Sometimes, when I've considered converting, or adapting something to fly, whether scale, or plastic model, I've ended up with this line from the movie "War Games".
Or Kenny Rogers' line:
"You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em".
If challenged to build a model of that, I'd have to fold 'em.
Not saying it can't be done, but.... that's quite a challenge to try to get to work, without onboard guidance to handle what seem to me are inevitable major problems.
Also, BTW, that side profile suggests it might have yaw/roll coupling problems ( Mental exercise to grasp yaw-roll coupling: take an over-stable 4 finned rocket, break one fin off on the yaw axis. Fly it. If it is over-stable enough, it will fly (not go unstable), but it'll roll like crazy as any yaw angle will act on the one fin like an aileron to make it roll, due to the opposing fin missing).
BTW - I did "fold 'em" and/or choose not to play, when it came to doing a scale shuttle model with engines in the two SRB's, to provide most of the thrust for the model. After some boilerplate testing of enignes in SRB's that had poor to bad results, I went with one big single (offset) engine in the ET, much as the Estes model of NASA's shuttle did.
I HAVE seen videos of shuttles people did that had engines in the SRB's, many failed. But a couple worked. Well, worked once. I never saw any follow-ups on those to indicate the reliability rate. My boilerplate testing criteria for clustering SRB's was that to even consider doing it for a real model with hundreds of hours of work in it, the boilerplate testing needed to work well at least 10 times in a row. I never got to 1 times in a row.
