Connect with us

News

DeepSpace: Europe reveals Mars sample return spacecraft as SpaceX builds Starships

Published

7 years ago

on

The European Space Agency (ESA) revealed a concept for a spacecraft that would work alongside NASA to return samples of Martian soil to Earth. (ESA)

Eric Ralph · May 28th, 2019

Welcome to the latest edition of DeepSpace! Each week, Teslarati space reporter Eric Ralph hand-crafts this newsletter to give you a breakdown of what’s happening in the space industry and what you need to know. To receive this newsletter (and others) directly and join our member-only Slack group, give us a 3-month trial for just $5.

On May 27th, the European Space Agency (ESA) published updated renders of a proposed spacecraft, called the Earth Return Orbiter (ERO). ERO would be the last of four critical elements of a joint NASA-ESA Mars sample return mission, meant to return perhaps 1-5 kg (2-11 lb) of Martian samples to scientists on Earth. In a best-case scenario, such a sample return is unlikely to happen before the tail-end of the 2020s and will probably slip well into the 2030s, barring any unexpected windfalls of funding or political support.

Enter SpaceX, a private American company developing Starship/Super Heavy – a massive, next-generation launch vehicle – with the goal of landing dozens of tons of cargo and just as many humans on Mars as few as 5-10 years from now. The radically different approaches of SpaceX and NASA/ESA are bound to produce equally different results, while both are expected to cost no less than $5B-$10B to be fully realized. What gives?

The high price of guaranteed success

  • As proposed, the Mars sample return mission will be an extraordinary technical challenge.
    • At a minimum, the current approach involves sending a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket from Earth to Mars, landing the SSTO with extreme accuracy on the back of a new Mars lander, deploying a small rover to gather the sample container, loading that container onto the tiny rocket, launching said rocket into Mars orbit, grabbing the sample with large orbiter launched from Earth, and returning said sample to Earth where it will reenter the atmosphere and be safely recovered.
  • This downright Rube Golberg machine-esque architecture is nevertheless the best currently available with current mindsets and hardware. It’s also likely the only way NASA or ESA will independently acquire samples of Mars within the next few decades, barring radical changes to both the mindsets and technologies familiar and available to the deeply bureaucratic spaceflight agencies.
  • However, this is by no means an attempt to downplay the demonstrated expertise and capabilities of the space agencies and their go-to contractors. Both ESA and NASA have a decades-long heritage of spectacular achievements in robotic space exploration, reaching – however briefly, in some cases – almost every major planet and moon in the solar system.
    • The NASA-supported Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) remains a world-leading expert of both designing, building, and landing large, capable, and long-lived rovers/landers on the surface of Mars. JPL also has a track record of incredible success with space-based orbiters, including Cassini (Saturn), Magellan (Venus), Galileo (Jupiter), Voyager (most planets, now in interstellar space), Stardust (comet sample return), Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO, Mars orbiter) and more.
  • This success, however, can often come with extreme costs. NASA’s next Mars rover – essentially a modified copy of the Curiosity rover currently operating on Mars and a critical component of the proposed sample return – is likely to cost more than $2B, while Curiosity cost ~$2.5B. The Cassini Saturn orbiter cost around ~$3.5B for 15 years of scientific productivity. ESA’s Rosetta/Philae comet rendezvous cost at least $2B total. In the scheme of things, it would be hard to think of a more inspiring way to spend that money, but the fact remains that these missions are extremely expensive.

