Thanks for that Hank .. bottom line: what is really needed are new forms of propulsion, especially with regard to Specific Impulse:

Essentially, the higher the specific impulse, the less propellant is needed to gain a given amount of momentum. In this regard a propulsion method is more propellant-efficient if the specific impulse is higher. This should not be confused with energy-efficiency, which can even decrease as specific impulse increases, since many propulsion systems that give high specific impulse require high energy to do so.

In addition it is important that thrust and specific impulse not be confused with one another. The specific impulse is a measure of the impulse per unit of propellant that is expended, while thrust is a measure of the momentary or peak force supplied by a particular engine. In most cases, propulsion systems with very high specific impulses (such as ion thrusters: 3000 seconds) produce low thrusts.

That's the only way we are going to be able to zip about with large cargoes and comparatively small fuel tanks, as per any decent sci-fi spacecraft. It would also solve the problem of extended exposure to solar radiation and claustrophobia during interplanetary voyages. Imagine: a few weeks to Mars or the outer planets.

Compare that to the Apollo architecture, where about 330 feet of expendable stage rocketry was needed to get a 45-ton lunar payload (the CSM and LEM) into a 90-nautical-mile-high parking orbit. - And, the LEM had to be built so light, that it would have collapsed under its own weight in Earth gravity.

Still, my point in this thread is that: since it could be done - by whatever "primitive" means judging from ideal standards - it was damn right that it was done! Who can regret Apollo?? Whoever thinks the moon landings should have been postponed has really forgotten the spirit of those times.