Is the Mars Earth Return Orbiter doomed?
What will become of the orbiter designed to return samples from the surface of Mars?
Issue 75. Subscribers 3,167.
Firstly, another huge thank you to Latitude for sponsoring this issue of the Europe in Space newsletter. Latitude is an innovative French launch startup developing Zephyr, a 17-metre tall launch vehicle capable of deploying 100 kg payloads to SSO at an altitude of 700 kilometres.
If you’re interested in sponsoring an issue of the newsletter, send a request to andrewp@europeanspaceflight.com, and I’ll send you a copy of the rate card.
To my 103 new subscribers, enjoy your first issue, and, as always, if you have any comments, suggestions, or tips, you can reply to this email.
Is the Mars Earth Return Orbiter doomed?
In early September, a report from a NASA independent review board examining the agency's Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission was published. The report found that the mission budget and schedule expectations were "unrealistic." The initial cost estimate of around $4 billion, to say the least, is woefully inadequate. In fact, the mission will likely cost between $8 billion and $11 billion and won't be launched until 2030.
The aim of the MSR mission is to return samples from the Jezero crater on the surface of Mars and return them back to Earth. The crater once held a lake and contains an ancient preserved river delta, making it an ideal location to potentially answer the question: “Was there life on Mars?”
The mission is split into three parts. The first part is sample collection, which is already being conducted by the Perseverance rover that was launched in 2020. Next is the sample retrieval phase, which includes the lander, Mars ascent vehicle, and sample transfer system. This element of the mission was supposed to have been launched in 2026 or 2028. Finally, there's the Earth Return Orbiter (ERO), an element that ESA is responsible for that was initially expected to be launched in 2026.
One of the main recommendations from the MSR independent review board was that ERO be decoupled from the Sample Retrieval Lander development schedules by transferring full responsibility for the integrated ERO mission to ESA. This would mean that ESA and Airbus could continue with the development of ERO without going through JPL.
"Accept ESA's ability to successfully accomplish ERO, recognizing ERO's importance to ESA and its goals in Mars exploration," the report recommended.
However, with the fate of the NASA portion of the MSR mission very much up in the air as a result of the ballooning cost estimate, Europe is left to consider its own way forward and if sticking with the programme is in its best interest. Should the ERO project be put on hold, reworked for another objective, or simply scrapped in favour of something less costly?
The history of ESA’s role in the MSR mission
In April 2018, NASA and ESA signed a joint statement of intent to develop the Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission.
"NASA and ESA intend to develop a joint MSR plan and to complete the studies needed to reach the level of technical and programmatic maturity required to pursue an effective MSR partnership, specifically defining the respective roles and responsibilities sufficient to lead to an international agreement between the two agencies in time to be submitted for approval to their respective authorities at the end of 2019."
The cooperation towards conducting a Mars sample return mission does, however, date back much further than 2018. I haven’t looked at those early developments, as the 2018 agreement is the start of the current iteration of the MSR mission.
Following the signing of the joint statement of intent, ESA wasted no time getting started and awarded a pair of contracts to Airbus in July 2018. The studies were for a Sample Fetch Rover and the ERO.
At the time of this initial award, the project manager for the Airbus Earth Return Orbiter study, Patrick Lelong, explained that development of the orbiter would not be easy, but that the results would be worth it. "The mission is technologically very challenging, but the prospect of seeing a sample of Mars returning to Earth is very exciting."
At the 2019 ESA ministerial council meeting in Seville, member states confirmed their support for the MSR mission. This confirmation gave the agency the go-ahead it needed to select a prime contractor for the mission.
In October 2020, ESA selected Airbus as the prime contractor for the ERO. The value of the contract was €491 million. At the time the contract was awarded, the 6-ton, 6-metre high spacecraft, which will be equipped with 144 square metres of solar arrays with a total span of 40 metres was scheduled to be launched aboard Ariane 6 in 2026. In order to achieve this, Airbus committed to delivering the spacecraft for launch in 2025. Interestingly, a year later, in June 2021, Airbus posted an ERO update in which the spacecraft had gained a ton with a mass of seven tons. By 2023, the spacecraft had grown to 7.5 metres in height, with its solar array's total span being reduced slightly to 38 metres. If and when it is launched, ERO will be the largest spacecraft to ever orbit Mars.
