Minor footnote: author Kim Stanley Robinson wrote presciently about this technology in his Mars trilogy (specifically, "Green Mars", I believe.)

--joe.

Uhh, don't forget Genesis:

http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/

Sure, it had a hairy reentry/recovery, but it certainly recovered samples from the inner Solar System. These were likely attributable to the Sun or were of interstellar origin.

--joe.

...but I can summarize my eventual response regardless:

That is NOT evolution.


--joe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yavin ...I mean, in the litany of famous gas-giants, this one certainly rates. Not much else could get between the rebels and the first Death Star.

Well, your comment is undoubtedly going to be a common one.

I was almost inspired to begin "Oh, please...", but I have to admit: I'm a technocrat at heart, and it's just a knee-jerk reaction.

Regarding Stern's Op-Ed, note that he was in SMD (Science Mission Directorate), a portion of NASA that routinely suffers cutbacks that reward "...the guilty" and punish "...the innocent," to borrow his phraseology, mostly in favor of the Manned Space Program.

The issue facing MSL is, indeed, endemic within the ranks of advanced "marquee" missions; furthermore, one cannot ignore the fact that it is easily the most advanced planetary surface mission conceived to date. It's likely some mismatch of management and planning has occurred.

The action to delay MSL's launch until the 2011 window, though, is a choice between following through on a bad bet vs. saving an good investment. It must be seen in light of what it represents: a decision to maximize a return on an already large investment of spent money instead of wasting it unwisely on unnecessary risk.

Just 0.02.

Cheers,
--joe.