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.
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.