"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
news:hyXpe.5626$6s.252@fed1read02...

At our current level of technology, any conceivable effort
expended in human-presence space exploration simply won't return
more than the investment because humans have to carry along with
them bulky, complex, _expensive_ life-support hardware. Meanwhile,
we look through bigger and better telescopes, send robotic avatars,
etc. _because they don't need life-support hardware_.

This is wrong. What's holding us back isn't the "mass of the life support
hardware", but the high cost of launching *anything* into space. When costs
are in the $10,000 per lb to LEO range, *everything* you launch costs a lot
of money.

What's needed are new vehicles that bring launch costs down to a reasonable
multiple of the cost of fuel. We're a long way from that. Hopefully small
companies like Space-X will help the situation, because EELV's and shuttle
derived launch vehicles aren't going to lower launch costs.

There's an old SF short story along these lines; _The Cold
Equations_. Read it.

You're not doing much better than the original poster. Old sci-fi isn't
usually the best place to look for an explanation of why spaceflight is so
expensive.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.