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

Elon Musk

Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences

Published

7 hours ago

on

July 18, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.

Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”

Advertisement

This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.

Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.

These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.

READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance

Advertisement

If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.

For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.

Advertisement

That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.

This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.

Continue Reading

News

Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage

Published

10 hours ago

on

July 18, 2026

By

Credit: ABC News

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.

A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.

Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.

However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.

Advertisement

Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.

DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”

The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.

Advertisement

This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.

High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:

Advertisement

Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.

DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.

As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla enters two new markets on two different continents in one week

Published

1 day ago

on

July 17, 2026

By

Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.

These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.

Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint

In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.

EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.

Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.

Uruguay: Third South American Country

Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.

Advertisement

The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.

Advertisement

Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.

Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.

Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country

Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion

Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.

Advertisement

This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.

For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.

Continue Reading