Vaporized Steel

I'm not sure how airpressure can destroy most of the parts. Especially antennas. Btw, the highest airpressure is that of Eve at sea level (or Jool if you count that one) Antennas during excessive air resistance should snap off. I think you mean only "Air resistance" in the entirety of your concept. But if you also meant damage being dealt through airpressure alone, then that's not what supposed to happen. Air resistance can happen on low and high airpressures since pressure has nothing to do with it. There is little logic for parts to suffer due to airpressure alone. BTW, If you need to haul the parts to the high air pressure conditions of your destination you want them to survive there. If they didn't we would need specific parts for high pressure locations, adding even more parts to the already vast selection of stock parts. Only empty canisters should fail due to excessive airpressure alone. And we just assume those landing canisters can hold that pressure. Fuel tanks are always under pressure, also unpressurized tanks because.... well..... they usually carry tons of burny stuff that weighs alot, let's say on launch. Adding immense weight to the metal construction of a tank. If you get a fuel tank into a high air pressure environment it's probably going to strenghten the part since a pressurized tank under exterior pressure now has a balancing force. But then again, why even get there if it's the purpose of this game to get parts to high pressure conditions anyway. I don't see what crash tolerance has to do with air pressure. Old CRT monitors had glass chambers that protected a inside vaccuum, thus alot of exterior pressure under 1 atmosphere. They could run for years without hurting those sitting in front of them. But scoop out the contents and let it drop from 2 stories high and it breaks. A real life part with high pressure resistance but breaks relatively easily, and something to try at home. Mind the pedestrians though. But as for your antenna example, yeah, that one should snapp off definitely. Just like solar panels i.e.

Im finally getting close to finishing my most hardcore engineered craft I have so far played with in KSP. Spent longer on it then any other craft before, I name it the Eagle Spire 25. It weighs about 120 tons on the pic and can get 3 Kerbals from LKO to EVE, make a precision landing by gliding up to 25km up to 9km eve altitude, drop a ascent rocket, including a mini glider rocket to get from low altitude to the mountain top. Pure Stock. Works like a dream! Although getting it there, was time consuming. Picture 2:

@Dafni 2 people trying to say the same each in their own way at exactly the same time. Lol

@Brainlord Mesomorph I made a couple of recoverable launch rocket stages, so you can make them. Not because it has no budget purpose in KSP, just because of the "Cool" and "proof of concept" factor. The trick to making it work is to make sure that your first stage can get its apoapsis out of the atmosphere (70km+) Once it reaches that, stage fire the heck out of your 2nd stage and switch to map view from time to time. Make sure you manage to get your time to apoapsis on your 2nd stage atleast to 1 minute and 30 seconds before your first stage is dropping. Before your 1st stage loses its altitude it will reach its apoapsis at 70km+. You can now switch back to it since it is out of the atmosphere. Fire 270degrees and make sure the trajector hits in between the abandoned airstrip and the main shore (because of Kerbins ridiculous fast rotation) it will not land in the water but on land. After your burn, switch back to the 2nd stage if you can, as long as you have enough time to switch back to the 1st stage (only do this if you didn't manage to get enough velocity on your 2nd stage) Try to avoid it at all imho. You can now switch back to your first stage that's on a KSC recovery trajectory and you'll have your full fledged stock recoverable rocket my friend.

@AeroGav There was a issue, with the aerodynamics overlay function. What happened is that the aerodynamic overlay button was represented farther back. At a place near the rear near my control surface area. The problem is that I'm limited at the front to attach more control surfaces. So I could only place them at the rear. You must understand that at this craft there is little ways to attach the wings and make them structural. Especially on the front which is just a cone that fits on the top end of the cargo which is a pointy rocket. Aerodynamics overlay After I switched the vehicle from the VAB to SPH I was seeing the center of lift wrong. Ever since I restarted KSP and reload the vehicle back in the SPH I am seeing it how it actually is. And I didn't know because I couldn't see before restarting KSP. This is a bug I guess. Since I knew I had to replace more wings forward I attached them as roll Tail fins and the center of lift is now at the right place. I'm not sure if you could replicate the bug. It's probably because of VAB/SPH switching and that the vehicle is very complex, inside out. Now the issue is also solved that I have to constantly hold S to pull up. reducing drag like you have stated in your comment. I should have expected the COL issue, but your willing to believe what the game tells you and look for other answers. The craft now glides 40.5 kilometers instead of 33 in the same Hyperedit test glide. So I'm satisfied. Edit: Aerodynamic overlay changed again. Rare!

