Connect with us

News

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

Published

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?

Advertisement



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

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 gets new entertainment feature

Beyond audio quality, Immersive Sound X aligns with Tesla’s ecosystem of over-the-air updates, potentially allowing future refinements.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

Tesla is including a new entertainment feature in the Model Y L, improving the vehicle even further and making it what appears to be the best configuration of the all-electric crossover globally.

Unfortunately, we in the U.S. do not yet have access to the vehicle, and the plans for it to enter the market remain up in the air, as CEO Elon Musk has said it could appear late this year. However, there is nothing concrete at this time.

Tesla’s latest enhancement to the Model Y L is a new Immersive Sound X feature, exclusive to the Model Y L.

It aims to transform the in-car listening experience into something truly cinematic. First introduced by Tesla China in October 2025, this advanced audio mode is now rolling out to deliveries in Australia and New Zealand, highlighting Tesla’s approach to region-specific premium upgrades.

At its core, Immersive Sound X leverages real-time sound extraction technology to create a customizable 3D soundstage. Using advanced algorithms, it analyzes audio tracks to separate direct sounds, such as vocals or lead instruments, from ambient elements like echoes and reverb.

The system then positions direct sounds front and center while diffusing ambient sounds to the side and rear speakers, simulating an expansive virtual environment. This results in a heightened sense of depth and spatial awareness, making listeners feel as if they’re in a concert hall or studio.

Advertisement

What sets Immersive Sound X apart from the standard Immersive Sound found in other Tesla models is its hardware dependency and enhanced processing. The Model Y L boasts an 18-speaker system with a subwoofer, compared to the 15-speaker setup, plus a subwoofer, in the Model Y Long Range’s previous premium audio configuration.

This upgrade provides more “kick” and precision, enabling finer control over the soundstage. Unlike traditional surround sound, which requires multi-channel mixes like Dolby Atmos, Immersive Sound X works with any stereo source from platforms like Spotify or Apple Music, so every owner will be able to use it.

Tesla Model Y lineup expansion signals an uncomfortable reality for consumers

You can fine-tune the experience via an adjustable immersion slider, scaling the “size” of the virtual space to personal preferences. This caters to a more custom sound.

Advertisement

An Auto mode intelligently adapts based on media type, whether it’s music, podcasts, or videos, ensuring optimal immersion without manual tweaks. This feature is unavailable on standard Model Y variants (with 7 or 15 speakers) or Model 3 trims, underscoring Tesla’s strategy to differentiate higher trims through superior hardware and software integration.

Beyond audio quality, Immersive Sound X aligns with Tesla’s ecosystem of over-the-air updates, potentially allowing future refinements.

For audiophiles and casual listeners alike, it elevates mundane commutes into immersive journeys, proving Tesla’s commitment to blending cutting-edge tech with user-centric design.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk teases crazy outlook for xAI against its competitors

Musk’s response was vintage hyperbole, designed to rally supporters and dismiss doubters, something his responses on social media often do.

Published

on

Credit: NVIDIA

Elon Musk has never been one to shy away from crazy timelines, massive expectations, and outrageous outlooks. However, his recent plans for xAI and where he believes it will end up compared to its competitors are sure to stimulate conversation.

In a bold and characteristic response on X, Elon Musk fired back at a recent analysis that positioned his AI venture, xAI, as lagging behind industry frontrunners.

The post, from March 14, came as a direct reply to forecaster Peter Wildeford’s assessment, which drew from benchmarks and reporting to rank AI developers.

Wildeford placed Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI in a virtual tie at the top, with xAI and Meta trailing by about seven months. Chinese players like Moonshot, Deepseek, zAI, and Alibaba were estimated to be nine months behind, while France’s Mistral lagged by about a year and a half.

Musk’s response was vintage hyperbole, designed to rally supporters and dismiss doubters, something his responses on social media often do.

He claimed xAI would “catch up this year,” meaning by the end of 2026, erasing that seven-month deficit against the leaders. But he didn’t stop there.

Advertisement

Musk escalated his vision to 2029, predicting xAI would “exceed them all by such a long distance” that observers would need the James Webb Space Telescope, NASA’s orbiting observatory stationed about 930,000 miles from Earth, to spot whoever lands in second place. This analogy underscores Musk’s confidence in xAI’s trajectory, implying an astronomical lead that could redefine the AI landscape.

Breaking down these claims reveals Musk’s strategic optimism. First, the short-term catch-up: xAI, launched in 2023, has already released models like Grok, but recent benchmarks, including those for Grok 4.2, have shown it falling short in capabilities compared to rivals.

