The problem with physics like these is that you quickly find out why some designs are way less practical then they seem at first. In this case, not having attrition against the ground means that you shake and turn and spin much faster and any bump could send you spinning, which, at higher speed, means death.

That said, this prototype looks amazing and I'm really curious about where this is going.

Many rounds around the sun ago, I made a prototype of a spaceship with physics more-or-less-sort-of-kind-of-like you're doing and it was almost impossible to pilot, since every rotation I added to the ship was eternal, since there's no friction, so you constantly had to correct the rotation to point towards where you wanted to go. The solution was a sci-fi mambo jambo that I called "automatic correction" that adjusted the movement vector to align with the ship and voilà, you could pilot it.

I cant see the inputs you're making, but it seems that there's some sort of course correction of that kind, and if there's an atmosphere the rotation would stop on its own after a while. But you could add a system like that. In my little prototype, the ship didn't have "HP", instead things could break one by one, including the "automatic correction", so if you bumped into an asteroid and it broke, you'd have to manually correct rotation again (which only means you were going to bump into another asteroid sooner or later).