Nothalogh

Yes, this would be a thermal ramjet, you can do the same with a turbine engine as well, just replace the combustors with heat exchangers.

I've been saying this for a couple of years now

Because it's a way to flex on the competition

No doubt, but it still stands that the R-7 is one of the most impressive launchers of the entire history of spaceflight

It seems unfair, and that's an understatement, to judge the R-7 from only 2010 onwards

Good old semyorka, the B-52 of rockets

Orbit to Surface to Orbit is a hell of a challenge

I already know more. The MI rides in on single use entry pods, exfil is via a dropship of some sort. The question is could you land a mostly fueled starship?

No, for moving personnel and their immediate equipment into theater faster than any other method

Sweet jesus, you guys really missed the point. The point is to utilize such technology to rapidly deploy personnel and gear from a stateside location to a forward operating facility, just a whole hell of a lot faster than riding in a C-17. Once in theater, the personnel and gear would be transferred to conventional air, land, and or sea vehicles for the completion of the intended mission.

Fine, sell the service to the military. It would be right up their alley. Imagine being able to deliver two platoons worth of infantry and gear anywhere in the world in under an hour.

This is the most underestimated part about this whole design, and the main reason why I see the design getting a lot bigger by the time development is complete

The key word there is "launching" not hosting and managing them. Though I believe back in the days before Challenger, the USAF had a plan to run their own STS missions with USAF crews.

The problem with Zubrin is that he's not crazy enough

Indeed

Well, an F-15 can break the sound barrier in a vertical climb, with a full weapon and fuel load. So, I think it has that nailed. The issue would be controllability in that retrograde descent. Many moons ago, the USAF and USN played around with tailsitter VTOLs, and found them to be nightmarish creatures. My suspicion is that BFR and SS are going to be a lot bigger by the time one gets sent to mars.

Not only that, but NASA is not allowed, by its charter, to do classified stuff. This was one of the reasons why Project Orion had to seek military funding, and thus prove military applicability. So DARPA needs an orbital platform to do orbital DARPA things.

That is the least plausible part of your entire farcical post. On the other hand, the only thing that all of that would achieve is being a colossal moneypit for all of the contractors and politicians involved, which is actually somewhat plausible.

There was a US one, back in the late 80s or so, that landed the same way.

Loss of control of control surfaces, is one of the most common sources of airliner LOCV, right after controlled flight into terrain

That's an LOCV scenario in both fixed and rotary wing aircraft

I'd wager that is on purpose. Inherent instability combined with FBW control makes for maneuverability in all flight regimes all the way to transition to landing burn

The revenge of every proposal from the '50s and '60s that were deemed "too crazy"

Wait, really?

That would be needless cruelty, however, a nicely prepared landing pad with an X in the center would be polite