[originaltext] The great advance in rocket theory 40 years ago showed that l

The great advance in rocket theory 40 years ago showed that liquid-fuel rockets were far superior in every respect to the skyrocket with its weak solid fuel, the only kind of rocket then known. However, during the last decade, large solid-fuel rockets with solid fuels about as powerful as liquid fuels have made their appearance, and it is a favorite layman’s question to inquire which one is "better". The question is meaningless; one might as well as ask whether a gasoline or a diesel engine is "better". It all depends on the purpose. A liquid-fuel rocket is complicated, but has the advantage that it can be controlled beautifully.  The burning of the rocket engine can be stopped completely; it can be reignited when desired. A solid-fuel rocket, on the other hand, is rather simple in construction, though hard, to build when a really large size is desired. But once you have a solid-fuel rocket, it is ready for action at a very short notice. A liquid-fuel rocket has to be fueled first and can not be held in readiness if or very long after it has been fueled. However, once a solid-fuel rocket has been ignited, it will keep burning. It can’t be stopped and reignited whenever desired. Because a solid-fuel rocket can be kept ready for a long time, most military missiles employ solid fuels, but manned space flight needs the fine adjustments that can only be provided by liquid-fuel rocket. It may be added that a liquid-fuel rocket is an expensive device; a large solid-fund rocket is, by comparison, cheap.