There havnt been any really signifigant advancements in space travel in the past 25 years. Whats up with that?

I mean, aren't we STILL using spacecrafts from the early 1980's? With the same computers they used then (thats what CNN said last year)?

Regardless of recent developments, space travel is expensive, no matter how you look at it.

However, there HAVE been developments in designs for new spacecrafts. There has been a push for reusable designs. They're planning on eventually retiring the space shuttle.

The shuttle is an expensive dog and pony show.
It sucks up all NASA's $, but keeps public interest. Private ventures are beginning. Stay tuned.

Other than expense, we are still limited to the basic concepts that have been around from the beginning. We first need advances in how to use physics to our advantage instead of how to stop fighting it.

Using the same aircraft that they have updated along with the updated pc's. Propulsion or getting the craft to move faster is what your truly meaning however that seems to remain nearly the same.

Really it all boils down to Tax payer Money. How much the congress and the president essentially the people are willing to give towards this program.

The space shuttle is an old design yes, but it has been updated repeatedly. The hardware the Russians have been using is of a similar vintage, again with updates along the way. The latest real spacecraft I am aware of was the result of the Chinese buying a Soyuz from the Russians, tearing it apart and building their own version.

The reason we have had no new hardware is really cost - with no compelling reason to go anywhere and no votes to be found in funding a shuttle replacement, the industry has slowed to a crawl.

Heavylift vehicles for launching satellites have progressed, but would still be recognisable by Von Braun. Unless America gets into another space race with the Chinese over a permanent moon base or manned visits to Mars, space technology will be waiting for private investment I'm afraid.

Not exactly the same computers. The shuttles have been upgraded with new computers. But you are right, there has not been much progress. That is because we got 90% of the performance that is possible to get from any chemical rocket in 1970. For any real advance we will need a breakthrough. Either some kind of hypersonic airplane, like the X43, or nuclear power, or other totally new technology. But there are some private companies working on making rockets cheaper. They won't fly faster or carry more weight, but they could be cheaper. SpaceX is one such company. See the source.

Rocket boosters are very expensive to develop, and the perceived opportunities for improvement are marginal. So vehicles like the American Delta II and Russian Proton have been in service for decades. The industry hasn't been totally stagnant, though. The current Ariane booster has been in use for just over ten years, and India and China have been developing new vehicles.

There has also been ongoing work on developing ion drive and other technologies for interplanetary probes - Deep Space I, for example.

The payloads and missions, of course, become more advanced all the time.

There have been many, and development continues. But all the general public cares about is man going to the moon, so you don't hear about them in the media aimed at the lowest common denominator. We have sent unmanned craft to all manner of interesting places and are receiving lots of data and pictures. Start at the NASA and JPL sites and you'll start to get the idea.

The computer thing is only partly true. A lot of effort went into building a computer that was architecturally solid and radiation-hardened, for space and military applications. Even more effort went into reliable software to run on it. The entire billion-dollar mission depends on this computer running correctly, all of the time. Aside from that, there are many different kinds of computer used in space now. It takes a lot more compute power to do the things modern satellites do.

We can do nearly all of the science with unmanned craft for much less cost and risk to human life. We've proved we can put man in space. Where there is significant benefit of human presence, we do it efficiently with the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. There's no motivation to spend huge sums on flashy projects. We're no longer racing the Russians. We don't need it to gain a military advantage or avoid a military disadvantage.

Money, money, money!!!! The budget for the space program takes a hit nearly every year, and it costs tons to develop new technology, it also takes time. We still use many older spacecraft simply because they are proven workhorses for launching satalites. As far as the computers go, NASA is working on upgrading some of the systems and some of the shuttles have been upgraded, but why spend money to upgrade something that will soon be scrapped? Some things just take a while to develop and by the time they are up and running, computers have already changed a lot. The shuttle is a great example. By the time it went from develpment to being in use, its computers and instrumentation were outdated stuff, but still very usable.