missions

That said, it means there are lots and lots of exciting missions to look forward to as our technological abilities grow.

Start with a profile of what kind of missions are run and which planes do them best.

Upgrading proven designs that are each great at their respective missions would've been a better investment.

They still could've consolidated on radar, comms, weapon/missile systems, and so on while making the plane physically ideal for its missions.

You're going to launch them with the latest intelligence on board manually uploaded, for missions less than 12 hours in duration.

The top opponents are investing in, again, aircraft specialized for certain types of missions that will dominate F-35 in any performance test.

I'm failing to see the common area between targeted spec-ops style missions (and protection against those) and home/civil defense.

Unmanned missions to anywhere in our solar system are doable on smaller budgets.

I think Ethereum (or something like it) will have a greater effect on many more lives than the Apollo missions did.

Manned Moon and hypothetical manned Mars missions are not the endgame.

They still need to be fed objectives/missions or something.

Agreed that manned missions are hard and expensive.

You send ten more drones on different missions to some daycare or something to "punish" the enemy for breaking the Geneva convention.

We've solved the "can people live in tiny quarters for long periods of time...in spaaaace?" problem with the ISS and numerous earth-based missions.

Over the past few years I have seen a parade of articles about "missions" from Austin to the Valley to try to recruit people, yet they seem to think Dallas and Houston don't exist.

Missions like Kepler are what finally set me against human space flight.