Over at Slate, Neal Stephenson charts a brief, fascinating history of the rocket, starting with Hitler's V-2 during the second World War and ending with today's sophisticated rockets, capable of launching complex communications satellites that can cost up to $US100,000 a pound. But here, Stephenson explains, we find ourselves locked in:
To employ a commonly used metaphor, our current proficiency in rocket-building is the result of a hill-climbing approach; we started at one place on the technological landscape-which must be considered a random pick, given that it was chosen for dubious reasons by a maniac-and climbed the hill from there, looking for small steps that could be taken to increase the size and efficiency of the device. Sixty years and a couple of trillion dollars later, we have reached a place that is infinitesimally close to the top of that hill. Rockets are as close to perfect as they're ever going to get. For a few more billion dollars we might be able to achieve a microscopic improvement in efficiency or reliability, but to make any game-changing improvements is not merely expensive; it's a physical impossibility.
There is no shortage of proposals for radically innovative space launch schemes that, if they worked, would get us across the valley to other hilltops considerably higher than the one we are standing on now-high enough to bring the cost and risk of space launch down to the point where fundamentally new things could begin happening in outer space. But we are not making any serious effort as a society to cross those valleys. It is not clear why.
Intresting stuff, though I read Gravity's Rainbow one time in college so obviously none of this is news to ME. [Slate]