[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Paul on that point don't you think it strange that the propulsion systems being used now haven't fundamentally changed that much in 50 years.

Also don't you think it's moronic that we can spend trillions on wars yet
not on space exploration, although I think you may be over budgeting on the cost.

Do you remember such projects as this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus

or this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project..._propulsion%29

which were fully costed for considerable less

This propulsion would be good, but bear this in mind. Whatever you use you have to use half way and then turn the ship around and use to decelerate half way. That has to be used 4 times at least. Nuclear engines would cost millions and millions to build in space. Getting all the parts up there costs heaps. I thought I read that it cost 800 million to send the space shuttle up with components for the international space station.

So even if we build this baby, you have to consider habital living space for the astronauts. Several months living in a tin can is not going to be fun unless you have lots of space to get away from each other, places to exercise, sleep and eat; not to mention needing artifical gravity of some type. You will need water recycling like no other system around now. You need huge storage of food for the trip there and the trip back as well as fuel storage. That alone is gonna cost trillions of dollars in development and construction.

Added to all this you need radiation protection. Some technologies are starting to come on line but the general principles are not set yet nor is there a working model. One coronal mass ejection and the entire crew are dead. A magnetic field generator has to protect the crew for nearly 100 meter all the way around the habital zone of the ship. The ship that would be required to carry say a crew of 6 would like be 1 kilometer long if you want to make it a safe and habital space craft. The first trip to Mars is likely to require something like this. That pipe dream Ares or Orion nonsense that NASA came up with is not taking people to Mars. It is just way too small and far too dangerous. NASA would literally mean Need Another Seven Astronauts.

Yes if more money was injected into it we could have been maybe visiting Mars by now, but the scramble for resources which we all use for our consumerist lifestyle prevent exploration. Only when it is capitally viable (say ore or chemical needs) will we be leaving the planet in a hurry. Until then it is slow steps.

Don't get me wrong, I think more money should be spent on space exploration with humans and far less on sanctioned murder of people in far away lands just to protect oil reserves. It makes sense that this planet should not be the only place humans are living, but the reality of making this happen is just too far away into the future.