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 to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report

Tesla has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.

Published

37 minutes ago

on

March 4, 2026

By

Tesla-Chips-HW3-1
Credit: Tom Cross

Tesla is reportedly discussing an expansion of its next-generation AI chip supply deal with Samsung Electronics. 

As per a report from Korean industry outlet The Elec, Tesla purchasing executives are reportedly scheduled to meet Samsung officials this week to negotiate additional production volume for the company’s upcoming AI6 chip.

Industry sources cited in the report stated that Tesla is pushing to increase the production volume of its AI6 chip, which will be manufactured using Samsung’s 2-nanometer process.

Tesla previously signed a long-term foundry agreement with Samsung covering AI6 production through December 31, 2033. The deal was reportedly valued at about 22.8 trillion won (roughly $16–17 billion).

Advertisement

Under the existing agreement, Tesla secured approximately 16,000 wafers per month from the facility. The company has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.

Tesla purchasing executives are expected to discuss detailed supply terms during their visit to Samsung this week.

The AI6 chip is expected to support several Tesla technologies. Industry sources stated that the chip could be used for the company’s Full Self-Driving system, the Optimus humanoid robot, and Tesla’s internal AI data centers.

The report also indicated that AI6 clusters could replace the role previously planned for Tesla’s Dojo AI supercomputer. Instead of a single system, multiple AI6 chips would be combined into server-level clusters.

Advertisement

Tesla’s semiconductor collaboration with Samsung dates back several years. Samsung participated in the design of Tesla’s HW3 (AI3) chip and manufactured it using a 14-nanometer process. The HW4 chip currently used in Tesla vehicles was also produced by Samsung using a 5-nanometer node.

Tesla previously planned to split production of its AI5 chip between Samsung and TSMC. However, the company reportedly chose Samsung as the primary partner for the newer AI6 chip.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk: Tesla could be first to build AGI in humanoid form

Musk’s statement was shared in a post on social media platform X.  

Published

1 hour ago

on

March 4, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

Elon Musk predicted that Tesla could become one of the developers of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in humanoid form. Musk’s statement was shared in a post on social media platform X.  

In his post, Musk stated that “Tesla will be one of the companies to make AGI and probably the first to make it in humanoid/atom-shaping form.”

The comment comes as Tesla expands development of its Optimus humanoid robot.

During Tesla’s Q4 earnings report, Elon Musk stated that production of the Model S and Model X would be phased out at its Fremont, California, facility. The vehicles’ production line will then be converted to a pilot line for Optimus. Tesla is looking to produce 1 million units of the humanoid robots annually to start.

Advertisement

Musk has previously stated that Optimus could eventually function as a von Neumann probe. The concept, proposed by mathematician John von Neumann, describes a machine capable of replicating itself using planetary resources and sending those replicas to other worlds.

Optimus would likely only be able to achieve this potential if it manages to achieve Artificial General Intelligence.

Other leaders in the AI sector have also expressed strong expectations about AGI’s potential. Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, recently spoke about the technology at the India AI Impact Summit 2026, as noted in a Benzinga report.

“It’s going to be something like ten times the impact of the Industrial Revolution, but happening at ten times the speed,” Hassabis said.

Advertisement

Elon Musk’s recent comments about Tesla producing a product with AGI could hint at further collaboration among his companies. So far, Tesla is actively pursuing autonomous driving, but it is xAI that is pursuing AGI with its Grok program.

Considering that Elon Musk mentioned a Tesla humanoid product with AGI, it appears that an Optimus robot running xAI’s AI models could become a reality.

xAI had recently merged with SpaceX, though reports suggest that Elon Musk is also considering an even bigger merger for all his companies, including Tesla.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla influencers argue company’s polarizing Full Self-Driving transfer decision

Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”

Published

18 hours ago

on

March 3, 2026

By

Tesla’s decision to tighten its Full Self-Driving (FSD) transfer promotion has ignited fierce debate among owners and enthusiasts.

The company quietly updated its terms in late February 2026, changing the eligibility from “order by March 31, 2026” to “take delivery by March 31, 2026.”

What began as a flexible incentive to boost sales, allowing buyers to transfer their paid FSD (Supervised) to a new vehicle, now excludes many, particularly Cybertruck owners facing delivery delays into summer or later.

Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”

The reversal has polarized the Tesla community, with accusations of a “bait-and-switch” clashing against defenses of corporate pragmatism. Many owners who placed orders under the original wording feel betrayed, especially as production backlogs and new unsupervised FSD rollout complicate timelines.

However, Tesla has allowed them to cancel their orders and receive a refund.

Critics of the decision argue that the change disadvantages loyal customers who helped fund FSD development, calling it poor communication and a revenue grab as Tesla pivots toward subscriptions.

Popular influencers have amplified the divide. Whole Mars Catalog struck a measured but firm tone, acknowledging the original “order by” language but emphasizing Tesla’s right to adjust terms. He has continued to defend Tesla in this particular issue:

He criticized extreme backlash as “dramatization” and “spoiled kids,” noting the unsupervised FSD era and broader sales challenges make blanket transfers financially risky. Whole Mars advocated for polite outreach to CEO Elon Musk over the issue.

In a contrasting perspective, Dirty TesLA voiced sharper frustration, posting that blocking transfers feels “crazy” and distancing himself from “people that want to worship a corporation and say they can do no wrong.” His stance resonated with owners who view the policy flip as disrespectful to early adopters.

Popular Tesla influencer Sawyer Merritt captured the frustration felt by thousands. In a widely shared thread viewed over 700,000 times, Merritt detailed how pre-change Cybertruck orders now risk losing FSD eligibility unless their initial delivery window falls before March 31.

The controversy underscores deeper tensions—between Tesla’s need for revenue discipline and owners’ expectations of goodwill. As FSD evolves toward unsupervised capability, the community remains split: some see the change as necessary business, others as a broken promise. Whether Tesla reconsiders under pressure or holds firm remains to be seen, but it does not appear they are planning to budge.

Continue Reading