High risk, high reward

  • The price of missions like those above may, in fact, be close to their practical minimum, at least relative to the expectations of those footing the bill. However, it’s highly likely that similar results could be achieved on far tighter budgets, another way to say that far more returns could potentially be derived from the same investment.
    • The easiest way to explain this lies in the fact that the governments sponsoring and funding ESA and NASA have grown almost dysfunctionally risk-averse, to the extent that failure really isn’t an option in the modern era. Stakeholders – often elected representatives – expect success and often demand a guaranteed return on their support before choosing to fight for a given program’s funding.
    • As it turns out, an unwillingness to accept more than a minute amount of risk is not particularly compatible with affordably attempting to do things that are technically challenging and have often never been done before. That happens to be a great summary of spaceflight.
    • As risk aversion and the need for guaranteed success grew hand-in-hand, a sort of paradox formed. As politicians strove to ensure that space agency funding was efficiently used, space agencies became far more conservative (minimizing results and the potential for leaps forward) and the cost of complex, capable spacecraft grew dramatically.
    • The end result: spacecraft that are consistently reliable, high-performance, derivative, and terrifyingly expensive.
  • SpaceX is in many ways an anathema of the low-risk, medium-reward, high-cost approach that government space agencies and their dependent contractors have gravitated towards over the last 40-50 years. Instead, SpaceX accepts medium to high risk to attain great rewards at a cost that space agencies like NASA and ESA are often unable to accept as possible after decades of conservatism.
    • This is the main reason that it’s possible that NASA/ESA and SpaceX will both succeed in accomplishing goals at a dramatically disproportionate scale with roughly the same amount of funding.
    • If NASA/ESA bite the bullet and begin to seriously fund their triple-launch Mars Sample Return program, the missions will take a decade or longer and cost something like $5 million per gram of soil returned to Earth, but success will be all but guaranteed.
    • Both SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy and Mars colonization development programs run significant risks of hitting major obstacles, suffering catastrophic failures, and could even result in the death of crew members aboard the first attempted missions to Mars.
    • For that accepted risk, the rewards could be unfathomable and the costs revolutionary. SpaceX could very well beat the combined might of ESA and NASA to return large samples of Martian soil, rock, and water to Earth, all while launching ~100,000 kg into Martian orbit instead of the sample return’s ~10 kg.
    • In a best-case scenario, SpaceX could land the first uncrewed Starship on Mars as early as 2022 or 2024. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe or the company’s outright collapse, that first uncrewed Mars landing might happen as late as the early 2030s, around the same time as NASA and ESA’s ~10kg of Mars samples will likely be reentering Earth’s atmosphere.
  • Regardless of which approach succeeds first, space exploration fans and space scientists will have a spectacular amount of activity to be excited about over the next 10-20 years.
Thanks for being a Teslarati Reader! Become a member today to receive an issue of DeepSpace each week!

– Eric
Advertisement
-->
Related Topics:

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Model Y L is gaining momentum in China’s premium segment

This suggests that the addition of the Model Y L to Tesla China’s lineup will not result in a case of cannibalization, but a possible case of “premiumization” instead.

Published

2 hours ago

on

December 16, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s domestic sales in China held steady in November with around 73,000 units delivered, but a closer look at the Model Y L’s numbers hints at an emerging shift towards pricier variants that could very well be boosting average selling prices and margins. 

This suggests that the addition of the Model Y L to Tesla China’s lineup will not result in a case of cannibalization, but a possible case of “premiumization” instead.

Tesla China’s November domestic numbers

Data from the a Passenger Car Association (CPCA) indicated that Tesla China saw domestic deliveries of about 73,000 vehicles in November 2025. This number included 34,000 standard Model Y units, 26,000 Model 3 units, and 13,000 Model Y L units, as per industry watchers. 

This means that the Model Y L accounted for roughly 27% of Tesla China’s total Model Y sales, despite the variant carrying a ~28% premium over the base RWD Model Y that is estimated to have dominated last year’s mix.

As per industry watcher @TSLAFanMtl, this suggests that Tesla China’s sales have moved towards more premium variants this year. Thus, direct year-over-year sales comparisons might miss the bigger picture. This is true even for the regular Model Y, as another premium trim, the Long Range RWD variant, was also added to the lineup this 2025. 

Advertisement
-->

November 2025 momentum

While Tesla China’s overall sales this year have seen challenges, the Model Y and Model 3 have remained strong sellers in the country. This is especially impressive as the Model Y and Model 3 are premium-priced vehicles, and they compete in the world’s most competitive electric vehicle market. Tesla China is also yet to roll out the latest capabilities of FSD in China, which means that its vehicles in the country could not tap into their latest capabilities yet. 

Aggregated results from November suggest that the Tesla Model Y took the crown as China’s #1 best-selling SUV during the month, with roughly 34,000 deliveries. With the Model Y L, this number is even higher. The Tesla Model 3 also had a stellar month, seeing 25,700 deliveries during November 2025.

Continue Reading

Cybertruck

Tesla Cybertruck earns IIHS Top Safety Pick+ award

To commemorate the accolade, the official Cybertruck account celebrated the milestone on X.

Published

4 hours ago

on

December 16, 2025

By

Credit: IIHS/YouTube

The Tesla Cybertruck has achieved the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s (IIHS) highest honor, earning a Top Safety Pick+ rating for 2025 models built after April 2025. 

