I FEEL a strong sense of disappointment that so little has been achieved in manned space flight in the 50 years since Armstrong and Aldrin first stepped on the moon. Skylab, then the Shuttle and now the International Space Station, all involving only low earth orbits, represent so little to show for half a century.
Almost 30 years ago aerospace engineer Robert Zubrin showed how using derivatives of then current Shuttle technology a crewed mission to land on Mars was not just possible, but also affordable for the United States. He subsequently published the Case for Mars, setting out for a layman how it could be done.
The recent film The Martian gives a realistic idea of the lander and Mars habitat modules for such a mission, although its portrayal of the the spacecraft for transit is exaggerated.
Thanks to private enterprise, launch costs have plummeted over recent years. Space X now quotes a price of only $90 million for 13 tons to Mars.
Putting people on Mars is no longer prohibitively expensive and is well within current technical capability. If the West led by the US does not dare to dream and to do, I have no doubt that others, China most likely, soon will.
Otto Inglis, Edinburgh EH4.
ONE aspect of the Moon landing of 1969 that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in recent articles commemorating the enterprise is the suggestion by sceptics that it was all an elaborate hoax.
This scepticism was quite widely publicised at the time, and the doubters included some respected scientists not at all notorious for making eccentric claims in green ink.
I don't pretend to know the truth of the matter, but couldn't help noticing that the sceptics' observations of incongruities in the pictures were never met with reasoned explanations, but only with indignant expostulation and cries of "conspiracy theorist!", as though the existence of such theorists proved conspiracy to be impossible.
Robin Dow, Rothesay.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel