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 hits FSD hackers with surprise move

In recent weeks, the company has begun remotely disabling FSD capabilities on affected vehicles, and in some instances, permanently revoking access even for owners who paid thousands of dollars for the feature.

Published

13 hours ago

on

April 9, 2026

By

Tesla is cracking down on hackers who have figured out a way to utilize third-party programs to activate Full Self-Driving (FSD) in their vehicles — despite the suite not being approved for use in their country.

Tesla has launched a sweeping enforcement campaign against owners using third-party hardware hacks to activate FSD software in countries where the advanced driver-assistance system remains unregulated or unapproved.

In recent weeks, the company has begun remotely disabling FSD capabilities on affected vehicles, and in some instances, permanently revoking access even for owners who paid thousands of dollars for the feature.

Reports of the crackdown have surfaced across Europe, China, Japan, South Korea, and the UK, marking a significant escalation in Tesla’s efforts to enforce regional software restrictions.

FSD is Tesla’s flagship supervised autonomy package, which is available in several countries across the world. Currently limited by regulatory hurdles, it has not received full approval in most markets outside of the United States due to various things, such as safety standards, data privacy, and local traffic laws.

Advertisement

However, the company is working to expand its availability globally. Nevertheless, Tesla has installed the necessary hardware on vehicles globally, but locks the features based on geographic location.

Some owners have taken accessing FSD into their own hands, using jailbreak or bypass devices.

These “jailbreak” tools, typically €500 USB-style modules that plug into the vehicle’s Controller Area Network (CAN) bus, intercept signals to spoof approvals and unlock FSD, including advanced navigation, Autopark, and Summon features.

Hackers in Poland, Ukraine, and elsewhere have distributed the devices, with some claiming they work on HW3 and HW4 vehicles and can be unplugged to restore stock settings. In China alone, over 100,000 owners reportedly installed such modifications.

Advertisement

Tesla’s response has been swift and uncompromising. Recently, the company began sending in-car notifications and emails warning owners that unauthorized modifications violate terms of service, compromise vehicle safety systems, and expose cars to cybersecurity risks.

The email communication read:

“Your vehicle has detected an unauthorized third-party device. As a precaution, some driver assistance functions have been disabled for safety reasons. A software update will be available soon. Once you install the update, some features may be enabled again.”

Vehicles detected using the hacks have had FSD capabilities remotely disabled without refund. In some cases, owners report permanent bans, even if they had legitimately purchased the software package.

Advertisement

Tesla’s hardline stance underscores its commitment to regulatory compliance and safety.

Tesla has long argued that unsupervised FSD requires rigorous validation, and premature activation could endanger drivers and bystanders.

The crackdown sends a clear-cut message to those who are bypassing the FSD safeguards, but there are greater implications for Tesla if something were to go wrong. This is an understandable way to protect the company’s reputation for its FSD suite.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla developing small, affordable SUV, report claims

This latest rumor deserves heavy scrutiny. Tesla has already walked away from a mass-market $25,000 EV once before.

Published

15 hours ago

on

April 9, 2026

By

Credit: Tine Rusc

Tesla is developing a small, affordable SUV, a new report claims, speculating that the automaker is planning to add yet another vehicle to its lineup at a price point similar to the Model 3 and Model Y, but smaller and more compact.

But it does not make a whole lot of sense, especially considering a handful of things CEO Elon Musk said and the overall plan for Tesla’s future.

Reuters reported that Tesla is in the early stages of developing an all-new, smaller, cheaper electric SUV. Citing four sources familiar with the matter, the story claims the vehicle would be shorter than the Model Y, built in China, and represent a fresh platform rather than a variant of the Model 3 or Y.

Suppliers have reportedly been contacted to discuss details, though Tesla has not commented. The move appears aimed at broadening affordability amid slowing EV demand and intensifying competition, particularly from Chinese rivals.

Advertisement

This latest rumor deserves heavy scrutiny. Tesla has already walked away from a mass-market $25,000 EV once before.

In 2024, the company scrapped its long-teased “Redwood” project for a budget-friendly car. Elon Musk explained the decision bluntly during an earnings call: a conventional low-cost model would be “pointless” and “completely at odds with what we believe.”

In other words, chasing a bare-bones cheap EV runs counter to Tesla’s core mission of accelerating sustainable energy through cutting-edge technology and autonomy rather than volume-driven price wars.

Musk’s own recent statements reinforce skepticism about a compact SUV pivot. Just two weeks ago, on March 25, he responded to fan requests for a minivan by posting on X: “Something way cooler than a minivan is coming.”

Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’

Advertisement

The remark came in the context of family-hauling needs, with Musk highlighting the Cybertruck’s ability to seat multiple child seats. It signals Tesla’s focus is shifting toward more spacious, innovative people-movers—not shrinking its lineup.

U.S. demand data echoes this logic.

The long-wheelbase Model Y L—a six-seat, stretched variant offering extra room for families—has generated massive interest wherever offered. Fans in the U.S. have basically begged for the Model Y L to make its way to the States, or for the company to develop a full-size SUV.

The Model Y L is selling well in China, where it is manufactured.

Advertisement

Delivery wait times for the Model Y L stretched into February 2026 as orders poured in. Tesla recently expanded the trim to eight new Asian markets, yet it remains unavailable in the United States, where consumer appetite for a larger, more practical SUV is reportedly strong.

American buyers have consistently favored bigger vehicles; the Model Y already outsells most competitors precisely because it delivers crossover utility without compromise. A compact model shorter than today’s bestseller would likely miss this mark entirely.

Tesla’s product strategy has long emphasized differentiation through autonomy, range, and desirability rather than racing to the bottom on price. Stripped-down variants of the Model 3 and Y have already struggled to ignite broad demand.

A new compact SUV built in China might sound logical on paper for cost-sensitive buyers, but it risks repeating past missteps—diluting brand cachet while ignoring clear signals from Musk and the market.

Advertisement

History suggests Tesla talks about affordable cars more often than it delivers them. Whether this Reuters scoop evolves into metal or joins the $25k project on the scrap heap remains to be seen.

For now, the smart money is on Tesla doubling down on “way cooler” vehicles that actually fit American families—and Tesla’s ambitious vision—rather than a smaller SUV that feels like yesterday’s news.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla CEO Elon Musk says next FSD release is the one we’ve been waiting for

On Thursday, Musk teased the capabilities and next steps for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software, focusing squarely on the incremental improvements of the current v14.3 suite, as well as the looming arrival of v15.

Published

16 hours ago

on

April 9, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla CEO Elon Musk teased the capabilities of a future Full Self-Driving release, but it seems like we are getting what Yogi Berra once called “Déjà vu all over again.”

On Thursday, Musk teased the capabilities and next steps for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software, focusing squarely on the incremental improvements of the current v14.3 suite, as well as the looming arrival of v15.

He confirmed that upcoming point releases of v14.3 will deliver additional polish to the current build, smoothing out remaining edges in an already capable system. These iterative updates, Musk noted, are designed to refine performance without requiring a full version overhaul.

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3: First Impressions

Advertisement

Yet the real headline was Musk’s forecast for v15.

“V15 will far exceed human levels of safety, even in completely unsupervised and complex situations,” he wrote.

He clarified that v15 will be powered by Tesla’s long-awaited large model, an AI architecture with roughly 10x the parameters of the smaller model currently in widespread use. The leap, Musk explained, stems from the unusually rapid progress of the compact model, which has advanced so quickly that the larger counterpart has yet to catch up in real-world deployment.

However, it is becoming a pattern that is, by now, familiar to anyone following Tesla’s autonomous driving roadmap.

Musk has consistently and repeatedly framed each successive major release as the one poised to deliver game-changing autonomy. Earlier versions were similarly positioned as a movement toward the final piece of the puzzle, only for attention to pivot to the next milestone once they arrived.

The refrain has become a recurring feature of FSD communication: current software is impressive, the point releases will sharpen it further, but the true breakthrough lies one major iteration ahead.

Musk’s latest comments fit squarely into that cadence. While v14.3 point releases are expected to tighten supervised driving behaviors in the coming weeks, v15 is cast as the version that finally crosses the threshold into unsupervised operation at human-or-better safety levels across demanding scenarios.

Advertisement

The 10x parameter scale of the underlying large model is presented as the key technical enabler, promising richer reasoning and more robust decision-making than anything deployed to date.

Advertisement

Whether v15 ultimately fulfills that promise remains to be seen. Tesla’s history shows that each new target generates fresh excitement—and occasional skepticism—about timelines.

Fans realize Musk’s timelines for FSD are exciting, but rarely met:

Advertisement

For now, Musk’s message is familiar: the immediate focus is polishing v14.3 through targeted point releases, while the 10x-parameter large model in v15 represents the next decisive step toward fully unsupervised, superhuman safety.

Hopefully, Tesla can come through, but we can only believe that once v15 gets here, v16 will be the next big step toward autonomy.

Drivers can expect continued refinement in the short term and a significantly more ambitious leap once the large model is ready. The cycle continues, but the stakes, Musk insists, keep rising.

Advertisement
Continue Reading