Anthropic’s Claude series, Google’s Gemini, and OpenAI’s GPT models dominate in areas like reasoning, coding, and multimodal tasks. Musk’s assertion suggests aggressive scaling in compute, talent, or architecture, perhaps leveraging xAI’s ties to Tesla’s Dojo supercomputers or Musk’s vast resources, to close the gap swiftly.

The longer-term dominance by 2029 paints an even more audacious picture. Musk envisions xAI not just parity but supremacy, outpacing competitors in innovation speed and model sophistication.

Advertisement

This could involve breakthroughs in energy-efficient training, real-world integration, like Tesla’s robotics, or ethical AI alignment, aligning with Musk’s stated goal of “understanding the universe.”

Critics, however, point to parallels with Tesla’s Full Self-Driving delays; one reply highlighted Musk’s 2023 promise of FSD readiness. Musk has made this promise for many years, and although the system has been strong and improving, it is still a ways off from the completely autonomous operation that was expected by now.

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever

Musk’s comment highlights the intensifying U.S.-centric AI race, with xAI challenging the “three-way” dominance noted by Wharton professor Ethan Mollick, whom Wildeford quoted. As geopolitical tensions rise—evident in the Chinese firms’ lag—Musk’s tease could spur investment and talent wars.

Advertisement

Yet, it also invites scrutiny: Will xAI deliver, or is this another telescope-needed mirage? In an industry where timelines slip but stakes soar, Musk’s words keep the spotlight on xAI’s ambitious path forward.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla Terafab set for launch: Inside the $20B AI chip factory that will reshape the auto industry

Tesla set to launch “Terafab Project: A vertically integrated chip fabrication effort combining logic processing, memory, and advanced packaging.

Published

on

By

Tesla is making one of the boldest bets in its history. On March 14, Elon Musk posted on X that the “Terafab Project launches in 7 days,” pointing to March 21, 2026 as the start date for what he has described as a vertically integrated chip fabrication effort combining logic processing, memory, and advanced packaging.

Tesla first confirmed Terafab on its January 28, 2026 earnings call, where Musk told investors the company needs to build a chip fabrication facility to avoid a supply constraint projected to materialize within three to four years. But the seeds were planted even earlier. At Tesla’s annual general meeting last year, Musk warned that even in the best-case scenario for chip production from their suppliers, it still wouldn’t be enough, and declared that building a “gigantic chip fab” simply had to be done.

While there has been no official announcement on where Tesla plans to break ground on the massive Terafab, all signs point to the North Campus of Giga Texas in Austin.

Months of speculation has surrounded Tesla’s North Campus expansion at Giga Texas, where drone footage captured by observer Joe Tegtmeyer revealed massive construction site preparation just north of the existing factory on a scale that rivals the original Giga Texas footprint itself.

Advertisement

Samsung’s Tesla AI5/AI6 chip factory to start key equipment tests in March: report

The project is projected to produce 100–200 billion AI and memory chips annually, targeting 100,000 wafer starts per month, at an estimated cost of $20 billion. Tesla is targeting 2-nanometre process technology and anticipated to be the most advanced node currently in commercial production. Dubbed the Tesla AI5 chip, the chip will pack 40x–50x more compute performance and 9x more memory than AI4, and will be among the first products Terafab factory is set to produce. This highly optimized, and massively powerful inference chip is designed to make full self-driving (FSD) and Tesla’s Optimus robots faster, safer, and with full autonomy.

tesla-optimus-pilot-production-line

(Credit: Tesla)

This is where Terafab becomes a genuine game-changer. If Tesla successfully builds a 2nm chip fab at scale, it becomes one of only a handful of entities that’s capable of producing AI silicon in-house, with competitive implications that extend far beyond Tesla’s own vehicles, and potentially positioning Tesla as a chip supplier or licensor to other industries.

The next-gen Tesla AI chips will power advancements in Full Self-Driving software, the Cybercab Robotaxi program, and the Optimus humanoid robot line. Musk’s projections for Optimus require chip volumes that no existing external supplier can commit to on Tesla’s timeline.Competitors like Waymo and GM’s Cruise remain dependent on third-party silicon, leaving them exposed to the same supply chain vulnerabilities Tesla is now working to eliminate entirely.

The Terafab launch this week may not mean a factory opens its doors overnight, but it signals Tesla is serious about owning the entire AI stack, from software to silicon.

Advertisement
Continue Reading