stargazer wrote:

Star Trek was(is??) a wonderful show based on DRAMA, which details a
solo mission of a space craft. In the real world however, we don't
condone scuba divers diving alone, but in a minimum of pairs.

In the real world of life support realities, space exploration will
have to be accomplished in a minimum of pairs, if not fleets of
spacecraft. The costs of playing to the "drama" mentality are clear
if we do not observe such nuances.

If we can't afford to do that, then we need to figure out what the
problem(s) are, perhaps we are not ready for space exploration in very
ambitious terms.

I expect NASA officials to live in the real world, not Hollywood
(which has to create drama to keep folks entertained).

First, the better analogy is probably not to a scuba diver, but to a
research vessel.
Second, the universe is a lot more dangerous in Star Trek -- so far we
haven't met anything that actually is shooting at our spacecraft.
Third, the operational cost of a dual mission is more, probably much
more, than twice that of a single mission, since many key facilities
will have to be duplicated.
Fourth, among all the fatalities in space missions, there has been
exactly one flight (Columbia) where having a second spacecraft flying
the same mission profile might have avoided the casualties. Given those
odds, flying two spacecraft for each mission is actually more risky.
(And it is not economically feasible to have a complete backup, say,
spreading 7 shuttle astros among two shuttles for a single mission.)