Good call on the tail. Ill try that. Because of the great drag that causes slow gliding speed I need a whole lot of pitch authority to keep the nose up. Which is why I need that many rear stabalizers. Replacing them with more big s wings throws of the lift/mass balance. As for the struts. I didn't know. Ill try that. Pretty bad that bug exists, I see if I can do with less.

In v1.1.2 I made this. See the picture Album That is my old design, which this one is based on. It can reenter eves atmosphere and glide to the 7500m mountain top, albeit if I reenter close enough to the coordinates. The pics in the album just show the vessel, obviously it doesn't glide very well, because it has that heatshield attached. But I can't find the exact pictures anymore. Just try to forget that heatshield is on there and focus on the rest of the design as in how it looks aerodynamically. Without that heatshield that one glides farther then my new design. Now I made something similar, that glides just as straight, but a whole lot less far. To test the glideability of the vehicle I hyperedit it 10000m above the runway coordinates and add 400m/s velocity with hyperedit in all my test runs and aim for the runway island to see how far it can glide. 10000m altitude with the given speed is about the same altitude and speed whereby I know I can detach my inflatable heatshield with a rocket and commence gliding operations. On Eve that altitude will be higher ofcourse. My new design can glide from the SPH coordinates at given speed and altitude through hyperedit exactly to the abandoned island runway strip (which is 33 kilometers) My old design in the picture album above did 41 kilometers. (but it was 12 tons heavier, and didn't had a nosecone that my new design has. Here are 2 pictures. Picture 1 shows the full vessel. Picture 2 shows what lies under that inflatable heatshield. A action group will fire away that heatshield and reveal the nosecone underneath. On my old design this was a flat surface. On the first picture you can see that I build the main fairing into a bulletshape. My logic that this would push airaway, also reducing aerodynamic load on the fairing below. Then I did some tests. It seems that fairings do not interact with aerodynamics. When I do a test flight whereby I jettison the lower fairing (the wide one) there is no change to my gliding velocity at all. It's as if fairings do not induce aerodynamic load at all. Is this a joke or something, shouldn't there be interference between my fairing and the air. In any way, why could my old design glide further, which to me looked less aerodynamic, and this on glides 7 kilometers short. The fun thing is, this design is lighter then my previous design. It did had other wings. But I realized I couldn't use the FAT-455 Aeroplane wings because they would burn up during Eve re-entry. So I needed the BIG-S ones as you can see on the pic. They are angled, but they do have a few more Lift rating when put together then the FAT-455 Aeroplane wings. And since this vehicle is lighter, I would actually need less lift. What happens is that this vehicle slows down to around 100 m/s up to 45 m/s in between 10000meters up to sea level. A little more slow then my previous design. Which means it's somehow less aerodynamic, even although it looks more aerodynamic. Now I don't expect such a monstrosity to glide far, but I would atleast want it to do similar to my old design. And my question is, if you can see it (I don't) why this design glides worse and what I may be able to replicate as I did on my old design to meet the same gliding specifications.

Experimenting with making low tier SSTOs is a very good learning method for SSTOs in general. I found this out a while back. Ever since I tried making them my higher tier SSTOs became also a whole lot better, because making low tier SSTOs is basically a hardcore learning lesson that makes you super efficient on the aerodynamics, weight/thrust ratios, and overall building complexity. So I would advice you to go there since it is possible, and as a result you will be able to build much better higher tier SSTOs.

Meanwhile @Space20 is drinking a beer laughing because of his own induced suspense. In between right now and a purposefully choosed future moment hes going to reply because I bring this on and he has to account for his suspense. If not, multiple people are requesting pictures, so I expect a funny one, whether it's his craft upside down or a picture of ,,,,,,,,,,,,, POST! Or hes not because he doesn't have a answer ready... Just send us a funny pic. *cough* probably shouldn't have replied anyway. @ TS. Finish what you started!

As for tailstrikes I sometimes put a LY-05 (the smallest landing gear) into symmetry on the tip of my airplanes rear end (may use the move : toolset to position is correctly) and I can just hold "S" and no explosions. You may want to use the "LY-10" if it's a bigger plane with a larger rear section. But generally that is not needed, just make sure you pitch at the speed you know you'll get airborne, or "V rotate" in piloting terms. @322997am You can right click on the pitch control surface in the SPH and change "Authority limiter" to a lower setting then the default one aswell besides adding a rear wheel to avoid tail strikes. You can also right click on it in flight to change it. Sometimes it gives better control to change this setting on the ground or when your at a higher altitude.

