I can't let this go! The only answer for the capsule being designed to survive re-entry is cinematographic: That's how we have been trained to think a launch capsule should look. So that's how they showed it.

A failed return to orbit in a MAV capsule would be fatal regardless of whether or not the astronaut survived re-entry. Mark Whatney survived -- just barely -- because when he woke up he had the Mars Hab, provisions for a crew of six, vehicles, a radioisotope generator (and viable potatoes.) The hypothetical crew of six who survived re-entry would have nothing. They would land far, far from anything else and then die. (Probably quickly of suffocation, but if they somehow survived that, it's a toss-up what would get them: accident, starvation, thirst.)

A responsible space agency -- which no matter what it's other flaws, NASA certainly is -- would spend the mass wasted here on a re-entry capability on making the actual ascent to orbit more reliable. (See the Lunar Lander and its return vehicle for a case in point on what actual good engineering does in reality.)

The idea that the capsule would be carried back to Earth and used to land there does not work, either. It is expensive to carry mass to Mars (even with the Hermes) and very, very, very expensive to land it on Mars and then take off with it again. It would be much, much cheaper and much, much, much safer to send up a return capsule (such as SpaceX's Crew Dragon) to rendezvous with Hermes once it reached Earth orbit.

I can't let this go! The only answer for the capsule being designed to survive re-entry is cinematographic: That's how we have been trained to think a launch capsule should look. So that's how they showed it.

A failed return to orbit in a MAV capsule would be fatal regardless of whether or not the astronaut survived re-entry. Mark Whatney survived -- just barely -- because when he woke up he had the Mars Hab, provisions for a crew of six, vehicles, a radioisotope generator (and viable potatoes.) The hypothetical crew of six who survived re-entry would have nothing. They would land far, far from anything else and then die. (Probably quickly of suffocation, but if they somehow survived that, it's a toss-up what would get them: accident, starvation, thirst.)

A responsible space agency -- which no matter what its other flaws, NASA certainly is -- would spend the mass wasted here on a re-entry capability on making the actual ascent to orbit more reliable. (See the Lunar Lander and its return vehicle for a case in point on what actual good engineering does in reality.)

The idea that the capsule would be carried back to Earth and used to land there does not work, either. It is expensive to carry mass to Mars (even with the Hermes) and very, very, very expensive to land it on Mars and then take off with it again. It would be much, much cheaper and much, much, much safer to send up a return capsule (such as SpaceX's Crew Dragon) to rendezvous with Hermes once it reached Earth orbit.

I can't let this go! The only answer for the capsule being designed to survive re-entry is cinematographic: That's how we have been trained to think a launch capsule should look. So that's how they showed it.

A failed return to orbit in a MAV capsule would be fatal regardless of whether or not the astronaut survived re-entry. Mark Whatney survived -- just barely -- because when he work up he had the Mars Hab, provisions for a crew of six, vehicles, a radioisotope generator (and viable potatoes.) The hypothetical crew of six who survived re-entry would have nothing. They would land far, far from anything else and then die. (Probably of suffocation, but if they survived that, it's a toss-up what would get them: accident, starvation, thirst.)

A responsible space agency -- which no matter what it's other flaws, NASA certainly is -- would spend the mass wasted here on a re-entry capability on making the actual ascent to orbit more reliable. (See the Lunar Lander and its return vehicle for a case in point on what actual good engineering does in reality.)

The idea that the capsule would be carried back to Earth and used to land there does not work, either. It is expensive to carry mass to Mars (even with the Hermes and very, very, very expensive to land it on Mars and then take off with it again. It would be much, much cheaper and much, much, much safer to send up a return capsule (such as SpaceX's Crew Dragon) to rendezvous with Hermes once it reached Earth orbit.

I can't let this go! The only answer for the capsule being designed to survive re-entry is cinematographic: That's how we have been trained to think a launch capsule should look. So that's how they showed it.

A failed return to orbit in a MAV capsule would be fatal regardless of whether or not the astronaut survived re-entry. Mark Whatney survived -- just barely -- because when he woke up he had the Mars Hab, provisions for a crew of six, vehicles, a radioisotope generator (and viable potatoes.) The hypothetical crew of six who survived re-entry would have nothing. They would land far, far from anything else and then die. (Probably quickly of suffocation, but if they somehow survived that, it's a toss-up what would get them: accident, starvation, thirst.)

A responsible space agency -- which no matter what it's other flaws, NASA certainly is -- would spend the mass wasted here on a re-entry capability on making the actual ascent to orbit more reliable. (See the Lunar Lander and its return vehicle for a case in point on what actual good engineering does in reality.)

The idea that the capsule would be carried back to Earth and used to land there does not work, either. It is expensive to carry mass to Mars (even with the Hermes) and very, very, very expensive to land it on Mars and then take off with it again. It would be much, much cheaper and much, much, much safer to send up a return capsule (such as SpaceX's Crew Dragon) to rendezvous with Hermes once it reached Earth orbit.