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 ships out update that brings massive change to two big features

“This change only updates the name of certain features and text in your vehicle,” the company wrote in Release Notes for the update, “and does not change the way your features behave.”

Published

2 hours ago

on

March 5, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has shipped out an update for its vehicles that was caused specifically by a California lawsuit that threatened the company’s ability to sell cars because of how it named its driver assistance suite.

Tesla shipped out Software Update 2026.2.9 starting last week; we received it already, and it only brings a few minor changes, mostly related to how things are referenced.

“This change only updates the name of certain features and text in your vehicle,” the company wrote in Release Notes for the update, “and does not change the way your features behave.”

The following changes came to Tesla vehicles in the update:

Advertisement
  • Navigate on Autopilot has now been renamed to Navigate on Autosteer
  • FSD Computer has been renamed to AI Computer

Tesla faced a 30-day sales suspension in California after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles stated the company had to come into compliance regarding the marketing of its automated driving features.

The agency confirmed on February 18 that it had taken a “corrective action” to resolve the issue. That corrective action was renaming certain parts of its ADAS.

Tesla discontinued its standalone Autopilot offering in January and ramped up the marketing of Full Self-Driving Supervised. Tesla had said on X that the issue with naming “was a ‘consumer protection’ order about the use of the term ‘Autopilot’ in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.”

It is now compliant with the wishes of the California DMV, and we’re all dealing with it now.

This was the first primary dispute over the terminology of Full Self-Driving, but it has undergone some scrutiny at the federal level, as some government officials have claimed the suite has “deceptive” names. Previous Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was one of those federal-level employees who had an issue with the names “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving.”

Tesla sued the California DMV over the ruling last week.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla workers push back against Giga Berlin unionization

“IG Metall did not succeed in Giga Berlin‘s works council election earlier today. The union share was reduced from nearly 40% in 2024 to 31% in 2026! This is a clear message by the Giga Berlin team towards an independent co-determination! The list called Giga United, led by the current chairwoman, Michaela Schmitz, received the most votes with more than 40%! Good news for Giga Berlin!”

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 5, 2026

By

Tesla workers pushed back against unionization efforts at Gigafactory Berlin, and over the past few years, there has been a dramatic decrease in interest to unionize at the German plant.

Gigafactory Berlin Plant Manager André Thierig announced on Wednesday that IG Metall, the European union group, saw its share reduce from 40 to 31 percent in 2026 as employees eligible to vote on the issue. Instead, the Giga Berlin team, known as Giga United, received the most votes with more than 40 percent.

Thierig gave specific details in a post on X:

Advertisement

“IG Metall did not succeed in Giga Berlin‘s works council election earlier today. The union share was reduced from nearly 40% in 2024 to 31% in 2026! This is a clear message by the Giga Berlin team towards an independent co-determination! The list called Giga United, led by the current chairwoman, Michaela Schmitz, received the most votes with more than 40%! Good news for Giga Berlin!”

There were over 10,700 total employees who were eligible to vote, with 87 percent of them turning out to cast what they wanted. There were three key outcomes: Giga United, IG Metall, and other notable groups, with the most popular being the Polish Initiative.

The 37-seat council remains dominated by non-unionized representatives, preserving Giga Berlin as Germany’s only major auto plant without a collective bargaining agreement.

Thierig and Tesla framed the outcome as employee support for an “independent, flexible, and unbureaucratic” future, enabling acceleration on projects like potential expansions or new models. IG Metall expressed disappointment, accusing management of intimidation tactics and an “unfair” campaign.

Advertisement

The first election of this nature happened back in 2022. In 2024, IG Metall emerged as the largest single faction with 39.4 percent, but non-union lists coalesced for a majority.

But this year was different. There was some extra tension at Giga Berlin this year, as just two weeks ago, an IG Metall rep was accused by Tesla of secretly recording a council meeting. The group countersued for defamation.

Tesla Giga Berlin plant manager faces defamation probe after IG Metall union complaint

This result from the 2026 vote reinforced Tesla’s model of direct employee-management alignment over traditional German union structures, amid ongoing debates about working conditions. IG Metall views it as a setback but continues advocacy. Tesla sees it as validation of its approach in a competitive EV market.

Advertisement

This outcome may influence future labor dynamics at Giga Berlin, including any revival of expansion plans or product lines, which Musk has talked about recently.

Continue Reading

News

SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell details xAI power pledge at White House event

The commitment was announced during an event with United States President Donald Trump.

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 5, 2026

By

xAI-supercomputer-memphis-environment-pushback
Credit: xAI

SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell stated that xAI will develop 1.2 gigawatts of power at its Memphis-area AI supercomputer site as part of the White House’s new “Ratepayer Protection Pledge.” 

The commitment was announced during an event with United States President Donald Trump.

During the White House event, Shotwell stated that xAI’s AI data center near Memphis would include a major energy installation designed to support the facility’s power needs.

“As you know, xAI builds huge supercomputers and data centers and we build them fast. Currently, we’re building one on the Tennessee-Mississippi state line. As part of today’s commitment, we will take extensive additional steps to continue to reduce the costs of electricity for our neighbors… 

Advertisement

“xAI will therefore commit to develop 1.2 GW of power as our supercomputer’s primary power source. That will be for every additional data center as well. We will expand what is already the largest global Megapack power installation in the world,” Shotwell said.

She added that the system would provide significant backup power capacity.

“The installation will provide enough backup power to power the city of Memphis, and more than sufficient energy to power the town of Southaven, Mississippi where the data center resides. We will build new substations and invest in electrical infrastructure to provide stability to the area’s grid.”

Shotwell also noted that xAI will be supporting the area’s water supply as well. 

Advertisement

“We haven’t talked about it yet, but this is actually quite important. We will build state-of-the-art water recycling plants that will protect approximately 4.7 billion gallons of water from the Memphis aquifer each year. And we will employ thousands of American workers from around the city of Memphis on both sides of the TN-MS border,” she noted. 

The Ratepayer Protection Pledge was introduced as part of the federal government’s effort to address concerns about rising electricity costs tied to large AI data centers, as noted in an Insider report. Under the agreement, companies developing major AI infrastructure projects committed to covering their own power generation needs and avoiding additional costs for local ratepayers.

Continue Reading