I agree that 8.6e12J is comparable to 1.17e11J, but the energy required to flying a 747 in real life is not comparable to the potential + kinetic energy of a shuttle, neglecting all losses required to achieve that potential + kinetic energy.
In particular, two million pounds of SRB propellant
plus more than 500,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen is not comparable to 64,225 U.S. gallons of jet fuel.
The point is that marshaling energies of that magnitude is actually pretty routine for our culture.
In particular, two million pounds of SRB propellant plus more than 500,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen is not comparable to 64,225 U.S. gallons of jet fuel.
In particular, you are acting as if the fundamental problem is represented by the Shuttle. That's just one particular configuration of one possible solution. What you're doing would be like someone from the early 1900's showing the in-feasibility of the performance envelope of a 747 by quoting the stats of a Curtiss biplane.
Abandon the idea that you have to use chemical propulsion, or that you have to carry your own power, or even your own reaction mass, and you get fantastic improvement.
Here's what you get when you only keep doing the 3rd thing:
In particular, two million pounds of SRB propellant plus more than 500,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen is not comparable to 64,225 U.S. gallons of jet fuel.