought to the Martian surface according to Eq. ( 6 )

The first analyzed launch opportunity is the one in late 2028 and early 2029, hence the one chosen by SpaceX to have their first manned flight to Mars. We also analyzed the 2033 and 2035 launch opportunities as they show a good performance of the selected three parameters. The results for each launch opportunity are displayed using porkchop plots which show the value of \({\Delta v}_{E\to M}\) for a given tuple of departure date and time of flight. Figure  3 shows the porkchop plot for a transfer from Earth to Mars in 2028 and 2029.

Porkchop plot for an Earth-Mars-transfer in 2028 and 2029. The blue dashed line indicates the minimum ToF trajectory, the red dashed line indicates the minimum Δv (and hence maximum payload mass) trajectory. Darker areas indicate lower Δv values, bright areas indicate higher Δv values and white areas indicate impractical trajectories.

For that launch opportunity, the minimum Δv value is 5435 m/s, corresponding with a maximum payload mass that can be brought to Mars of 114.4 MT. This performance can be achieved with a transfer on 13.01.2029. The minimum possible time of flight in this launch opportunity is 177 d, possible with a transfer on 27.01.2029. In Fig.  4 , the porkchop plot for a transfer in 2033 is displayed.

Porkchop plot for an Earth-Mars-transfer in 2033. The blue dashed line indicates the minimum ToF trajectory, the red dashed line indicates the minimum Δv (and hence maximum payload mass) trajectory. Darker areas indicate lower Δv values, bright areas indicate higher Δv values and white areas indicate impractical trajectories.

For that launch opportunity, the minimum Δv value is 4820 m/s (− 11.3% compared to 2029), corresponding with a maximum payload mass that can be brought to Mars of 178.7 MT (+ 56.2% compared to 2029). Both values are the global minimum/maximum values in the observed time frame. The minimum possible time of flight in this launch opportunity is 122 d.

In Fig.  5 , the porkchop plot for a transfer in 2035 is displayed. For that launch opportunity, the minimum is Δ v 4896 m/s, corresponding with a maximum payload mass that can be brought to Mars of 170.2 MT. The minimum possible time of flight in this launch opportunity is 112 d (− 36.7% compared to 2029).

Porkchop plot for an Earth-Mars-transfer in 2035. The blue dashed line indicates the minimum ToF trajectory, the red dashed line indicates the minimum Δv (and hence maximum payload mass) trajectory. Darker areas indicate lower Δv value, bright areas indicate higher Δv values and white areas indicate impractical trajectories.

Sensitivity analysis

Since the results of the previous analysis indicate that the system mass of Starship is likely to exceed 100 MT, it is evident that this is a limiting factor on the performance of the system. The system mass influences the left-hand side of Eq. ( 6 ) and therefore the capacity of the system. As a result, the maximum payload mass decreases for higher system masses and the minimum time of flight increases. In order to model the Δv required for landing correctly, the structural mass in excess of 100 MT is modeled as additional payload mass. This allows to calculate the maximum payload mass in the same way as in the previous section. Since our analysis showed that the system mass of Starship could exceed the 100 MT as proposed by SpaceX, the following sensitivity analysis examines the advantages of a reduced system mass in terms of mission analysis. We analyzed a transfer in 2033. In Table 10 , the Δv capacities for a system mass of 175 MT and 150 MT, respectively, are displayed.

In Table 11 , the performance of Starship for the reduced system masses is shown. The performance is measured based on the maximum payload mass and the minimum time of flight. Also, the improvement of the two parameters when compared to our baseline scenario is displayed.

It is shown that a reduction of the system mass has only a small influence on the minimum time of flight, but a big impact on the maximum payload mass. These results show the large potential of Starship when reducing the system mass and explain the aims of SpaceX in terms of mission analysis.

Feasibility of return flights

According to the presented model in Section " Starship mass budget ", return flights from Mars to Earth have been analyzed. The launch opportunities for the return flights were chosen to open 500 days after the landing on Mars, according to the mission plans presented.

in previous sections. Under the assumption that no payload apart from the astronauts and consumables is returned to Earth, the maximum Δv for the return flight is 6651 m/s. It has been shown that the ascent to LMO alone consumes 4782 m/s, which are 72% of the Δv budget, including margins. Another 6% are used for the TCM, while the landing requires around 2% of the budget. This leaves only 1330 m/s, or 20%, of the maximum Δv available for the two remaining maneuvers. In order to set the boundary conditions for the return flight, a maximum time of flight must be chosen. Due to the alignment of the two planets, flight times over 300 d result in a vast increase of required Δv . Therefore, we selected 300 d as the maximum allowable time of flight for the return. Before further evaluating the return flight in this configuration, an excursion is needed: If Starship would have a system mass of 100 MT, as proposed by SpaceX, the maximum Δv would be 8711 m/s. In this configuration, the global minimum Δv for return would be 7771 m/s.

Upon comparison of these two numbers, it becomes evident that a return from Mars to Earth is beyond the capacity of Starship in the presented configuration, since the global minimum for only 100 MT of system mass is already exceeding the actual maximum Δv available by more than 1100 m/s.

In-situ resource utilization

Section " Trajectory analysis " gives an overview of the required propellant masses for different mass- and trajectory options. The results show, that Starship requires the maximum available amount of 1200 MT of propellant on the outbound as well as the inbound trip for the realization of a realistic mission scenario. Following this analysis, it becomes visible, that realizing the described mission to mars with the Starship vehicle is only possible by refilling the spacecraft during the mission.

With a mixture ratio of O/F = 3.6:1 12 940 MT of liquid oxygen and 260 MT of liquid methane need to be resupplied as propellant for the inbound trip. In addition, following the calculation in Section " Crew and consumables ", the mission requires the resupply of consumable items to support the crew during the surface stay and the inbound trip. The individual as well as total masses can be derived using Eqs. ( 25 ) and ( 26 ).

Thus, for a mission with a surface stay of 500 days and an inbound trip of 180 days, 1,263,158 MT of consumable items need to be resupplied for one Starship with a crew of 12 astronauts. In this analysis it is assumed, that two crewed Starship vehicles will return to Earth while the cargo vehicles remain on Mars.

If the amount of 2,526,316 kg is to be resupplied via cargo missions, 26 Starship cargo vehicles with the currently planned payload capacity of 100 MT are required. A reasonable alternative is the production of selected items via ISRU technologies. A detailed overview of the required resupply masses is presented in Table 12 .

