Darnok

You can look twice, so I would say two seconds

StarBooster from Buzz Aldrin http://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/rocket_science/starbooster/

You mean single Baikal and Angara core? It is interesting when you compare Falcon 9 with 2xBaikal + Angara core

I've checked few things http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/falcon-9-ft/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/32qh7a/how_much_deltav_does_the_first_stage_need_for/ Empty 1st stage weights ~22t Someone calculated that you would need ~25 tons of fuel to boostback and landing in falcon 9 style on landing pad "Legs + grid fins + associated plumbing and avionics likely weigh about 4 tonnes in total". So we can add wings, landing gear, avionics and booster body could be stronger for horizontal landings. Even we could put in some electric engines and batteries to have some level of thrust in atmosphere... and I am pretty sure all of this would weight less than 25 tons.

I was thinking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain tunnel/cannon over Everest In vacuum tunnel you could sped up and the higher this tunnel ends the better.

What gives me ~4 tons for both boosters wings? Sure, but legs has to be larger and stronger, so rocket wouldn't tip over? While gear can be smaller, because you are landing with EMPTY tank horizontally and you need 3 gears not 4 legs. True, but we are talking about booster, not about core section where you have thrust on bottom and weight on top. Boosters are on sides, so their body has to be stronger for that kind of stresses. Correct me if I am wrong, but IMO for boosters forces during take off are much larger than forces during horizontal landing with empty tank? They are called grid fins... but they probably doesn't weight much. I would go even further and use inflatable wings, if they would have less weight http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2001/01-46.html

Main problem with water supply is that in cities you have no control over that is in it, just single attack and you can cause pandemic in few cities.

Next idea I've seen

So those wings would weight more? How? But landing legs needs to keep booster vertically in balance, while landing gear is for horizontal position. And you don't need mechanism SpaceX uses to balance rocket during landing.

How much fuel (in tons) is needed for Falcon 9 to land back near landing pad? How much does landing legs weight? How much weights landing gear?

The point is to carry less fuel for landing, than falcon 9 does.

If resources on Earth would be almost depleted then some smart people would probably start to think... where do we find more? Look how oil industry started... someone invested lots of money at first? Sure we don't need any resources from space today, I never said that this private space program would started at same year NASA started theirs.

What about something like this? Landing with those boosters wouldn't be easier than falcon 9 style?

We wouldn't even knew that both Americas exists, yet someone went there, because he needed to find something If we would need resources from "space" then some company would start first space program and would gather those data.

I do not know Japanese nor Amharanese (or whatever it is called). There would be if we would need resources from Moon or asteroids. If you have enough money you can buy reports and analysis only for you And those experts are signing papers that they won't make similar analysis for next year or two for anyone else. It is just like "non-competition clause" for common employees.

That is very disturbing or at least should be. So they would exist just earn less money. What? You said there would be space exploration made in private sector when this exploration would gave chance for reward and now you denying it. But there isn't. The reality is that without NASA and DoD, wouldn't have developed Falcon 1, Falcon 9, or Dragon, and they would have had to develop a whole new engine from scratch. In fact, without the jump-start from government money and R&D, the whole SpaceX venture simply wouldn't have been possible. Then maybe its not the time for space exploration? Why we are forcing our selves (and our economy) into something that we do not need right now? Europe started to looking better sea connections to India when it was profitable, not before that, maybe we should do same thing with space exploration? He knows something we don't? So where does he get that from? He has psychic powers? Alien informants? A time machine? You're just being silly here. Professional market, industry, geopolitical data and analysis for nearest future. Ok, this is interesting. I wasn't aware of that.

There was little shift, because Moon landing was risky and could end up with huuuge disaster, while ISS is just a great and safe job. And it should be closed after Cold War was over.

IF that is true then government wasted those money and people responsible for this should be brought to justice. Boeing and Lockheed would exist without NASA, making planes and military equipment. SpaceX would exist if, like you said, there would be reward from space exploration. Musk wouldn't start his company just to build rocket and few capsules to resupply ISS, which is going to end in 2020(?). He knows something we don't and he is making first steps to be ahead of competition possibly in new branches of industry and transportation, that are going to be created very soon.

And main problem is this set of requirements? Because NASA, after Moon missions were over, had shifted into same approach to space exploration as any government "section" has for its job... "we do this, for as long as we can, so we keep our jobs as long as its possible", while private companies are more likely to take larger risk to became top 1 and often fire unnecessary people, to cut costs.

If Neil deGrasse Tyson would work for private company he would say that only private sector can reach Mars and push space exploration... but he does work for government, so he is saying what lets him keep his job. (btw I like his Cosmos series as well as original Carl Sagan version)

http://i.imgur.com/KBElkKH.webm

Yea wasting energy. Which scenario isn't hypothetical? Which hypothetical scenario is certain, if any scenario would be certain shouldn't we stop call it hypothetical?

100 years ago we used more coal than oil... and now we are getting short of oil not coal. We don't use much uranium, but if we want more nuclear power plants we should have enough uranium for at least 300 years? Because when we increase demand for it can deplete very fast, just like oil did. So you want to recycle metals... which means we waste tons of oil and coal to produce energy needed for recycling, not to mention chemicals leaked to oceans... great idea.

Ok. Also would be nice if they would count in rare metals and uranium, since we need them more than oil.

Some people before WWII had same idea and they even had idea which people should die. Overpopulation isn't problem right now consumptionism is. If you want to kill people remove US from ecosystem and you will see how things improve... but I have better solution, we should expand and change our taxes what will begin to change our industry, what will allow us to reduce resources, space and energy needs and develop technologies needed for expansion. We should stop manufacture so many not need things, we should start to produce more durable items and change tax system where you pay for things you own not for how much you earn. How they estimated all of those?