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

News

Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges

“Rather than spending billions more on large EVs that now have no path to profitability, we are allocating that money into higher returning areas, more trucks and van hybrids, extended range electric vehicles, affordable EVs, and entirely new opportunities like energy storage.”

Published

5 hours ago

on

December 15, 2025

By

Credit: Ford Motor Co.

Ford is canceling the all-electric F-150 Lightning and also announced it would take a $19.5 billion charge as it aims to quickly restructure its strategy regarding electrification efforts, a massive blow for the Detroit-based company that was once one of the most gung-ho on transitioning to EVs.

The announcement comes as the writing on the wall seemed to get bolder and more identifiable. Ford was bleeding money in EVs and, although it had a lot of success with the all-electric Lightning, it is aiming to push its efforts elsewhere.

It will also restructure its entire strategy on EVs, and the Lightning is not the only vehicle getting the boot. The T3 pickup, a long-awaited vehicle that was developed in part of a skunkworks program, is also no longer in the company’s plans.

Instead of continuing on with its large EVs, it will now shift its focus to hybrids and “extended-range EVs,” which will have an onboard gasoline engine to increase traveling distance, according to the Wall Street Journal.

“Ford no longer plans to produce select larger electric vehicles where the business case has eroded due to lower-than-expected demand, high costs, and regulatory changes,” the company said in a statement.

Advertisement
-->

While unfortunate, especially because the Lightning was a fantastic electric truck, Ford is ultimately a business, and a business needs to make money.

Advertisement
-->

Ford has lost $13 billion on its EV business since 2023, and company executives are more than aware that they gave it plenty of time to flourish.

Andrew Frick, President of Ford, said:

“Rather than spending billions more on large EVs that now have no path to profitability, we are allocating that money into higher returning areas, more trucks and van hybrids, extended range electric vehicles, affordable EVs, and entirely new opportunities like energy storage.”

CEO Jim Farley also commented on the decision:

“Instead of plowing billions into the future knowing these large EVs will never make money, we are pivoting.”

Advertisement
-->

Farley also said that the company now knows enough about the U.S. market “where we have a lot more certainty in this second inning.”

Continue Reading

News

SpaceX shades airline for seeking contract with Amazon’s Starlink rival

Published

11 hours ago

on

December 15, 2025

By

Credit: Richard Angle

SpaceX employees, including its CEO Elon Musk, shaded American Airlines on social media this past weekend due to the company’s reported talks with Amazon’s Starlink rival, Leo.

Starlink has been adopted by several airlines, including United Airlines, Qatar Airways, Hawaiian Airlines, WestJet, Air France, airBaltic, and others. It has gained notoriety as an extremely solid, dependable, and reliable option for airline travel, as traditional options frequently cause users to lose connection to the internet.

Many airlines have made the switch, while others continue to mull the options available to them. American Airlines is one of them.

A report from Bloomberg indicates the airline is thinking of going with a Starlink rival owned by Amazon, called Leo. It was previously referred to as Project Kuiper.

American CEO Robert Isom said (via Bloomberg):

Advertisement
-->

“While there’s Starlink, there are other low-Earth-orbit satellite opportunities that we can look at. We’re making sure that American is going to have what our customers need.”

Isom also said American has been in touch with Amazon about installing Leo on its aircraft, but he would not reveal the status of any discussions with the company.

The report caught the attention of Michael Nicolls, the Vice President of Starlink Engineering at SpaceX, who said:

“Only fly on airlines with good connectivity… and only one source of good connectivity at the moment…”

CEO Elon Musk replied to Nicolls by stating that American Airlines risks losing “a lot of customers if their connectivity solution fails.”

Advertisement
-->

There are over 8,000 Starlink satellites in orbit currently, offering internet coverage in over 150 countries and territories globally. SpaceX expands its array of satellites nearly every week with launches from California and Florida, aiming to offer internet access to everyone across the globe.

SpaceX successfully launches 100th Starlink mission of 2025

Currently, the company is focusing on expanding into new markets, such as Africa and Asia.

Advertisement
-->
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Model Y Standard stuns in new range test, besting its Premium siblings

Tesla’s newer vehicles have continued to meet or exceed their EPA estimates. This is a drastic change, as every 2018-2023 model year Tesla that Edmunds assessed did not meet its range estimates.

Published

13 hours ago

on

December 15, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

The Tesla Model Y Standard stunned in a new range test performed by automotive media outlet Edmunds, besting all of its Premium siblings that are more expensive and more luxurious in terms of features.

Testing showed the Model Y Standard exceeded its EPA-estimated range rating of 321 miles, as Edmunds said it is the “longest-range Model Y that we’ve ever put on our loop.” In the past, some vehicles have come up short in comparison with EPA ranges; for example, the Model Y’s previous generation vehicle had an EPA-estimated range of 330 miles, but only drove 310.

Additionally, the Launch Series Model Y, the first configuration to be built in the “Juniper” program, landed perfectly on the EPA’s range estimates at 327 miles.

It was also more efficient than Premium offerings, as it utilized just 22.8 kWh to go 100 miles. The Launch Series used 26.8 kWh to travel the same distance.

It is tested using Edmunds’ traditional EV range testing procedure, which follows a strict route of 60 percent city and 40 percent highway driving. The average speed throughout the trip is 40 MPH, and the car is required to stay within 5 MPH of all posted speed limits.

Advertisement
-->

Each car is also put in its most efficient drive setting, and the climate is kept on auto at 72 degrees.

“All of this most accurately represents the real-world driving that owners do day to day,” the publication says.

With this procedure, testing is as consistent as it can get. Of course, there are other factors, like temperature and traffic density. However, one thing is important to note: Tesla’s newer vehicles have continued to meet or exceed their EPA estimates. This is a drastic change, as every 2018-2023 model year Tesla that Edmunds assessed did not meet its range estimates.

Tesla Model Y Standard vs. Tesla Model Y Premium

Tesla’s two Model Y levels both offer a great option for whichever fits your budget. However, when you sit in both cars, you will notice distinct differences between them.

The Premium definitely has a more luxurious feel, while the Standard is stripped of many of the more premium features, like Vegan Leather Interior, acoustic-lined glass, and a better sound system.

Advertisement
-->

You can read our full review of the Model Y Standard below:

Tesla Model Y Standard Full Review: Is it worth the lower price?

Continue Reading