Meecrob

I know exactly what you are getting at, including why the space shuttle had wings the size it did, but to be totally fair, I don't think cross-range capability has ever been utilized. Although having said that, not a single ICBM has been launched in anger, and they are probably the biggest boon to peaceful spaceflight, As a thought excercise, I am deeply curious to what spaceflight would look like today had the space shuttle never been built. In any case, to keep it on topic, I'm hoping Dreamchaser is successful, if for no other reason than to show the general public that spaceflight can be "routine." SpaceX is doing this also, but your regular person isn't looking at a Falcon 9 first stage and thinking "wow, reusable, just like my car"

I wasn't even considering air-breating engines...thanks for bringing some legitimacy to what is basically a 13 year-olds fantasy!

Mathematically it is inefficient to drag a plane around with you into space but I have to admit, they are sooooo cool!

Well, to be fair, they don't "matter" on the way down either unless you give them angle of attack.

No, that's a great example of why you should turn of the LAS after an abort. It was programmed to fire automatically if it detects inertially a certain deflection from vertical an the earth rotated beyond that parameter. Clearly the Soviets knew the Earth rotates. That example sounds like bureaucracy...and we are led right back to NASA, so maybe I agree with you in a round about way?

This "creation" would still have to be like a dodecacopter to lift that much. I can't imagine the transmission system since in an engine out situation, all rotors are geared together so there is equal (but lesser) lift.

Ok, tractor beams are fine in sci-fi, but in real life are kinda stupid. They still have to impart the same delta v a burn would...why would you bring whatever fuels your tractor beam runs on instead of just bringing fuel? Also Newtons Laws being you'd suck yourself into your target and all that.

Ok, but someone is gonna have to pay for the release mechanism, all related hardware and associated R&D? Or you can send it on one that is already certified. Edit: I missed your solar panels bit...same deal though....who is paying for that? Like I know SpaceX wants to be a bus service as they have done to LEO, but right now, they can't exactly open a profitable line to Earth-Moon L2. Like its not some untapped market nobody can reach, its just not useful for lots of purposes.

In theory, yes, but you still have to certify a new type. Like they aren't sending something like the JWST on an untested, expendable variant "just cuz" the reusable one worked. But In hindsight, they are making the HLS...so maybe? I guess we need to see how big the new satellites are.

My point is that the fact of the matter is that if the US wants a solid propellant ICBM, they get it, regardless of what the civil space program is doing. If you haven't noticed, most civil rockets are adapted from military ones, not the other way around. Edit: just to stop the pedants...yes, recently this is shifting, but when they were developing the SRBs for the space shuttle, they had thousands of solid-fueled missiles pointed at what the US called enemies in the cold war. They were NOT waiting for the STS program to develop solid fuel missiles....same boosters as are on SLS, to keep it on topic.

Wait, are you under the impression that the USA needs an excuse to produce ICBM's? Like the same USA that had the cold war with the Soviets?

I say this totally in jest, but perhaps this is why Boeing currently seems to be plagued with being late? Full disclosure, I've worked in flight test, and @mikegarrison is correct; it is standard practice to not leave anything to chance, such as a situation where low lighting levels could impact operations. SpaceX seems to really want to re-write all the rules here! Fingers crossed it doesn't end up biting them in the butt!

True, but if every smartphone owner donated just one dollar, we would be two-thirds the way to a second JWST or similar. Sorry its a bit off-topic, but @kerbiloid brings up a good point. Namely that space really isn't that expensive, it only is when one expects a handful of parties to foot the entire bill for something everyone on the planet benefits from. I dunno, I'm impressed we can even see it so well. I imagine this was taken after the sunshield was deployed and we are seeing reflected Sun's rays?

I think Mike is trying to say that if you push too hard on the equivalent of an empty popcan, it crushes. Or you have to waste payload mass to add structural mass.

