Vonar

After a closer inspection I don't see any RCS on that design. Maybe add the big yellow RCS tank, and some RCS engines then try again?

I've noticed that some particularly big rockets have always had a pitch over and die on you problem when doing a low gravity turn. Instead of starting at 10 km try waiting longer to 15-18 km.

I think the problem is that you are staging to early, or you have got no struts, and the external engines are ripping off the connectors. Try a redesign with struts. Struts are your friend.

patience youngling, it takes time for the mod owner to update from 0.20 to 0.21 which was released today.

Wow. Talk about over engineering your rockets man. I generally quad my engines rather then use the mainsail, and combine that with asparagus staging instead. Most rockets weigh in at the 150-180 ton range, are just about as efficient, and generally good enough for launching 40-60 ton payloads to the Mun. Lately however I've been focusing on smaller launch vehicles, and building a orbital industry of sorts that allows you to re-fuel a tug in a 80 km orbit at a space station, pick up cargo from the same orbit, and then deliver that cargo be it a lander, or components of a base to the Mun or elsewhere. While slightly more time consuming the amount of delta-v saved is actually quite impressive.

my automated Kethane Miner approaching the Kethane Station orbiting the Mun.

I think your thinking of the asteroid 99942 Apophis. Apophis has a very small chance of passing through a gravitational keyhole during the 2029 pass that would set up a impact solution with Earth in 2036. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

As much as I would love to see it fly Skylon won't fly without a lot of government or private sector support and even then it has a low to medium chance of success given the fact that the project has a large amount of untested technologies involved. Also according to the developer's Skylon is projected to cost $12 Billion USD to develop, and each ship will cost $190 Million USD which is quite the price tag for the Brit's, E.S.A, or anyone else to take when you consider the fact that ESA all ready has two of its own rocket classes available for a satellite launch, and the ESA can rent a ride on Russia's Soyuz when it needs to send crew members up to the ISS...

Keeping fingers crossed for a dramatic and graphic impact because that would be a important wakeup call for the government and science community to get serious on the threat of a large Asteroid or comet impact here on Earth, and a impact on Mars by Comet C/2013 A1 could lead to a increase in NASA's budget. Although that is mostly wish-full thinking atm given the low probability of impact 1 in 120,000... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2013_A1

I think the lowest docking I've done was a mission where I sent a payload to a 63 km by 63 km orbit, and then had a tug bring up the cargo to a space station in a higher orbit. The problem with a sub-orbital flight is that chances are quick travel and the intercept burn will result in the craft that is on a sub-orbital path falling back down to Kerban. My general policy is to design rockets that can launch various cargo's in the 20 to 50 tons range into a 80 by 80 km orbit, and then have a tug refuel at a fuel depot, dock with a lander, and then meet the payload for missions to the Mun and beyond.