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

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 rolls out most aggressive Model Y lease deal in the US yet

With the promotion in place, customers would be able to take home a Model Y at a very low cost.

Published

6 hours ago

November 15, 2025

Simon Alvarez

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla has rolled out what could very well be its most aggressive promotion for Model Y leases in the United States yet. With the promotion in place, customers would be able to take home a Model Y at a very low cost.

Zero downpayment leases

The new Model Y lease promotion was initially reported on X, with industry watcher Sawyer Merritt stating that while the vehicles’ monthly payments are still similar to before, the cars can now be ordered with a $0 downpayment.

Tesla community members noted that this promotion would cut the full payment cost of Model Y leases by several thousand dollars, though prices were still a bit better when the $7,500 federal tax credit was still in effect. Despite this, a $0 downpayment would likely be appreciated by customers, as it lowers the entry point to the Tesla ecosystem by a notable margin.

NEWS: Tesla has just effectively lowered U.S. Model Y lease prices by $3,000 by eliminating the down payment. The starting monthly price stays the same at $479/mo, but now you can get that with $0 down (vs $3k before).

Plus, every new lease includes one free upgrade — your… pic.twitter.com/roT6dAZwRf— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) November 15, 2025

Premium freebies included

Apart from a $0 downpayment, customers of Model Y leases are also provided one free upgrade for their vehicles. These upgrades could be premium paint, such as Pearl White Multi-Coat, Deep Blue Metallic, Diamond Black, Quicksilver or Ultra Red, or 20″ Helix 2.0 Wheels. Customers could also opt for a White Interior or a Tow Hitch free of charge.

A look at Tesla’s Model Y order page shows that the promotion is available for all the Model Y Premium Rear-Wheel Drive and the Model Y Premium All-Wheel Drive. The Model Y Standard and the Model Y Performance are not eligible for the $0 downpayment or free premium upgrade promotion as of writing.

@teslarati 🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.1.7 is here and here’s some things it did extremely well! #tesla #teslafsd #fullselfdriving ♬ You Have It – Marscott

News

Tesla is looking to phase out China-made parts at US factories: report

Tesla has reportedly swapped out several China-made components already, aiming to complete the transition within the next two years.

Published

6 hours ago

November 15, 2025

Simon Alvarez

(Source: Tesla)

Tesla has reportedly started directing its suppliers to eliminate China-made components from vehicles built in the United States. This would make Tesla’s US-produced vehicles even more American-made.

The update was initially reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Accelerating North American sourcing

As per the WSJ report, the shift reportedly came amidst escalating tariff uncertainties between Washington and Beijing. Citing people reportedly familiar with the matter, the publication claimed that Tesla has already swapped out several China-made components, aiming to complete the transition within the next two years. The publication also claimed that Tesla has been reducing its reliance on China-based suppliers since the pandemic disrupted supply chains.

The company has quietly increased North American sourcing over the past two years as tariff concerns have intensified. If accurate, Tesla would likely end up with vehicles that are even more locally sourced than they are today. It would remain to be seen, however, if a change in suppliers for its US-made vehicles would result in price adjustments for cars like the Model 3 and Model Y.

Industry-wide reassessments

Tesla is not alone in reevaluating its dependence on China. Auto executives across the automotive industry have been in rapid-response mode amid shifting trade policies, chip supply anxiety, and concerns over rare-earth materials. Fluctuating tariffs between the United States and China during President Donald Trump’s current term have made pricing strategies quite unpredictable as well, as noted in a Reuters report.

General Motors this week issued a similar directive to thousands of suppliers, instructing them to remove China-origin components from their supply chains. The same is true for Stellantis, which also announced earlier this year that it was implementing several strategies to avoid tariffs that were placed by the Trump administration.

@teslarati 🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.1.7 is here and here’s some things it did extremely well! #tesla #teslafsd #fullselfdriving ♬ You Have It – Marscott

News

Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit

“100%. It’s needed for sales because for many prospective buyers, CarPlay is a nonnegotiable must-have. If they knew how good the Tesla UI is, they wouldn’t think they need CarPlay,” one owner said.

Published

1 day ago

November 14, 2025

Joey Klender

Credit: Tesla Raj/YouTube

Tesla is reportedly bracing for the integration of Apple’s well-known iOS automotive platform, CarPlay, into its vehicles after the company had avoided it for years.

However, now that it’s here, owners are more than clear that they do not want it, and they have their theories about why it’s on its way. Some believe it might have to do with the EV tax credit, or rather, the loss of it.

Owners are more interested in why Tesla is doing this now, especially considering that so many have been outspoken about the fact that they would not use it in favor of the company’s user interface (UI), which is extremely well done.

After Bloomberg reported that Tesla was working on Apple CarPlay integration, the reactions immediately started pouring in. From my perspective, having used both Apple CarPlay in two previous vehicles and going to Tesla’s in-house UI in my Model Y, both platforms definitely have their advantages.

However, Tesla’s UI just works with its vehicles, as it is intuitive and well-engineered for its cars specifically. Apple CarPlay was always good, but it was buggy at times, which could be attributed to the vehicle and not the software, and not as user-friendly, but that is subjective.

Nevertheless, upon the release of Bloomberg’s report, people immediately challenged the need for it:

Everyone thinks they need it. I would think that too if I didn’t know how good Tesla’s interface was. CarPlay is a crappy layer on top of crappy info-navs, and people think it’s an imperative because it provides a level of consistency from car to car. They have no clue how much…

— Rich Stafford (@r26174_rich) November 14, 2025

How can it not be when the best engineers choose Tesla over Apple and Tesla’s core focus is auto vs Apple being mobile. It’s what Tesla does every day. It’s a side project for Apple. Still Apple is much better than any other auto OEM who attract lesser talent and make digital…

— Emu (@confessedemu) November 14, 2025

Some fans proposed an interesting point: What if Tesla is using CarPlay as a counter to losing the $7,500 EV tax credit? Perhaps it is an interesting way to attract customers who have not owned a Tesla before but are more interested in having a vehicle equipped with CarPlay?

Tesla has made a handful of moves to attract people to its cars after losing the tax credit. This could be a small but potentially mighty strategy that will pull some carbuyers to Tesla, especially now that the Apple CarPlay box is checked.