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

No, but now you can adjust the amount of propellant and thrust of solid rockets while in VAB, so it's theoretically possible to fine tune.

Probably not useful information: One of the "secrets" of Gripen's canards is that the hinge line is not at 90 deg but raked back, because otherwise it would have trouble flying. Shows that some aerodynamic tweaks aren't very obvious even though they can be very important.

Seems you've already decided, but: The service module isn't a transfer stage and this one doesn't look like it's got a lot of fuel, so it doesn't need even a small large engine. Thank you.

And just like has happened in reality we should of course have the option of filling one with too much LOX.

I'm looking forward to this as I've not found any which both look and work like I think they should yet.

Exactly. They also should give only a little thrust at low speeds in air breathing mode.

Helena 7 download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz81WxkFXuN7TzBqVVctYUZyTWs/edit?usp=sharing 1. No special launch procedure, you might want to lock gimbals on the boosters but it's not necessary. 2. Use the Centraur Transtage to achive a low Mün orbit, Helena 6 started at 15 km but I raised it to 25 km and more than 50 is probably possible. (180 won't work.) 3. Decouple the Transtage. At this time you might want to fill up the lander's and command pod's monopropellant tanks. 4. EVA to the lander, decouple the lander. 5. Land and rendezvous. 6. EVA to command pod, return to Kerbin.

Strict Apollo style, or any configuration with separate command and lander ships? Last submission date? Any hints about what will be considered "better", or is it just must work + looks and popularity? I think high FASA proportion of parts is likely to be an advantage, otherwise the "included" makes little sense, right?

Doesn't look like there's a central attachment point to the engine at all so it wouldn't look attached under another tank and the space for it in between the tanks is so unstandard it would be difficult to mount any other engine there unless it's very small.Anyway, I like it as it is and use it as a stage in other rockets which are mostly stock.

Well, of course they do: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/156594main_Orion_Sequence.jpg