News
SpaceX waits in the wings as NASA risks maiming Jupiter probe to pinch pennies
SpaceX and its Falcon Heavy rocket continue to wait in the wings as NASA risks maiming its ‘Europa Clipper’ Jupiter probe by pinching the wrong pennies.
For the second time, NASA has performed “continuation/termination reviews” of three of the Europa Clipper spacecraft’s scientific instruments after budget overruns on the order of no more than a few tens of millions of dollars. Thankfully, no instruments were canceled, unlike the “ICEMAG” magnetometer that was functionally killed last year. Still, a NASA program scientist casually noted that the space agency would tolerate launching without one of two cameras and would offer no more funding to a mass spectrometer instrument (MASPEX), raising the risk of instrument failure during the challenging mission.
For any scientific spacecraft or rover, the instruments carried along are effectively the entire reason for their existence: if those instruments are faulty (or even removed before launch), the mission is effectively rendered pointless. Further, due to the sheer complexity and challenges posed by the act of getting to the destination and surviving after arrival, the actual instruments most scientific spacecraft carry represent a tiny fraction of the overall mission cost and mass. It’s not easy to readily imagine a better way to signal inept program management than by singularly focusing on that tiny, lifeblood-esque portion of a spacecraft’s budget. Undeterred, that is exactly what NASA appears to be doing with Europa Clipper – penny-wise, perhaps, but undoubtedly pound-foolish.
It’s not always true that only a small portion of an exploratory spacecraft’s budget is spent on scientific instruments but it absolutely is when it comes to Europa Clipper. Originally hoped to cost as little as $2 billion in 2013, Europa Clipper’s budget allocation has ballooned to $4.5 billion over the life of the program. Of that $4.5 billion, as little as $110M was dedicated to nine scientific instruments assigned to the spacecraft – a ratio of ~41:1. Even if instrument cost ballooned by 100% to ~$220 million, it would still be a measly 20:1. The space environment around Jupiter is admittedly one of the most challenging in the Solar System, warranting some imbalance, but either ratio is still exceptionally bad as far as most exploratory missions go.
Designed to create detailed maps of Europa’s theorized water oceans, ICEMAG, for example, jumped from a $30 million cost estimate to $45 million before NASA abruptly killed it. A Clipper planetary scientist called ICEMAG “a critical instrument that’s been central to Europa science forever”. MASPEX, meanwhile, is a mass spectrometer that will be used to analyze possible chemicals captured by flying through Europa’s transient atmosphere (or, even better yet, plumes from vast ocean geysers). In other words, the instrument most likely to be hobbled next by NASA is also the only instrument on Europa Clipper capable of potentially detecting signs of life by directly sampling material ejected by Europa’s plumes.
Even just with ICEMAG removed, the value proposition of a $4.5 billion mission to an ocean moon of Jupiter becomes much hazier. With ICEMAG removed and MASPEX at risk of being thrown to the wolves, Europa Clipper’s purpose becomes even weaker. Of course, seven valuable instruments remain – some of which partially overlap with MASPEX’ goals – and MASPEX could still technically make it to the finish line in its original handicap-free state, but the tides are definitely not moving in an encouraging direction.
The worst part is that excluding the extraordinarily expensive spacecraft that will host instruments worth ~3-5% its cost, Congress has been dead-set on forcing Europa Clipper to launch on NASA’s chronically-delayed, over-budget Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. SLS has yet to launch once despite more than a decade of development and almost $30 billion spent on the rocket alone, and it would take a miracle for an SLS rocket to be ready to launch Clipper before 2025 or 2026. Europa Clipper is working towards a launch no earlier than 2024, meaning that the spacecraft would have to be stored indefinitely at a cost of at least $125 million per year.
Intrepid readers may note that the cost of simply waiting a single year for SLS to be ready for launch is higher than the cost of all of Europa Clipper’s scientific instruments at their original $110 million budget. The actual cost to NASA for a single SLS launch is expected to $1.5 billion at the absolute minimum, while $2-2.5 billion is far more reasonable. With a little effort and some moderate cruise stage tweaks, Ars Technica has already reported that an expendable SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket augmented with an off-the-shelf kick stage could send Europa Clipper to Jupiter in 5-6 years, compared to ~3 with SLS.
Ironically, that means that if Falcon Heavy was ready to launch Europa Clipper when the spacecraft is expected to be ready in 2024, it would actually arrive at the same time (or close) if it launched on SLS – once a minimum two-year launch vehicle delay is accounted for. A Falcon Heavy would also save NASA at least $1-2 billion, while it would directly save the Europa Clipper program the ~$250 million it would otherwise need to spend to store the spacecraft while waiting years for an SLS rocket. That $250 million alone – an inevitable add-on cost if SLS is chosen – could easily double the budget of every single Europa Clipper science instrument, adding plenty of breathing room, reinstating ICEMAG, and likely improving the science they output – data-gathering quite literally being the whole purpose of the mission.
Of course, the odds that NASA actually steps out from under the political shadow of SLS and stops playing penny wise and pound foolish with the extraordinarily expensive science missions it shepherds is unlikely. But still, the possibility (and hope) remains. Most recently, a very slight change in the wording of a proposed law (bill) could give the Europa Clipper program the legal wiggle room it needs to sidestep Congress’ desire to force it to launch on SLS. Of course, the senators and representatives with parochial attachment to the rocket will continue to fight tooth and nail to legally force it upon NASA at every possible turn, but there is now at least a chance of a sane outcome.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Investor's Corner
NASA taps SpaceX to launch the telescope that could unlock new worlds
NASA’s Roman Space Telescope heads to orbit this August aboard SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with massive scientific ambitions.
SpaceX is set to play a central role in one of NASA’s most anticipated science missions in years. The company’s Falcon Heavy rocket, currently the most powerful operational launch vehicle in the world, will carry the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope into orbit on August 30 from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Roman is now in final preparations inside the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility, where on June 26 technicians used a crane to lift the observatory into a specialized stand for fueling and pre-launch testing.
Roman is named after Nancy Grace Roman, NASA’s first chief of astronomy, whose career helped shape how the agency approaches space science.
NASA chose SpaceX Falcon Heavy because of Roman’s needs to reach a specific orbit far from Earth, well beyond where a standard Falcon 9 can deliver it. The Falcon Heavy, which first flew in 2018, has since become NASA’s go-to option for missions that need serious muscle without the cost and complexity of older launch systems.
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
Roman will carry a field of view at least 100 times wider than the Hubble Space Telescope, meaning it can photograph enormous swaths of the universe in a single shot rather than the narrow slices Hubble captures. That difference in scale is significant. While Hubble reshaped our understanding of the cosmos over 30 years, Roman is built to work faster and wider, surveying hundreds of millions of galaxies at once.
One of Roman’s most compelling capabilities is its potential to discover and photograph planets orbiting stars outside our solar system, and with enough precision to directly image planets that would otherwise be lost. That means scientists could study the atmosphere and surface characteristics of distant worlds rather than simply confirming they exist. Combined with Roman’s sweeping field of view, the telescope could detect thousands of exoplanets, and some of those planets may be in habitable zones where liquid water could exist. No telescope currently in operation has this level of power and capability. That capability alone could change what we know about other worlds, and perhaps finally answer the question: are we the only intelligent lifeforms in existence?
What Roman actually finds once it reaches orbit is an open question, and that is exactly what makes this launch worth watching.
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
Tesla analyst says Full Self-Driving is about to have its iPhone moment
