Geonovast

You have your priority backwards. Higher numbers drain first. 10 is much higher than -9.

I way overdid this answer so bear with me. (Click on the pictures to enlarge) I've assembled this to try to match what you described. As you can see, there's nothing to separate the probe after launch. There are a few ways to fix this. First would be to put a stack separator between the engine and the magically appearing plate. Stack separators decouple on both sides. Decoupling in orbit. Separates your craft, but leaves the separator as space trash! So let's try something different. We'll do an up-side down decoupler, which only detaches on one side. Note the direction of the arrows, I flipped it upside down from its default orientation. I also stuck the engine upside down on top of the probe, so the engine isn't in the way of the decoupler. Decoupling in orbit. This time the decoupler stays with the probe, so no space trash! Just remember that since your engine is on the wrong side, you actually want to point prograde when de-orbiting. And now for the option I mentioned above. Sticking the thing directly on the docking port. This is the least confusing of these three methods, as you don't even need the interstage nodes at all for this. The engine is still backwards, mainly for aesthetic reasons since the ant doesn't have a shroud. Right click on the docking port and decouple just like you would a decoupler or separator. This does not disable the port's ability to dock, you can dock to it later. But, personally, I wouldn't do any of these. I would keep the probe attached to the stage that puts the thing into orbit in the first place. That way you can ditch the upper stage and the probe together, and just have the station up in orbit without the unneeded tank and engine (Unless of course you're wanting these - I prefer something to be basically unpowered if I'm calling it a space station.). This setup lets you have a docking port on either side as well. Just decouple in orbit like you would in the previous example. Point retrograde and de-orbit! Please let me know if this isn't at all what you meant and I completely missed the point.

If noone else steps in before I get home from work, I'll do a quick tutorial for you. But from what you're describing, you don't even need them. Just attach the probe core to the docking port. After you get the station where you want, you can right-click on the docking port and decouple it, which will eject the probe core and leave the docking port open for docking.

Mind attaching some screenshots?

Oh I hope so. I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to filter engines, by, say, vac isp. I'm pretty sure there's a mod that does that with a fairly obvious name. I need to check into that. Sometimes even knowing which mod a part came from isn't enough when it's a big enough mod and you're trying to patch a part. PartInfo giving the actual path of the config file is ideal!

Make sure you have crossfeed enabled on all docking ports and decouplers. It may be a fuel flow priority issue. In your settings, do you have Advanced Tweakables enabled? If you don't enable it, and then you can adjust fuel flow priority of each tank. Tanks with a higher number will drain first.

I usually have space related videos on YouTube, some Movie or TV show going on one of my other monitors. Otherwise the select few bands I listen to(right now, anyway) are in the spoiler. I leave KSP muted all the time.

Set it to 50, then click inside the bar and drag it left and right to adjust.

Smartphones can do the email thing.

Go on.... Are we talking mounting components on PCBs, or full-on building with protoboard?

The problem isn't dV, it's TWR. A deorbit system likely isn't to have a very high TWR, but is likely to have a high ISP to make it lightweight. And abort system is the exact opposite. You need a TWR much higher than the rocket you're trying to get away from, ISP be damned. When SpaceX was planning to dual-purpose their abort motors, it wasn't for de-orbiting, it was for landing - another high TWR scenario.

How much are you missing if you spend most of the time fighting it? Maybe only do every other update? Don't stress yourself out over it, find something that works and just play.

Nobody's making you update KSP when one is released. If it's that frustrating, get with a version and mods that work for you and that you enjoy, and ignore the updates.

It's stability assist that will try to keep your ship pointing in a single direction. Its current orientation, prograde, retrograde, normal, antinormal, radial out, radial in, target, antitarget, or at a manuever. I can't infer what you mean by "crazy". If you're having issues launching a rocket, there's about a 99.98% chance that SAS isn't the problem. Can you be more specific, preferably with screenshots as to the problems you're having? I bet we can help you out with whatever's going on.

You're going to have to really, really, really elaborate. SAS is NOT an autopilot.

I'm 32 and I still quite enjoy FPS games. I'm counting the unknown amount of days until The Master Chief Collection comes to Steam (and that they don't write it to deliberately break Proton), as well as the Steam release for Borderlands 3 (Which I might consider getting first on Epic, except for their "Real gamers run Windows like good little conformists" attitude). I just don't play them much because I have nobody to play them with. What I outgrew was the matchmaking. I have zero desire to play any FPS game, or any game at all, really, with people I don't know. This huge push in the gaming industry for online/matchmaking only with strangers is the biggest turn off to video games ever. I can't tell you have beyond annoyed I was when I got Halo 5 and discovered that literally the only way to play with another person was with two boxes, two copies of the game, and two gold subscriptions.

This is a flat-out fresh install of 1.6.0 (my 1.6.1 installer is at home and I keep forgetting to enable ssh access to that computer) The game complained about it being incompatible at first, as well as the missing tweakscale and mechjeb modules. The incompatible problem can be taken care of by opening up the craft file in a text editor, and changing the second line from version = 1.7.0 to version = 1.6.0 KSP will not load a craft that is for a version higher than its own, but it will do lower. The tweakscale and mechjeb errors you can ignore.

If you have MH, then you'll need to install the MH version specific to 1.6.1. But that doesn't matter, it is a pure stock vessel. Neither of the DLCs are required. I'll try it in a fresh 1.6.1 DLC free install.

Not stock, but that is a mod. I use it for my upper stages that I can't (or am too lazy to) deorbit.

Yup. Playing no reverts right now (unless caused by a bug). Have had two launches go bad due to bad staging on one and pitching too early on another. The pitching too early had 6 tourists on board... so glad I had the LES on that. LES testing is becoming one of my favorite parts of designing a rocket.

Threw this together and did some very brief testing. Let me know how it works for you. You can adjust the bold part to change what SAS level they get. If you want different levels for different pods, you'll need individual patches. @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],!MODULE[ModuleSAS]] { MODULE { name = ModuleSAS SASServiceLevel = 2 } @MODULE[ModuleCommand] { @minimumCrew = 0 %hasHibernation = True RESOURCE { name = ElectricCharge rate = 0.03 } } }

Can you upload some screenshots?

Huh. It says it's pure stock. I'll give it a try. Edit: Loads fine for me. The only issue I had was an error about missing part modules for Tweakscale and Mechjeb, but you can ignore those. Some screenshots could help.