State of the art

The practice ISRU is becoming quintessential for space exploration as it helps to reduce not only the payload mass and cost, but also cuts down the extra-terrestrial architecture expenditures. In the context of ISRU water and oxygen is the most sought after as it directly correlates to both direct and indirect life support. One such ISRU methodology is the application of membrane technologies for purifying water, minimise wastes and extraction of minerals and useful gases such as oxygen, methane and hydrogen 58 , 59 . Furthermore, miniature chemical reactors that uses advanced Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) and microchannel technology to support the Sabatier process of extracting methane and ethylene production by partial oxidation of methane has been recently developed 60 , 61 . Another ISRU technique developed is the Methane to Aromatics on Mars (METAMARS) system that converts methane produced from carbon dioxide to low hydrogen aromatic fuels. The system comprises two fully functional oxygen-aromatic hydrocarbon production units sized to produce 1 kg of bipropellant per day 62 .

Further advancements in the ISRU facilities led to the design of scalable in-situ cryogen production facility, which facilitates the capture of high-purity cryogenic fluids, thermal isolation of cryogenically cooled stages and reverse-Brayton cycle cryocooler to liquefy and sustain hydrogen storage 63 . The most recent ISRU technology demonstration is the MOXIE (Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment) on the Perseverance rover of the 2020 Mars mission of NASA. MOXIE’s performance is driven by solid oxide electrolysis (SOXE) of carbon dioxide, to produce oxygen. It has produced oxygen seven times between landing in February 2021 and December 2021. More details on MOXIE can be found from Hecht et al. 64 , 65 .

A team of student researchers from the British Columbia University developed and tested a Sabatier Reactor prototype. This Sabatier fuel plant consists of multiple methanation catalysts to enable continuous production of methane. Details of materials and methods needed are presented by Zlindra et al. 66 . Furthermore, Baldry et al. 67 explores the possibilities of integrating several individual ISRU system into one using the power-to-x (P2X) concept. This research explores the potential of P2X in achieving key ISRU outputs such as water, oxygen, methane and other buffer gases as outlined in the NASA design reference architecture 5.0 for a Mars mission 68 . Additional, as it is imperative to improve the TRLs of the ISRU technologies, Starr et al. 69 has provided a comprehensive overview on the state-of-the-art ISRU facilities such as harvesting and freezing carbon dioxide, water extraction and electrolysis for oxygen and hydrogen production, methanation and purification.

A completely integrated propellant production system that has already been tested on Earth under Mars-like conditions is the Integrated Mars In-Situ Propellant Production System (IMISPPS) from Pioneer Astronautics 70 . It has a single reactor that produces both propellants. The system has a production rate of 1 kg/day, weighs 50 kg and requires 700 W of power 70 .

Propellant production system (PPS)

In order to produce the two propellants liquid methane (LCH 4 ) and liquid oxygen (LOX) on Mars, a propellant production plant is needed as are water and carbon dioxide to produce methane and oxygen. The water is to be extracted from ice deposits located near the landing site just below the Martian surface or from those found on the surface. A suitable landing site with such deposits must be found beforehand, as this is essential for propellant production and thus also for the return flight to Earth.

For the estimation of the propellant production system (PPS), the maximum of 1200 MT of propellant is assumed. However, since two crewed Starships are to fly back, 2400 MT are required. With a duration of 500 days on Mars and a 30-day safety buffer that the propellant should already be completely produced before the return flight, 470 days are available for production, resulting in a required production rate of 5107 kg/day.

Assuming technological progress based on the IMIPPS over the next few years, the production rate of the system is estimated at 2 kg/day with a system mass of 75 kg and an average power demand of 1 kW. Based on the required production rate and therefore multiplied by

This results in a mass of 191.5 MT and a power demand of 2.55 MW. However, additional power and additional mass will be added for the water extraction, because in the IMISPPS the hydrogen for the Sabatier process was supplied from tanks and not extracted in advance 70 . Since no exact data is available for such a system, it is estimated that the mass and power of the water extraction system is one fifth of the propellant system, so that an additional 38.3 MT and 510 kW are added, giving a total mass of 230 MT and an average power demand of 3.06 MW for the PPS. Both are added with a 10% margin as “to be modified” element, resulting in 253 MT of mass with margin and 3.37 MW of average power demand with margin.

In addition, LOX and LCH 4 tanks must be built for storage, whereby the tanks of the landed Starships are to be used for this during the first missions. Based on SpaceX’s mission plans (see Section " Baseline mission scenario "), there should already be four uncrewed Starships on Mars ready for LCH 4 and LOX storage when the first two crewed Starships arrive in 2029. Propellants can be loaded and unloaded via the ports that allow for orbital refuelling. For the transfer of propellants from the Starships converted into storage facilities to the crewed Starships that are to return to Earth, flexible transport pipes must be laid or refuellable rovers used. To prevent the pipes from becoming too long and to keep the distances as short as possible, the Starships must all land close to each other, which is possible thanks to the precise control system. The risk of damage from kicked-up dust and stones should be investigated beforehand.

Power supply system

A power supply system (PSS) is needed for propellant production, Starships, rovers, future habitats and all other activities on Mars. Nuclear reactors are to be used as the primary power source, because the use of a solar system as the main power source comes with some disadvantages such as the reduced received energy output on Mars, due to the further distance from the sun. Furthermore, the panels can also only provide power during the day which would be critical during months of dust storms. Dust also accumulates on the panels over time, which also reduces the amount of generate power. Nuclear reactors operate independently of ambient conditions.

Assuming two Starships for the first crewed mission, each requiring 100 kW of power (see Section " Starship system mass "), plus 3.37 MW for the propellant production plant and additional power for e.g. rovers, it is assumed that the PSS must provide 3.6 MW of power. A larger version of the scalable Fission Surface Power (FSP) system should be used as nuclear reactors. Two 2 MW systems, which are required for this power demand, will weigh approximately 32 MT each 71 . This results in a mass for the PSS of 64 MT (since the values used to extrapolate this mass already include margins, no further margin is added here). The stated masses of the systems already include the mass of a protective shield. Furthermore, it must be ensured that in the event of a launch failure, the reactor remains switched off and will not be activated. Since the power already include margins and have been used for scaling, no further margin is included for the mass values.

Transportation system

For transport on the Martian surface a transportation system consisting of different modular rovers is needed to transport astronauts and objects and to build infrastructure. To facilitate the construction of infrastructure, rovers are needed that can move the heavy and bulky payloads from the Starships on the Martian soil. For an estimation the mass of around 1000 kg 72 from the two Mars rovers Curiosity and Perseverance is used. Unlike these rovers, the rovers used should be powered by batteries instead of with Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (MMRTGs), as batteries have a greater availability. Without scientific instruments, but with batteries it is assumed that one rover will have a mass of 800 kg. Five such rovers are to be transported. Including additional modules that can be attached to the rovers for different tasks, a total mass of this subsystem of 10 MT is assumed. Adding a 10% margin, this leads to 11 MT.

