Exploro

Why would anyone wish to terraform Callisto (or for that matter any Galilean moon) anyway? Also consider that Callisto may have differentiated geology with liquid water deep underneath its surface (granted not to the extent thought to exist within Ganymede and Europa). I recall reading that signs of such differentiation were detected by the Galileo spacecraft while surveying that moon. Thus where there is likely liquid water, there too is the prospect for life on Callisto. Would we wish to possibly contaminate such an environment?

Now I understand.

Not entirely accurate. True both Titan I and Titan II used the same engine family. However the LR-87 had to be modified accept the hypergolics which fueled the Titan II (The -5 model to be precise). It would be impossible to take and -3 model engine from a Titan I and mount it to a Titan II.

Considering OP's parameter, payload was not of terrible concern; the rocket needed only insert itself and it's motor into LEO.

To hazard a guess; the initial vehicle mass would be around 10 metric tons.

Problem is that to achieve that state Hydrogen gas would have to be subjected to extreme pressures. Doing a quick read the region where Hydrogen would likely become metallic within Jupiter is where pressures are around 200 GPa and further down pressures easily exceed 3000 GPa. Thus the challenges to overcome would be not only finding a means to compress Hydrogen into a metallic state and keeping it in that state but also finding a pressure vessel that can endure extremes of temperature and pressure.

I think the Clementine and LRO missions did just that.

Consider that ICBM's utilized MIRV's. MIRV were inherently capable of defeating the ABM countermeasures of that era (ABM systems that themselves utilized nuclear warheads. Thus any extra kinetic energy from orbital deployment might impart is somewhat moot). Further by staying in orbit for prolonged periods; an orbiter would most certainly be detected by Soviet tracking stations. Thus it's very presence cedes the element of surprise. The Russians were experimenting with anti-satellite technology around the same time the Shuttle was being developed. Had the Soviets went beyond the experimental stage and actually deployed ASAT weaponry, an orbiter loitering in space would most assuredly be high on the list of potential targets.

Firstly I put Valentina into orbit. And decided to tinker with a fixed gear jet.

Part of the reason is that the speeds a re-entry vehicle returning from the Moon or beyond would be traveling substantially faster than one coming from LEO. With that in mind a capsule design makes more sense than a winged craft.

We had ICBM's....why would we need a space shuttle to conduct nuclear strikes (The military never intended to use orbiters as strike platforms anyway!) As for Buran; it's debut happened to coincide with collapse of the Soviet Union. Simply put; by that time there was no longer any funding for the Soviets to support a shuttle program on the scale of it's American counterpart.

Military payloads would not require a lifter such as SLS. Typically national reconnaissance launches use rockets in the class of Atlas V, Delta-IV, or Falcon. Further when it comes to lofting military payloads; that is handled by the Air Force. Finally while US military budgets are deeper compared to NASA's, even that is not infinite. Consider that there are competing programs from all four major branches vying for funding. Simply put there would be no room for funding a SLS-class rocket.

Technically speaking the hiatus was much shorter. Construction of the early orbiters; Enterprise, Challenger, and Columbia began in early to mid-1970's. Specifically; construction of Enterprise and STA-099; which would later be converted into Orbiter Challenger, began in 1972. Construction of Columbia started in 1975.

A couple of years ago I read a paper regarding potential use of antimatter/ matter reactions for weaponry. One of the key disadvantages was that unlike conventional nuclear weapons, anti-matter weapons had to be actively prevented from exploding. Hence with that in mind; a failure of any one of safeguards of the power plant aboard a typical starship as depicted in Star Trek to prevent uncontrolled antimatter/ matter reaction could conceivably be as disastrous as we see on TV. However that said your post did get me thinking along you lines; had the writers ever thought it would be more advantageous to simply vent the antimatter reactant into space rather than jettison a giant piece of hardware in the event of an emergency?

if it weren't for career mode I wouldn't have found use for planes. Planes made a lot of the survey contracts a lucrative thing.

