Connect with us

News

DeepSpace: Europe reveals Mars sample return spacecraft as SpaceX builds Starships

Published

6 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

Elon Musk

Elon Musk is now a remote DOGE worker: White House Chief of Staff

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is no longer working from the West Wing.

Published

12 hours ago

on

April 30, 2025

By

Credit: Elon Musk/X

In a conversation with the New York Post, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles stated that Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is no longer working from the West Wing.

As per the Chief of Staff, Musk is still working for DOGE—as a remote worker, at least.

Remote Musk

In her conversation with the publication, Wiles stated that she still talks with Musk. And while the CEO is now working remotely, his contributions still have the same net effect. 

“Instead of meeting with him in person, I’m talking to him on the phone, but it’s the same net effect,” Wiles stated, adding that “it really doesn’t matter much” that the CEO “hasn’t been here physically.” She also noted that Musk’s team will not be leaving.

“He’s not out of it altogether. He’s just not physically present as much as he was. The people that are doing this work are here doing good things and paying attention to the details. He’ll be stepping back a little, but he’s certainly not abandoning it. And his people are definitely not,” Wiles stated.

Advertisement

Back to Tesla

Musk has been a frequent presence in the White House during the Trump administration’s first 100 days in office. But during the Q1 2025 Tesla earnings call, Musk stated that he would be spending substantially less time with DOGE and substantially more time with Tesla. Musk did emphasize, however, that DOGE’s work is extremely valuable and critical.

“I think I’ll continue to spend a day or two per week on government matters for as long as the President would like me to do so and as long as it is useful. But starting next month, I’ll be allocating probably more of my time to Tesla and now that the major work of establishing the Department of Government Efficiency is done,” Musk stated.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tariff reprieve might be ‘Tesla-friendly,’ but it’s also an encouragement to others

Tesla stands to benefit from the tariff reprieve, but it has some work cut out for it as well.

Published

13 hours ago

on

April 30, 2025

By

tesla employee
(Photo: Tesla)

After Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick made adjustments to the automotive tariff program that was initially announced, many quickly pointed to the reprieve as “Tesla-friendly.”

While that may be the case right now, it was also a nudge of encouragement to other companies, Tesla included, to source parts from the U.S. in an effort to strengthen domestic manufacturing. Many companies are close, and it will only take a handful of improvements to save themselves from tariffs on their cars as well.

Yesterday, Sec. Lutnick confirmed that cars manufactured with at least 85 percent of domestic content will face zero tariffs. Additionally, U.S. automakers would receive credit up to 15 percent of the value of vehicles to offset the cost of imported parts.

Big Tesla win? Sec Lutnick says cars with 85% domestic content will face zero tariffs

“This is ‘finish your cars in America and you win’,” Lutnick said.

Many were quick to point out that only three vehicles currently qualify for this zero-tariff threshold: all three are Teslas.

However, according to Kelley Blue Book’s most recent study that revealed who makes the most American cars, there are a lot of vehicles that are extremely close to also qualifying for these tariff reductions.

Tesla has three vehicles that are within five percent, while Ford, Honda, Jeep, Chevrolet, GMC, and Volkswagen have many within just ten percent of the threshold.

Tesla completely dominates Kogod School’s 2024 Made in America Auto Index

It is within reach for many.

Right now, it is easy to see why some people might think this is a benefit for Tesla and Tesla only.

But it’s not, because Tesla has its Cybertruck, Model S, and Model X just a few percentage points outside of that 85 percent cutoff. They, too, will feel the effects of the broader strategy that the Trump administration is using to prioritize domestic manufacturing and employment. More building in America means more jobs for Americans.

Credit: Tesla

However, other companies that are very close to the 85 percent cutoff are only a few components away from also saving themselves the hassle of the tariffs.

Ford has the following vehicles within just five percent of the 85 percent threshold:

  • Ford Mustang GT automatic (80%)
  • Ford Mustang GT 5.0 (80%)
  • Ford Mustang GT Coupe Premium (80%)

Honda has several within ten percent:

  • Honda Passport All-Wheel-Drive (76.5%)
  • Honda Passport Trailsport (76.5)

Jeep has two cars:

  • Jeep Wrangler Rubicon (76%)
  • Jeep Wrangler Sahara (76%)

Volkswagen has one with the ID.4 AWD 82-kWh (75.5%). GMC has two at 75.5% with the Canyon AT4 Crew Cab 4WD and the Canyon Denali Crew Cab 4WD.

Chevrolet has several:

  • Chevrolet Colorado 2.7-liter (75.5%)
  • Chevrolet Colorado LT Crew Cab 2WD 2.7-liter (75.5%)
  • Chevrolet Colorado Z71 Crew Cab 4WD 2.7-liter (75.5%)

These companies are close to reaching the 85% threshold, but adjustments need to be made to work toward that number.

Anything from seats to fabric to glass can be swapped out for American-made products, making these cars more domestically sourced and thus qualifying them for the zero-tariff boundary.

Frank DuBois of American University said that manufacturers like to see stability in their relationships with suppliers and major trade partners. He said that Trump’s tariff plan could cause “a period of real instability,” but it will only be temporary.

Now is the time to push American manufacturing forward, solidifying a future with more U.S.-made vehicles and creating more domestic jobs. Tesla will also need to scramble to make adjustments to its vehicles that are below 85%.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Cybertruck RWD production in full swing at Giga Texas

Videos of several freshly produced Cybertruck LR RWD units were shared on social media platform X.

Published

13 hours ago

on

April 30, 2025

By

Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer/X

It appears that Tesla is indeed ramping the production of the Cybertruck Long Range Rear Wheel Drive (LR RWD), the most affordable variant of the brutalist all-electric pickup truck.

Videos of several freshly produced Cybertruck LR RWD units were shared on social media platform X.

Giga Texas Footage

As per longtime Tesla watcher Joe Tegtmeyer, Giga, Texas, was a hotbed of activity when he conducted his recent drone flyover. Apart from what seemed to be Cybercab castings being gathered in the complex, a good number of Cybertruck LR RWD units could also be seen in the facility’s staging area. The Cybertruck LR RWD units are quite easy to spot since they are not equipped with the motorized tonneau cover that is standard on the Cybertruck AWD and Cyberbeast.

The presence of the Cybertruck LR RWD units in Giga Texas’ staging area suggests that Tesla is ramping the production of the base all-electric pickup truck. This bodes well for the vehicle, which is still premium priced despite missing a good number of features that are standard in the Cybertruck AWD and Cyberbeast.

Cybertruck Long Range RWD Specs

The Cybertruck LR RWD is priced at $69,990 before incentives, making it $10,000 more affordable than the Cybertruck AWD. For its price, the Cybertruck Long Range RWD offers a range of 350 miles per charge if equipped with its 18” standard Wheels. It can also add up to 147 miles of range in 15 minutes using a Tesla Supercharger.

Advertisement

Much of the cost-cutting measures taken by Tesla are evident in the cabin of the Cybertruck LR RWD. This could be seen in its textile seats, standard console, seven-speaker audio system with no active noise cancellation, and lack of a 9.4” second-row display. It is also missing the motorized tonneau cover, the 2x 120V and 1x 240V power outlets on the bed, and the 2x 120V power outlets in the cabin. It is also equipped with an adaptive coil spring suspension instead of the adaptive air suspension in the Cybertruck AWD and Cyberbeast.

Continue Reading

Trending