I like the idea that Scientist can increase the Science value gathered from experiments. As for your statement of 1Kg mass per sample. That would first mean that Squad has to introduce mass to kerballs above their static 93.5kg per kerbal. Which is fine, but that would be a whole new introduction of itself. But I do agree they should. This would make some missions in the Solar system quite complicated. I think it's a easy to hardcore mode option applied to the difficulty setting. Remember, if you were to introduce this on eve, and you would harvest 1 or 2 biomes, that would make your Eve ascent capsule very heavy. Possibly to heavy to get back into orbit. Rendering your mission useless. These kind of realistic settings are more for the modding territory if you ask me, but it is a good idea for "hard" mode if introduced, but not on lower difficulties. So I say aye, but only with the option to turn it on/off. But the percentage difference for each gathered science sample or experiment, definitely! But as always, a option to turn it on or off, or make it that it applies to the easy to hard mode, and a range of percentage gain upon these experiments and/or samples based on your easy through hard mode career setting. The larger mystery goo habitat, good Idea! I don't agree about the Science Sr. The fact you have to get your science laboratory and your Science Jr to your location of science harvesting is bad enough, don't make it worse then it is, please. Or you'll want to cancel the whole science laboratory with it. Definitely agree with the temperature and pressure readings. I agree with the Gravity reading, not with the Seismic reading. It's bad enough you'll have to create a vessel able to bounce into the planet biomes surface to get the data at all, minding you'll destroy something like a wheel or worse to get this data. It is also unlocked relatively late in terms of the smaller science experiments. The Mobile reasearch laboratory is 2.5m. because that is it's width. Your referring about it's length. Which is longer then 2.5m. Your new processing laboratory idea is still 2.5m width but less long? Is that what your getting at. Yes or no, a smaller processing laboratory whether in width or length is something I agree with. Whatever it's size will be! @ Kerbal Scientists So when you transmit data and a Scientist is onboard you'll get the transmit bonuses, but only if you transmit that data right? If so, I agree to a bonus, whatever the percentage may be. As for expanding the tech tree, there are mods for this. Structural elements add weight. under the 18 ton limit (on a tier 1 launch pad) and 30 part count limit, width, length and height restrictions adding any structural elements seems limiting in all ways one could describe. If there is purpose in that plan, what do you mean by structural elements? All engines have a very close ISP versus their weight, onlyh a few are put apart in terms of efficiency like the Aerospike and Vector engine. Squad would first have to readjust the ISP to make a huge difference in efficient engines which would be against KSP stockalike versions of real world rocket specifications, basically rendering the game a bad rescale of real life rocketry. And I don't think anybody wants that. Smaller dry/mass faction. Same story about the engines. Some structural weight is needed to hold that fuel mass. It is scaled down to 1/10th real solar system weight and specifications. Making one tank heavier or lighter also turns the game into UKSP (unrealistic KSP) More uncyillindrycal aeroplane specific fuel tanks like the MK2 are already a little bit more ineffecient for fuel/dry mass ratio because earoplane tanks tend to be more durable and heavier. Advanced fuel? Install the real fuels mod, some things are ment to be plugins, a multitude of fuels is one of that. KSP is not just for you, but also for occasional gamers not willing to get into technical details. If that is an idea, then what fuels for what? Lower stages, upper stages? Some fuels are used for atmospheric engines, some for vaccuum engines. If you start with one more efficient fuel for any atmospheric or vaccuum stage, you are basically forced to add all the fuels in existence otherwise you'll be picky or add a non existing KSP kind of fuel like a Kethane variant and you will be getting into scifi KSP. Static Photovoltaic panels are earlier in the tech tree and rotating ones later, so what your suggesting is already as it is. As for docking ports, NO! Docking ports are not structural powerhouses to not wobble under momentum produced by engines. The same is in real life, cracks and vaccuum leaks will be produced under prolonged stress of 2 docking ports. So it's already unrealistic as it is, don't make it more unrealistic. If you want more constructional strength between 2 docked vessels, suggest something stock so that a Kerbal on EVA can strengthen joints with mobile equipment. Something like the KAS mod introduces. All these things should be balanced in accordance with the career difficulty settings. But I do agree with some of them.

Still got 0.90 here. You gotta love infiniglide when your in a not so serious mood.

