Jeff Findley wrote:


"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.

I just love it when critics contradict themselves:

What's needed are new vehicles...

Did you not read what I wrote? Did you miss the part about "our
current level of technology"?

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.

Ever actually read _The Cold Equations_?

Mark L. Fergerson