Black_Tomcat

Well, you could just compare your results with the results the aerobraking calculator gives if you input similar/the same data (might be difficult because both require different inputs).

You also will want to put a cubic strut or a radial attachment point between the engine and the tank so you can rotate that.

One thing to make the game (way) harder would be to set your own restrictions. This mean you still have the same goals, but it will be way harder to reach them. As an example, one could try building only realistic rockets -> Single stack, fairings, no fuel crossfeeding And yes, all of this is doable in stock.

Horizontal sea planes aren't impossible. I made one with structural plates as floats, but it needed rockets to lift its nose while taking off from the water. However, I saw someone making one using intakes as floats that worked really well and also could go way faster than mine in the water. If you want to land it horizontally you will always need much lift/a really big wingspan.

http://imageshack.us/a/img203/1752/wzj.png The Hades III Heavy Lifter This one might not be as impressive as what other people have build, but it currently is the largest single-stack lifter I have, weighing about 1100 tons. I never quite tested the payload capacity, because I hardly use it.

I thought the jet engine was a liquid engine? Anyway, I might attempt this challenge later, sounds doable.

I often experience that because ASAS overreacts so much on planes it rolls all the time, which causes half of you pitching control surfaces to be disabled, so you are unable to pitch up.

Maybe now I'll be able to remember which way of the SPH/VAB is east...

I really like it, but when looking at a Longmarch 2F isn't the payload fairing as wide as the centre stack itself? Maybe using 2m parts would have been more realistic since you could fit a 1m payload then. A great looking rocket none the less.

You could simply connect the outboard fuel tanks to the center engine and the center fuel tank to the outboard engines (or the other way around). I use this technique on many of my design and it always works.

I just started a new save with realistic rockets only and had the same problem. For small, like 1m rockets you can build fairings out of 1x1 structural panels (you have to build them on a radial decoupler). For 2m rocket I just place structural beams on the decoupler and connect them with wings. For this to work however you need to add wings at the bottom of your rocket too so it won't flip over. When you have multiple stage that fire up below about 15km you need to also put wings at the bottom of these.

Many people say there is volcanism on Laythe, so that should melt the ice/water. Also there was something like radiation (heat?) from Jool. Just repeating what I heard from others ^^

You are right about SAS. To improve control you can simply add more command pods, each has its own torque. The heavier ones have more torque than the lighter ones in most cases.

When you decouple your rover at Duna to realize to see the pod decoupling, but not the chassis.

My fail? I forgot those lovely little fuel lines. On my 300+ ton flag ship that took 5 launches to get up. Realized when I was at Minmus. *facepalm*

You can do physics time-warp in space by pressing Alt and the time-warp keys (. and ,). Seems to be one of the lesser known features.

The best solution would probably be to use nuclear engines mounted on radial fuel tanks instead of the normal radial ones. You can get a much higher efficiency and the thrust is enough to land on the Mun. Unfortunately you'd have to place the engines pretty high, so your rover might easily tip over. You also should rather use the lander cockpit since you can mount parts on its side more easily.