Press control of mass overlay in SPH. Put your rear landing gear just behind the Center of mass and make sure your pitch control surfaces are far enough behind your center of lift. Or put them far enough forward if your pitch control surfaces are mounted on the front, while your center of lift is just behind the center of mass. Voila, your plane now takes of one quarter way down the runway and you'll beat those lights. If not, you have a 800 part plane and your going to post us a picture of the vessel that keeps running into those lights. I hope I have saved your day

What's your story, your point, your question, your joke, your goal or you attempt with this thread? But seriously, what are you asking for or saying exactly because I can't follow you. If it's a joke, buawahahaha, you made me press the reply button.

Violent jebs DV estimates are correct. But if you use a normal homan transfer for Moho you will need more then that. What you can do to get to that 2K dv estimate is in 2 ways. Either you can directly transfer to moho from kerbin orbit. To do this launch your rocket on to a inclination around Kerbin. How much is dependent on where you'll meet Moho. Moho is on a inclined orbit around the sun, thus has a incline orbit against the ecliptic. Don't know what the Ecliptic is. Google it? That means either south or north depending on whether Moho is North at the position of intercept versus the ecliptic or south. Using maneouvre node this can be 35 north or south. That means you don't want to launch to the west 90degrees on kerbin but either 125 degrees [South] or 55 degrees [North] Also you want to make sure you meet Moho at it's periapsis around the Sun when you encounter it. Moho goes around the sun several times so you can't eyeball where it will be. You will need the interplanetary guide and calculator. I can't remember the best time to launch to moho to meet it at it's periapsis as I haven't travelled to Moho in quite some time. But the best launch windows are stated on the internet. Maybe someone else can eleborate on that. On that launch window you'll meet Moho at a certain place and time that is in some way inclined to the ecliptic. If you know how much that is at that time, you'll know in which direction you'll have to launch from kerbin in between 55degrees North or 125 degrees south. While this may be difficult to understand, and I hope your willing to learn what inclined orbits versus the ecliptic mean to know your orbit inclination around Kerbin there is a simpler way imho which still requires you to learn something which is gravity assists. The 2nd method is that, gravity assists! This also saves alot of extra Delta V. You can launch in a 90 degree equatorial orbit around Kerbin and launch to Eve, and use Eve as a gravity assits to both lower your periapsis around the Sun to get close to Moho (you still need some extra delta V to raise it lower), and to change your inclination around the Sun to reach Moho. When you use a normal Hohman transfer without changing your inclination around the Sun to match Mohos you will have alot more velocity to cancel when you reach Moho, not 2K but more like 3 to 4K delta V just to get into orbit, not to mind landing. I use ION engines when I get to MOHO. This makes you a very light vehicle with loads of delta V to get the job done. But I do use the method always whereby I get into Kerbin a inclined orbit around Kerbins equator. Thus I don't launch 90 degrees so that when I get to moho I don't have to burn extra delta V in a plus or minus radial direction to deduct inclination velocities. You may not want to go to the technical stuff of things, thus you'll use a Hohman transfer. The same you'll use to get to Duna, eve or the Mun for instance. If so, make sure you have atleast 3.5K delta V just to get into Moho orbit (not mentioning The DV to get there or landing stage to get back home)

I want to thank Squad for solving a specific issue prior to v1.1.3 that I posted about several days ago when I was on v1.1.2 In v 1.1.2 and prior to that you needed probe cores on liquid fuel engines with tanks attached to them when you tried to use said engines to decouple and fire away attachments (SRB's weren't strong enough) I needed that to decouple and fire away my inflatable heatshield on reentry to make said vehicle able to fly by shedding the shields. I was under the impression that a probe core for that purpose is a waste of parts and a somewhat a inaccurate game aspect. Luckily this is now solved. Thanks!

To illustrate the COM problem. Most of your mass are your fuel tanks. The heatshields are taking all the force (momentum) of the blasting wind during your reentry. Because of the heatshields rotation they do have a earodynamic effect whereby they will want to point in the proper direction. But putting that mass that far backward makes the bowshock created by the heatshield to reach your payload mass easily, creating instability in your point of direction. And you'll only need a little instability for your heatshield to drift only slightly of the prograde marker and then the whole shebang will work like a hinge tumbling your heatshields the other way and then it's gamer over. As suggested, use the inflatable heatshields. They're alot wider, extending the bowshock, deeclerate faster, are angled by default so you'll have a natural aerodynamic cone. But that suggestion is more additional, the most obvious one is putting that mass closer to the heatshield. No matter what shields your using.

