I would think a capsule design would make it much more difficult to include a RMS type of robotic arm, as well as a means of carrying replacement components such as batteries or gyroscopes (which seem to be the shortest lived components on Hubble). Not that those are large components, but the lack of a payload bay still makes Hubble servicing-type missions more difficult.<br /><br /><i>"USAF does want space capability, mainly in the form of a 'bomber' that can hit anywhere within an hour, but that won't be manned, and may not even be orbital. It may even be disposable to boot."</i><br /><br />Indeed, I realize that a military "space plane" would very likely be unmanned, at least initially, and that a high speed bomber application would not require orbital capability. Although, I have to ask, if it were disposable, what exactly would be the point of that over ballistic missiles?<br /><br />As a side note, haven't there been too many "Aurora" rumors and sightings for it to be a total myth? One must wonder if we already do have a hypersonic aircraft operational, and if so, if it could be used for weapons delivery as well as reconnaissance. If it uses some sort of supersonic combustion ramjet propulsion, it could be capable of reaching the Mach 8 to Mach 10 range, in theory.<br /><br />As for manned spaceflight, I would much rather see an X-37 class "mini shuttle" than a capsule. I think it's well within our ability to design a reliable, capable "orbital space plane", to borrow the term from NASA's now defunct program. Could NASA not save some money by developing X-37 jointly with the Air Force/DARPA/NRO/? instead of developing its own "CEV"?