How well can you fly without SAS?

[RainDreamer]

I am building a super cheap, kerbal-in-a-tin-can satellite maintainance vehicle carrying only one engineer to space and repair/maintaining satellites using KIS. I don't feel like shelling out for another probe core just for SAS, so I probably will try flying it without it. Lets see how it goes.

Edit: made it to space and orbit, but ran out of fuel before reaching target due to waay to many correction. Ok, fine, Bill. You are getting a probe to assist you with flying. Gonna have to figure out the logistics though...remote tech would require the probe to have an antenna and it will cost something...

Have you ever tried flying without SAS? How did it go? How well were you at flying without SAS?

Edited March 21, 2015 by RainDreamer

[Wanderfound]

It can be done; I've sent SASless ships to the Mun and back.

Spin stabilisation helps a great deal; angled tailfins in atmosphere, torque wheels in space.

[bakanando]

If you are going to be flying around other ships I'd recommend having a probe, even if it was a pilot. A control-less ship disables SAS and if it starts spinning, you'll have a bad time. I'd rather add a couple kilograms to a ship than having to maneuver an out of control ship.

Tip: Going into time warp will stop the ship's spinning.

[Random Hooded Stranger]

Hmm...long story short, no SAS in atmosphere means explosions. I'm so-so in space without it though :3

[Xaver]

I can fly without SAS like a drunken bumblebee.

[jarmund]

I did a mun-trip yersterday without a problem. I use FAR, so by taking aerodynamics into consideration when constructing, launch wasn't that much of an ordeal. With some canards, and a slight tilt after clearing the pad, the gravity turn pretty much happens by itself. My transfer and upper stage were fairly small, so they were easy to orient in the proper direction, with very short burns to achieve the desired orbit changes. Landing on the surface of the mun was a bit tedious, but not that hard if done carefully. During reentry, no SAS was needed, as my heat shield (Yes, deadly reentry) made it bottom heavy, and of course when it came to parachutes, they were mounted on top.

[ghpstage]

I only play stock, but fly without SAS regularly.

I've done plenty of manned missions to and from the Mun and Minmus, and I have an ambitious, manned Duna round trip on the go (that cost less than 15K!) that I really ought to finish.

I've done one way unmanned landings on everything bar Moho, Dres and Eeloo, and all in sub 18ton, budget launches. I have had quite a few probe losses in total, but 90%+ have been Tylo and Moho attempts. A lot have been launch failures due to the rocket I built flying like a randomly shaped brick, but Tylo's surface is even scarier without SAS!

The only orbital rendezvous I have done have been Kerbal rescues. I probably wouldn't attempt docking without (until I got really bored), but I would think that a satellite rendezvous for engineering purposes, where you don't dock and don't require a long EVA would be quite reasonable given patience and practice.

I'm not a user of spin stabilisation. I find with fine controls I can get the turns to very nearly stop very near to where I want while in space, where you have plenty of time, and for me at least, spinning in the atmosphere is an exercise in failure generation.

Biggest tip I can give is to make sure you know if fine control is on or off off before you start a manoeuvre, as past experience has shown me that not knowing will often lead to a lot of fuel being wasted, and during take off or landings, can easily lead to explosions.

Edited March 21, 2015 by ghpstage

[Azimech]

Atmo only, most of my turboprops fly better without SAS because the vibrations of the engine confuses it. Just a little trim, and compensate for altitude, speed and draining tanks.

[Deutherius]

With a good enough joystick it would be a pleasure. Without it... Eh, there's always a place and money for one little probe core, even if it only offers stability assist. (Yes, I suck at stabilizing the spacecraft manually, even with fine controls I always overcorrect too hard. And I don't really feel like timewarping all the time just to kill rot.)

Slightly unrelated, but if you ever want to dock bigger things without SAS, good luck - I seriously hope your RCS placement is on point and your CoM isn't shifting.

[FlyingPete]

Having a probe core with at least stability assist is useful if your single kerbal has to go EVA for whatever reason. Out of control, spinning ships are annoying to try and get aboard.

[Yukon0009]

Zilch. Nada. Zero.

My life depends on SAS.

[Majorjim!]

With practice its lots of fun!

I trained in my Thrust measuring rig. No SAS here.

[Tank Buddy]

Landing, absolutely. Just about anything else is much easier with SAS.

[cantab]

I won't fly spacecraft without SAS. I won't fly aeroplanes with it.

[Tex]

I do all right without SAS on spacecraft, and I've done Munar landings (unsure of Minmus ones) without it. I find that it's not all that difficult, years of PC gaming give me steady and quick fingers!

I will say, however, that I probably couldn't fly airplanes in stock KSP without it! Otherwise there would be sooo many stabilization corrections.

[Vashts]

I can fly without SAS like a drunken bumblebee.

this.

[Starhawk]

With difficulty. I almost never fly without it.

Early in my first 0.90 career I did manage to complete a satellite contract without SAS. Very fiddly.

Happy landings!

[Azimech]

I fly flight simulators since 1984. That helps. Seeing the SAS fly a plane is terrible.

[magnemoe]

I can fly without SAS like a drunken bumblebee.

Same here, I tried to do orbital operations with an small probe with only the staysputnik, I had to give up, probe was symmetric outside of massless parts.

Had an new spaceplane, Pilot and rest of crew left for minmus taxi, after sending it on it way I went back to spaceplane and asked mechjeb to do my standard deorbit burn for spaceplanes (estimated landing spot 60 km west of KSP.

Took manual control and found that the plane was not controllable but wanted to rotate in random directions, yes it might work better in atmosphere but my chance of landing would be extremely slim so I jumped to spaceport as I did not have enough fuel to reach orbit,

[LABHOUSE]

Went to orbit dozens of times like that, a few times to the mun like that, might be able to go further.

[Madrias]

I can fly some of my planes with SAS off, and I've accidentally flown orbits with no SAS. Otherwise, I generally just leave it on, even for planes. I try to build so that taking the hands off the keyboard with no SAS active will continue to fly the aircraft on a slight downward path.

[Newt]

I did my first orbital launch sas free. It was fun, but, challenging. I have continued to do it with small vehicles going, just about everywhere, from Jool to Laythe to Mun to Kerbol escape. Of course, SAS is integrated now, so I usually use it, but before the integration of the SAS module in controllers, I seldom used it on anything small and unmanned.

[Flixxbeatz]

Already done it with tiny cores and vehicles. Won't dare try it with large crafts tho.

[Francois424]

I will usually disable SAS to do long turns and stuff, note that with pilots now I don't really have to, unless the overturn by 50%. But flying all the time without it ? No way. That's a recipe for major boom !

[celem]

Its probably quickest to list the situations where I have it On rather than what I can do without it.

I use it to control my RCS and therefore attitude when circularising small payloads on SRBs or other non-gimballing engines.

I use the retrograde hold to make suicide burns.

Otherwise its usually off, I have no Torque on any of my ships anyway so it doesnt do anything unless my RCS is lit or im in atmosphere with control surfaces. If a launch is particularly unwieldy (in FAR) then I might use it to manage my control surfaces during primary ascent.

Edited March 22, 2015 by celem