RAVED is more likely. These things aren't cheap.

With a CNC you can make sure you'll get a uniform curvature.

> Get your shit together, play some Kerbal Space Program at least.

I assumed you had actual knowledge of how orbital mechanics work. Please, continue playing your kideogames.

A Falcon Heavy can deliver more than 20 tons to GEO and an Orion capsule weigths about 10 tons. GTO is usually about 10 km/s at perigee of 200 km, meaning even with a full payload, a FH can place an Orion at an orbit that coasts above most of the atmosphere at about 90% of the speed of a returning Orion - and that on a stable-ish orbit - a suborbital trajectory would allow a higher apogee and a higher return speed. Now assume my mechanical design skills allow me to mount the capsule with less than 10 tons of material - this would mean we still have enough propellant on the second stage to give the ship a sizable boost if we so wanted. As for the maximum thrust, a high apogee suborbital trajectory would allow plenty of time for that - a good couple hours at least. That's way more than the longest burn the Merlin engine is rated for. I could dig up the exact numbers for these parts, but the margins seem more than ample enough.

> Buddy, I don't have time for Elon fantasies.

I'm not impressed by your insults. Bring in the math.

As it is with any box, there is only so much material you can remove from the corners before it disintegrates into disconnected surfaces.

I actually like the new one better, but that's not saying I like either.

I would just love if my workplace let me use the normal Apple apps, but there are regulatory constrains Apple tools don't meet (such as spying on me to prevent data exfil)

> I don't understand how the coupling between Orion and Falcon Heavy would be done (can't just put it inside the fairing).

A mechanical coupling is not that difficult to design. There needs to be no communication between FH and Orion for this use case. It could be mounted with the shield on top to simplify the mechanism. Separation could be purely mechanical, with springs.

> I also don't understand how you plan to re-light the engines on the 3 falcon cores for a second burn (required for the delta-v you propose) and the fuel economics.

Reignite only the second stage. Instead of putting the payload in orbit, put it on a suborbital trajectory with a high apogee, then boost down to hit the atmosphere at the desired speed and angle.

> I also don't understand the trajectory you envision. Even if you could re-light the FH engines and couple Orion to it, I don't understand how you would get the re-entry angle correct.

You have the delta-v - just use it in the right orientation. An Orion is lighter than the payload to LEO of the FH, so there will be a lot of propellant for the boost up and the boost down.

> Regarding the mass simulator, it's not clear by your description how the shields would be tested in that scenario.

The shield doesn't care what's inside the Orion - it cares about mass. You might need some attitude control (you can use flywheels) and parachutes if you want to recover anything, but all the rest is optional.