Vanamonde

This is the kind of mission I like to fly, though I haven't tried one in career yet. Nice mission, and an ambitious first post.

Hello Nebur Wolf. There are indeed other players from Portugal, or at least others who speak Portuguese. But you seem to do just fine in English.

I have no idea what transpired here, but since it seems to be over, thread locked and consigned to oblivion.

Succinct and to the point, but no pics?

There is a separate sub-forum for videos, which (Presto!) this thread now occupies.

Fine. It won't work. It can't work. Ships accelerating in atmosphere near a large world should behave exactly like ships in vacuum and zero G, and engine gimbal still works just dandy even after the ship has rotated beyond the engine's gimbal arc, and SAS *never* over-corrects or gets confused about the direction it should be torqueing even while the ship is turning 360s. OP will still lose nothing by trying it, and I'm still betting it will help, if not fix the problem.

For pics, just include a link in your posts.

Once the thing starts rotating, it isn't a simple matter of cancelling out the exact force that was used to start it rotating. The ship is in atmosphere, under gravity, thrusting along a certain axis which is itself now rotating, with the SAS flipping control surfaces and spinning reaction wheels. That means the weight is shifting and may no longer be over the center of thrust, air flow is exerting pressure from different directions, etc. The degree of control authority required to keep the thing flying straight is much less than the force that may need to be applied to stop a tumble once its begun, and the ship is simply exceeding its ability to hold attitude. OP, just *try* sticking some fairly large fins with control surfaces on that upper assembly and see whether it helps or not. I'm betting it will.

Have you guys noticed that the nose intake on a Viper would have to duct air through the flipping cockpit to reach the flipping engines? It doesn't make sense, I tell you! Sheesh.

I'm not talking about general design principles, but this specific situation. I believe the problem OP is having is that when he starts a rotation, that big mass upfront has so much momentum that it just keeps swinging, dragging the rest of the ship with it. In which case, since most of his steering authority is already at the back in the form of the vectoring engines, adding more control there is unlikely to fix it. Applying control surface leverage right to the problem area, though, seems to stand a better chance of keeping that momentum from getting out of hand in the first place.

How about some launch clamps to the tanks the LV-Ns are attached to? If the tanks move less, they might impart less momentum to those heavy engines.

That's a fairly large rocket, and you are likely over-loading it. What is the G meter reading when you experience the failure? It's kind of hard to see in that pic, but do you have any struts running across the stage divisions? They will make the rocket stronger, and will not prevent separation of the stages.

Several of the game's parts are first drafts and so their capabilities don't entirely make sense. Right now, for example, the Communotron 16 is actually better than the two alternatives that become available later.

It was nice of you to offer help, JiWint, but seeing as this thread is 6 months old, I doubt Mr. Whackjob is still working on the design. Thread closed.

Are you asking for help with piloting or ship design? As for a ship, the third one in my first post of this thread can do moon roundtrips, and uses only parts from tiers 0-3.

I don't have a detailed path worked out yet, but in general: solar panels, then probe cores, then science instruments. With those you can send probes just about anywhere on one-way missions, and do roundtrips to Kerbin's moons.

I can hold my peace no longer; here's the thing that drives me into a homicidal rage about Vipers. The idiotic things have 4 intakes, but only 3 engines. Urge to kill, rising...

Camelotking524, what did that look like before it blew up?

Control surfaces toward the bottom will not have the leverage to hold that heavy nose up. If you don't want to *keep* control surfaces there, you could attach them to decouplers and eject them when they're no longer needed.

Oopsie. Double-posted thread. Please submit any further replies to the other one.

Here's a rocket made for newbies to practice with. It's over-built for moon missions to give a new pilot some margin for error, so some players have flown it to Duna and landed there.

That is my question. A treaty does no good unless it can be enforced against those who try to violate it, while those who do not wish to violate it do not need the treaty in the first place, so what purpose would such a treaty serve? I also have no interest in militarizing KSP, but others have different views, and I couldn't enforce mine even if I wished to. Perhaps you are thinking of a pledge rather than a treaty? People can pledge to agree to a principle without trying to require others to abide by the agreement as well.

You've been busy.

A law which cannot be enforced diminishes respect for the law. I am abstaining until a better case is made for this statute.

That boom up front is quite a bit of mass to start swinging and then stop it where you want it to be. Try putting some control surfaces on it, for one thing. And/or, make your turns in smaller steps so that it doesn't build up as much momentum.