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

Elon Musk

Tesla Full Self-Driving pricing strategy eliminates one recurring complaint

Published

4 hours ago

on

January 14, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s new Full Self-Driving pricing strategy will eliminate one recurring complaint that many owners have had in the past: FSD transfers.

In the past, if a Tesla owner purchased the Full Self-Driving suite outright, the company did not allow them to transfer the purchase to a new vehicle, essentially requiring them to buy it all over again, which could obviously get pretty pricey.

This was until Q3 2023, when Tesla allowed a one-time amnesty to transfer Full Self-Driving to a new vehicle, and then again last year.

Tesla is now allowing it to happen again ahead of the February 14th deadline.

The program has given people the opportunity to upgrade to new vehicles with newer Hardware and AI versions, especially those with Hardware 3 who wish to transfer to AI4, without feeling the drastic cost impact of having to buy the $8,000 suite outright on several occasions.

Advertisement
-->

Now, that issue will never be presented again.

Last night, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced on X that the Full Self-Driving suite would only be available in a subscription platform, which is the other purchase option it currently offers for FSD use, priced at just $99 per month.

Tesla is shifting FSD to a subscription-only model, confirms Elon Musk

Having it available in a subscription-only platform boasts several advantages, including the potential for a tiered system that would potentially offer less expensive options, a pay-per-mile platform, and even coupling the program with other benefits, like Supercharging and vehicle protection programs.

While none of that is confirmed and is purely speculative, the one thing that does appear to be a major advantage is that this will completely eliminate any questions about transferring the Full Self-Driving suite to a new vehicle. This has been a particular point of contention for owners, and it is now completely eliminated, as everyone, apart from those who have purchased the suite on their current vehicle.

Advertisement
-->

Now, everyone will pay month-to-month, and it could make things much easier for those who want to try the suite, justifying it from a financial perspective.

The important thing to note is that Tesla would benefit from a higher take rate, as more drivers using it would result in more data, which would help the company reach its recently-revealed 10 billion-mile threshold to reach an Unsupervised level. It does not cost Tesla anything to run FSD, only to develop it. If it could slice the price significantly, more people would buy it, and more data would be made available.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominates U.S. EV market in 2025

The figures were detailed in Kelley Blue Book’s Q4 2025 U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Report.

Published

7 hours ago

on

January 14, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y continued to overwhelmingly dominate the United States’ electric vehicle market in 2025. New sales data showed that Tesla’s two mass market cars maintained a commanding segment share, with the Model 3 posting year-to-date growth and the Model Y remaining resilient despite factory shutdowns tied to its refresh.

The figures were detailed in Kelley Blue Book’s Q4 2025 U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Report.

Model 3 and Model Y are still dominant

According to the report, Tesla delivered an estimated 192,440 Model 3 sedans in the United States in 2025, representing a 1.3% year-to-date increase compared to 2024. The Model 3 alone accounted for 15.9% of all U.S. EV sales, making it one of the highest-volume electric vehicles in the country.

The Model Y was even more dominant. U.S. deliveries of the all-electric crossover reached 357,528 units in 2025, a 4.0% year-to-date decline from the prior year. It should be noted, however, that the drop came during a year that included production shutdowns at Tesla’s Fremont Factory and Gigafactory Texas as the company transitioned to the new Model Y. Even with those disruptions, the Model Y captured an overwhelming 39.5% share of the market, far surpassing any single competitor.

Combined, the Model 3 and Model Y represented more than half of all EVs sold in the United States during 2025, highlighting Tesla’s iron grip on the country’s mass-market EV segment.

Advertisement
-->

Tesla’s challenges in 2025

Tesla’s sustained performance came amid a year of elevated public and political controversy surrounding Elon Musk, whose political activities in the first half of the year ended up fueling a narrative that the CEO’s actions are damaging the automaker’s consumer appeal. However, U.S. sales data suggest that demand for Tesla’s core vehicles has remained remarkably resilient.

Based on Kelley Blue Book’s Q4 2025 U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Report, Tesla’s most expensive offerings such as the Tesla Cybertruck, Model S, and Model X, all saw steep declines in 2025. This suggests that mainstream EV buyers might have had a price issue with Tesla’s more expensive offerings, not an Elon Musk issue. 

Ultimately, despite broader EV market softness, with total U.S. EV sales slipping about 2% year-to-date, Tesla still accounted for 58.9% of all EV deliveries in 2025, according to the report. This means that out of every ten EVs sold in the United States in 2025, more than half of them were Teslas. 

Q4 2025 Kelley Blue Book EV Sales Report by Simon Alvarez

Advertisement
-->
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Model 3 and Model Y earn Euro NCAP Best in Class safety awards

“The company’s best-selling Model Y proved the gold standard for small SUVs,” Euro NCAP noted.

Published

8 hours ago

on

January 14, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla Europe & Middle East

Tesla won dual categories in the Euro NCAP Best in Class awards, with the Model 3 being named the safest Large Family Car and the Model Y being recognized as the safest Small SUV.

The feat was highlighted by Tesla Europe & Middle East in a post on its official account on social media platform X.

Model 3 and Model Y lead their respective segments

As per a press release from the Euro NCAP, the organization’s Best in Class designation is based on a weighted assessment of four key areas: Adult Occupant, Child Occupant, Vulnerable Road User, and Safety Assist. Only vehicles that achieved a 5-star Euro NCAP rating and were evaluated with standard safety equipment are eligible for the award.

Euro NCAP noted that the updated Tesla Model 3 performed particularly well in Child Occupant protection, while its Safety Assist score reflected Tesla’s ongoing improvements to driver-assistance systems. The Model Y similarly stood out in Child Occupant protection and Safety Assist, reinforcing Tesla’s dual-category win. 

“The company’s best-selling Model Y proved the gold standard for small SUVs,” Euro NCAP noted.

Advertisement
-->

Euro NCAP leadership shares insights

Euro NCAP Secretary General Dr. Michiel van Ratingen said the organization’s Best in Class awards are designed to help consumers identify the safest vehicles over the past year.

Van Ratingen noted that 2025 was Euro NCAP’s busiest year to date, with more vehicles tested than ever before, amid a growing variety of electric cars and increasingly sophisticated safety systems. While the Mercedes-Benz CLA ultimately earned the title of Best Performer of 2025, he emphasized that Tesla finished only fractionally behind in the overall rankings.

“It was a close-run competition,” van Ratingen said. “Tesla was only fractionally behind, and new entrants like firefly and Leapmotor show how global competition continues to grow, which can only be a good thing for consumers who value safety as much as style, practicality, driving performance, and running costs from their next car.”

Continue Reading