No, turbine engines operate at an entirely lesser, though still quite significant, level of performance compared with rockets.
The most complicated part of a rocket engine? The turbopump. Which has an amazing amount of design commonality with a turbine engine, it's basically the same concept but with different working fluids. From the Wiki: "Turbopumps in rockets are important and problematic enough that launch vehicles using one have been caustically described as a 'turbopump with a rocket attached'–up to 55% of the total cost has been ascribed to this area." So go educate yourself first. The point isn't that rocket engines are easy, but that similar materials challenges have been solved in the context of jet engines to make them affordable and reliable, and so with enough time and development, there's no reason to think those problems can't be solved with rockets.
The problem with imagining 1000's of launches is that near-Earth space simply cannot accept that much stuff.
De-orbiting debris is not a problem. These things aren't all going to live in LEO in perpetuity.
Your's is at least as likely to be wrong as mine.
You said we will never see 100's of launches a year. We're seeing a launch pace of ~15 Falcon 9/Atlas V class rockets per year. SpaceX alone could get to that level within a decade if their plans come to fruition (and they've had a good track record of fulfilling their promises thus far). You are being far too pessimistic, and the comparison to Watson is therefore apt.
I don't accept that what has not been done is possible, do it, that's the only real proof.
VentureStar was cancelled because it was mismanaged, not because of technical problems. The administration was actively ignoring the recommendations of the engineers. You are claiming it is impossible because it hasn't been done before. Why don't you apply those same criticisms to the moon base you are so fond of, which is far less developed and far more complex?
There is no 10x improvement possible with rockets, you, and many other people, are simply deluded if they think so.
The cost of fuel in a Falcon 9 launch is ~$200k. The cost of a launch (at least for the government) is >$80million. If we get comparable performance to airlines, where the cost of fuel is ~25% of the flight, that brings the launch cost to $800k. There's a 100x improvement in cost, exactly. Even assuming that we never get there, a 10x improvement would still be possible if we assume that the recurring costs of rocket launches are always 10x the price of airline flights. In fact, that's what SpaceX is targeting in the not-too-distant future. What fundamental problems prevent us from getting there? So far your arguments have amounted to "materials challenges are hard". Let's get some substance. I'm inclined to believe the owner of a rocket company before you, especially when he has a track record of making good on his claims.
Look, we're not talking about colonists here... This is about science.
If that's really what you believe then Mars wins yet again. There's far more of scientific interest to be done there.
Don't make grand sweeping proclamations about things that you can't know even in principle. I understand your preference for the Moon, but your arguments are devolving from technical ones to arguments about stating right out that things you don't like are impossible. Debating the technical merits of Moon missions versus Mars missions is interesting, but when it turns into mostly emotional arguments I see no value in continuing the conversation.