Qerbal

I think a few solid fuel engines should be added. That would make KSP much more realistic. There are 12 liquid engines and only 3 solid. It's annoying. There are a lot of solid-core rockets like Vega, Ariane6, Taurus, PSLV. I don't like using mods but i have to.

The two SRBs, which could withstand greater aerodynamic loads, separated from the ET and continued in uncontrolled powered flight. The SRB casings were made of half-inch (12.7 mm) thick steel and were much stronger than the orbiter and ET; thus, both SRBs survived the breakup of the space shuttle stack, even though the right SRB was still suffering the effects of the joint burn-through that had set the destruction of Challenger in motion. Thats why I find solid engines much safer than liquid. They don't blow up like fragile cryogenic tanks.

Hello! I found errors in SRBs. 0,625 and 2,5m consist improper amounts of fuel. If we divide diameter by 2, surface area (of rocket cross-section) is 4 times smaller. If we multiply diameter by 2 - surface is 4 times bigger. minibooster(0,625m)SRB: compared to stock RT10(fuel=433) the same height, 2 times smaller diameter = 4 times smaller volume 433/4 is about 100. So it should consist about 100 fuels not 250. SHORT 2,5m SRB: compared to stock rockomax BACC (fuel=850) -2 times higher, 2xdiameter=8 times bigger volume. so 8*850=6800, not 3400 Because of greater mass i suggest to increase thrust to 1200*2=2400kN It gives reasonaby TWR of 4.26 and burn time 55.2sec. LONG 2,5m SRB: Multiplied by fraction 4/3 used by NP Authors. fuel= 6800*4/3=~9000 NOT 4500 Thurst increase to 2*1600=3200kN TWR=4.41 burn time 54,8s. Short and Long have the same mass and cost. It would be nice to increase retropack fuel to 20 and thrust from 60 to 100 so it could cancel 1,25SmallSolid thurst. In pair these engines could be used to properly boost into orbit or deorbit to landing site by firing retro and decoupling. Like in ICBM. Sorry for my English