The full-size electric pickup truck’s safety rating is partly due to the vehicle’s strong performance in updated crash tests, superior front crash prevention, and effective headlights, among other factors. To commemorate the accolade, the official Cybertruck account celebrated the milestone on X.

Cybertruck’s IIHS rating

As per the IIHS, beginning with 2025 Cybertruck models built after April 2025, changes were made to the front underbody structure and footwell to improve occupant safety in driver-side and passenger-side small overlap front crashes. The moderate overlap front test earned a good rating, and the updated side impact test also received stellar marks.

The Cybertruck’s front crash prevention earned a good rating in pedestrian scenarios, with the standard Collision Avoidance Assist avoiding collisions in day and night tests across child, adult crossing, and parallel paths. Headlights with high-beam assist compensated for limitations, contributing to the top award.

Safest and most autonomous pickup

The Cybertruck is one of only two full-size pickups to receive the IIHS’ Top Safety Pick + rating. It is also the only one equipped with advanced self-driving features via Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system. Thanks to FSD, the Cybertruck can navigate inner city streets and highways on its own with minimal supervision, adding a layer of safety beyond passive crash protection.

Advertisement
-->

Community reactions poured in, with users praising the vehicle’s safety rating amidst skepticism from critics. Tesla itself highlighted this by starting its X post with a short clip of a Cybertruck critic who predicted that the vehicle will likely not pass safety tests. The only question now is, of course, if the vehicle’s Top Safety Pick+ rating from the IIHS will help the Cybertruck improve its sales. 

Continue Reading

News

Tesla stands to gain from Ford’s decision to ditch large EVs

Tesla is perhaps the biggest beneficiary of Ford’s decision, especially as it will no longer have to deal with the sole pure EV pickup that outsold it from time to time: the F-150 Lightning.

Published

8 hours ago

on

December 15, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

Ford’s recent decision to abandon production of the all-electric Ford F-150 Lightning after the 2025 model year should yield some advantages for Tesla.

The Detroit-based automaker’s pivot away from large EVs and toward hybrids and extended-range EVs that come with a gas generator is proof that sustainable powertrains are easy on paper, but hard in reality.

Tesla is perhaps the biggest beneficiary of Ford’s decision, especially as it will no longer have to deal with the sole pure EV pickup that outsold it from time to time: the F-150 Lightning.

Here’s why:

Reduced Competition in the Electric Pickup Segment

The F-150 Lightning was the Tesla Cybertruck’s primary and direct rival in the full-size electric pickup market in the United States. With Ford’s decision to end pure EV production of its best-selling truck’s electric version and shifting to hybrids/EREVs, the Cybertruck faces significantly less competition.

Credit: Tesla

This could drive more fleet and retail buyers toward the Cybertruck, especially those committed to fully electric vehicles without a gas generator backup.

Strengthened Market Leadership and Brand Perception in Pure EVs

Ford’s pullback from large EVs–citing unprofitability and lack of demand for EVs of that size–highlights the challenges legacy automakers face in scaling profitable battery-electric vehicles.

Tesla, as the established leader with efficient production and vertical integration, benefits from reinforced perception as the most viable and committed pure EV manufacturer.

Credit: Tesla

This can boost consumer confidence in Tesla’s long-term ecosystem over competitors retreating to hybrids. With Ford making this move, it is totally reasonable that some car buyers could be reluctant to buy from other legacy automakers.

Profitability is a key reason companies build cars; they’re businesses, and they’re there to make money.

However, Ford’s new strategy could plant a seed in the head of some who plan to buy from companies like General Motors, Stellantis, or others, who could have second thoughts. With this backtrack in EVs, other things, like less education on these specific vehicles to technicians, could make repairs more costly and tougher to schedule.

Potential Increases in Market Share for Large EVs

Interestingly, this could play right into the hands of Tesla fans who have been asking for the company to make a larger EV, specifically a full-size SUV.

Customers seeking large, high-capability electric trucks or SUVs could now look to Tesla for its Cybertruck or potentially a future vehicle release, which the company has hinted at on several occasions this year.

With Ford reallocating resources away from large pure EVs and taking a $19.5 billion charge, Tesla stands to capture a larger slice of the remaining demand in this segment without a major U.S. competitor aggressively pursuing it.

Continue Reading