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.

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
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

Investor's Corner

Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court

Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.

Published

11 hours ago

on

September 17, 2026

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.

The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.

What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.

Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry

By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.

TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.

Advertisement
-

Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.

The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.

Continue Reading

News

NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way

NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.

Published

1 day ago

on

September 16, 2026

By

Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.

The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.

Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.

The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.

Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’

Published

1 day ago

on

September 16, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.

Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:

“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”

The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.

Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.

His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.

Advertisement
-

Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.

That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.

Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading