sh1pman

Nuclear Thermal Rocket. Stock LV-N, for instance.

I bet 6 months is closer to reality tbh.

Postponed indefinitely until the fairing problem is resolved.

So it had wrong inclination settings it seems? Looks like it tried to “correct” its inclination instead of burning prograde. What a stupid way to botch a launch.

A very appropriate name! I still blame the bishop though. He probably only consecrated the Soyuz rocket and skipped the Fregat. The machine spirit became unhappy, and that's how you get failed launches.

Drop tanks make much more sense on upper and deep-space stages where you don't need TWR. It's very effective with NTR-powered upper stages, for example.

I’d report them to police and immigration office. Don’t need no aliens in my back yard.

Ahem... Why do you need a high and powerful radio tower to broadcast a signal, but only a small antenna to receive it? Same with GPS. Your phone can receive a GPS signal, but in order to transmit anything back to satellite you're gonna need a much bigger antenna. Kinda like those on sat phones.

I think that average cell phone antenna will struggle even with LEO sats. Not to mention the battery usage. It will probably drain the battery in minutes, or melt the casing, whichever happens first.

On the other hand, there are now two Schiaparelli craters on Mars!

Yes and also another local warehouse (container, ISM, or anything else) where your drills are.

Yea, it’s a KAS issue, it only happens with water. Water can’t flow through KAS pipes and their MKS variants for some reason. Local warehouse can help dealing with it.

Something to do with IVA camera position

@regex I found a great article about A7. Basically, its central core was WAY too fat. That, combined with the fact that it had 6 side boosters instead of 4, made it completely incompatible with Plesetsk facilities (not only launchpad, but transporters and other stuff). And since the plan was “one standard to rule them all“, they had to scrap the A7 project and start looking into ways to bring A5’s performance up instead. This buffed variant was called A5B (up to 40t to LEO) and is scheduled to fly in 2027.

Well, as far as I know, A7 was just too big for Plesetsk facilities. A7 was projected to lift 35t to LEO vs 24t for A5 that already exists. A5B variant will be able to lift up to 38t to LEO from Plesetsk (projected to fly in 2027, no new launchpad required), which practically eliminates the need for A7 development.

That’s kind of a backward way to make rockets...

Is there a payload for FH?

1786-614=1172

But I’m only judging its cover, not the book itself.

My KSP rockets look better than this. I mean look at Soyuz-5. It’s a freak of nature, looks nothing like Soyuz.

And a ton of autostruts!

Not to mention that it looks ugly as hell.

Mk1-2 has more heat and crash tolerance, and is easier to reenter with. It also weighs much more. Mk1+crew cab is probably better for tourist contracts, but I'd go with just a probe core+hitchhiker in this occasion.

*ASAP not guaranteed