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?

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
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 Semi gets strange-but-understandable comparison from Jay Leno

In a recent interview with MotorTrend, legendary comedian and automotive enthusiast Jay Leno shared his impressions after driving Tesla’s long-range Semi truck, offering one of the most vivid descriptions to date:

Published

3 hours ago

on

May 9, 2026

By

Credit: Jay Leno's Garage

The Tesla Semi recently received a strange-but-understandable comparison from automotive enthusiast and former long-time late-night television show host Jay Leno.

In a recent interview with MotorTrend, legendary comedian and automotive enthusiast Jay Leno shared his impressions after driving Tesla’s long-range Semi truck, offering one of the most vivid descriptions to date:

“It’s like driving an office building.”

The comparison may seem quirky—office buildings evoke images of immobility rather than motion—but it aptly conveys the experience of commanding a massive 23,000-pound Class 8 electric truck that delivers sports-car acceleration.

Advertisement

Lenotested the production-spec Long Range model, which is rated for up to 500 miles of range. He was visibly impressed by its performance, noting how the enormous vehicle moves with surprising urgency.

“It’s as fast as a Tesla, but it’s like driving an office building,” he remarked. “It’s this huge thing that moves like right now. You go 500 miles. You get 60% charge in 30 minutes. You’re saving on fuel costs. It seems quite good.”

The reaction highlights the cognitive dissonance at the core of the Tesla Semi. Traditional diesel semi-trucks are slow, noisy, and expensive to run. The Semi rewrites the rules with instant torque from its tri-motor electric powertrain, producing up to 800 kW.

Despite its size, the truck feels agile thanks to full electric steering assist, upgraded actuators borrowed from the Cybertruck, and a 48-volt electrical architecture that improves responsiveness and efficiency.

Tesla reports real-world energy consumption below 1.7 kWh per mile for the Long Range version. Megacharger stations can deliver a 60% charge in roughly 30 minutes, making the truck suitable for long-haul operations.

Advertisement

Additional features include an electric Power Take-Off (ePTO) capable of 25 kW for trailer refrigeration or other equipment, and a driver-focused cab with a central seating position for optimal visibility and a quiet, high-tech interior.

Fleet operators stand to benefit significantly from the economics. Diesel trucks often cost nearly one dollar per mile when including fuel, maintenance, and downtime.

Tesla projects the Semi can reduce operating costs to as low as 15 cents per mile through cheaper electricity, regenerative braking that minimizes brake wear, and reduced service requirements. While early deployments, like Pepsi’s, focused on shorter routes, the 500-mile variant targets cross-country applications.

Obstacles remain. A fully loaded tractor-trailer can reach 80,000 pounds, which reduces real-world range compared to the unloaded test conditions. Building out a nationwide Megacharger network will be essential for broader adoption. The Semi also carries a higher upfront price than conventional diesels, though total cost of ownership and available incentives frequently tip the scales in its favor over time.

Advertisement

Tesla Semi hauls fresh Cybercab batch as Robotaxi era takes hold

Leno’s “office building” description resonates because it captures the unexpected thrill of piloting something so large yet so capable. As the trucking industry faces pressure to cut emissions and control rising fuel expenses, the Semi offers a compelling alternative that excels in performance, comfort, and efficiency.

Coming from a man who has driven everything from vintage classics to modern hypercars, Leno’s genuine enthusiasm adds weight to the verdict.

The Tesla Semi is emerging as more than an experimental EV—it represents a practical vision for the future of heavy-duty transport where massive rigs accelerate instantly, and the numbers finally make sense. If fleet results continue to validate the claims, the era of diesel dominance could be drawing to a close.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla expands its mass-market color palette in the U.S.

Delivering a fresh splash of color to its lineup, Tesla is giving U.S. buyers two stunning new blue options that are already turning heads.

Published

3 hours ago

on

May 9, 2026

By

Credit: Brand0n | X

Tesla has expanded the color palette it offers on its mass market vehicles in the United States, giving buyers of the Model 3 and Model Y a few additional options than before.

Delivering a fresh splash of color to its lineup, Tesla is giving U.S. buyers two stunning new blue options that are already turning heads. Starting on May 8, the automaker updated its North American configurator to introduce Marine Blue on Model Y Premium trims and Frost Blue exclusively on the Model 3 Performance.

The move replaces the long-running Deep Blue Metallic, a staple for over eight years, and brings previously exclusive shades stateside.

Marine Blue, a deep, rich oceanic hue formerly limited to Europe and Asia-Pacific markets, is now available on Model 3 and Model Y RWD and Long Range AWD Premium variants. Priced at a $1,000 upgrade—standard for Tesla’s premium paints—it delivers a sophisticated, metallic finish that shifts beautifully under light.

Tesla North America highlighted the change directly in an official post, confirming Marine Blue as the new flagship blue for non-Performance models.

Frost Blue, on the other hand, is the real crowd-pleaser for enthusiasts. Previously reserved for the flagship Model S and Model X, this lighter, icy metallic shade is now offered at no extra cost on Model 3 Performance and Model Y Performance trims.

Advertisement

Performance buyers effectively get a premium color included in the base price, a smart perk that Tesla has extended to higher-end variants across the board. Early in-person sightings and configurator renders show Frost Blue’s cool, modern vibe popping against the cars’ sleek lines, especially with black wheels and red brake calipers.

The timing couldn’t be better. With Tesla pushing refreshed Model 3 and Model Y refreshes amid growing competition, these updates add visual excitement without major redesigns.

Advertisement

Deep Blue Metallic orders are being transitioned to the new shades, according to customer reports and Tesla communications. In the U.S., Puerto Rico, and Mexico, the options are live now; Canada sees limited Frost Blue availability on the Model 3 Performance.

Tesla’s color strategy continues to evolve, borrowing from higher-end models to refresh mass-market EVs. Now that we bid farewell to the Model S and Model X, some of their colors might be available on the more widely available Model 3 and Model Y.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators

A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.

Published

1 day ago

on

May 7, 2026

By

A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.

The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.

Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:

Tesla Semi Spec Long Range Standard Range
Battery Capacity 822 kWh 548 kWh
Battery Chemistry NCMA Li-Ion NCMA Li-Ion
Peak Motor Power 800 kW 525 kW
Estimated Range ~500 miles ~325 miles
Efficiency ~1.7 kWh/mile ~1.7 kWh/mile
Est. Price ~$290,000 ~$260,000
GVW Rating 82,000 lbs 82,000 lbs

The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.

Advertisement

Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.

Continue Reading