On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:17:52 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
"Which is what we were absorbed with 40 years ago - after the Moon, what
about Mars?
With 70s technology, it would have been an utter, unparalled,
unmitigated disaster in slowmotion.

Why? What's so different about it to landing on the moon, other than the
distance involved? An understanding of Martian climate (or rather lack
thereof) may have knocked it on the head, and also the additional cost of
developing equipment to get there (and back), but I'm surprised that the
technology itself was a limiting factor.

cheers

Jules