dnbattley

In my experience, that will be caused by a slight angle on the wheels while sitting on the ground, effectively generating a "k-drive" force that is propelling your craft backwards. The solution, if that is the case, is to do a quick "rotation check" on your wheels (i.e. moving them slightly and back again) while making sure you are on absolute (not relative) alignment to ensure they point completely vertically.

If anyone is wanting inspiration: make something like this, and I will come up with a new prize category just for you!

Challenge: make a craft in KSP that transforms from one form to another - and back again. At least one of these forms must be a functional form of transportation. Occupants are optional, as is usefulness - though practical designs are encouraged. Examples may be vehicle to robot, boat to plane, helicopter to box, etc., and creativity is rewarded. Rules: Vehicles may be stock or non-stock All mods are permitted Custom decals are encouraged Part clipping is permitted, though excessive use may count against you Gravity/collisions/finite electricity &am

Thank you! The main tech to know about is the landing leg drive (k-drive) and KAL exploit. With those two you can get crazy (and basically unlimited) acceleration even from a relatively early game state, reducing the challenge to a matter of choosing which planets to visit in the most efficient order... Sadly the guy who followed me did so *very* efficiently, shaving about 50 minutes off my time, and I just don't have the time or dedication to see if I can find a way of matching, let alone beating, that...

Speaking as a former world champion () these days winning such races are all about knowing the exploits...

Okay, so two more craft to throw into the mix: 1. 4 part, exploit-(but not kraken-) powered, so infinite range (as long as the battery holds out, anyway). It was more stable when I moved the aileron to the back, but flew in either configuration: 2. A actually legitimate entry, although I still haven't managed to land it successfully (it's highly unstable): 3 parts

Sounds a fun challenge. I made a rover that was designed to drive up walls a while back, but the speed element of the challenge certainly adds a new twist... https://youtu.be/oxdzuN80AbI

I feel like this would be my most appropriate vessel to enter this challenge with:

That's fair: I didn't see it in the original rules, but you did subsequently comment that way. I think I can do a three part unmanned version which doesn't use a Kraken engine, but does equally exploit Ksp's engine...

And, while I'm at it, a flyable lightweight version. 251kg, without pilot. Flag is not used as a lifting surface, so I believe this is still within the rules. Flys quite nicely Though landing is a little bit hairy - and no reaction wheel to assist...

Here you go Raw video footage of me taking it for a spin to the island and back.

I won't submit anything technically legal, but physics-defying, but suffice to say 3-part or <500kg manned flight can be achieved... >:D I will, however post a link to a micro VTOL I made some time back, rated for 3 minutes of relatively fun flying...

As a long time player (since 1.0), I am aware of many memory leaks which have been reported over the years: some patched, some not. However, I have noticed a specific issue which may (or may not!) help any dev's reading this, or at the very least may help to make life easier for some other players. That realisation is that: the SPH (in the linux version [unmodded, but with all DLC] in particular, but I suspect this is not just a linux issue) has a specific memory hole, and working in it too long will cause odd effects, and eventually failure. Here's the bullet point rundown:

Does the spacecraft have any functional requirements once it is on final approach? E.g. carrying capacity? Manned/unmanned? And can it jettison all rockets and fuel before hitting the atmosphere?

With a mode of torture transport something like this, it may be feasible to propel the "swimming" kerbal at a rate that cuts down the transit time to mere days, as opposed to weeks. But it's still a hard no from me...