Math appears to be fine; I got a total DV of 5399. Regex is likely correct; remove the useless mass and your DV calculations should improve.

Difference between Kistler and ULA is that even if ULA were to collapse, it's parent companies would be intact. Where as Kistler had to struggle to find investors to develop it's rocket systems, Boeing and Lockheed would not find themselves in a similar struggle (considering the two have other sources of revenue in aerospace and defense) if either opted to remain in the launching business following such a collapse.

To remind you the topic is with regard to ULA's problems with the RD-180 supply and to possible impact Congressional action might have for continued Atlas-5 launches (as it is the only ULA vehicle really impacted by that). Vulcan is not even mentioned in the article posted....and Vulcan is not even slated to be lofted by RD-180's anyway. I'm not ULA so I can't answer that question. However Delta-IV's can do the job and in fact have flown similar launches for the Air Force in the past. BE-4 was already in development by Blue Origin for that companies own launchers when ULA partnered with them to further develop the engine.

ULA's days are not numbered; though the in the short term the extension on the RD-180 ban does hurt ULA. Firstly the issue regarding RD-180 RP-1/LOX engines are a problem for continued use of the Atlas-V rocket system. Keep in mind however that ULA also flies the Delta-4 series of rockets which uses LH2/LOX burning RS-68 engines. That line is unaffected by the issues regarding the RD-180. Secondly ULA is already in consort with Blue Origin and Areojet to develop replacements for the RD-180; the BE-4 and AR-1 engines respectively. BE-4 was selected as primary and AR-1 as back up and either engine should be ready for flight by either the end of this year or the following year. Finally the ULA is developing the Vulcan launch system to compete with Space-X; replacing both Atlas-V and Delta-IV launchers. Simply put; while the short term problems with the Atlas-V propulsion system will be thorn in the side of ULA until replacements are ready it is unlikely this will represent a fatal blow to the company. They will likely still be a part of the commercial launching industry for years to come.

Funny you should mention that. It was an image of a battle between a battlestar and base star that the op added in his post. In that series; utilizing cyberwarfare was exactly what the Cylons did which brought a virtually catastrophic defeat to the Colonials.

I'm willing to wager it is possible. But gravitational interactions from other planets and the parent star may over time cause the binary pair to separate. Meaning it likely would not be a stable condition.

The point of moving humanity off-world and into the Solar System is not a way to "bring humanity back"; rather its to ensure Our continued existence. Part of the reason we have gotten where we are today as a species has been the fact that we have spread ourselves out across the Earth; so while local cataclysms may cause the destruction of some of us; the vast majority of humanity continues on unaffected. Much is the same rational for pushing deeper into the Solar System. To concede a single Mars settlement alone would not be enough to ensure our species survival in the event of some future cataclysm that results in the destruction of humanity on Earth. However a thriving Martian community comprised of numerous outposts and settlements certainly might. Further Mars would be one of many suitable places to start that process; emphasis on "one of many ". There are other places like the Moon; Titan, and large asteroids that would make for potential places for humans to colonize. However Mars has certain advantages over some of the other locations. Unlike say Titan or asteroids; Mars reasonably close enough for us to reach with our present level of technology in a reasonable period of time. And while the environment of Mars is far harsher than that of Earth; it is more hospitable than locations such as the Moon. Thus Mars represents a good starting place to initiate the transition from a terrestrial civilization into a interplanetary one and one who's destiny is not tied to that of the Earth's.

This might give you the answer that you seek Rdivine (see the bottom paragraph for that section). In summary two possibilities for how Triton (and perhaps some of the other captured moons) wound up around Neptune. Triton likely collided with another body already in orbit around Neptune and the collision caused Triton to enter into orbit around Neptune. Alternatively at one point in time Triton had a binary partner that; when the two came into proximity of Neptune; the gravitational interactions tossed the partner body back out into the Solar System and robbed sufficient energy from Triton for Neptune's gravity to capture it.

Unlikely considering it's gravitational influences upon the Kuiper Belt; this object would have to be something planetary in scale.

S-1C and S-II were brought KSC via barge.