In sci.space.policy Mark wrote:
Rusty Barton wrote in message . ..
That's what stands between NASA and a Mars mission.

No, what stands between NASA and a Mars mission is a purpose. I
honestly don't see the point of paying $150,000,000,000 sending people
to Mars: it will be another one-off spectacular like Apollo and soon
we'll be back here saying 'if we can put people on Mars, why are we
still stuck in LEO ten years later?'

But most of the technology that would need to be tested and develop for
even a once-off (whetever such is carried through or not) would find
profitable uses in much less gargantuan undertakings than manned flight
to Mars. R&D spending would need to go for:
* long term life support systems
* human survival in extended low-g environments
* reliable long distance missions
* interplanetary return missions

which are all worthy in and on their own, but would otherwise miss even a
projected target


Mark

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++