The return flights from the moon, supposed to be really dangerous ones too many things that could go wrong, yet astronauts managed to successfully land, then lunch the module from the moon, get back to the orbit, get into waiting spacecraft and safely return to the Earth. One time you can be really lucky and safely go through all those dangerous return stages, but six times with 60s technology level, just impossible.

Kalevaa, Helsinki,

In a TV program Fox listed the deaths of ten astronauts and of two civilians related to the manned spaceflight program as having possibly been killed as part of a cover-up. Only Russians probably know the truth about US moon missions. Since they are quiet, there two possible answers: the US did, in fact, land on the moon; or Russians have some sort agreement with Americans, ie Americans know some sensitive information about Russian space program.

MArkus, Marselle,

D. K. Harris says real engineers don't resign in protest. That is an outrageously false statement. If an engineer is on a project that's headed dangerously in the wrong direction and management won't heed warnings, the best thing to do is to resign. Or be an accessory to manslaughter.

Jeff Martens, Catonsville, MD, USA

The solution is so simple: NASA has to replicate or slightly improve old Appolo rocket that was (I suppose) extremely reliable one. After all it landed on the moon six! times between 1969 and 1972. Unless all the papers have gone missing, like those missing tapes.

Gill, Montreal,

I think this is indicative of our American belief-based society, where how strongly you believe in something is seen as being more important than unpleasant facts. The problem will come when the belief that "the Ares is a great American product" comes into contact with reality.

Ken, Pasadena, USA

All the Apollo engineers are in their 70s and 80s, and hardly current on their engineering. Also, 'moonlighting' on a private design is flatly illegal. But real engineers, especially senior engineers, don't "resign in protest." That's politics going on there. What NASA needs is fewer managers.

D. K. Harris, Cocoa Beach, USA

It's a piece of junk without a doubt...Direct 2.0 is the moonlighting engineers better solution!

Kevin O'Connor, Grosse Pointe Woods,MI, USA

Don't worry about the rocket; they've got to get the movie set right this time.

Lorraine, Auckland, New Zealand

"Nasa has strongly defended the programme after claims from its own engineers that its rocket design could be dangerously flawed."

Isn't this pretty much how they lost a shuttle and 7 crew? Because they thought engineering concerns could be argued with rather than needing fixing?

Katie, Cambridge, Cambs

Wait...The Americans supposedly sent austronauts to the moon 40 years ago and they can't design a decent rocket to take them back there? It makes you wonder if the moon landing was indeed fake!

Andreas Andreou, Cyprus,

Warnings from shuttle engineers went unheeded in 1986, with tragic results when Challenger was launched in freezing temperatures that the booster rockets weren't designed for.

Thirty years of neglect means that lessons need to be re-learned. NASA could learn something from Russian engineers here

Paul, London,

Space is the key to humanity's long-term survival, this is still money being invested in projects that could benefit the human race as a whole.

We should invest all the wealth we now waste in foreign aid on space research, industrialized nations should cut all their aid giving, it's useless

Luca, turin, italy

Every rocket has its issues. The Saturn series sure did, but there wasn't the internet to spread the stories, and I guess that is a good thing or we'd still be designing the Saturn 5. As an engineer, knowing the design process, of course there will be issues, but you deal with them and move on.

Tom, Northfield, USA

To spend such a money to got such a result. Well it sounds like NASA.

Peter, Vladivostok, Russia