because we're not all space kadets with total economic ignorance and also without the slightest grasp of physics
because we're not all space kadets with total economic ignorance and also without the slightest grasp of physics ...
Actually, we know of several ways to produce a far better propulsion system than we employ now. They are politically unpopular.
For instance, look up "Project Orion" and "nuclear pulse propulsion". This would get you almost anywhere in our solar system you might want to go with payloads measured in thousands of tons, not pounds.
Since the idea of significant fallout during lift off is not particularly appealing, think of power beaming to get into initial orbit. FALCON was a nuclear reactor pumped continuous laser which, in one incarnation, could provide a ground based power source to launch multiple small payloads for assembly in space where fallout is not really a concern. Megawatts of laser power operating continuously for years. Because it is a reactor rather than a bomb, radioactive by products are easily contained and controlled.
There are several real issues with both concepts, but the two biggest stumbling blocks are:
(1) You will notice that both contain the word "nuclear". Politically unpopular, and even worse:
(2) really developing either or both would require huge budgets, and much longer than 8 years.
Kennedy set the moon as a goal and took the flak for spending on "pie in the sky", but Nixon was President when we got there and, at the time got a lot of the credit for the accomplishment. Most Presidents know at least some history and this issue is not lost on them.
* * * * * * * * *
These are not the only seriously better propulsion concepts but they are both in the open literature and are 50 and nearly 25 years old respectively.
Politics is sometimes harder than rocket science...
Another problem, the genius (Ted Taylor) who designed very small nuclear warheads at the time refused to participate, leaving the Orion without propulsion.
Had this concept been followed through, we would have gotten to the Moon in a few more years, but with a ship able to carry a crew of 200, not 3. These ships work better the bigger they are, so in the design, the hull would have had a casing of water on the inside, protecting against cosmic rays and providing the crew with hot showers on demand for any length of time.
Their motto was "Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970". Instead, the option was taken to kill the program and go with a politically correct and very flawed design because it was quick and dirty, getting only a handful of men to the Moon, never to return.
1958 test video. At around the 1.40 mark the explosive charge is visible dropping from the pusher plate, and then detonating.
Here's the actual history of the project - as told by Arthur Clark - very inspiring period in our history.
Here's Freeman Dyson who actually designed the concept, and was the real force - not the bomb designer, Tyler.
Here's Michio Kaku (a full blown ardent leftist) explaining the costs in terms of human body weight of space programs. He then goes on to poo-poo the whole idea of nuclear bomb propulsion, since "terrorists" could get and use the small bombs. Michio Kaku was instrumental (by his own admission) in getting Ted Taylor to quit bomb designing - Ted was making 3rd generation thermonuclear bombs when he quit.
At about here it should be noted that just before the project was closed down, the design for an interstellar version with a crew of thousands was finalized. The ship would have been able to hit half light speed, making it possible for us to go to another star.
PROJECT ORION ANIMATION - an old animation - some of the better ones seem to have been taken down.
I hope that these men had a good enough grasp of physics to please everyone with concerns about who-knows-what in physics, as well as the actual economics involved in space flight - with the Orion ship being the cheapest by miles.