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
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

Elon Musk

Elon Musk’s Boring Company opens Vegas Loop’s newest station

The Fontainebleau is the latest resort on the Las Vegas Strip to embrace the tunneling startup’s underground transportation system.

Published

2 hours ago

on

January 27, 2026

By

Credit: The Boring Company/X

Elon Musk’s tunneling startup, The Boring Company, has welcomed its newest Vegas Loop station at the Fontainebleau Las Vegas.

The Fontainebleau is the latest resort on the Las Vegas Strip to embrace the tunneling startup’s underground transportation system.

Fontainebleau Loop station

The new Vegas Loop station is located on level V-1 of the Fontainebleau’s south valet area, as noted in a report from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. According to the resort, guests will be able to travel free of charge to the stations serving the Las Vegas Convention Center, as well as to Loop stations in Encore and Westgate.

The Fontainebleau station connects to the Riviera Station, which is located in the northwest parking lot of the convention center’s West Hall. From there, passengers will be able to access the greater Vegas Loop.

Vegas Loop expansion

In December, The Boring Company began offering Vegas Loop rides to and from Harry Reid International Airport. Those trips include a limited above-ground segment, following approval from the Nevada Transportation Authority to allow surface street travel tied to Loop operations.

Under the approval, airport rides are limited to no more than four miles of surface street travel, and each trip must include a tunnel segment. The Vegas Loop currently includes more than 10 miles of tunnels. From this number, about four miles of tunnels are operational.

The Boring Company President Steve Davis previously told the Review-Journal that the University Center Loop segment, which is currently under construction, is expected to open in the first quarter of 2026. That extension would allow Loop vehicles to travel beneath Paradise Road between the convention center and the airport, with a planned station located just north of Tropicana Avenue.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla leases new 108k-sq ft R&D facility near Fremont Factory

The lease adds to Tesla’s presence near its primary California manufacturing hub as the company continues investing in autonomy and artificial intelligence.

Published

2 hours ago

on

January 27, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has expanded its footprint near its Fremont Factory by leasing a 108,000-square-foot R&D facility in the East Bay. 

The lease adds to Tesla’s presence near its primary California manufacturing hub as the company continues investing in autonomy and artificial intelligence.

A new Fremont lease

Tesla will occupy the entire building at 45401 Research Ave. in Fremont, as per real estate services firm Colliers. The transaction stands as the second-largest R&D lease of the fourth quarter, trailing only a roughly 115,000-square-foot transaction by Figure AI in San Jose.

As noted in a Silicon Valley Business Journal report, Tesla’s new Fremont lease was completed with landlord Lincoln Property Co., which owns the facility. Colliers stated that Tesla’s Fremont expansion reflects continued demand from established technology companies that are seeking space for engineering, testing, and specialized manufacturing.

Tesla has not disclosed which of its business units will be occupying the building, though Colliers has described the property as suitable for office and R&D functions. Tesla has not issued a comment about its new Fremont lease as of writing.

AI investments

Silicon Valley remains a key region for automakers as vehicles increasingly rely on software, artificial intelligence, and advanced electronics. Erin Keating, senior director of economics and industry insights at Cox Automotive, has stated that Tesla is among the most aggressive auto companies when it comes to software-driven vehicle development.

Other automakers have also expanded their presence in the area. Rivian operates an autonomy and core technology hub in Palo Alto, while GM maintains an AI center of excellence in Mountain View. Toyota is also relocating its software and autonomy unit to a newly upgraded property in Santa Clara.

Despite these expansions, Colliers has noted that Silicon Valley posted nearly 444,000 square feet of net occupancy losses in Q4 2025, pushing overall vacancy to 11.2%.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla winter weather test: How long does it take to melt 8 inches of snow?

Published

7 hours ago

on

January 26, 2026

By

Credit: Teslarati

In Pennsylvania, we got between 10 and 12 inches of snow over the weekend as a nasty Winter storm ripped through a large portion of the country, bringing snow to some areas and nasty ice storms to others.

I have had a Model Y Performance for the week courtesy of Tesla, which got the car to me last Monday. Today was my last full day with it before I take it back to my local showroom, and with all the accumulation on it, I decided to run a cool little experiment: How long would it take for Tesla’s Defrost feature to melt 8 inches of snow?

Tesla Model Y Performance set for new market entrance in Q1

Tesla’s Defrost feature is one of the best and most underrated that the car has in its arsenal. While every car out there has a defrost setting, Tesla’s can be activated through the Smartphone App and is one of the better-performing systems in my opinion.

It has come in handy a lot through the Fall and Winter, helping clear up my windshield more efficiently while also clearing up more of the front glass than other cars I’ve owned.

The test was simple: don’t touch any of the ice or snow with my ice scraper, and let the car do all the work, no matter how long it took. Of course, it would be quicker to just clear the ice off manually, but I really wanted to see how long it would take.

Tesla Model Y heat pump takes on Model S resistive heating in defrosting showdown

Observations

I started this test at around 10:30 a.m. It was still pretty cloudy and cold out, and I knew the latter portion of the test would get some help from the Sun as it was expected to come out around noon, maybe a little bit after.

I cranked it up and set my iPhone up on a tripod, and activated the Time Lapse feature in the Camera settings.

The rest of the test was sitting and waiting.

It didn’t take long to see some difference. In fact, by the 20-minute mark, there was some notable melting of snow and ice along the sides of the windshield near the A Pillar.

However, this test was not one that was “efficient” in any manner; it took about three hours and 40 minutes to get the snow to a point where I would feel comfortable driving out in public. In no way would I do this normally; I simply wanted to see how it would do with a massive accumulation of snow.

It did well, but in the future, I’ll stick to clearing it off manually and using the Defrost setting for clearing up some ice before the gym in the morning.

Check out the video of the test below:

Continue Reading