Its pretty logical. You go around all day touching dirty things with your hands. Your junk stays in your pants (hopefully) and stays clean. Urine is sterile. Get off your high horse and don't jump to conclusions like: Have you ever eaten spicy food? Got hydraulic fluid on your hands? That stuff BURNS your junk! TL;DR Just because you don't know why someone is doing something does not mean they are an inconsiderate jerkwad.

"e" also has its letters in alphabetical order

The Eiffel Tower has delivered over its lifetime, for sure. However when it was first completed, Parisians allegedly claimed that the best view in all of Paris was atop the Eiffel Tower, simply because you could not see the eyesore that is the Eiffel Tower from there.

I forgot to mention: thanks for that interesting tidbit!

I think we are derailing the thread. So I'm guessing not, but anyone have any word on B4 static fire?

Look man, I've read every word of your replies to me, you can do me the same courtesy, rather than literally paraphrase what I said in your reply to me. Full disclosure: I am a pilot. We don't have any sort of escape systems because they are heavy, and 999,999 times out of a million, you are better off flying the plane to the site of the crash in the event of a failure, as opposed to jumping out. Its pretty simple - pilots are trained to be pilots, not skydivers. As far as military aviation goes, I feel I'm pretty safe to say that ejection seats qualify as not only "launch", but "all phases of flight" abort system. And this is entirely my point. What is the point of having a system that protects you from something that is statistically not of concern? At least military aircraft are toting around all that weight for a useful purpose. Rockets take a performance hit for their entire flight for something that only has a purpose for like 90 seconds. Bottom line is it is reduced TWR off the pad. Upthread, I explicitly stated that I do not think launch abort systems are stupid or useless, I merely am trying to say that I think they have been given an outsized importance. To be honest, I really don't care if Starship ever launches with humans aboard because whatever happens, they can rendezvious crew in orbit. That also allows for crew to not be aboard for the bellyflop at landing, because I'm sure even the most sycophantic SpaceX fan will admit that is a cool maneuver, but its not the smartest to have humans at risk during it. You say you do not understand my point of view. I feel you, brother! I cannot understand why you think that rockets blowing up on the pad is something that happens with frequency. I know you do not believe me, so I say look up the statistics. You are correct in that there is the greatest potential for "destruction" at launch, but that does not give any indication of the likelyhood of failure.

I get what you are trying to say, but just because something feels "right" does not mean it is correct. It is logical to think that launch is a dangerous phase of flight. After all, we have the maximum amount of fuel and oxidizer, maximum weight and the minimum of performance. But that does not mean that historically people have had a lower survival rate during launch than other phases of spaceflight. I am asking you to look back in history. I ask this with the best of intentions. I'm not trying to antagonize you. Please show me an example where a rocket blew up on the pad and the launch escape system saved the crew's life? Upthread it has been mentioned that 5 lives have been saved. Compare that to the amount of lives that have been lost in spaceflight to reasons that could not have been solved with an LAS, such as Columbia, etc. Edit: Also I do not understand what is so difficult about the concept that Challenger saved its crew. They were alive until they hit the water. The stack literally exploded! The crew was within what? 150 feet of the explosion and they survived! If they had a method to decelerate, they possibly would still be with us.

Precisely!

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but back that up with data. All you did was say what you feel is dangerous about spaceflight. I cannot recall any fatalities on the pad from an actual flight. Give me one example of a fatality that would have been avoided had there been a launch abort system integrated. Also, including the ones mentioned upthread, add up all the lives that have been saved from LAS's vs how many lives have been lost in phases of flight where a LAS would not work.

And all those modes you speak of do not utilize a launch abort system....which I am talking about. The point was made that someone thought that Starship could not be human rated due to lack of a launch abort system. Like obviously starship can do an abort to launch site, Europe, or once around, just like space shuttle.

Again, thanks for correcting me, It makes total sense to use starship as an unmanned cargo/fuel vehicle until it proves a human-rated failure rate.