Summary of surface systems

The total mass of the surface systems is listed in Table 13 . A total of 328 MT of mass are estimated to ensure the propellant production for the case of 1200 MT of propellant each for two Starships. No further data by SpaceX was available to the knowledge of the authors during execution of the work described in this paper. These are rough estimates. In addition, 1263 MT of consumables must be delivered or produced via ISRU.

Plausibility of mission scenario and assumptions

The following subsections discuss the different aspects of feasibility, especially concerning plausibility of the assumptions made within this work, but also of the scenario as presented by SpaceX.

Starship design

Human spaceflight missions with a long duration conducted with a vehicle and reaching beyond LEO have not been conducted yet, therefore references that are specific and fitting for comparison are not available. For instance, the Space Transportation System was limited to 14-day missions in LEO and the ISS is regularly resupplied, i.e. both are not a good analogue for extrapolating missing data. The closest fit to the operational conditions of Starship is the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), previously the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), which has been designed for mission durations of 21 days 31 and to enable lunar and Martian missions 18 .

Data about this vehicle is scarce as well, although it has conducted two test missions by now with the Exploration Flight Test-1 in 2014 and with the recent Artemis 1. NASA has published some information about the mass budget 18 of the vehicle, which can be used as a basis to estimate the plausibility of Starship design. Orion consists of two parts, the service module and the crew module, which together form the overall spacecraft, providing all capabilities. In difference to Starship, Orion will rely on further elements for longer durations and maneuvers exceeding its inherent Δ v capability.

A scenario for a Mars mission using Orion has not yet been established, therefore, the given configurations of Orion and of Starship as assumed in this work, based on SpaceX information and scenario, are not fully compatible. Yet, being the only reference, this comparison can provide some estimate on the plausibility still. Exploration missions beyond LEO are conducted with 4 persons for lunar missions. For Mars missions, the mass and crew size are not defined yet in case of Orion.

Comparing both, Starship and Orion as assumed in this work, it can be seen that Orion’s structure mass is considerably lower than for Starship, which is mostly structure mass (61%, see Table 8 ). In our model for Starship, the Structure subsystem also includes what is labeled as “Protection” and “Other” (e.g. all hatches, inner structure, docking), i.e. the comparison has to occur with those added together, i.e. 43.82% (see Table 2 ). While the estimate for Starship is factor 1.39 larger than for Orion, one has to consider that Starship also includes structure for landing, which Orion does not. Orion does include structure for docking between Service Module and Crew Module, but Starship also needs an interface for refueling, which would add structure mass. Furthermore, Starship’s heat shielding is supposed to last for several landings, in difference to Orion, which only needs to last for a single landing. The larger ratio of the structure mass to dry mass could also mean that other mass estimates are actually too low, i.e. the mass estimates are in favor of Starship. This is especially true for the ECLSS part, which for a 100% recovery (or near that) rate would likely not be scalable with Orion-based data as done in this estimate, because Orion does not have such a recovery rate. It can be assumed that such an advanced system would result in far more mass. In fact, once more mass data would be available, a trade-off would need to be conducted to determine which option (take more consumables or advanced ECLSS) requires the least mass for the selected ToF. Other comparisons are difficult to make, as a number of systems have been modelled as an extrapolation of Orion values, lacking precise data by SpaceX.

It is however evident that in the assumed best case, manifesting in e.g. an assumed 100% recovery rate of consumables during one mission leg, the mass budget is not fitting the published SpaceX plans as summarized in Table 5 . Even in the best-case scenario assumed, the mass budget exceeds the plans by about 100 MT, which is approx. 50% of the mass given by SpaceX.

Less recovery rate would lead to far more mass required for consumables as is closer examined in section " Crew and consumables ". Aside from the non-fitting mass budget, this would severely limit the launch opportunities from a trajectory point of view.

A problem for future missions with a crew size of 100 people is the power supply. The power of 100 kW already required for Starship with a crew of twelve, or 250 kW near Earth, would have to be between 2 and 2.5 MW for such a large crew. Solar panels that could deliver such power would probably have to be 60–80 m in diameter if a pair of two 40 m panels is to produce 700 kW and with a slightly exponential power-to-size ratio 49 . Such large panels not only entail the difficulty that they have to be retractable, but also that they are relatively long, estimated at 20–30 m when folded, and have to be stowed on or in Starship. No solar arrays can be seen in current renderings of Starship, only in the very first design of the ITS (Interplanetary Transportation System). This possibly indicates that SpaceX itself is moving away from solar arrays and wants to rely on nuclear reactors such as the FSP system. One of the advantages of these is that the system does not have to be designed to be twice as powerful near Earth in order to deliver the required power near Mars. But then there would be the problem of mass, which is estimated at around 20 t for a 1 MW system (following 71 ), and the question of the compatibility of a nuclear power supply and people on board a spacecraft. Another alternative could be to rely on solar panels, but attach them after launch as an external module. This however would need to be compatible with Starship’s exhaust and thus would still need to be designed or could cause redesigns of Starship.

In the presented mass model in Table 7 , the best case with a recovery rate of 100% for all types of consumables was taken as baseline, which is beyond the current state of the art concerning life-support systems.

Available systems usually rely on the implementation of partially regenerative physical–chemical Environmental Control and Life Support Systems that are equipped with current state of the art technology. These systems are assumed to be capable to partially recycle gases with a rate of 95% and fluids with a rate of 90% while solids with a rate of 0% fully rely on resupply processes. The recovery rates for these systems are significantly lower than 100% and result in an increase of the overall consumable masses required for the mission that can be calculated according to the equations provided in Section " Crew and consumables ". The detailed figures of the applicable crew and consumable masses are depicted in Table 14 .

In case of contingencies on the outbound trip to mars, free return trajectories offer the opportunity to remain on the elliptical transfer orbit for a duration of maximum 3 years and return to Earth without the need for additional maneuvers. Especially for early crewed missions to the red planet this option serves as a relevant safety option. The increased ToF in this scenario leads to a significant increase of the required consumable masses. The crew and consumable masses required to support a crew of 12 astronauts on a contingency trajectory of 1095 days using a state-of-the-art ECLSS system with assumed recovery rates of 95% gases, 90% fluids and 0% solids are depicted in Table 15 .

It is stated by SpaceX that Starship will be able to transport 100 astronauts to the Martian surface [8, p. 5]. The increased number of astronauts again leads to a significant increase of the required crew and consumable masses. The detailed numbers for a nominal mission without free return option are depicted in Table 16 . If a free return trajectory is to be considered for a crew of 100 astronauts, the total required crew and consumable masses multiply by a factor of approximately 5 as listed in Table 17 .

While the best-case scenario with a recovery rate of 100% delivers the smallest required consumable mass, it is not considered as realistic. During early missions with launch dates in the 2020s and 2030s the use of state-of-the-art-like systems with limited recovery rates seems to be more likely. In addition, these early missions are considered to include a detailed preparation for possible contingency scenarios. Due to these assumptions the included crew and consumable mass should be considered up to ten times higher than the best-case assumption.

