JacaByte

I think KSP has enough parts for you to build the butt rocket on your own.

As far as I know the parent part from the ship your merging into your design has to have an available attachment node for you to be able to use it properly. On that note you should take a look at sub-assemblies, they make a little more sense in my opinion.

1. Put LFO on your rover 2. Put fuel cells on your rover 3. ???? 4. Profit.

The 2.5 m decoupler and the mk 1-2 command pod could all use a face lift.

I encountered a problem where I couldn't transmit science from an orbital science lab until I removed the RCS build aid. Additional mods I have installed; KER, Kerbal Alarm Clock, Kerbal Aircraft eXpansion, and module manager 2.6.3. (for KAC) The lab had 495 science, when I pressed the "transmit science" button the antenna would deploy and transmit data to 100% completion but no science would transfer.

It's worth noting that the stock Mk1-2 capsule is heavier than the Mk3 cockpit, which is a larger part. The logic behind this escapes me.

I would kill for this. It would also help when setting up circularization burns, insertion burns or rendezvous. A PiP view of the periapsis, apoapsis, ascending node and descending node with a numerical readout would make all of these maneuvers much easier. I wouldn't need one hand to keep the mouse on the node, another hand for pitch and roll on my joystick and another for yaw and throttle.

The Mk1-2 capsule does have some issues, post 1.0.0 I've had trouble getting it slowed down using parachutes only, but I managed to solve that with seperatrons and some experimenting. With the Mk16-XL parachute you'd expect the capsule to slow down to about 4 m/s right? In 1.0.2 with 1.0.0's aero it turns out that parachute only slows the capsule down to 14 m/s. Survivable, thanks to the pod's unusually high crash tolerance, but it will destroy anything on the underside of the pod. Let's talk about the capsule's role in the game. It's clearly meant to be a successor to the Mercury style Mk1 capsule and among the rocket parts it holds the most kerbals, barring the Hitchhiker. If you want to bring one or two kerbals from orbit, don't have any available landers in orbit and don't have any viable spaceplanes yet you're probably going to use a Mk1-2 capsule to get those kerbonauts home. Thus it three-kerbal capacity makes it a good reentry craft. If you don't have any space stations or intermediary craft and you have a lander that can't survive reentry (a lander for a non-direct ascent style mission if you will) you'll probably use a Mk1-2 capsule in the role of a service and command module for an Apollo style mission. Again, its crew capacity makes it a good command module. Beyond that I don't know why I would use a Mk1-2 capsule. It's heavy, so I wouldn't use it in a lander that has to take off again. On that note it's actually lighter than the Apollo capsule that it's clearly inspired by, which was 5.5 metric tons, but the other capsules in this game are also lighter than their real life counter parts. The weight of the Mk1-2 means it's not a viable capsule until you can build 2.5 m rockets. But these rockets are more expensive, so you'll probably continue using the Mk1 capsule for contract work anyway, unless you can find a way to combine missions. I wouldn't use it for a space station again because it's heavy, but also because its ladder is in a weird place. It's the only capsule or part in the game with a ladder that's not normal to its flight path. When you launch a capsule the ladder is normally facing due north, but the ladder on the Mk1-2 capsule is facing southwest. I don't know why, it's just the way the part was made. And if you rotate the capsule to compensate your compass will not be facing north like it normally does when you launch. And finally it's ugly. The capsule door is in a strange place and there are two upwards facing windows which mess with the conical geometry of the capsule and make it a pain to place radial parachutes. It has widgets and gunk painted on which serve no purpose, and overall it doesn't look like something that belongs in KSP 1.0.2 alongside the new spaceplane capsules like the Mk3 cockpit. Definitely the first change I would make would be to make it lighter. A lighter 2.5 m capsule would be a better contender for all the roles I mentioned and make it suitable for use in landers and situations where deltaV conservation is necessary. It would also fix the problem with parachutes not slowing it down, eliminating the need for goofy solutions like using solid rocket motors to slow it down the instant before it hits the ground. I also think it needs an aesthetic change. I think a lot more people would use a capsule with a ladder in the expected position. It would also be nice to reposition windows so radially attached parts don't block them.

The green markers indicate the direct and retrograde burn directions and are tangental to your orbit. Burning direct will increase your orbital speed and burning retrograde will reduce your orbital speed. The purple markers indicate inclination, ascending and descending, and are binormal to your orbit. These are useful for rendezvous, burn ascending at the descending node and vice-versa to match the inclination of your orbit with your target. (ascending is towards the north pole of your parent body and descending is towards the south pole) The blue markers indicate your normal and anti-normal, and are normal to your orbit. Burning in these directions will change your rate of ascent/descent, and are useful for fine-tuning a circularization burn. (Normal is away from the parent body, anti-normal is toward the parent body IIRC)

My Arrandale i5 has hyper-threading, but I doubt it affects game performance at all. Hyper-threading works adding additional silicon to the CPU; the CPU has a set of "physical" cores, each with all the digital logic they need to perform all the nicks and nacks Intel wants them to perform, and then a "logical" core for each physical core, which only have the digital logic they need to meet the minimum feature set dictated by the CPU's architecture. To the operating system process allocation to all these cores is done seamlessly, but only if the operating system knows how to handle the extra cores and if there are multiple threads to be allocated by the operating system. If the operating system only has one thread that needs processing only one of the cores will process it. For a single threaded application a physical core would definitely be used. That said, there are probably little to no real world benefits to turning off hyper-threading. A scientific comparison between hyper-threading and non-hyper-threading comparing frame rates and responsiveness needs to be done before any other conclusions are drawn. Edit: Allow me to direct your attention to the placebo effect.

The Quantum fuel system has a few undocumented technicalities which can be problematics; transfer nodes have to be attached to fuel tanks of the same type and you can only transfer that fuel type once that's complete. The KAS method allows you to move any and all fuel types between a pair of craft.

1. You should put some rudders on that puppy to gain some control over yaw. 2. You should try using one of the cockpits designed for spaceplanes, they're prettier IMO. 3. Is your center of mass in front of your center of lift? If not, you're going to have a bad day. Also, I would personally use an engine with a higher ISP than those radial engines, you'll have more delta V when you switch over to the rocket engine(s). The Aeris 4A is a good starting point in terms of fuel loadout, engine configuration etc., however in its stock configuration it's center of mass is behind the center of lift. If you decide to modify the Aeris 4A move some of the control surfaces backwards/forwards and replace the rocket engine with the aerospike until the CoM is in front of the CoL.

KAS will let you run fuel lines between craft, this is what I tried to use when I built a Mün base in 0.19.

If you assume density is constant and volume doubles, then all other stats dependent on a specific density will also double. (mass, charge, fuel capacity, etc.)

You don't have the proper RCS control surfaces or control modules with enough torque to make everything stop spinning. As for breakage on warp, no idea.

KAS is like a virtual docking port based on what I've seen, so you can simply move fuel between whatever tanks you wish. I tried both KAS and the quantum fuel system, I liked KAS the best; the quantum fuel system has to be attached to tanks of the same type, and will only transfer fuel between the tanks it's connected to from what I've gathered. KAS doesn't do this, with KAS it's as though the ships that are connected together are docked, so you can move any resource between two ships.