Perhaps my point is unclear. ExoMars is currently slated to contain two rovers: one is NASA’s responsibility and the other is the responsibility of our European colleagues.

As I’ve seen it, the Europeans are struggling with their part. As I’ve heard it, the responsibility may naturally shift over to the US.

I don’t follow the status of the European rover development that closely, but that it is “struggling” is hardly a relevant argument for the assertion that American assistance would be required, after all, NASA regularly “struggles” on its own programs. Even if “responsibility shifts to the US”, as is certainly not uncommon on joint programs, that wouldn’t be “teaching them how to build a rover” so much as NASA building a rover and ESA not building one, instead piggybacking their science payload on the American one. The net worth to ESA in terms of construction and operational experience would be practically zero, especially so in the case that the new joint rover is based on MSL.
Your original comment was, at least, poorly worded.

I’d like to add that the way I’ve heard it, the idea of a single joint rover has much more to do with budget concerns than technical difficulties.

Call it jingoistic mumbo-jumbo or call it someone who actually works on the project and knows what’s going on…your loss…

Perhaps jingoism isn’t quite the right word for it, call it “blind patriotism” or whatever, the central point is the uncalled for allusion that ESA is incapable of building a rover without American assistance and would rather just copy the oh so superior superior American design. This is silly and quite frankly, offensive to me as an European.

It should certainly be possible to discuss the hurdles faced by joint programs without belittling the effort of your partners.

and

E.P. Grondine wrote @ June 9th, 2011 at 2:34 am

Perhaps my point is unclear. ExoMars is currently slated to contain two rovers: one is NASA’s responsibility and the other is the responsibility of our European colleagues.

As I’ve seen it, the Europeans are struggling with their part. As I’ve heard it, the responsibility may naturally shift over to the US.

Call it jingoistic mumbo-jumbo or call it someone who actually works on the project and knows what’s going on…your loss…

No that doesn’t actually say that. It just says a mission at the end of the year. COTS Flight 2 could still fly between now and then with COTS flight 3 being the mission to dock as planned.

Actually, Constellation enjoyed their support in words only. The project was cancelled because neither Congress nor any administration was going to fund it properly. It’s about walking the talk. They didn’t.

Neither did President Obama, who did a 180 from his campaign position and nothing to fight to keep it, which takes 1% ‘inspiration’ and 99% perspiration.

Aberwys, you simply have no familiarity with European rover tech.
Nor of the politics involved with it.
Period.

Yeah, this.
Americans frequently seem to need to be reminded that ESA is an international organization, not a national agency, because Europe isn’t a country.

The idea that the ExoMars rover is going to be a carbon-copy MSL is utter nonsense. The technology is completely worthless to the European space program because we don’t do RTGs, and ESA has neither the money nor the need for a rover of that size.

The notion that we need NASA to “teach us how to build a rover” is nothing more than mindless jingoism.