For long-term missions beyond the 2030s the availability of optimized systems with significantly improved recovery rates becomes more likely. In addition, technology approval and mission experience offer the chance to reduce the possibility of contingency scenarios. At the same time, long-term missions have the goal to include a larger crew. This might lead to systems that require less mass per person per day and for contingency scenarios. Due to the larger number of crew members that need to be supported, the total amount of required consumables will nevertheless remain high compared to the best-case scenario.

While a higher consumable mass could be compensated by a lower payload mass in early mission scenarios, this option is not reasonable for long-term mission scenarios as the required mass exceeds the included payload capacity of 100 MT. In order to reduce the required consumable masses for all crewed missions to mars, the development of optimized ECLSS Systems with improved recovery rates is a critical task. As the final mass model is highly dependent on the detailed mission layout, the overall mission set-up and mass model including strategies for consumable supply and contingency scenarios implemented by SpaceX is of large interest.

Trajectories, launch windows and mission sequence

Section " Trajectory analysis " presents the minimum Δv, the maximum payload mass and the minimum ToF for a given system mass in a selected launch window. While the targeted payload mass of 100 MT can be reached in every launch opportunity, the resulting ToF significantly exceeds the targets communicated by SpaceX. According to SpaceX, their target times of flight between Earth and Mars are 140 d in 2029, 90 d in 2033 and 80 d in 2035 12 , which is the lowest number they are aiming for. As it has been shown in Section " Trajectory analysis ", these ToF cannot be reproduced with our model. In fact, these target ToF are missed by over 30 days in every launch opportunity. Still, Starship has shown the capability to bring at least 100 MT of payload to the Martian surface in every launch opportunity.

Given that the targeted scenario by SpaceX seems to be unlikely to be reached according to our analysis, a realistic scenario shall be presented in the following. It seems reasonable that the most important target is to deliver 100 MT of payload to Mars with every flight. This enables the establishment of a Mars settlement, which is a goal of Elon Musk. In order to achieve this, the desired ToF by SpaceX must be increased. For the first flight in 2029, a ToF of 175 d seems reasonable with some slight improvements made until launch, for the 2033 launch opportunity, SpaceX should aim for a ToF of 120 d and for 2035, 110 d seem achievable.

If aiming to reach the lowest ToF as proposed by SpaceX of 80 d, Starship would need to be able to perform Δv maneuvers of 8672 m/s, if planning to deliver 100 MT of payload, or 8453 m/s, if planning to deliver no payload. This is well in extend of the current capabilities of Starship. At the IAC 2016, Elon Musk said that he thinks Starship will be able to reach Mars in 30 days in “the more distant future 20 ”. In order to reach this goal, Starship would need to be able to perform Δv maneuvers of 28,085 m/s, if planning to deliver 100 MT of payload, or 27,866 m/s, without any payload.

For future analysis in this regard, we only consider the case of 100 MT payload and a desired ToF of 80 d (since this is the scenario proposed by SpaceX; Case 1) and the case of 0 payload and a desired ToF of 30 d (Case 2). In order to assess the technical improvements needed to achieve these goals, we first assume that the system mass of Starship can be reduced to 100 MT, as proposed by SpaceX. This would lower the needed Δv to 8430 m/s in the first case and 27,689 m/s in the second case.

The rocket equation implies that in this scenario, one can either increase the specific impulse of the engine or the propellant mass to improve the Δv capability of Starship. Table 18 shows the required values of these parameters if the respective other remains untouched.

Looking first at case 2, it is evident that this propellant mass may not be achieved with any technology known today. Considering that Starship together with Super Heavy is already the biggest rocket ever built, the number seems unreachable, being around 150 times as high as currently. The specific impulse is also high, out of reach for any chemical rocket engine. The highest specific impulse by a chemical rocket engine is 465.5 s, the capability of the Aerojet Rocketdyne RL10 engine used in the Delta III and IV rockets 73 . The impulse of 1100.8 s is more in the range of typical ion thrusters than in the range of chemical engines. But since ion thrusters require the spacecraft to travel on a low-thrust trajectory, the presented trajectory model cannot be used to evaluate this possibility.

When looking at case 1, it becomes evident that the required impulse is lower than the one of the RL10 engine. So, one may argue that this number is not out of reach. What must be considered though, is that RL10 features a LH2/LOX propulsion system. These systems usually reach higher specific impulses than LH 2 /LCH 4 systems. The propellant mass in this case marks an increase of about 50%.

In general, there are ways to theoretically reach these values and hence enable transfers in 80 and 30 days. But all these approaches discussed require a significant design change of Starship, which will turn it into a new spacecraft. Concluding it can be said that Starship in its current design does not support these plans.

The sensitivity analysis showed the potential for improving the mission analysis in terms of payload masses and times of flight for a reduced system mass. Considering that neither the propellant mass nor the specific impulse can be improved on a big scale, the system mass is the parameter which can have the greatest influence on the performance of the system. It seems reasonable for SpaceX to focus their improvements on this field.

A special attention should be given to the results presented in Section " Feasibility of return flights ", where it has been shown that Starship in the configuration presented in this paper is not capable of flying back to Earth as the required Δ v exceeds the possible Δ v . This has some important influences on the mission design:

The astronauts flying to Mars cannot return.

Starship cannot be used as a reusable spacecraft.

The mission plans by SpaceX are not feasible in their current form.

Combining the aforementioned aspects, we assess that from a mission analysis point of view, based on the by us extrapolated mission scenario and the limited available information about Starship, the mission scenario and spacecraft capabilities do not fit. Within the boundaries of our analysis it would be required to significantly lower Starship’s system mass.

Technology readiness

The radiation and micro-meteoroid protection as well as the components of the ECLSS, COMMS and TCS are technologies that have already been used on previous spacecraft and therefore have a high degree of technology readiness. The MegaFlex solar arrays of the EPS are based on the UltraFlex, which has a flight heritage and, with TRL 9, the highest possible technology readiness level (TRL). A MegaFlex array with a diameter of 9.6 m has already been tested in the course of a TRL 5 demonstration, but it has not yet been tested in space or in the size required for Starship. As the technology is available but still needs to be scaled to the required size and a mechanism for retracting the solar arrays needs to be developed, it is quite possible that this could be operational by the planned launch date of 2029.

The next new technology to be considered are Starship’s main engines, the Raptor engines. At the time of writing, they have not yet been used in space, but will be from 2023 onwards during the orbital test flights. However, they have already been used in numerous tests on Earth, so their level of technology readiness is medium (approx. 6). For the RCS thrusters, for which no more precise specifications are yet available, it can be assumed that existing thrusters or similar to these will be used here, so that the technology readiness will also be given for these. The system for orbital refuelling, however, has not yet been developed. The feasibility of such a system must be demonstrated by the launch of the first cargo Starships and successfully tested during several tests, which is considered feasible due to the need to carry out all Mars missions on the scale SpaceX is planning.

