In summary: Solid rockets are cheaper and less complex than liquid engines, while liquid engines are higher performance and controllable.<br /><br />Kinda tough to reach orbital velocity with *just* solid rockets...even the Shuttle's SRBs, which are probably some of the highest performance solid boosters around, only have an Isp of around 250 or so I believe...shuttle_guy can correct me if I'm wrong here. Meanwhile, the shuttle's Lox/H2 main engines have an Isp of 454, according to
this link. Thats nearly double! Even the Lox/Rp-1 engines of the falcon supposedly have an Isp of something like 325-350. Your not going to get performance like that from a solid motor.<br /><br />Hybrids: I believe the N2O engines of the SS1 had an Isp of 235; however they used a blow-down system which meant they were not getting the best performance they could have even for N2O. Basically, an economy rocket engine
. As shuttle_guy mentioned, a LoX based hybrid would have much better performance...not as good as LoX/H2 by any means, but possibly as good as a Lox/P1 liquid engine. Add to this the comparative simplicity of operation of a hybrid.<br /><br />Supposedly Jerry Irvine & Co tested a small amateur LoX/htpb hybrid engine at the MTA, but the king of spam was not forthcoming with any hard numbers on the results of the static test. That engine ("motor") would have been a strictly low-tech affair, anyway, with a burn time of less than 15 seconds.