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

Tesla Insurance officially expands to new U.S. state

Tesla’s in-house Insurance program first launched back in late 2019, offering a new way to insure the vehicles that was potentially less expensive and could alleviate a lot of the issues people had with claims, as the company could assess and repair the damage itself.

Published

2 hours ago

on

December 18, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla Insurance

Tesla Insurance has officially expanded to a new U.S. state, its thirteenth since its launch in 2019.

Tesla has confirmed that its in-house Insurance program has officially made its way to Florida, just two months after the company filed to update its Private Passenger Auto program in the state. It had tried to offer its insurance program to drivers in the state back in 2022, but its launch did not happen.

Instead, Tesla refiled the paperwork back in mid-October, which essentially was the move toward initiating the offering this month.

Tesla’s in-house Insurance program first launched back in late 2019, offering a new way to insure the vehicles that was potentially less expensive and could alleviate a lot of the issues people had with claims, as the company could assess and repair the damage itself.

It has expanded to new states since 2019, but Florida presents a particularly interesting challenge for Tesla, as the company’s entry into the state is particularly noteworthy given its unique insurance landscape, characterized by high premiums due to frequent natural disasters, dense traffic, and a no-fault system.

Tesla partners with Lemonade for new insurance program

Advertisement
-->

Annual average premiums for Florida drivers hover around $4,000 per year, well above the national average. Tesla’s insurance program could disrupt this, especially for EV enthusiasts. The state’s growing EV adoption, fueled by incentives and infrastructure development, aligns perfectly with Tesla’s ecosystem.

Moreover, there are more ways to have cars repaired, and features like comprehensive coverage for battery damage and roadside assistance tailored to EVs address those common painpoints that owners have.

However, there are some challenges that still remain. Florida’s susceptibility to hurricanes raises questions about how Tesla will handle claims during disasters.

Looking ahead, Tesla’s expansion of its insurance program signals the company’s ambition to continue vertically integrating its services, including coverage of its vehicles. Reducing dependency on third-party insurers only makes things simpler for the company’s automotive division, as well as for its customers.

Advertisement
-->
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving gets sparkling review from South Korean politician

“Having already ridden in an unmanned robotaxi, the novelty wasn’t as strong for me, but it drives just as well as most people do. It already feels like a completed technology, which gives me a lot to think about.”

Published

4 hours ago

on

December 18, 2025

By

Credit: Soyoung Lee | X

Tesla Full Self-Driving got its first sparkling review from South Korean politician Lee So-young, a member of the country’s National Assembly, earlier this week.

Lee is a member of the Strategy and Finance Committee in South Korea and is a proponent of sustainable technologies and their applications in both residential and commercial settings. For the first time, Lee was able to utilize Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology as it launched in the country in late November.

Her thoughts on the suite were complimentary to the suite, stating that “it drives just as well as most people do,” and that “it already feels like a completed technology.”

Her translated post says:

Advertisement
-->

“Finally, today I got to experience Tesla FSD in Seoul. Thanks to the Model S sponsored by JiDal Papa^^, I’m truly grateful to Papa. The route was from the National Assembly -> Mangwon Market -> Hongik University -> back to the National Assembly. Having already ridden in an unmanned robotaxi, the novelty wasn’t as strong for me, but it drives just as well as most people do. It already feels like a completed technology, which gives me a lot to think about. Once it actually spreads into widespread use, I feel like our daily lives are going to change a lot. Even I, with my license gathering dust in a drawer, don’t see much reason to learn to drive a manual anymore.”

Tesla Full Self-Driving officially landed in South Korea in late November, with the initial launch being one of Tesla’s most recent, v14.1.4.

It marked the seventh country in which Tesla was able to enable the driver assistance suite, following the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, China, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand.

It is important to see politicians and figures in power try new technologies, especially ones that are widely popular in other regions of the world and could potentially revolutionize how people travel globally.

Advertisement
-->
Continue Reading

News

Tesla dispels reports of ‘sales suspension’ in California

“This 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.

Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.”

Published

23 hours ago

on

December 17, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has dispelled reports that it is facing a thirty-day sales suspension in California after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a penalty to the company after a judge ruled it “misled consumers about its driver-assistance technology.”

On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that the California DMV was planning to adopt the penalty but decided to put it on ice for ninety days, giving Tesla an opportunity to “come into compliance.”

Tesla enters interesting situation with Full Self-Driving in California

Tesla responded to the report on Tuesday evening, after it came out, stating that this was a “consumer protection” order that was brought up over its use of the term “Autopilot.”

The company said “not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem,” yet a judge and the DMV determined it was, so they want to apply the penalty if Tesla doesn’t oblige.

Advertisement
-->

However, Tesla said that its sales operations in California “will continue uninterrupted.”

It confirmed this in an X post on Tuesday night:

Advertisement
-->

The report and the decision by the DMV and Judge involved sparked outrage from the Tesla community, who stated that it should do its best to get out of California.

One X post said California “didn’t deserve” what Tesla had done for it in terms of employment, engineering, and innovation.

Tesla has used Autopilot and Full Self-Driving for years, but it did add the term “(Supervised)” to the end of the FSD suite earlier this year, potentially aiming to protect itself from instances like this one.

This is 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” naming. Previous Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was vocally critical of the use of the name “Full Self-Driving,” as well as “Autopilot.”

Advertisement
-->
Continue Reading