The heat shield technology also still needs to be extensively tested during re-entries and possibly adapted, depending on what the tests reveal. However, it is believed that the heat shield tiles will meet their protection and reusability requirements by the first launch in 2027, especially since SpaceX already has experience designing a heat shield for the Dragon space capsule.

That the technology to produce liquid methane and oxygen would work on Mars has already been demonstrated with the IMISPPS. However, this system has only a fraction of the propellant production rate needed to fuel two Starships. In addition, such a system without a water extraction plant requires with 2.55 MW a lot of power even with the assumptions of technological progress that have been made. Therefore, it is seen as critical that such a system is operational and flight-ready by 2029. The current technology readiness and feasibility are therefore low. As the ISRU activities shall enable return of the crew to Earth, their reliability is of upmost importance and needs to be tested and proven in advance of any mission.

The technology readiness of the Fission Surface Power System is also not yet very advanced. Technology demonstration has already taken place successfully on Earth with a smaller 1 kW reactor. The problem with the FSP, however, is the estimated time to operational capability. Systems with 10–20 kW are expected to be flight-ready in 3–5 years, the required 2 MW system only in probably ten years 71 (source from 2021). It can therefore be assumed that this technology will not be available for the planned 2029 mission.

Table 19 lists the new technologies used and their current TRL status. Not much is known about the current state of research. More funding for research on these topics will certainly help a lot for raising their current TRL.

Plausibility of ISRU

The payloads to be transported for the first Starships are the propellant production system, the power supply system, the rovers as well as the crew consumables. A system mass of 253 MT was assumed for the PPS. The total mass of the PSS, consisting of two 2 MW systems of 32 MT each, has a total mass of 64 MT. Five rovers of 800 kg each plus additional modules were estimated at 11 MT. For the consumables this scenario would lead to ca. 126 MT of consumables. According to the baseline scenario, a total of four cargo Starships and two crewed Starships with a payload capacity of 100 MT each are available until 2029 to bring the required systems to Mars. Considering the mass alone, 454 MT would have to be distributed among six Starships with a payload capacity of 600 MT. This would be feasible, but it presupposes that the volumes of the payloads can also be distributed appropriately among the Starships as the payload volumes of the Starships are limited. Thus, three cargo Starships could be used purely for the PPS and one cargo Starship purely for the PSS. The rovers could then be transported either in one of these Starships or on board one of the crewed Starships. Since the PPS should ideally remain on board the Starships after landing in order to reduce the logistical effort, but it must be divided among three Starships, the Starships must land very close to each other so that pipes for connecting the individual units are as short as possible. The consumables are to be transported as payload on board the crewed Starships.

Starting the propellant production already two years earlier would drastically reduce the required power of the system. At 1200 days, the production rate of the PPS would have to be only 2000 kg/day, with a mass of 75 MT and 1 MW of power, including the water extraction system, that is about 90 MT and 1.2 MW. However, the feasibility of this idea is difficult because the system, which is distributed over several Starships, would have to be connected by robots to form one system. In addition, the Starships would have to land practically directly on an ice deposit so that it could be used directly for production. In addition, there is the connection of the PSS with the PPS and the transport of the produced propellant into the propellant tanks of the second cargo Starship for storage. All processes would therefore have to be executed automatically by robots, whose control cannot take place in real time either. If anything should go wrong and the system cannot produce any propellant, this can only be fixed when the crew lands two years later and then the propellant production system is designed too small to produce the required amount of propellant for the return flight in the remaining time span (or the mission has to be cancelled). Of course, such a problem can also occur during a crewed mission, but a human being is better able to solve an initially unknown problem. Starting propellant production only with the arrival of the crewed Starships may therefore seem risky at first and also definitely represent a risk factor, but in the end, it is probably the safer way. Moreover, even with the extended production period, a 2 MW reactor is still needed, and its availability of ten years remains unchanged.

Long-term sustainability of missions

According to SpaceX and Elon Musk, Starship is intended to enable humanity “becoming a multi-planet species 17 ”, with long-term settlements on the Martian surface 17 . This can only be the case if mars missions are conducted sustainably. Sustainability is the result – likely never to be achieved but striven for – of sustainable development, which per definition “is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs 74 ”. Sustainable development has three dimensions, namely ecology, economy and social 75 .

Achieving sustainability or ensuring sustainable development requires more than e.g. ISRU technology to reduce the dependence on resupply from Earth. Social and ecological aspects have to be addressed, which e.g. concerning the living conditions on Mars, polluting Mars or exploiting resources. Water ice used for fuel generation, is not present for future generations (on Mars) or for a possibly existing ecosystem on Mars – up to now it has not been excluded yet, that Mars holds life of its own.

Governance on Mars, where a settlement has to be more than an outpost of a company. If humanity is to become a multiplanetary society, rules have to be established with special care of not repeating similar mistakes as before during the age of colonization, which resulted in exploitation of resources and humans. Repercussions of that are even reaching into contemporary times still.

Currently frameworks describing sustainability in the context of space missions are lacking a system view, which entails all three dimensions of sustainable development 76 and do not ensure actual sustainability is attained. Starship does likely reduce the environmental impact of spaceflight, due to its reusability, but more aspects are needed to ensure actual sustainability. This has to be addressed in the scenario’s plans in the future to be fully evaluated.

Overall feasibility

It has been shown that the currently available information and extrapolation does not lead to a feasible mission scenario as published by SpaceX. Most significantly, even assuming ISRU-technology available, a return flight cannot be achieved with Starship. While a refueling approach as for the flight towards Mars could be an option, this is considered to risky in the hostile environment for Mars, especially, considering that failure would leave the crew stranded. An approach with as little complexity as possible is needed, i.e. significant technology developments are needed.

The biggest problems that have arisen are caused by the PSS, PPS and EPS and concern the mass, their required power and their produced power, respectively, and the technology readiness. With the currently available technology for propellant production, this system requires too much power for the size it needs for production for two Starships and is also too heavy. Technological progress was already assumed in the calculation of the PPS. Should this not occur, the required power and mass would increase by 40% and 30% respectively compared to the assumed values. Distributing the PPS, PSS and rovers among the four cargo and two crewed Starships with a standard payload capacity of 100 MT should be feasible in terms of mass and also volume.

As the main problem however, the high-power requirement of the PPS of 3.37 MW is seen, which leads to heavy nuclear reactors with high power. In addition to the mass, these have the problem that their technology readiness is not yet very high, which in turn leads to high development and construction costs as well as a long-time span until flight readiness of about ten years.

