Sources

Every factual claim on this site comes from one research report, Going to Mars in 2026: A Systems-Level Reality Check on Human Missions and Settlement, compiled in mid-2026. The report’s own short reading list, the primary sources it leans on hardest, is reproduced below. Where a chapter quotes a figure, that figure traces to one of these or to the report’s cited news and agency sources.

Primary sources

1. Jakosky, B. M. & Edwards, C. S., “Inventory of CO₂ available for terraforming Mars.” Nature Astronomy 2 (2018): 634–639. · §6
2. Ansari, S., Kite, E. S., Ramirez, R., Steele, L. J. & Mohseni, H., “Feasibility of keeping Mars warm with nanoparticles.” Science Advances 10 (2024): eadn4650. · §6
3. “The case for Mars terraforming research.” Nature Astronomy (2025); and the 2025 Mars Terraforming Workshop summary, arXiv:2510.07344. · §6
4. Hoffman, J., Hecht, M., Rapp, D. et al., “MOXIE — Preparing for human Mars exploration.” Science Advances (2022); NASA MOXIE final-mission report (2023/24). · §5
5. Zeitlin, C. et al., “Measurements of Energetic Particle Radiation in Transit to Mars on the Mars Science Laboratory.” Science (2013). · §2
6. Cucinotta, F. A., “How safe is safe enough? Radiation risk for a human mission to Mars.” PLOS One (2013). · §2 — model output
7. Gabel, L. et al., “Incomplete recovery of bone strength and trabecular microarchitecture at the distal tibia 1 year after return from long duration spaceflight.” Scientific Reports 12 (2022): 9446. · §3
8. Stavnichuk, M. et al., “A systematic review and meta-analysis of bone loss in space travelers.” npj Microgravity (2020). · §3
9. Tsuji, T. et al., “0.33g mitigates muscle atrophy while 0.67g preserves muscle function and myofiber type composition in mice during spaceflight.” Science Advances (March 13, 2026), DOI 10.1126/sciadv.aed2258. · §4
10. Morgan, G. A., Putzig, N. E. et al., “Refined Mapping of Subsurface Water Ice on Mars.” Planetary Science Journal (2025). · §5
11. Weinersmith, K. & Weinersmith, Z., A City on Mars (2023); Zubrin, R., The Case for Mars (revised editions); Robinson, K. S., Red / Green / Blue Mars (1992–1996, fiction). · §8, §9
12. NASA FY2026 budget documents; NASA Moon-to-Mars Architecture, December 2024 nuclear-surface-power decision. · §1, §5

How to read the labels

• established: a measurement, a completed event, or a consensus result.
• contested: real evidence, real disagreement, or a demonstration well short of the required scale.
• unknown: no data exists. Not “disproven”; unmeasured.
• stated goal: a corporate or agency aspiration, quoted as one. Future-tense dates live here.
• model output: a Monte-Carlo or physical-model projection, not an empirical observation. Applies to the IMM/IMPACT medical and radiation-risk figures and to the nanoparticle warming result.

A note on dates

The report was compiled in mid-2026 and this site is a snapshot of that moment; the docline on every page carries the revision. Nothing here updates itself. The scorecard lists the events that would make it out of date.