Apollo vs Orion

[scubadude]

ash73 said:

My point is there's a big difference between "nothing is technologically impossible" (theory) and actually having the technology to do it (reality).

We can't store fuel for the return trip because it leaks, we can't shield against radiation, we don't have a heavy lift rocket, or a command module, or any other module apart from the Orion prototype, we don't have a lander, we can't do supersonic aerobraking, we haven't even returned a probe from Mars... not forgetting the psychological and physical effects of living in a zero-G tin can, 140 million miles from Earth.

There's a massive difference between a week-long jaunt to the moon and an 18+ month expedition to Mars.

Almost all of your "issues" are weight related, we can protect against leaks with big, heavy tanks, protect against radiation with heavy shielding, you can carry supersonic retrorocket deceleration and a lander but it'll be heavy and you can alleviate the physical and psychological effects with space, work and entertainment- all require More to be lifted which requires a heavy lift or multiple lifts... and those we can do, proven technically and factually... Yes- they need to build a new big rocket but that isn't a hurdle its simply on the to-do list.

IMVHO they ought to look at building a "space ship" a glorified ISS in orbit that can be flown to Mars (refueled) flown back to earth orbit (refueled) and off on the next trip- I realise its much cheaper upfront but constantly binning the equipment is what miffs the tax payers off :-)

You can put that on the technically possible but not plausible list though!