Lots of good stuff here.

To Larry: Yeah, I figured the Soyuz is kinda cramped, so would having a two- rather than three-man crew and also two (or maybe three?) rather than one Soyuz make more room? Maybe one Soyuz could have extra shielding (water tanks?) for sleeping quarters. Didn't know it used hypergolic propellants - ideally something with higher thrust to reduce transit times would be preferred, especially since if the mission was one year long, the crew would have wasted bones and muscles (unless they cycled on and off steroids while resistance training every day). Is three months not realistic to reach a body that would pass within 1-3 lunar distances?

To phil: so there are liquid upper stages to do the job? What are they called, who makes them and how much?

To Mr Brosz: Yes, I like the idea of sending as much hardware etc ahead as possible, which I originally suggested (though they would hardly land on a NEA, more dock). It would work for a Mars scenario as well, although I prefer a NEA (with the right delta-V etc of course) since a three- or six-month return trip to a NEA is much more doable and affordable than a three-YEAR Mars mission. Of course, Mars has Phobos and Deimos. so a NEA mission would offer some valuable lessons in rendezvousing with asteroids, too.

Remember, people, CURRENT technology. No TransHabs or CELSS or VASIMR etc. Might as well ask for the U S S Enterprise with warp drive and transporter beams. :-)