In a message dated 3/6/2015 1:29:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:
I'm convinced chemical rockets is a relative waste of time with pathetic
thrust to weight. We should have done Orion instead of Apollo and could have
owned the entire inner solar system, instead of a transitory moon hop.
Time was a political\policy issue. The US wasn't sure how far along the
Soviets were at that point. IRC it was viewed that a two step program (send
astronauts to a waypoint in orbit...station... and then launch for the
moon) was viewed internally as the more sensible and long term solution for
visiting the moon but other needs demanded a one shot.
In any Alt-history scenario I don't think an Orion project could have made
it past the design and logistical limitations of the time. IIRC the state
of the art electronics onboard Apollo had the computing power of an Apple
IIc. Life support alone would be an interesting problem.... In the end
though it was about national politics, not about sustainability.
Granted an old-style Orion project for a private company would be an
interesting conversation to listen in on when they propose it to the FAA "We'd
like to build some nuclear bombs....just little ones...no they really aren't
weapons".
Overall, I'd agree that chemical rockets are a dead end for profitable
intersolar transportation let alone interstellar.