TythosEternal

"Optimization" can mean many things. Let's say you want to breech the Karman line with minimal delta-v expenditure. It becomes primarily a tradeoff between a minimization of "gravity drag" (how much delta-v you use trying to move directly up in a gravity well) and atmospheric drag (delta-v lost to air resistance). We can furture constrain the problem by stipulating a gravity turn after some pitchover conditions are meet. This is now a local optimization problem, and there may be solutions you won't capture, but in exchange we now have a fully-deterministic ascent profile, given certain boundary conditions. Lastly, for a given vehicle configuration, we can search this well-formed space (altitude, pitchover angle, and turn control parameters) to converge on an optimal solution. At this point, the biggest problem is accounting for the staging characteristics of each unique vehicle--you've entered a min-max problem space, constrained by subjective measurements like separation risk. The last sensitivity I should point out is that of models. How high are you shooting (i.e., what model determines your objective), what kind of atmospheric/drag/gravitational models are you using, how are you modeling and/or integrated control through the beginning, pitchover, and throttling sequences, etc. If you are a controls scientist or systems engineer, "optimization" means something very specific. With a problem with these qualitative sensitivities and discrete/discontinuous behaviors, analytical optimization is a pipedream. However, proper constraints of your design space and selection of appropriate models will let you find a near-optional solution numerically.

Minimus is actually easier to safely land on, and safely return from, than Mün--and it has higher science multipliers, too! In career / contract mode, target Minimus first for a better return on vehicle investment.

That model was a structural-and-systems prototype; the interior will look very, very different by the time manned rating has finished and we have better mission specifications and CONOPs. For my own $0.02, there are many, many more (and better) things that can be done with the interior. SpaceX had a novel chance to redesign a capsule from the ground up, but they appeared to have more dreams and science fiction fantasies than practical human interface and mission experience. That having been said, it's still early--I have no doubt things are only going to improve.

The cancellation of the JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) program still makes me cry a little bit inside every time I think of it. Not only was it the first serious (more-than-imaging) exploration of Jupiter's moons, it was very ambitious. Why just explore Europa when you can take a look at Callisto and Ganymede, too? There were also a number of new technologies, such as a deep-space fission reactor plant, high-impulse Hall thrusters, ice-penetrating radar, and high-bandwidth interplanetary data transmission. Much of this was enabled by the unprecedented power availability provided by the power plant. Despite all this, it was very do-able and had even started preliminary mission planning and acquisition contracts before it was cancelled. The rationale at the time was that manned space missions were more important (thanks, Constellation). Every NASA mission since then seems incredibly dull, unambitious, and risk-averse.