News

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

Published

6 years ago

May 30, 2019

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

Up Next

Tesla’s built-in cameras help police return convicted felon behind bars

Don't Miss

Tesla’s impending made-in-China Model 3 assault should scare critics

Eric Ralph

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.

Comments

News

Tesla ‘Mad Max’ gets its first bit of regulatory attention

Published

1 hour ago

October 24, 2025

Joey Klender

Credit: Teslarati

Tesla “Mad Max” mode has gotten its first bit of regulatory attention, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has asked for additional information on the Speed Profile.

A few weeks ago, Tesla officially launched a new Speed Profile for Full Self-Driving (Supervised) known as “Mad Max,” which overtook the “Hurry” mode for the fastest setting FSD offers.

Tesla launches ‘Mad Max’ Full Self-Driving Speed Profile, its fastest yet

It launched with Full Self-Driving v14.1.2, and it was no secret that the company was looking for a new mode that would cater to more aggressive driving styles.

The release notes showed the description of the Speed Profile as:

“Introduced new speed profile MAD MAX, which comes with higher speeds and more frequent lane changes than Hurry.”

It certainly lived up to its description. In our testing, it was aggressive, fast, and drove similarly to some of the more challenging traffic patterns I’ve come across.

In normal highway driving, it was one of the quicker cars on the road, while other applications saw it be a suitable version for navigating things like rush-hour traffic.

Here’s what my experience with it was:

🚨 Tesla “Mad Max” testing on FSD v14.1.2
It drives like a human being! Consistent lane changes, keeps up with quicker traffic, very refined
Advertisement

Well done Tesla Team pic.twitter.com/wzTucDhczA
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 19, 2025

While Tesla owners have certainly enjoyed the feature and the behaviors of Mad Max, the NHTSA said it is in contact with Tesla about it, looking to gather additional information. Additionally, it said:

“The human behind the wheel is fully responsible for driving the vehicle and complying with all traffic safety laws.”

The important thing to note with Mad Max mode, along with the other Speed Profiles, is that the driver can choose whichever one they’d like, and they all cater to different driving styles.

While Mad Max is more aggressive, modes like “Sloth” and “Standard” are significantly more conservative and can be more suitable for those who are not comfortable with the faster, more spirited versions.

News

Tesla shares AI5 chip’s ambitious production roadmap details

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has revealed new details about the company’s next-generation AI5 chip, describing it as “an amazing design.”

Published

6 hours ago

October 24, 2025

Simon Alvarez

Image used with permission for Teslarati. (Credit: Tom Cross)

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has revealed new details about the company’s next-generation AI5 chip, describing it as “an amazing design” that could outperform its predecessor by a notable margin. Speaking during Tesla’s Q3 2025 earnings call, Musk outlined how the chip will be manufactured in partnership with both Samsung and TSMC, with production based entirely in the United States.

What makes AI5 special

According to Musk, the AI5 represents a complete evolution of Tesla’s in-house AI hardware, building on lessons learned from the AI4 system currently used in its vehicles and data centers. “By some metrics, the AI5 chip will be 40x better than the AI4 chip, not 40%, 40x,” Musk said during the Q3 2025 earnings call. He credited Tesla’s unique vertical integration for the breakthrough, noting that the company designs both the software and hardware stack for its self-driving systems.

To streamline the new chip, Tesla eliminated several traditional components, including the legacy GPU and image signal processor, since the AI5 architecture already incorporates those capabilities. Musk explained that these deletions allow the chip to fit within a half-reticle design, improving efficiency and power management.

“This is a beautiful chip,” Musk said. “I’ve poured so much life energy into this chip personally, and I’m confident this is going to be a winner.”

Tesla’s dual manufacturing strategy for AI5

Musk confirmed that both Samsung’s Texas facility and TSMC’s Arizona plant will fabricate AI5 chips, with each partner contributing to early production. “It makes sense to have both Samsung and TSMC focus on AI5,” the CEO said, adding that while Samsung has slightly more advanced equipment, both fabs will support Tesla’s U.S.-based production goals.

Tesla’s explicit objective, according to Musk, is to create an oversupply of AI5 chips. The surplus units could be used in Tesla’s vehicles, humanoid robots, or data centers, which already use a mix of AI4 and NVIDIA hardware for training. “We’re not about to replace NVIDIA,” Musk clarified. “But if we have too many AI5 chips, we can always put them in the data center.”

Musk emphasized that Tesla’s focus on designing for a single customer gives it a massive advantage in simplicity and optimization. “NVIDIA… (has to) satisfy a large range of requirements from many customers. Tesla only has to satisfy one customer, Tesla,” he said. This, Musk stressed, allows Tesla to delete unnecessary complexity and deliver what could be the best performance per watt and per dollar in the industry once AI5 production scales.

Energy

Tesla VP hints at Solar Roof comeback with Giga New York push

The comments hint at possible renewed life for the Solar Roof program, which has seen years of slow growth since its 2016 unveiling.

Published

7 hours ago

October 24, 2025

Simon Alvarez

Image Credit: Tesla/Twitter

Tesla’s long-awaited and way underrated Solar Roof may finally be getting its moment. During the company’s Q3 2025 earnings call, Vice President of Energy Engineering Michael Snyder revealed that production of a new residential solar panel has started at Tesla’s Buffalo, New York facility, with shipments to customers beginning in the first quarter of 2026.

The comments hint at possible renewed life for the Solar Roof program, which has seen years of slow growth since its 2016 unveiling.

Tesla Energy’s strong demand

Responding to an investor question about Tesla’s energy backlog, Snyder said demand for Megapack and Powerwall continues to be “really strong” into next year. He also noted positive customer feedback for the company’s new Megablock product, which is expected to start shipping from Houston in 2026.

“We’re seeing remarkable growth in the demand for AI and data center applications as hyperscalers and utilities have seen the versatility of the Megapack product. It increases reliability and relieves grid constraints,” he said.

Snyder also highlighted a “surge in residential solar demand in the US,” attributing the spike to recent policy changes that incentivize home installations. Tesla expects this trend to continue into 2026, helped by the rollout of a new solar lease product that makes adoption more affordable for homeowners.

Possible Solar Roof revival?

Perhaps the most intriguing part of Snyder’s remarks, however, was Tesla’s move to begin production of its “residential solar panel” in Buffalo, New York. He described the new panels as having “industry-leading aesthetics” and shape performance, language Tesla has used to market its Solar Roof tiles in the past.

“We also began production of our Tesla residential solar panel in our Buffalo factory, and we will be shipping that to customers starting Q1. The panel has industry-leading aesthetics and shape performance and demonstrates our continued commitment to US manufacturing,” Snyder said during the Q3 2025 earnings call.

Snyder did not explicitly name the product, though his reference to aesthetics has fueled speculation that Tesla may finally be preparing a large-scale and serious rollout of its Solar Roof line.

Originally unveiled in 2016, the Solar Roof was intended to transform rooftops into clean energy generators without compromising on design. However, despite early enthusiasm, production and installation volumes have remained limited for years. In 2023, a report from Wood Mackenzie claimed that there were only 3,000 operational Solar Roof installations across the United States at the time, far below forecasts. In response, the official Tesla Energy account on X stated that the report was “incorrect by a large margin.”