Urban_K

No.http://cs.astrium.eads.net/sp/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/vulcain-rocket-engine.html http://www.spaceflight101.com/ariane-5-eca.html But at the same time it's made clear the thrusters aren't only for roll control after booster separation http://cs.astrium.eads.net/sp/spacecraft-propulsion/showcase/ariane5-attitude-control-system.html Regarding the first stage, you've noted that the oxygen feed pipe looks like it's is insulated with the same material the tank is, haven't you? Edit: 6 degrees gimballing, and VEB thrusters handles only roll when main engine/s operating: http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/ariane.htm

Or maybe Hadar?

I think 2.5. For example the rescue Apollo would have seated five and was still packed with machinery in a way Dragon V2 doesn't seem to be so this could realistically seat six in 2.5 m size.

Have you run out of negative angle of attack? Looks like it's mounted rather straight on to the airflow.

If you want to input with words instead of using a calculator Wolfram Alpha can: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=kinetic+energy+of+1040+kg+object+travelling+at+1181.8+m%2Fs Also has data on our real Solar system http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+between+earth+comet+67P+tomorrow

No, they're still just testing to see if Hubble can find one.

SSTO in itself will probably only be useful if you can build and launch one cheaper than a TSTO. Possibly there might be an advantage in recovering as much hardware as possible and in that case SSTO is advantageous if you can recover it. Me, I'm thinking perhaps reusable SSTO will be useful: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/102471323450679812923/photos/102471323450679812923/albums/6024429621134236993 (But that makes the fuel trucks disposable, so...?)

Yes: It got its name from the paper "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infra-Red Radiation". A rigid sphere couldn't... ...and wouldn't be in orbit. Not even if it was spinning.I quote: 'In response to letters prompted by this paper, Dyson replied, "A solid shell or ring surrounding a star is mechanically impossible. The form of 'biosphere' which I envisaged consists of a loose collection or swarm of objects traveling on independent orbits around the star."'

Since the lander and CM has to dock once again, there's no real reason not to do it the first time too, is there? The real questions are "why a separate lander?" and "why one launch instead of two?".

Inside atmosphere and leave? Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton_Meteor

It's not very helpful when you don't say why this, for example, isn't what you want http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64442-Habitat-Pack

Does that make any sense? The empty space in a science lab is not much, as it's almost all filled with science equipment. Science lab with animation could be one where you can open one section to vacuum.

I think of the strange notion that the first manned space rocket would go to the Moon, which happened so often if fiction, is a good example.

There's already a record kept of who did what first. But I don't know of any plugin which makes use of this information, which I see as an indication of how important this is or isn't.

Made for lifting payload to 90 x 90 km x 5 degrees. Works as subassemblies. Not very powerful SAS, so payload may need its own. Jade 40: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz81WxkFXuN7ZlVfVi1qczk0aXc/edit?usp=sharing Jade 56: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz81WxkFXuN7UE5fZlVsX0ZuZ1E/edit?usp=sharing