Due to the lack of alternatives for the problematic systems described above, these hurdles cannot be avoided more easily with other technologies. The use of solar panels instead of nuclear reactors represents too great a risk in dust storms, and there is no way around a propellant production system, since transporting 2400 MT of propellant to Mars is also not practical and therefore not feasible. For these reasons, it is concluded that SpaceX’s expanded mission plans in the baseline scenario are not achievable and feasible at this scale and timeframe by 2027/2029.

If the time until the nuclear reactors of the PSS are actually ready for deployment is ten years, this would be deployable in 2031. This would also allow time for the development and scaling of the PPS, which in the best case can be made smaller, lighter and more power-efficient by then. If these hurdles can be overcome by then, the first Starships could be launched in the mid 2030’s. For these launch windows, a feasibility analysis must then be carried out again based on the required velocity changes, the duration of stay on Mars and thus the demands on the PPS.

Open issues

Not mentioned in this paper before is the need for elevators on Starship, which can be seen in some of SpaceX’s and NASA’s renderings. The fact that an elevator does not yet exist that has to bring astronauts and payloads to the surface of Mars even during dust storms is problematic, as this is something that has not existed before and the requirements for this system are probably very high. This is because the elevators must be able to operate even during dust storms. The moving components, which are then particularly exposed to sand, must therefore be designed in such a way that sand cannot penetrate the system anywhere and lead to malfunctions.

The issue of planetary protection should also be considered in detail in order to keep human contamination of Mars for scientific experiments as low as possible. However, this cannot be completely avoided when astronauts set foot on the surface.

Furthermore, it could be investigated if a refueling in Mars orbit scenario would enable return flights. Such a refueling in Mars orbit scenario is not part of what has been currently found in SpaceX plans. Such refueling would involve autonomous docking or remotely controlled docking with time delays of up to about 40 minutes in Mars orbit, when controlled and coordinated from Earth. Neither has been done before and thus is either a high-risk activity or has to be developed and proven further. Due to that lower readiness and due to the fact that orbital refueling at Mars is not part of the currently available Mars mission scenario, it has not been investigated within this work. Similarly, the level of autonomy of ISRU infrastructure, as well as the interaction of its parts and possesses, assumed or needed for the mission has to be investigated 57 , 77 , 78 , 79 .

SpaceX has not provided detailed mission plans, especially not concerning contingency scenarios, e.g. if a free return trajectory is to be used or some other form of redundancy concept to ensure the crew’s safety. In a similar regard, details about the assumed ECLSS system, especially concerning recovery rates should be provided.

Another open issue is, if the selected technology influences the landing site, e.g. concerning radiation, temperature, illumination, planetary weather, topography or landing Δ v .

Recommendations

It has been shown that the current plans for Starship Mars missions and their feasibility show significant gaps. For closing these gaps and improving feasibility, the following recommendations are made:

Aim for uncrewed Mars mission to improve mission reliability and heritage via testing of essential mission elements under Mars conditions

Include more (international) partners, incl. possibly political organizations (of the space sector or others) to enhance the necessary technology development in relevant fields such as ISRU, Power generation, ECLSS

The scenario analyzed in depth here has shown that a high recovery rate of consumables is relevant to reduce the mass and even with a 100% recovery at the moment, the mass is not fitting the mission requirements, therefore, developing life-support systems with a large recovery rate is mandatory to not further increase the gap between performance and actual mass

Possibly use one-way cargo versions of Starship to reduce amount of propellant that has to be created in-situ and use them as stationary elements instead of infrastructure elements, which have to be transported along with the crewed Starships, e.g. for habitation or re-using Starship’s solar panels

This paper has compiled a feasibility analysis for Starship based on a published mission scenario and extrapolation of existing systems, where information about Starship had gaps. Using typical analysis methods, a mass budget for the system and subsystems was established. A Lambert solver was applied to identify the minimum ToF and Δ v . It has been shown that there are currently several gaps in the available technology to conduct a Mars mission as sketched by SpaceX, e.g. concerning ISRU capability, power supply and the performance of Starship itself, which based on the mass estimate presented here, is incapable to conduct the mission as proposed by SpaceX. Especially, the ToF limits published by SpaceX are found to be unrealistic and cannot be held with the current design, requiring at least further improvement of the performance, some are outright physically impossible (i.e. Mars cannot be reached within 30 days with such a transfer vehicle). The current estimate does also not allow the return flight of Starship. Even with an unrealistic 100% recovery rate of consumables, the mission was not feasible for a 12 person crew per Starship, let alone for the SpaceX published 100 person crew. Further technology development is required, to supplement this launch and transfer vehicle and enable Mars missions. This is affecting Starship itself, but also infrastructure elements needed for the SpaceX proposed mission, especially those required for ISRU-based production of propellant. With the information currently available a Mars mission with Starship is not feasible.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary data file, containing the plot data used to generate the porkchop plots Figs. 3 , 4 , 5 .

Abbreviations

Crew exploration vehicle

Environment and life-support system

European Space Agency

Electrical power system

International Space Station

International transportation system

Low-Earth orbit

Low-Mars orbit

Life-support system

Mars Ascent Vehicle

Multi-layer insulation

Mars orbit insertion

Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle

Metric tons

Propellant production system

Reaction control system

Stuffed whipple shield

Trajectory correction maneuvers

Time of flight

Transfer orbit injection

Thermal protection system

Thrust to weight ratio

Semi-major axis

Material thickness

Excentric anomaly

Standard gravity acceleration

Mass specific impulse

Recovery factor

Gravitational parameter

Surface area

Radial position/radius

Material density

von Braun, W. Das Marsprojekt (Umschau-Verlag, 1952).

Google Scholar  

Nwali, C. May 2022. Elon Musk Has Finally Predicted The Year Humans Will Land On Mars. https://www.futurespaceworld.com/elon-musk-has-finally-predicted-the-year-humans-will-land-on-mars/ . Accessed 30 July 2022.

Broyan, J. L., Shaw, L., McKinley, M., Meyer, C., Ewert, M. E., Schneider, W. F., Meyer, M., Ruff, G. A., Owens, A. C. & Gatens, R. L. 2021. NASA Environmental control and life support technology development for exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview. in 50th International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES) , (virtual). Accessed 12–15 July 2021.

Connel, D. 12 December 2022. A Powerhouse in Deep Space: Gateway’s Power and Propulsion Element, NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/a-powerhouse-in-deep-space-gateways-power-and-propulsion-element/ . Accessed 29 Sept 2023.

NASA. 12 Juni 2023. NASA’s Gateway Program, NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/reference/nasas-gateway-program/ . Accessed 29 Sept 2023.