@Nathair Because... well, the problems relating to experience having a useless KSP folder if it auto updates to a newer version. One answer to your question was already in my reply. While we then do advise to backup your folder I think it's bad to even take the risk in case you might forget. Personally I don't like investing into a company that distributes games and a simple platform app that makes millions off of it, so I don't think they deserve to be further administered money or attention. If you have Steam related issues besides KSP their service is appauling, and I have alot of personal experience with this. So it is in some way my personal opinion, but I know others that think the same.

Actually a really cool idea. I make boats from time to time and then just use the hyperedit mod to get it into the water. Since boats are unrelated to KSP I don't think it will happen. But whether it will or not usually lies with support, and I support it, hopefully others as well.

First of all I would update your topic title and change "Squid" into "Squad". You may not be a native English speaker, neither am I. But "Squid" is a scold word, and I don't think it's appreciated, although we probably all know it was your typing error. First of all I personally would not recommend to buy it on Steam, unless you want the Steam extras like achievements for KSP. Either buy it from the KSP site directly or at gog.com. Nobody knows how long they'll keep updating KSP, but the community is still very active and because it's been updating ever since 2011 it will first die off slowly. So my guess is nowhere soon. As for updating KSP and Steam. If you are going to use steam, make sure you copy/paste your entire KSP directory to a backup folder. Steam will autoupdate KSP and this can render savegames useless and definitely breaks your game if you will use mods (plugins)

Sure you have enough Delta V for course corrections after you put it in orbit right? First go into a polar orbit. Keep orbiting until your target intersects that of your orbit. If the target happens to be nearer to the equator it might be that the target moves to much because of kerbins rotation by the time you get there. So when you seem to intersect close to your target, Quiksave. If you happen to miss your target where the mission system doesn't detect you are near enough, reload and then use a normal or antinormal burn to correct your trajectory in the direction necessary. Best to do this one quarter of a orbit away from the latitude of where you'll meet your target to save as much Delta V as possible.

Fine, then my complaint is to Squad. If I want to reach out to the people suffering from the issue at hand, apparently I have to conclude that the responsibility lies with Squad. I'm giving in to that fact because it is a fact only because the system between the game distributor and steam makes it that. It's the corporate gaming industry at hand, which is what Squad or any gaming company has to follow. But that's just because it is seemingly managed that way. We make it that. There are enough activists around for better relationships between supplier and customer willingly to make it different. My critique is to portray the problem which has to be resolved on both sides. With more Steam critique involved from my point of view. Which isn't fair, because fact or fact about whos responsible, both sides are responsible to make things better. Steam has the guts to make huge amount of profits just because of management and distribution. That opinion of mine has 2 sides. On one side it's prejudice, yes I admit, and on the other hand it's making use of products made by others. The latter is completely normal. Because hardware stores sell hardware, they do not make it. But when I walk into one I have the right to refund, professional assistance, and item exchange. Why does steam has no item exchange to swap V1 of a game with version 0.5? And as already expressed in my earlier reply also lacks assistance, then to say it is that way as a unchangeable thing, as if it were a status quo unchallengeable to critique or change. Apparently some markets neglect things while other markets offer complete assistance. Because of this I find the relationship between distributor and developer flawed, Whether you can point out facts within the customer market or not, fine. Some facts are universal, some facts are what we make them to be, among those is a agreement of 2 parties like between distributor (steam) and developer (Squad) and they are not static laws but agreements that may be promoted for change. I want that! I merely stating that this distributor / customer relationship fact is hitting on the customer. The same accounts for a Samsung TV bought at Walmart. If Walmart can't deliver upon services which I find should be universal then I would complain about that to. You state what is! One day in the past wooden huts were what once was. I thought we moved on since then. Without discussing this relationship at all and just stating the facts we made through agreements between two parties will never change anything. And this attitude is one of the reasons why any industry is lacking inovation, whether it's service or production because this seems to have become a universal attitude among many. I'm not saying you have that attitude. I'm saying that I do not and it's why I go on about such critique in this case to Steam, and yes Squad to apparently. I want to reach out to enhance these relationships, even if I don't manage anything beyond mentioning it, and in this case especially since I have had my annoyances with Steam.

