Well, gb, do enlighten us.

HOW is the next major step going to be achieved?

We all know that IF a major advance is achieved, then many things become possible. If yopu don't know HOW, then you're just puffing hot air.

And NO, your famous "pipelauncher" is NOT that required step in technology. Perhaps a Space Elevator is?"

You are right, the pipelauncher isn't THE "technological solution".

But it's not a matter of a technological solution.

In terms of technology we could have already "have these many things becoming possible" decades ago.

There isn't a quick fix, not now, nor was there decades ago, nor will there be decades or centuries into the future.

The problem has always been money. You can even ask the guys over in NASA- and they are quite eager tell you it's always been about the money.

We could have went to Mars decades ago- though almost with doubt, we would have killed good number of crew- but as long as that didn't stop us- it could have been done.

Though getting crew to Mars isn't what I would call the "many things become possible". Putting a permanent colony on Mars might fit in this category, not merely repeating Apollo- going there and then coming back.

It's always been about the money.
For instance, there was not anything technologically "unsound" about the Saturn V- it had no launch failure. And it lifted 5 times more than we can lift today.

Nor was there anything in particular, technologically, wrong with the X-15- it was a beautiful craft.

The reason the Shuttle was build was to save money.

Pretty big cosmic joke, that.

The only reason to want "any" technology is to lower cost- to do something cheaper.
A lot people don't quite understand this; they like how pretty technology is; it's something which interesting or fascinating or wondrous. Exciting! Change!

But the cell phone saved lots and lots of money- forget about the other stuff tacked on: video phone and camera, and internet connection, etc.
People living in mud huts have them. They couldn't afford the old phones, but these cell phones are cheap.
And this true of the computers or any other new technology [other than the Shuttle:) ].

There are limits to the chemical rocket- it uses a lot of rocket propellent.
But the cost of rocket fuel has NOTHING to do with the high costs of launch. If the cost to lift 1 lb to LEO was $500 per lb [instead of the current $2000, $4000, or with Shuttle over $10,000 per lb] THEN and only then you could imagine that the cost of rocket fuel could be a significant cost.

The limitation due to cost of chemical rockets is somewhere around $100 per lb to LEO. At the point chemical rockets are charging $100 or 200 per lb to LEO, then cost of rocket fuel will be a serious limitation or problem to overcome.

So problem isn't cost of fuel, nor the cost of fabricating the container of the fuel, plumbing, nor the rocket engine.

Here is someone else's take:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html

But in terms of "have these many things becoming possible", even the current high cost of launch isn't really
a show stopper.

If the price of launching from Earth remained at it's current cost, this still would not prevent having "these many things becoming possible".

An example of "these things": putting solar panels in space and have been be profitable and get all the energy we need on this planet from space.
Or Moon colonies, and/or Mars colonies. Preventing impactor from hitting earth. Using zero gee and vacuum for industry. Or other "things".

Though launch prices would actually lower if you did either of these things.

But say the govt decrees it, such as: "Thou shalt Not lower launch prices from earth, you will be severely fined and perhaps go to jail or death awaits you if you do this in any way". Though of course you need all countries to enforce such a decree- and that's pretty damn unlikely.

Or other way of saying the same thing [but being more "realistic"], is if Earth's gravity was 50% or 100% more than it is now. So if that was the case, then we could still "have these many things becoming possible".
Though if you reorganizing reality, taking away our Moon and the NEOs makes it a more difficult than "merely" doubling our gravity.

Launch cost is a significant problem, but *the problem* is there are far worse things than merely launch cost which are preventing "these many things becoming possible". And none of them have to do with technology.

Now, as far as a space elevator.

Simple answer is no.

But if you could successful get a space elevator built- somehow do this politically. Somehow, stop people from listening to reason as to how costly it was to build a space elevator. And of course, somehow quiet the shrieks of people terrified about this thing coming down. Etc.

Yeah, it would work.

But building a massive pyramid to symbolize our commitment to space exploration, would be easier, and cheaper. And almost "do" about the same thing.

The main thing practical about something like a space elevator is getting stuff *down* from space- which isn't too much of problem in the near term.