I think we should accept that current technology is just not adequate for the job. We've sent men to the Moon, and a Mars mission would probably be possible, but it's just too damned expensive to do regularly. The last Apollo mission happened around the time of my birth, and I'm now approaching middle age.

I think the two biggest shortcomings are in launch vehicles and propulsion systems. It simply costs too much to launch matter from the Earth and accelerate it into an interplanetary trajectory. This technology hasn't really improved much since the 1960's; the Saturn 5 was in many ways better than the space shuttle, which is itself over 20 years old.

If NASA is really serious anout manned space exploration, they should stop squandering money on futile manned missions to Earth orbit, and invest heavily on reasearch into cheaper, more powerful launch vehicles and propulsions systems. If they were able to improve these enough, manned missions to Mars, or even more distant destinations, would become a lot more realistic. Unmanned missions would also benefit.

I still think that robotic missions will always give more bang for the buck, but with improved technology, the cost of manned missions may become acceptable.

First of all, was it necessary to start a new thread for what is essentially a rehash of argument you made in an existing thread?

Why should we accept this assertion? The technology of the late 60s was quite adequate to get us to the moon and back. The same technology was also quite capable of LEO and HEO operations, servicing space stations (like skylab) in both a manned and unmanned capacity, satellite launches, and as someone else pointed out, even launches to Mars was within it's capabilities.

If we cannot do an Apollo-type mission today, it is because the tools used to make the equipment could not be stored (far too bulky to maintain by commercial enterprises if they were not to be used profitably) and the parts no longer made.

Like in all aerospace applications, you must use it, or you lose it.

Apollo was ended through purely a political decision (Nixon wanted to leave his own legacy in the Shuttle program), not due to any failure of the program or equipment.

What does your age have to do with the price of fish in Canso?

Note that you could fly two Apollo J-type missions for the price of a single shuttle launch to LEO, in dollars adjusted for inflation. (I don't have the cites for this handy, but it came up in other threads in the Lunar Conspiracy forum often enough that you'd have a fair chance of finding it.

Here's an excellent thread that deals with precisely the topic you're on about. Please read it.

Again, what does the age of the technology have to do with the price of fish in Canso? Or Lunenburg?

What, specifically, are the shortcomings you're talking about? And please support your work with some facts this time.

In this, we're in full agreement. Unfortunately, NASA's budget is necessarily tied into politics.

Please read this excellent post in particular. [Edit: This one too.]

Goes without saying, actually. Is this all your contention is about, that we don't have ready the equipment necessary to go to Mars right this minute?

I've shown you repeatedly why robotic missions are not the more efficient option in terms of science per dollar.

Now please, read what we've provided to you, and I'd suggest that it is not necessary to start new threads to rehash the same arguments. The existing thread on the subject was fine.

What is the price of fish in Canso? Or Lunenburg? Or Yarmouth, for that matter? What about Sherbrook? Oh, how I wish I was in Sherbrook now...

All kidding aside, I'm not sure why this is such a serious topic for some people. There aren't that many places one can send people to. The Moon, and Mars, and maybe some NEAs. No one's suggesting Sci-Fi style asteroid mining, or building spaceports orbiting Jupiter. I guess I'm somewhat detatched, since no one's suggesting spending MY tax dollars on it, but people will always complain about what the government does with their money.

More importantly, economically speaking, the price of manned missions will in no way go down if they're never done. If the technology isn't there, or isn't cheap, it's because there's no demand for it. There's no demand for it because there's currently no manned space exploration taking place. Cars would be entirely unaffordable if only 4 people on Earth drove one, and buying a car would be a huge waste of money if you only ever drove it twice. So, if the equipment isn't there, it's because no one's looking for it, not because we can't build it.

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"