[Spaceships] getting into orbit without superscience?

[DemiBenson]

I know I already responded, but let me put it in a different way:
Without super science or magic, getting to orbit from an Earth-sized planet is incredibly expensive and requires a truly staggering amount of infrastructure.

If you want a future society to have regular space travel, your options are

• Super-science, of some flavor and some degree of reality-bending
• A truly stunning amount of rocket launches world-wide
• Established space-plane technology and all the infrastructure to support it
• A non-rocket launch method, which requires far more upfront infrastructure and political will, but will ultimately result in a much low per-ton launch cost, which would be passed-on to the end-consumer

Each of these has follow-on implications for the setting you’re working up.

[Mysterious Dark Lord v3.2]

Originally Posted by DemiBenson

Each of these has follow-on implications for the setting you’re working up.

True. Let us look at those, shall we?

• Super-science, of some flavor and some degree of reality-bending

PRO: Such settings usually lend themselves well to adventuring and sensational scenarios. Including personal spaceships.
CON: Lack of reality, unforseen consequences.

• A truly stunning amount of rocket launches world-wide

PRO: Closer to realistic than most scenarios.
CON: Requires either a wealthier and more peaceful world, or a world running the razor's edge of World War Last.

• Established space-plane technology and all the infrastructure to support it

PRO: More advanced world, realistic, and has the possibility of private spacecraft.
CON: Realistic space-plane tech would be Rich Folk's Toys, which would mean the mandatory presence of wealthy PCs or powerful Patrons.

• A non-rocket launch method, which requires far more upfront infrastructure and political will, but will ultimately result in a much low per-ton launch cost, which would be passed-on to the end-consumer

PRO and CON: The sheer scale and power of most non-rocket launch facilities would require a World Government for it to exist at all. That has ramifications ranging from planetary dictatorship to a peaceful world where adventures are Simply Not Done, and anything in-between.

[fdsa1234567890]

In a context in which metallic hydrogen is the main fuel source, might there still be applications for which chemical engines are preferred for safety reasons?

The downside to metallic hydrogen is that it is metastable, which means that while it would work in the sense of allowing for easier rocket design, it seems like it would be much higher risk in the event of damage to your craft. Mechanically it has similar dangers to antimatter, even if to a much lesser scale.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by fdsa1234567890

In a context in which metallic hydrogen is the main fuel source, might there still be applications for which chemical engines are preferred for safety reasons?
.

No chemical fuels are truly safe. Anything mixed with LOx is explosive. Hydrazine is deadly poisonous and fuel grade Hydrogen Peroxide is fantasticaly corossive. Then there are risks associated with cryogens you have to keep at 20 K or lower.

You probably fuel the maneuvering thrusters with some compressed gas.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

No chemical fuels are truly safe.

While true, metallic hydrogen, being a monopropellant, would be quite capable of blowing up without any mixing (metallic hydrogen fuel is probably impossible, metallic hydrogen hasn't shown any signs of being metastable, but it's not proven impossible).