Fuller, S., Lehnhardt, E., Connell, D., Zaid, C. & Halloran, K. Gateway program status and overview. in 73rd International Astronautical Congress , 18-22 September, Paris, France (2022).

SpaceX. 28 September 2017. Making Life Multiplanetary. https://www.spacex.com/media/making_life_multiplanetary_transcript_2017.pdf . Accessed 28. Sept 2021.

SpaceX. March 2020. Starship Users Guide. https://www.spacex.com/media/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf . Accessed 28 Aug 2021.

Dodd, T. 11 August 2021. Starbase Launchpad Tour with Elon Musk [PART 3], Everyday Astronaut. https://youtu.be/9Zlnbs-NBUI . Accessed 13 Sept 2021.

Dodd, T. 3. August 2021. Starbase Tour with Elon Musk [PART 1], Everyday Astronaut. https://youtu.be/t705r8ICkRw . Accessed 13 Sept 2021.

Sesnic, T. 11 August 2021. Starbase Tour and Interview with Elon Musk. https://everydayastronaut.com/starbase-tour-and-interview-with-elon-musk/ . Accessed 28 Nov 2022.

SpaceX. 2016. SpaceX-Making Life Multiplanetary. https://www.spacex.com/media/making_life_multiplanetary_2016.pdf .

ESA. Margin philosophy for science assessment studies. ESA ESTEC, (2012).

SpaceX. 2021. Starship. https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship/ . Accessed 1 Sept 2021.

SpaceX. 28 September 2019. Starship Update. https://youtu.be/sOpMrVnjYeY . Accessed 8 Sept 2021.

Dodd, T. 7 August 2021. Starbase Tour with Elon Musk [PART 2], Everyday Astronaut. https://youtu.be/SA8ZBJWo73E . Accessed 13 Sept 2021.

SpaceX. Becoming a Multiplanet Species. in 68th International Astronautical Congress , Adelaide, Australia. Accessed 25–29 Sep (2017).

NASA. NASA's exploration systems architecture study, (2005).

NASA. Preliminary report regarding NASA's space launch system and multi-purpose crew vehicle, (2011).

Musk, E. IAC 2016–late breaking news: making humans a multiplanetary.

Battin, R. H. & Vaughan, R. M. An elegant Lambert algorithm. J. Guid. Control. Dyn. 7 (6), 662–670 (1984).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Vallado, D. A. & McClain, W. D. Chapter 7.6.5.: Lambert solution-battin method. in Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications , 493–497 (2013).

Seidelmann, P. K. Chapter 5.8.: Keplerian elements for the positions of the major. in Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac , 315–316 (1992).

Vaughan, R., Kallemeyn, P., Spence, D. & Braun, R. Navigation flight operations for mars pathfinder. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 36 (3), 340–347 (1999).

SpaceX. Vehicle Landing, YouTube (2017).

Pezzella, G., Viviani, A. & Lu, Y. Chapter 3: Aerocapture, aerobraking, and entry for robotic and human mars missions. in Mars Exploration: A Step Forward , 33–52 (2020).

Prussing, J. E. & Conway, B. A. Orbital Mechanics (Oxford University Press, 1993).

Polsgrove, T. P., Percy, T., Rucker, M. & Thomas, H. Update to mars ascent vehicle design for human exploration. in 2019 IEEE Aerospace Conference , (2019).

Trent, D. J., Thomas, H. D. & Rucker, M. A. Updated human mars ascent vehicle concept in support of NASA's strategic analysis cycle 2021. in IEEE Aerosapce Conference , Big Sky, MT, USA, (2022).

Sopegno, L., Valavanis, K. P., Rutherford, M. J. & Casalino, L. Mars sample return mission: Mars ascent vehicle propulsion design. in IEEE Aerospace Conference , Big Sky, MT, USA, (2020).

SpaceX. Starship. https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship/ . Accessed 11 Nov 2022.

Heldmann, J. L. et al. Mission architecture using the SpaceX Starship vehicle to enable a sustained human presence on Mars. New Space https://doi.org/10.1089/space.2020.0058 (2022).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Davies, P. 9 Mai 2022. Elon Musk’s SpaceX COO says manned missions will reach Mars by 2030. NASA says otherwise. https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/05/09/elon-musk-s-spacex-coo-says-manned-missions-will-reach-mars-by-2030-nasa-says-otherwise . Accessed 9 Nov 2022.

SpaceX. Starship Users Guide–Revision 1.0, (2020).

Frazier, S. 30 September 2015. Real Martians: How to Protect Astronauts from Space Radiation on Mars. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars . Accessed 15 Nov 2021.

Garcia, M. 22 September 2016. Scientists and Engineers Evaluate Orion Radiation Protection Plan. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/scientists-and-engineers-evaluate-orion-radiation-protection-plan . Accessed 15 Nov 2021.

NASA. 2014. Orion Quick Facts. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/fs-2014-08-004-jsc-orion_quickfacts-web.pdf . Accessed 25 Nov 2021.

Garcia, M. 4 January 2023. International Space Station Facts and Figures. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/facts-and-figures . Accessed 8 Jan 2023.

Anderson, M. S., Ewert, M. K. & Keener, J. F. Life Support–Baseline Values and Assumptions Document, NASA, Houston. (2018).

Woolford, B. & Bond, R. L. Human Factors of Crewed Spaceflight. In Human Spaceflight Mission Analysis and Design (eds Larson, W. J. & Pranke, L. K.) (McGraw-Hill, 2000).

Destefanis, R., Amerio, E., Briccarello, M., Belluco, M., Faraud, M., Tracino, E. & Lobascio, C. Space Environment Characterisation of Kevlar®: Good for Bullets, Debris and Radiation too. (2009).

Kanayama, L. & Beil, A. 28 August 2021. SpaceX continues forward progress with Starship on Starhopper anniversary. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/08/starship-starhopper/#more-79883 . Accessed 16 Oct 2021.

Thyssenkrupp Materials (UK) Ltd. Stainless Steel 304L 1.4307. https://www.thyssenkrupp-materials.co.uk/stainless-steel-304l-14307.html . Accessed 26 Nov 2021.

Nowlin, S. & Thimons, L. Surviving the heat: The application of phenolic impergnated carbon ablators. in University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering , (2013).

Mera, H., Kirkland, J. A., Wall, R. E. & Cichan, T. Integrating orion and initial lunar gateway environmental control and life support systems. in International Conferene on Environmental Systems (ICES) , (2020).

Miller, A. 25 October 2019. IAC 2019: Anti-radiation vests headed for ISS. https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/iac-2019-anti-radiation-vests-headed-for-iss/ . Accessed 25 Nov 2021.

Garcia, M. 20 Nov 2018. Testing Verifies Communications for Orion Missions Beyond the Moon. NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/testing-verifies-communications-for-orion-missions-beyond-the-moon . Accessed 28 Sept 2023.

ESA. Power https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Orion/Power . Accessed 19 Nov 2021.

Orbital ATK. UltraFlex Solar Array Systems. Goleta, (2015).

Murphy, D. Megaflex - the scaling potential of ultraflex technology. in 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference , Honolulu, Hawaii, (2012).

Beach, R. F. 16 October 2014. Overview of NASA Power Technologies for Space and Aero Applications. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150002080/downloads/20150002080.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2021.

Niklas. 22 May 2022. How Much Does a Tesla Battery Weigh?. https://weightofstuff.com/how-much-does-a-tesla-battery-weigh/ . Accessed 9 Jan 2023.

Dumoulin, J. 31 August 2000. NSTS Shuttle Reference Manual–Reaction Control System. https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-rcs.html . Accessed 18 Dec 2021.

ArianeGroup GmbH. 2020. 200N Bipropellant Thruster. https://www.space-propulsion.com/spacecraft-propulsion/bipropellant-thrusters/200n-bipropellant-thrusters.html . Accessed 19 Nov 2021.

Larson, W. J. & Pranke, L. K. Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis and Design (McGraw-Hill, 2000).

Eckart, P. Spaceflight Life Support and Biospherics (Microcosm Press/Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996).

Book   Google Scholar  

Fälker, S., Dorau, T., Viedt, I., Mädler, J., Urbas, L., Tajmar, M. & Bach, C. Modular ISRU systems as a building block for sustainable space exploaration. in 73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC) , Paris, France, , 18–22 Sep (2022).

Bernardo, P., Lulianelli, A., Macedonio, F. & Drioli, E. Membrane technologies for space engineering. J. Membr. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2021.119177 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Singh, R. Membrane technology and engineering for water purification: Application system design and operation. Butterworth-Heinemann, ISBN:0444633626 (2014).

Carranza, S., Makel, D., Blizman, B. & Ward, B. Microchannel reactors for ISRU applications. in Space Technology and Applications International Forum-STAIF , Albuquerque, (2005).

Kaschubek, D., Killian, M. & Grill, L. System analysis of a Moon base at the south pole: Considering landing sites, ECLSS and ISRU. Acta Astronautica 186 , 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.05.004 (2021).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Muscatello, A., Berggren, M., Strott, D. & Zubrin, R. Benzene production on Mars. in Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF) , Albuquerque, (2004).

Petrick, D., Nieczkoski, S., Duke, M. & Gardner, T. Design and analysis of a scalable in-situ cryogen production facility for space exploration. in Advances in cryogenic engineering , Keystone, (2006).

Hecht, M. et al. Mars oxygen ISRU experiment (MOXIE). Space Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-020-00782-8 (2021).

Hoffman, J. A. et al. Mars oxygen ISRU experiment (MOXIE)—preparing for human mars exploration. Sci. Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abp8636 (2022).

Zlindra, A., Schoen, D., Mayer, F., Shapiro, J., Qazi, O., Richmond, T., Caleanu, N. & Adnani, Y. Development and testing of prototype Sabatier reactor for Martian in situ propellant production. in 17th Biennial International Conference on Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments (Earth and Space) (2021).

Baldry, M., Gurieff, N. & Keogh, D. Imagining sustinable human ecosystems with power-to-x in situ resource utilisation technology. Acta Astronaut. 192 , 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.12.031 (2022).

Drake, B. G., Hoffman, S. J. & Beaty, D. W. Human exploration of Mars: design reference architecture 5.0. NASA, NASA/SP-2009-566, (2009).

Starr, S. O. & Muscatello, A. C. Mars in situ resource utilization: A review. Planet. Space Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2019.104824 (2020).

Zubrin, R., Muscatello, A. & Berggren, M. Integrated Mars in situ propellant production system. Int. J. Aerosp. Eng. 26 , 43–56 (2013).

Poston, D. 14 October 2021. Space Nuclear Power. https://ce1193a9-12d2-4c0b-a989-4b1e5f59a75d.filesusr.com/ugd/a08fa5_29e9a58e48aa481da1b01e3db12e7d1c.pdf . Accessed 22 Nov 2021.

NASA. March 2020. Mars 2020/Perseverance. https://mars.nasa.gov/files/mars2020/Mars2020_Fact_Sheet.pdf . Accessed 27 Nov 2021.

United Launch Alliance, in Delta IV's User Guide , pp. 1–6.

United Nations General Assembly. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development, (1987).

Hilser, K. Wirtschaftswachstum und nachhaltige Entwicklung– ein Widerspruch?. in Von der Entwicklungshilfe zu internationalen Zusammenarbeit , R. Öhlschläger and H. Sangmeister, Eds., 75–94 (2013).

Maiwald, V. Frameworks of sustainability and sustainable development in a spaceflight context: A systematic review and critical analysis. Acta Astronautica https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.01.023 (2023).

Klose, A. et al. Orchestration of modular plants: Procedure and application for orchestration engineering. ATP Magazin 63 (9), 68–77 (2022).

VDI. Modulare Anlagen–Grundlagen und Planung modularer Anlagen–Blatt 1 (VDI 2776:2020-11), Beuth Verlag, (2020).

VDI/VDE/NAMUR. Automatisierungstechnisches Engineering modularer Anlagen in der Prozessindustrie–Allgemeines Konzept und Schnittstellen–Blatt 1 (VDI/VDE/NAMUR 2658-1:2019-10), Beuth Verlag, (2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors want to acknowledge the valuable support by Tim Dorau, by Adheena Gana Joseph on the SOTA analysis of ISRU systems as well as by Isabell Viedt and Jonathan Mädler on ISRU processes and their realization.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Space Systems, Bremen, Germany

Volker Maiwald

Faculty of Production Engineering, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

Mika Bauerfeind

Chair of Space Systems, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany

Svenja Fälker & Christian Bach

Technical University Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany

Bjarne Westphal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

V.M. coordinated the overall work and writing, supported the system and trajectory analysis and discussion, and discussed the sustainability aspects as well as worked on the recommendations. V.M. and B.W. worked on the Starship mass budget and surface equipment mass estimate in a general sense and S.F. and C.B. calculated crew and consumables for the mass budget and the ISRU requirements in terms of production and wrote the respective subsections. M.B. conducted the trajectory analysis, including coding for the optimization and sensitivity analysis, and wrote the respective paper parts.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Volker Maiwald .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors are not aware of any conflict of interest affecting the results of this work.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Maiwald, V., Bauerfeind, M., Fälker, S. et al. About feasibility of SpaceX's human exploration Mars mission scenario with Starship. Sci Rep 14 , 11804 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54012-0

Download citation

Received : 10 February 2023

Accepted : 06 February 2024

Published : 23 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54012-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mission feasibility
• Human spaceflight
• Future space missions

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.