why not a rocket?

[sergebroom]

When I was at my friends Nicole & Pierre’s, people got to talk about the MythBusters. I mentioned one of my favorite episodes, where they used technology available during the Civil War to show that a liquid-fuel rocket could have been built. That had me wonder out loud why, until Peenemunde started raining death onto London, people thought that such rockets were impossible. I mean, look at Jules Verne, who thought a cannon, of all things, would be a more likely way of going to the Moon. Anyway, I asked if the opposition to rockets was a conceptual barrier that was extremely strong. I then mentioned that, in Operation Crossbow, one scientist pooh-poohs the idea on the grounds that solid-fuel rockets couldn’t possibly carry enough energy for such long flights. My memory may have been faulty, and I’m not sure if the movie’s character had said anything about liquid-fuel rockets. Anyway, one of my buddies, a physics teacher, pointed out in a condescending tone that the space shuttle uses solid-fuel boosters. I calmly said I was quite aware of that, but didn’t mention that modern solid fuels pack more of a punch than old ones did. I asked him if he knew what had been the obstacle to the idea. He didn’t. I dropped the subject.

If one of my blog’s visitors could answer that question, please do so.