@Alshain Well, I happen to agree with you TBH. In terms of there victory over piracy and Squad being owners of KSP. That is indeed something positive to say about Steam. As for what my comment has to do with steam, hmm, the topic title hints me that a Steam user wants a old pre v 1.1.3 version of KSP available which Steam doesn't offer. Which is why I invited myself to complain about them. But yes, KSP is owned by Squad to take initiative to improve things for their own game with their partners. Which is why I suggested for Squad to aproach Steam. What I tried getting at in terms of my Steam critique (apart from their victories over piracy) they seem to lack support for the games they offer. Not just KSP, I had issues with L4D2 for instance among actual support on the forums. More questions are being asked then answers leading to solved issues with steam support directly or on their forums (personal experiences here). And the questions that are answered are usually into the box straightforward answers leading to no solutions because more games other then KSP are suffering of support from steams side. Steam basically distributes games made by developers of other gaming companies and then shuffled under their supervision. Probably to stop piracy. All very good, but still no reason to leave the actual paying customer with bad support or no support at all. Only the game authors (Squad for our KSP) that Steam distributes has the ability to give accurate support. So Steam support for any game is lacking by default. Steam support is support for their part which is the Steam application. If a game suffers technically like KSP does since Steam doesn't distribute multiple version then it's just pity poor you. The worst part is that you as a customer paid for it while you could buy it closer to the source it originates from, but the customer didn't because Steam has a market monopoly and gets faster and closer to naive customers then the official KSP website or gog.com. And remember, I'm not standing up for myself since I don't use KSP on steam, but it does remind me from my own past relationships with Steam support, and naming their victories (victory over piracy) is to me no reason not to discuss their shortcomings. Steams supervision is supposed to keep track of all the user related issues either with the games they distribute or the steam application itself, or the relation between Steam and the game in question. All I want Squad to do, if they're willing to is present their wishes in terms of support and availability of older versions which should be accesible for whomever needs it. If Squad is the one to take that initiative because they are owners of KSP then so be it. But my complaints are to Steam!

The rule where COL is behind COM is a general one for most typical aircraft designs, in any way, COL should almost always be behind COM. This doesn't necessarily have to be true. If your engines are on the front the COM/COL relation flips around. A classical example of this are the WW1 planes, and many WW2 planes or many propeller planes in general. If you have decent forward control surfaces like on your plane, you want the COL to be very close to the COM. This is not the case on your aircraft or most KSP aircraft. What is a problem on your aircraft design is the position of your control surfaces in relation to the COM and COL. First of all, your COL lift should be just behind the COM, but not anywhere close to well inside the COM bubble. Just on the edge of the COM. The COL on your plane is still far behind the COM. So position your wings to move them closer together. I think your front control surfaces "Tail fin" is for pitch and the BIG-S tail fins are for rol? Am I right? If the Tail fin is for pitch then in relation to the COM and COL it works as a enormous hinge once you put in pitch control input. Theres a good chance that if you move the tail fins farther forward the COL moves forward far enough. Basically your pulling the ships mass to a point where it wants to flip backward (I assume the ship flips backward) thus pitches up and loses control. So move either the tailfin close to the nose and if the COL is still not near the COM try to move the BIG-S tail fins also further to the front. If your BIG-S tail fins are pitching and your tail fins are for roll you still have the exact same problem but then in reverse. That's because the BIG-S tial fins are very close to the center of lift, meaning that if they're assigned pitch control they cannot control the COL over the COM once your attitude changes to much. In more simple terms, it has a natural lift/mass relationship to pull up once you change attitude. Your pitch control surface whatever it is should be well away from the COM/COL relation as visible in the SPH or it lacks the control to control and hold that pitch. It's likely to go haywire when you slow down because slowing down decreases lift and the natural lift of the aircraft will greater deduct the input from your control surfaces if the COM and COL are misaligned. The relation of your COL and COM does work on many aircraft designs, but because your control surfaces are also misaligned to counteract the difference between your COM and COl it starts flipping. No matter whether the BIG-S or the tail fins are for pitch or vice versa. You can use the Move: Toolset in the SPH to change the position of both suraces within marginal corrections and test out what's most stable for you.

Launch clamps travelling into space is a older and known bug. But I have never seen them travel with the rocket right of the launch pad. Yet similar issues with launch clamps have occured in the past usually after getting past a certain altitude up into space, although in a different way then you are experiencing. This probably means it's a bug exclusively for V 1.1.3 of ksp. Oh and you posted this in "modded installs" instead of "unmodded installs" The picture doesn't hint me to any mods in use Mistakes can happen