And hey, guess what? Turns out you're right after all: the X-Prize for an orbital launch was already claimed in September 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1

Seriously, if I hadn't watched that crew blow up, I may feel differently. But watcing the shuttle launch is bizarre. There are all those sparks and all of that fuel, then a huge cloud of smoke and fire. Just look at the picture in this post and you can see why I consider it a bomb.

Not only that, the inefficiency is mind-boggling. To lift all of that fuel up in the air is like launching a whole gun just to shoot a bullet. It just doesn't make sense.

The Soyuz is pretty reliable, but rockets still fail regularly. A satelite got burned up just a couple of months back. I hope we can find something better.

It has worked hundreds of times in the past. By my count, about 340 people have flown the Soyuz and not a single one has been killed by the rockets. (One died when parachutes failed to open, and three when undocking from a space station left them exposed to the vacuum. There has not been a single Soyuz fatality since 1971.)

Like I said before, the danger in manned launching is not the rockets. It's the complexity, and the Shuttle has that in spades.

I agree though that alternatives to chemical rockets are certainly worth investigating. Space elevators would be cool, as would alternative kinds of rockets.

Dude, I noticed that you have a lot of reasons why things can't be done, but you don't seem to offer any solutions of your own. If everyone thought like you, we would still be living in caves. And, since it's so easy to be a critic, maybe you could get a job in Hollywood.

I'm not a Rocket Scientist. But, I have taken Physics and I understand plenty about orbital trajectory and escape velocity. I also agree that rocket propulsion is the only current method that will attain escape velocity. Although, we will likely find a better propulsion source in the next 20-50 years. I don't agree that you need to lift vertically off of a launch pad with huge tanks containing tons of liquid fuel. Whether you do this with a rocket or a shuttle, it's both dangerous and inefficient.

Regarding the rail gun; it can be modulated at any speed, just like we do every day with MagLev trains. And, although it may not be practical to accelerate humans to escape velocity, it could be used to launch a vehicle into an altitude where a solid rocket booster could take over. It would also be very useful for launching freight, instead of manned rocket flights.

Regarding the X-Prize; of course I am familiar with it, which is why I mentioned it. The reason Burt Rutan and his team were able to claim this prize, is because they thought up new ideas, which were safer and more effective. For example, they used a horizontal launch vehicle, instead of launching vertically. Then, they used an innovative feathering device to return to Earth, without burning up in the atmosphere.

Although the feathering device wouldn't work in a re-entry from outer space, perhaps similar technology could be used to reduce the intense heat, which burned up one of our crews. The horizontal lift option is proven and viable, dating all of the way back to the X1. It would greatly reduce the weight and energy requirements of a launch vehicle. And, it would reduce the probability or blowing up our crew.

If you have any better ideas, I would love to hear them.

And hey, guess what? Turns out you're right after all: the X-Prize for an orbital launch was already claimed in September 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1

And hey, guess what? Turns out you're right after all: the X-Prize for an orbital launch was already claimed in September 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1

And hey, guess what? Turns out you're right after all: the X-Prize for an orbital launch was already claimed in September 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1

Seriously, if I hadn't watched that crew blow up, I may feel differently. But watcing the shuttle launch is bizarre. There are all those sparks and all of that fuel, then a huge cloud of smoke and fire. Just look at the picture in this post and you can see why I consider it a bomb.

Not only that, the inefficiency is mind-boggling. To lift all of that fuel up in the air is like launching a whole gun just to shoot a bullet. It just doesn't make sense.

The Soyuz is pretty reliable, but rockets still fail regularly. A satelite got burned up just a couple of months back. I hope we can find something better.

Seriously, if I hadn't watched that crew blow up, I may feel differently. But watcing the shuttle launch is bizarre. There are all those sparks and all of that fuel, then a huge cloud of smoke and fire. Just look at the picture in this post and you can see why I consider it a bomb.

Not only that, the inefficiency is mind-boggling. To lift all of that fuel up in the air is like launching a whole gun just to shoot a bullet. It just doesn't make sense.

The Soyuz is pretty reliable, but rockets still fail regularly. A satelite got burned up just a couple of months back. I hope we can find something better.