[hopespringseternal]

We have a robust unmmanned launch system, but it will be 10 years minimum to get a new manned vehicle going, and if we keep setting our sites on unrealistic requirements given the time to develop technologies (like single stage to orbit) we will never get there.

To call our unmanned launch system "robust" is an abuse of the word. It is all based on 40+ year old converted ICBMs.

There is no technical reason this must be the case, but inside the bureaucratic world of NASA, I suppose even engineering obstacles that have been solved again and again are insurmountable obstacles. Maybe it is time to put that tired old organization out to pasture.

Under NASA, a whole new sector of the economy was reduced to a bureaucratic niche.

[RightWhale]

Atlas and Delta are like the IRBM and ICBM launch systems in name only. All new tech. Take your pick of fuel, hydrogen or kerosene. These are not only vastly improved in efficiency, but modular so the launch weight can be dialed in, whatever the mission requires.

[Magnum44]

It is all based on 40+ year old converted ICBMs

You haven't looked at the new Delta or Atlas lately, have you? They sport pretty impresive numbers.

The Air Force smartly went off and built up reliable unmanned systems following Challenger. Nasa should have been thinking similarly with the manned side, and one could argue they were, but they either were not funded sufficiently or choose not to prioritize funding for a shuttle replacement.

It is a commentary that in our society, if you ask people if manned space is important, 80% will say yes. But if you ask them to prioritize spending, of twelve priorities, NASA will rank near dead last, second only to foriegn aid. That might explain the space budget.