The same day that Airbus won the prime contract, it announced a €130 million contract award to Thales Alenia Space. The company is responsible for the ERO communication system, the orbital insertion module, and the assembly, integration, and testing phase for the "proto-flight" model of the spacecraft.
At the 2022 ESA ministerial level council meeting in Paris, member states agreed to move ahead with the development of both the ERO and a sample return transfer arm for the lander.
"Following the recent completion of the design work, full development of both the giant Earth return orbiter and the sophisticated sample transfer arm for the sample retrieval lander will begin," explained a press release published after the ministerial council meeting.
However, the current state of ESA’s contribution to the MSR mission appears to be far less certain.
“Given the current situation, we are evaluating how we can adjust the Mars Sample Return campaign in alignment with our overarching Mars strategic objectives,” an ESA spokesperson told European Spaceflight. “We are conducting preliminary studies to assess all options given the various scenarios and will inform Member States and coordinate with NASA on the outcome as soon as possible. The way forward will then be decided with Member States and NASA.”
What’s next?
The James Webb Space Telescope cost roughly $10 billion. So, is the data collected by James Webb equal in value to that which could be collected from a sample of the Red Planet? I’m not sure I know the answer to that. My gut certainly thinks so. However, my head is less certain. If we get extremely lucky and that rather small sample of 144.4 million square kilometres of the planet does provide evidence of life on Mars, that would arguably be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of humankind. However, an asset like the James Webb Space Telescope will provide answers to questions we haven’t yet asked for the next 10 to 20 years.
There is, however, another way to look at this. The United States introduced the Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in 2017. The country plans to build 10. The cost of each is $12.9 billion. So, for the cost of a single Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, NASA could fully fund the MSR mission at its most expensive estimate with $2 billion to spare. It sounds like an easy decision to me. That idea is, of course, fanciful. I know that. The likelihood of the US military giving up funding for one of their shiny new toys to launch what could be the most significant scientific mission in history is nonexistent. So, where does that leave ESA and the ERO?
With ballooning SLS costs and increasing pressure to spend more on climate change mitigation, will NASA really be able to find $10 billion for the MSR mission? It’s certainly difficult to see the agency making that decision easily. If the call comes in that it won’t, could ERO be retrofitted for another mission? Maybe an asteroid sample return mission? It would be a sad waste of the progress already made to completely scrap the mission altogether. However, perhaps rerouting the funding for ERO to the Rosalind Franklin Mars rover programme would ultimately be more beneficial to Europe’s ambitions.
Probably a big part of the ERO cost is initial design costs. But doing deep-space orbital rendezvous seems useful for the future of space science. Orbital rendezvous in general critical for satellite servicing around Earth.
So perhaps not all of these costs need to be carried by the Mars program, but some could be funded by ESA and EU technology tipping programs?
But considering that the USA has multiple companies currently working on commercializing such tech, I find it surprisingly generous that they offer ESA this opportunity to support our industry.
A second cost issue is that it is a lot of design costs for a single mission. If you are right that it could be repurposed for asteroid sample return, then I propose that ESA funds a second one of these. Or perhaps it could be made to work for sample returns from other planets like Venus or the Icy Moons - but that may add too much complexity that would cause more cost and delays.
It would also be a risk reduction, in that if the first one has issues, ESA has a backup, and would not be the delaying factor to MSR.
A third cost issue is that the lander is expected to carry an Earth entry capsule for the samples, like Osiris Rex did. Not only does this seem redundant since it already needs orbital rendezvous for its Mars sample pickup. It also creates a new failure point with technology Europe does not have yet, and may be difficult to test. (Or maybe not).
So while I agree that the MSR overall seems needlessly costly and has a lot of low TRL issues on the NASA side (landing, Mars launch), ESA funding the Earth return orbiter seems like a good deal. If anything, I would want to consider funding a /second/ such mission - Clearspace seems to be building many of the technologies needed already.