Nibb31

Not much really. It would be comparable to last year's Chelyabinsk event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor. Mostly a high-altitude blast and some broken windows. We get hit by these on a regular basis, but they usually go undetected because most of them happen in remote locations.

Why not read a book about it? I'm not against helping you with your homework, but seriously, relying on unknown folks on the Internet is lazy and foolish. "LEM accident"?

And again, for crew launches, what's the point of launching a small reusable spaceplane on a large expendable rocket instead of launching a small reusable capsule on a medium expendable rocket?

That would make it the world's most expensive payload shroud. How does it save money to launch 200 Kg satellites on an Atlas V ?

- No need to bring back a satellite killer. You'd be better off with something like MiTEx - Too small. - Capture of an uncooperative ennemy asset is impractical. - Too small for 2 EVA suits. You could probably fit one empty. - Not enough supplies to loiter in orbit for over a year as it currently does. - No reason to bring back a spy sat. - Too small for advanced optics. - Cheaper to build a permanent spy sat with more fuel. - If you can build one small enough to fit inside the cargo bay of an X-37, you could send up swarms of disposable ones in a single launch. The payload bay is only 2x1 meters, so whatever it's carrying is small and probably light. It's must also be super valuable and delicate if they need to waste 5 tons of precious Atlas V payload just for hardware to bring it back.

- Too small. - No reason for loitering-on-orbit capability and orbital manoeuvering. - Orbital re-entry makes it an easy target. - Too small for advanced optics. - No reason to bring a spy sat back from orbit. - Too small. - No reason to bring dumb kinetic weapons back from orbit. Its payload bay is smaller than your average refrigerator. My guess is that it's a development platform for exposing future satellite hardware and new materials to an orbital environment. Whatever is tested on the X-37 can be exposed to vacuum, radiation, and thermal conditions for long periods and retrieved for analysis. It might also be used to test software, which would explain the orbital manoeuvers. Another use would be for orbital manufacturing of some very valuable high-tech materials. For example, it could be used to grow new cristals in microgravity for later use in weapon or observation systems.

In that list, I'd say go for the Moto G. It's had great reviews. Its only drawback is that it doesn't have 4G. Pandora, browsing and netflix all depend on the apps that you install, not on the phone. Also, make sure you have a data plan if you want to use it online away from home.

Of course it isn't. Actually, the OP mentioned the Reaction Engines A2 (a suborbital airliner version of Skylon), which uses LH2. There are no LH2 facilities at international airports, so it would require a special area at the airport for production, storage, and handling of LH2. It would also require specially trained personel for all the activities related to this specific aircraft. The infrastructure cost would be huge.

Which is typical space-cadet behavior of coming up with a cool idea that involves spaceships and rockets, and then looking for a reason to do it. Usually, when you then isolate the problem that you are trying to solve, you find out that either it has lots of far easier and cheaper solutions than putting stuff on big rockets, or that there was no real problem to begin with.

What bolt-on inflatable hab is currently sitting on a shelf, complete with power, thermal control, and an ECLSS capable of running reliably in a closed loop for 2 years? What bolt-on "better engine" is sitting around waiting for a mission? What launcher is being built to launch those things before 2021? We're not playing with Legos here. You don't just bolt stuff together and launch it. Space craft design and integration is a long and tedious process that requires extensive studies and simulations before you even start cutting any metal. With current budgets, current flight manifests, and most of the engineering workforce tied up with SLS and Orion, none of that stuff can be developed, built, tested, and integrated in the 6 year period between now and 2021. Already? It's only in 3 years. That's actually a short time to finish building the launcher and to do all the testing and integration work. They're on track, but I wouldn't say "already". However, you missed my point, which was that no mission payloads are being developed to put on top of SLS, other than Orion, which as mdatspace put it, is just a 21-day cislunar taxi that can't do much on its own. Man, read the thread already... It's been stated a dozen times that the SLS manifest is EM-1 unmanned in 2017 and EM-2 manned in 2021. That's all there is for now.

Mining Phobos would be several of orders of magnitude harder than landing a base on Mars. Do you have any idea of what's involved in digging a sub-surface mine here on Earth? It's years of surveying and prospecting before the first pick hits the ground. It's thousands of tons of heavy equipment, fuel, chemicals, processors, diggers, haulers, conveyor belts, elevators, rail systems... Mining in zero-g would require to develop robotic, low-maintenance, zero-g, vacuum, rad hardened, versions of that same machinery, as well as the launch, transport, and landing systems to put them on Phobos. It's a ridiculous idea with current or any near-future technology.

That's silly. Contrary to a widely popularized speech, we don't do things because they are hard, we do things because they are worth doing. Especially when it requires a substantial effort. In fact, the bigger the effort, the more justification you need. We don't build suborbital airliners because there is no demand for $200 000 express plane tickets. Concorde was a complex machine, but it flopped due to lack of demand. Nobody is going to start building rocket fuel factories and storage facilities at Heathrow, JFK, and Dubai International Airport for a handful of passengers every year.

To be ready in 2018 (or even 2021), they should already be cutting metal and building stuff. It takes years to design and build space hardware. But there is nothing to be seen. There are no current plans for any SLS payloads other than Orion with a 21-day ECLSS, no habs or extended duration modules, no landers, no interplanetary stages, and no SLS launchers have been ordered other than for EM-1 in 2017 and EM-2 in 2021. Really guys, a manned two-week shakedown mission is all we can hope for in 2021. Any interplanetary stunts for 2021 are ruled out because nothing is being built for that.

That's certainly not what the X-37 is all about. If it was made to "send stuff to anywhere very quickly", it wouldn't need to mess about getting to orbit and manoeuvering around.

Exactly. If as the OP posted, your objective is stability, preservation, ease of access and visibility, then a high Earth orbit is probably one of the poorest places to put it.

I actually managed a couple of decent landings with MechJeb and practically no manual input. This is how I did it: - From a 100km orbit, set a Target Coordinates to 80°W and 0°N (This is the mountain range west of KSC, not KSC itself) and click Land at Target. - Let the Landing Guidance computer do the deorbit burn and course correction, and then click Abort Autoland when the Target difference gets <1km. - Dump all your fuel (you need some sort of fuel dump valve like these). - Set Smart ASS to SURF with HDG:90, PIT:10, ROL:0 and let her reenter. - When you get below 500m/s, switch to Spaceplane Guidance mode. Switch on Show landing navball guidance and click Autoland. - During the approach, use the Surface Info panel to watch you true Altitude (above ground level). If you feel you're not going to make it to the runway, lower the flaps and wait until the last minute to lower the landing gear. If you feel you're going to overshoot, open the airbrake and lower the landing gear early. This might not land you exactly on the runway (it only worked once for me), but it should at least land you safely near KSC.

Because its purpose is to act as a gateway. EML-1 and 2 are not "high orbits", they are Lagrange points. A Gateway Station at EML-2 is a good staging point for interplanetary or lunar missions. It's a great place to build a fuel depot or to park a reusable interplanetary exploration vehicle (the DSH). We're done with LEO. Most of the groundbreaking technology for working in LEO has been developed. Let's leave it to the private sector to find commercial applications, if any are to be found. The goal these days is exploration, and LEO has been plenty explored.

Nowadays, it takes you at least an hour to get to the airport, and 2 hours to check in and board. Then it's one hour to get from the airport to your final destination. So travelling from London to New York in 2 hours instead of 8 only makes the total travel time 6 hours compared to 12. How much more expensive would a 2 hour flight be compared to an 8 hour flight? I'm guessing a lot, judging by the complexity of the aircraft as well as the infrastructure (you would need to upgrade your airports with LH2 and LOX handling and storage facilities for a single aircraft type). How many people would pay the premium?

As mentioned by the article, this proposal was published as an appendix of the CAIB report. It took them several months to come up with this plan, which means that they simply couldn't have evaluated it in the required timeframe. It also assumes that the rescue shuttle processing is strictly nominal, even though it was streamlined with much less testing and checking, which was pretty much unrealistic. But most of all, I don't think they would even have signed off to risk another shuttle and crew on such a rescue mission. They had no time to properly investigate the problem, so for all they knew, the same defect in the foam could have also stranded the second shuttle, with no hope of rescue this time. Even though they had very little chance of working, they would probably have attempted some of the "fixes" that didn't require a rescue launch, i.e.: Patching the wing with waste bags and freeze sealing with water, jettisonning any superfluous mass (includind the skyhab). I don't think that anyone at SpaceX has ever seriously envisioned launching a vehicle multiple times a week. Where would the payloads come from for that sort of launch rate?

It really is much too broad. Even ancient old dumb phones from 10 years ago could read MP3s, so it's not a proper criteria. You need to look at what you can afford and what your phone company offers in their plans. Then get back to us with a short list.

I hated it too, until I discovered Swype. There are other similar keyboards around nowadays (Swiftkey and even the stock Android keyboard now has the feature), but I'm still partial to Swype. Swiping words is much faster that typing, and I find it much more natural on a touchscreen.

There have been several studies on the subject, including shutting people inside a bunker for 500 days to see how they react. The key is to keep them busy. If all else fails, there is always medication... It's really not an unsolvable issue. The biggest issue is definitely life support.

The ECLSS on the ISS requires constant replacement parts, maintenance, and consumables. If the ISS had been on an unreachable interplanetary trajectory, the crew couldn't survive 6 months, let alone two years. A Mars mission, flyby or landing, requires 2 years of reliable and autonomous life support. That's either a closed-loop system or a massive amount of consumables and spare parts. Neither of which are possible in the scenario of a rushed flyby stunt.

A Mars flyby for the EM-2 mission in 2021 is unfortunately completely unrealistic. NASA is already struggling to get the Orion MPCV under its parachute weight limits, yet this plan requires development of an even heavier heatshield, that pretty much invalidates all the drop testing that is done and the reentry testing of EFT-1 and EM-1. This would be the first flight of the Orion ECLSS. People are already complaining that it's risky business to send astronauts on the 2 week ARM mission with an unproven ECLSS, yet this plan requires sending them on a 2 year mission with an unproven ECLSS.

There is no such thing as a private space program. There is no return on investment in commercial space exploration.