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

Cybertruck

Tesla Cybertruck undergoes interior mod that many owners wanted

Published

24 minutes ago

on

January 3, 2026

By

tesla cybertruck diy bench seat
Credit: @blueskykites | X

Tesla Cybertruck is significantly different from traditional pickups on the market in a lot of ways. However, one feature that was recently modified with its interior was a highly requested characteristic that is present in other trucks, but was void from Cybertruck.

Tesla went with a five-seat configuration with Cybertruck: two in the front and three in the back. The spacious interior is matched with plenty of storage, especially up front, as a pass-through, center console, and other storage options, but some Tesla fans wanted something different: bench seating.

Bench seating is popular in many full-size pickups and allows three passengers to sit up front. The middle seat is usually accompanied by a fold-down storage unit with cupholders.

Tesla decided to opt for no bench seating up front, despite the fact that it equipped bench seating in the unveiling in 2019. Interior photos from the unveiling event from nearly six-and-a-half years ago show Tesla had originally planned to have a six-seat configuration.

This was adjusted after the company refined the design:

Advertisement
-->
tesla cybertruck initial interior

(Tesla Cybertruck interior configuration in 2019)

Despite Tesla abandoning this design, it does not mean owners were willing to accept it. One owner decided to modify their Tesla Cybertruck interior to equip that third seat between the driver’s and passenger’s thrones.

The fit is snug, and while it looks great, it is important to remember that this does not abide byregulations, as it would require an airbag to be technically legal. Please do not do this at home with your own Cybertruck:

The Cybertruck is a popular vehicle in terms of publicity, but its sales have been underwhelming since first delivered to customers back in 2023. It’s hard to believe it’s been out for two-and-a-half years, but despite this, Tesla has not been able to come through on its extensive order sheet.

This is mostly due to price, as Cybertruck was simply not as affordable as Tesla originally planned. Its three configurations were initially priced at $39,990, $49,990, and $69,990. At release, Cybertruck was priced above $100,000.

This priced out many of those who had placed orders, which is the main reason Cybertruck has not lived up to its expectations in terms of sales. The adjustments to the specific features, like the removal of the bench seat, likely did not impact sales as much as pricing did.

This modification shows some creativity by Tesla owners, but also shows that the Cybertruck could always be the subject of a potential refresh to include some of these features. Tesla routinely adjusts its vehicle designs every few years, so maybe the Cybertruck could get something like this if it chooses to refresh its all-electric pickup.

Advertisement
-->

 

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla CEO Elon Musk drops massive bomb about Cybercab

“And there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface,” Musk said.

Published

21 hours ago

on

January 2, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla CEO Elon Musk dropped a massive bomb about the Cybercab, which is the company’s fully autonomous ride-hailing vehicle that will enter production later this year.

The Cybercab was unveiled back in October 2024 at the company’s “We, Robot” event in Los Angeles, and is among the major catalysts for the company’s growth in the coming years. It is expected to push Tesla into a major growth phase, especially as the automaker is transitioning into more of an AI and Robotics company than anything else.

The Cybercab will enable completely autonomous ride-hailing for Tesla, and although its other vehicles will also be capable of this technology, the Cybercab is slightly different. It will have no steering wheel or pedals, and will allow two occupants to travel from Point A to Point B with zero responsibilities within the car.

Tesla shares epic 2025 recap video, confirms start of Cybercab production

Details on the Cybercab are pretty face value at this point: we know Tesla is enabling 1-2 passengers to ride in it at a time, and this strategy was based on statistics that show most ride-hailing trips have no more than two occupants. It will also have in-vehicle entertainment options accessible from the center touchscreen.

Advertisement
-->

It will also have wireless charging capabilities, which were displayed at “We, Robot,” and there could be more features that will be highly beneficial to riders, offering a full-fledged autonomous experience.

Musk dropped a big hint that there is much more to the Cybercab than what we know, as a post on X said that “there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface.”

As the Cybercab is expected to enter production later this year, Tesla is surely going to include a handful of things they have not yet revealed to the public.

Advertisement
-->

Musk seems to be indicating that some of the features will make it even more groundbreaking, and the idea is to enable a truly autonomous experience from start to finish for riders. Everything from climate control to emergency systems, and more, should be included with the car.

It seems more likely than not that Tesla will make the Cybercab its smartest vehicle so far, as if its current lineup is not already extremely intelligent, user-friendly, and intuitive.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla Q4 delivery numbers are better than they initially look: analyst

The Deepwater Asset Management Managing Partner shared his thoughts in a post on his website.

Published

22 hours ago

on

January 2, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla Asia/X

Longtime Tesla analyst and Deepwater Asset Management Managing Partner Gene Munster has shared his insights on Tesla’s Q4 2025 deliveries. As per the analyst, Tesla’s numbers are actually better than they first appear. 

Munster shared his thoughts in a post on his website. 

Normalized December Deliveries

Munster noted that Tesla delivered 418k vehicles in the fourth quarter of 2025, slightly below Street expectations of 420k but above the whisper number of 415k. Tesla’s reported 16% year-over-year decline, compared to +7% in September, is largely distorted by the timing of the tax credit expiration, which pulled forward demand.

“Taking a step back, we believe September deliveries pulled forward approximately 55k units that would have otherwise occurred in December or March. For simplicity, we assume the entire pull-forward impacted the December quarter. Under this assumption, September growth would have been down ~5% absent the 55k pull-forward, a Deepwater estimate tied to the credit’s expiration.

“For December deliveries to have declined ~5% year over year would imply total deliveries of roughly 470k. Subtracting the 55k units pulled into September results in an implied December delivery figure of approximately 415k. The reported 418k suggests that, when normalizing for the tax credit timing, quarter-over-quarter growth has been consistently down ~5%. Importantly, this ~5% decline represents an improvement from the ~13% declines seen in both the March and June 2025 quarters.“

Advertisement
-->

Tesla’s United States market share

Munster also estimated that Q4 as a whole might very well show a notable improvement in Tesla’s market share in the United States. 

“Over the past couple of years, based on data from Cox Automotive, Tesla has been losing U.S. EV market share, declining to just under 50%. Based on data for October and November, Cox estimates that total U.S. EV sales were down approximately 35%, compared to Tesla’s just reported down 16% for the full quarter.  For the first two months of the quarter, Cox reported Tesla market share of roughly a 65% share, up from under 50% in the September quarter.

“While this data excludes December, the quarter as a whole is likely to show a material improvement in Tesla’s U.S. EV market share.“

Continue Reading