Connect with us

News

DeepSpace: NASA’s Europa Clipper suffers under SLS, Moon landers win funding, and Russia talks lunar ambitions

Published

7 years ago

on

NASA's ambitious and exciting Europa Clipper mission is being held back by the joint NASA-Congress SLS rocket. (NASA/Teslarati)

Eric Ralph · June 4th, 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.

In this week’s analysis, there is simply too much going on to focus on any single overarching theme. NASA awarded ~$250M to fund three commercial Moon landers, Russia revealed an impossibly ambitious schedule for its conceptual crewed Moon program, and NASA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report that did not look kindly on the management of the Europa Clipper spacecraft’s supposed plans for an SLS rocket launch.

While it is increasingly clear that the 2020s are likely to be the most exciting period of spaceflight activity in decades, it remains equally clear that most of the world’s space exploration – despite the incredible results often produced – is poorly and inefficiently managed. Upsets may well be served by commercial hopefuls like SpaceX, Blue Origin, iSpace, and others, but we are likely set to witness another decade or so of wasteful, results-phobic human spaceflight efforts lead on a wild goose chase after NASA’s Moon return ambitions. If it ends up being anything like the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft it is being artificially locked to, the Moon return may eventually accomplish something approximately half a decade behind schedule after vacuuming up at least $10-20B of federal funding.

At the same time, the robotic exploration expertise of NASA, ESA, Japan (JAXA), China (CNSA), India (ISRO), and Russia (Roscosmos) will be thrown at a bevy of spacecraft and landers with destinations throughout the solar system.

Advertisement

Europa Clipper deserves better ‘sails’

  • As of now, Congress has “mandated” that Europa Clipper and a planned Lander follow-up both launch on NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rockets. This was a political ploy by long-time supporter John Culberson (now a former US representative) meant to gain the support of Congressional gatekeepers focused on preserving SLS and Orion-related pork that feeds into their legislative districts or states (Sen. Shelby, Sen. Nelson, and others).
  • Developed by Lockheed Martin with the support of the European Space Agency (ESA), the Orion spacecraft is essentially an overweight, underpowered modern version of NASA’s Apollo Command and Service Module (CSM). Despite its mediocre capabilities, the spacecraft could theoretically be useful for NASA’s crewed exploration ambitions.
    • Sadly, Orion has been almost inextricably linked to NASA’s SLS rocket, built (for the most part) by Boeing and Aerojet Rocketdyne. Originally known as Ares V, the comparatively downsized SLS has always been meant to launch extremely large payloads. In theory, even the early SLS Block 1 (likely the only variant that will ever fly) would be capable of delivering ~25 metric tons to Mars and 6.3 mT directly to Jupiter.
  • That performance would also drastically cut the amount of time it takes Europa Clipper to travel from Earth to Jupiter from 6-7 years to about 3 years.
  • Hilariously, despite both Europa Clipper and SLS having been in development for years and the latter being legally required to launch the former, NASA still hasn’t verified (with certainty) that SLS Block 1 is actually capable of launching EC directly to Jupiter, the only benefit of SLS being the 3 years of time saved by a direct trajectory.
  • Even worse, despite mission delays that pushed Europa Clipper’s launch target from 2022 to 2023, NASA has yet to actually order new SLS boosters beyond the first two, assigned to Orion missions NET 2021 and 2022.
    • As NASA OIG notes, according to past estimates from NASA officials, the agency would need a minimum of 52 months (4.3 years) of lead time for Boeing and Aerojet Rocketdyne to build new SLS boosters. In other words, NASA would have had to order new boosters in September 2018 (8 months ago) for Europa Clipper to have a chance of launching on SLS in 2023.
  • Due to all of this absurd and avoidable uncertainty, large amounts of money and time are being wasted designing Europa Clipper to essentially be launcher-agnostic, able to fly on Falcon Heavy, Delta IV Heavy, or SLS. At this rate, it’s not even clear if a third SLS will be ready to launch Europa Clipper in 2024, barring a miraculously perfect performance during its launch debut (“Artemis-1”, formerly EM-1).

Dispatch from the Moon (bureaucracy)

  • Earlier this week, NASA announced its first truly Moon landing-focused contracts, awarding a total of $253M to OrbitBeyond, Astrobotic, and Intuitive Machines for commercially-developed Moon landers that could be ready for lunar landings as early as September 2020, July 2021, and July 2021, respectively.
    • Astrobotic and Intuitive Machines aim to deliver 90 kg and 100 kg of payload to the Moon’s surface, while OrbitBeyond is targeting ~40 kg despite receiving ~$25M more from NASA. Regardless, it has to be said that ~$250M is extremely cost-effective for the 230 kg (510 lb) worth of payloads it could deliver to the Moon. For comparison, in 2015, NASA purchased a single Delta IV Heavy launch (for its Parker Solar Probe) at a cost of almost $390M
    • Not only does that $250M include launch costs (two or even three of which will likely end up as copassengers on Falcon 9 launches), but it includes delivery to the surface of the Moon.
  • Additionally, an unknown proportion of that funding has clearly been directed towards the development and maturation of unflown and (mostly) unbuilt lunar landers, all of which could potentially offer even more affordable lunar delivery services once development is finished.
  • Finally, Russian space agency Roscosmos apparently has plans (or at least a Powerpoint) to land cosmonauts on the Moon as early as 2030. To accomplish that incredibly ambitious feat, Russia would effectively need to develop three entirely new rockets – two of which are far larger than anything Russia has built since the fall of the USSR – and a brand new crew and deep space-capable spacecraft (Federation).
  • The ambition is undeniably inspiring and could create a truly fascinating race-that-isn’t-really-a-race back to the Moon. However, the reality is that Russia as a country and economy is struggling, and those difficulties are obvious in Roscosmos – woefully underfunded and eternally tossed about as a political puck and source of easy embezzlement.
    • A Soyuz spacecraft launched to the ISS last year was found to have a literal hole in it, the likely result of sloppy manufacturing and nonexistent quality control. A few months later, a Soyuz 1.2 rocket failed mid-flight while launching a trio of astronauts, triggering the first human spaceflight abort/failure in almost two decades.
    • All three astronauts were safely recovered but those two failures alone suggest that Russia has some soul-searching a budget-tweaking to do before it has any chance of successfully (let alone safely) undertaking its ambitious lunar program.
Thanks for being a Teslarati Reader! Become a member today to receive an issue of DeepSpace in your inbox every 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

Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future

Published

5 hours ago

on

July 16, 2026

By

Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.

Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.

Advertisement

Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.

APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.

Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic

APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.

Advertisement

The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.

The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.

Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says

Published

7 hours ago

on

July 16, 2026

By

tesla model 3 first generation headlight
Credit: Tesla Asia/Twitter

Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.

The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.

Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:

“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”

Advertisement

The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:

“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”

Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story

The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.

Published

18 hours ago

on

July 15, 2026

By

The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.

Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot

Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.

The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.

Advertisement

Continue Reading