DDE

Last I heard, they aren't flyable exactly due to lack of spare parts. Usually such reports center around the GUGI ship Yantar, and her fleet of ROVs and two Consul submersibles (related to the Finnish-made civilian Mirs). So, not a surface action group. That said, she usually has her transponder on, sometimes even when performing a side-looking sonar search pattern. The Kashalot AGS I posted above, and her sisterships, have an even more discrete deployment method:

It's rather difficult to build and maintain such a system. The ejection seats are a maintenance menace already, now imagine filling the rest of the plane up with pyrotechnic ordnance sufficient to completely destroy it. I also think sci-fi understates how difficult it is to completely destroy something structural like a RAM skin (ordinary explosives would just scatter it) while overstating the importance of reverse-engineering. Generally even acquiring examples of enemy materials science isn't going to let you reverse-enginesr it within the sapce of days to months. Most of intel from wreckage would come from comms and computers, and destroying those (as described re: IFF) is a lot easier. Only it doesn't seem to be done either. There are rumours that leading military powers send submarine recovery crews to pick up aircraft wreckages, and not necessarily their own.

AFAIK it's the opposite. Older bombs tried using effectively coal dust. ODAB-500 uses 1,3-pentadiene.

Not sure they suceeded where the 1970s guys failed. Aluminium "cleverly" coats itself with aluminum oxide, and stops further combustion. I'm guessing they're using essentially nanothermite to get past that. Also, I've only ever heard of ALICE as a lOx-Al slurry.

A substrate that doesn't burn is going to obliterate any boons of high density that you're going to obtain. There was plenty of research on poweders and slurries, including aluminium, beryllium and carbon. All reported similar findings: difficulties with handling and storage, limited gain. Aluminum only burnt fully when used with fluorine.

I think it began with people who did remember that a release point would be in GEO, and that a counterweight is necessary. Then the "gravity stops at the Karman line" crowd came in.

BO is ULA in a New Space get-up.

I'd try this, after first investigating high-atmosphere momentum exchange tethers.

I think he bit a lot more than he could chew. Basic TCA was simple and understandable (and often quite necessary). Instead, it turned into a full autopilot. IIRC I could only tolerate the update thanks to the new "compensated vector SAS" feature that promised to allow me to fly a proper copy of the Shuttle.

When your biggest problem is "MechJeb or TCA?" I kid, but as TCA got more and more features around 2019, I was really confused why I was about to install a third, atmospheric, autopilot.

There's a Russian quip: "I'm an artist, and that's the way I see it." Don't be mean to interns who only have 30 seconds to Google a clip.

"Throwing down the glove can lead to irreversible consequences"

Well, for one thing, I don't think it's going to have Twitter. But will it always accomplish its mission?

Just chilling.

Before someone else pikes on: Falcon Heavy narrowly edged into NASA's SHLV weight category.

Here we go again.

You forget cosine losses. Any deviation from vertical is thrust, energy and propellant wasted.

I've dealt with both government and private dentists. They only order an x-ray if they're looking for any internal problems; by default they orefer a hands-on approach. This includes the standard check-up, though. And that's with me getting the annual hygiene on my employer's policy.

Frankly I find the Soyuz OM concept too brilliant to abandon. Yes, a conventional LES means a docking is requiredz but it's a small price to pay.

You're talking about the Masters of Scrubbing, at the mercy of Upper-Level Winds, and other shenanigans.

I've found it in both MPD and ion variants. HOPE uses bimodal NTRs, but those aren't integral to the design.

Everyone at KB Arsenal: *gasp*

All signs point to a nuclear-propelled, airbreathing Kh-102 ALCM look-alike. I highly doubt they're even supersonic.

@AllenLi, I shouldn't browse Atomic Rockets at work this much, so I'll stop at having identified a similar configuration among NASA HOPE spacecraft design studies. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/images/realdesigns/hopebntr02.jpg http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/images/realdesigns/hopebntr11.jpg