SRB

Yes, the stock pod had a heat shield.

IRL, the Vostok had no RCS thrusters once it decoupled from its equipment module, so it had to be equally protected from re-entry heat on all sides, necessitating the spherical design. AFAIK, the spherical design had no other effects on re-entry, and I don’t know if either the USA or the USSR had better ablative materials than the other. Mods, I hope I answered the question without starting a Mercury vs. Vostok thread for Science and Spaceflight. A similar thread:

Sort of like this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conroy_Virtus only around non-aerodynamic loads you would need a bigger version of this:http://www.vc10.net/Technical/oddities.html#EnginePod I hope it is bought-it would just suck to see it go to waste, even if it was impractical.

I propose this:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XW-8yCKwhBE

If you don’t mind mods, I’m pretty sure Mechjeb can launch to rendezvous with another craft

Maybe as a physics question No, as a business question

I think that Reaction Engines will just want to use the SABRE Engine to power its own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft). Plus, I don’t know if the blueprints/jigs to build the X-33 still exist.

I forgot to write this before. You could also use a jet driving to turbine to drive a propeller, and use control surfaces on the tips of the blades to make a controllable-pitch propeller.

I was thinking, that to make stock cyclic control, you could use control surfaces bound to pitch and roll to tilt the top portion of the rotor mast, while the bottom part remained vertical, powered by a turbine driven by a jet engine. For collective control, you could have control surfaces at the tips of the rotor blades which are bound to all extend/retract via action group (one set is upside down compared with the others), like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaman_K-MAX. Instead of a tail rotor, you would have a hollow tail boom, with the engine exhaust flowing through it after powering the engine turbine and at the end on each side having an opening covered by a control surface bound to yaw, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabird_Seeker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_A2

Would this airliner be the Orient Express that could go IAD-NRT in 2 hours?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgley_Optica the first plane mentioned so far designed specifically for observation, as a low-cost alternative to police helicopters.

Reminds me of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE

Mach 2.2 will be Concorde performance matched. Sounds like KSP

Thanks, but this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_X-30 mentions it’s one engine being a scramjet. Even if it got up to space just on the scramjet, it would still need some sort of OMS to get to circularize its orbit

AFAIK, the X-30 SSTO/TAV was supposed to just use air-breathing engines to reach Mach 25 and orbit, while the similar HOTOL SSTO/TAV would use both air-breathing and rocket engines, which makes sense to me because air-breathing engines are useless in space. so, how was the X-30 supposed to work?

I see the gist of the challenge, but I see someone trying to do the orbital challenger with a Falcon 9/Dragon type craft that uses rocket to land the stage and parachutes for the capsule-just an FYI

I propose this: if it’s not seen as being rude to promote one’s one challenge.

I know that the “extend” action group command fully deploys a control surface and makes stop responding to control inputs. But what does the “retract” command do?

Yes, I meant turning off SAS, neutralizing trim, and not touching the QWSWED keys. Yes, the altitude can be reduced to 5500 m. Also, can you use action groups to disable some, but not all controls like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96 or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_935, using the remaining controls and engines to land?

I never tried quickloading. Thanks for trying!

I didn’t know about the spoilers thanks for trying the challenge, and IIRC the high landing speed and inability to make quick corrections is also what doomed UAL232.

We can, but I never tried doing that.

A while ago, I tried flying the stock Stearwing A300 jet up to about 7000 m on SAS, then turning the SAS off and trying to fly and land it using only differential engine thrust just like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232: throttle up to pitch up, throttle down to pitch down, turn only one engine off at a time to yaw/roll towards the off engine, no use of ailerons, elevators, rudder, flaps, or slats, and after SAS went off you could only deploy the gear once, and never retract it again. I could fly to some degree, but never land. Ladies and gentlemen, that is your challenge: to land an A300 back @ KSC with only engine power. Good Luck!