Space enterprises taken a back seat? Leave it to China-their sole goal is commercial & economic advancement at all costs. Voila! they will succeed where we have failed.

ian cheese, london, uk

The answer to your question re Mars: economics! The answer to the rest of your questions: read Jez's comments from Ringwood.

Steve, Swansea, UK

It's the understanding of science in the general public that appears to be reversing as complexity grows exponentially.

Thus we see the rise of aromatherapy and holistic medicine. If science appears to be magic (apologies to Arthur C Clarke) then what is science?

Stuart, Chichester, England

The space dream died because governments arnt prepared to pay for it anyone more. Manned travel beyond earth's orbit is out of the question until
1 we invent a faster, safer and cheaper way to do it
2 someone shows us something economically worthwhile "out there" to justify the cost and the risk

Mark, Bristol, UK

Science has advanced almost exponentially in some areas, just not the ones the old pulp authors predicted.

I remember an 'Amazing Stories' picture of a man using a slide rule on an intergalactic rocket.

Instead of this we ended up with super computers and the 'Beagle' lander.

Bob, Liverpool, UK

As Brett says, it's mostly a matter of resources; which in turn reflect social priorities. If the money spent on the Iraq war had instead been given to NASA, it would suffice to land 500 astronauts on Mars and bring them home again.

Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,

So lets bring the cold war back and make the next science leap. And on the go, clean up the political mess resulting from absence of fear equillibrium in the world.

Vickie, TA,

I blame 'Star Wars': The film not the weapons system. After that kids were more interested in light sabres and 'the Force' than ion drives and modular spacecraft. (The trekkies didn't help with their lobbying for dead end technology reusable spacecraft either).

Eric Skelton, Cardiff, Wales

If science is going backwards, it's still going forward far too fast for me (relatively speaking)

Kevin Straw, Leicester,

Fred Pohll's "The Space Merchants" always seemed more convincing than "Star Trek".

Science continues to make great strides. But it's the science of Edward Bernays, not of Einstein. The science of getting people to do what you want, and think that it's all their own idea.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

International Space Station. Constellation. Moon in 2015. Its all happening, I've just got back from Kennedy and trust me, they still beleive.

Andrew Fanner, Cowplain, UK

Clearly, to a large extent space enthusiasm reflected archetypal East-West competition. Thus, in the post-cold war vacuum, only poorly filled by "global terror", spending billions on reaching other balls of rock represents an expensive game of keepie-uppie. Mineral rights potential notwithstanding.

Mark, Istanbul, Turkey

Rubbish.

The sequencing of the human genome, the internet, flat-screen TV, the large Hadron Collider at Cern, gene therapy, targeted anti cancer drugs, mobile telephones, supercomputers, electric cars, renewable energy, powerful anti inflammatory drugs.

Just a few great leaps for mankind.

Jez, Ringwood, England

It's a matter of resources, ultimately, with regards to the space program. Even Kennedy said that while he wanted to put a "reasonable" amount of resources into it, it was only the competitive imperative of the Cold War that led to the diversion of resources to be used in the pre-1970s space effort.

Brett, Salt Lake City, USA