
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39237773
71955
10.1038/s41598-024-71955-6
Author Correction
Author Correction: About feasibility of SpaceX's human exploration Mars mission scenario with Starship
Maiwald Volker volker.maiwald@dlr.de

1
Bauerfeind Mika 2
Fälker Svenja 3
Westphal Bjarne 4
Bach Christian 3
1 grid.7551.6 0000 0000 8983 7915 German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Space Systems, Bremen, Germany
2 https://ror.org/04ers2y35 grid.7704.4 0000 0001 2297 4381 Faculty of Production Engineering, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
3 grid.4488.0 0000 0001 2111 7257 Chair of Space Systems, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany
4 grid.6738.a 0000 0001 1090 0254 Technical University Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany
5 9 2024
5 9 2024
2024
14 20718© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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/.
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcCorrection to: Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-024-54012-0, published online 23 May 2024

In the original version of this Article, the maximum Δv for the return flight was incorrect.

As a result, in the Results section, under the subheading ‘Feasibility of return flights’,

“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.”

now reads,

“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 7121 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 about 470 m/s.”

The original Article has been corrected.
