I agree with Tom Brosz. The article by Bruce Moomaw was good. So far Moomaw has written intelligent and insightful articles. It's about time someone in the public media made some effort at debunking Levin and Barry D. Too bad CNN and the other media hacks can't "pull their finger out".

Tom Brosz correctly mentioned that the last version (prior to project termination) of the Mars Sample Return Earth Entry Vehicle (MSR/EEV) was designed to survive Earth entry without a parachute. That was a consequence of the crazy philosophy of designing for failure. This also brings up a minor fallacy in Bruce Moomaw's article. He mentioned having the return capsule rendevous with the ISS or enter into a terrestrial orbit. The problem with both ideas is the ground rules are to design for failure. If you design for failure then you have to include in the design the possiblity that a vehicle designed for Earth orbit would enter the Earth's atmosphere by accident (like the Mars Climate Observer). If you start with the assumption that the design must allow for atmospheric entry then you are required to include a heat shield. Once you've included the heat shield then you have to ask, "Why bother with having it go into Earth orbit?" You see: The whole concept is ass-up. You can't produce a rational design under the restriction of designing for failure.

Gary