Raptor9

Members
  • Content Count

    1,398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,276 Excellent

About Raptor9

  • Rank
    Spacecraft & Rocket Dealer

Profile Information

  • Location United States
  • Interests Anything and everything aerospace-related.

Recent Profile Visitors

13,347 profile views
  1. With a keyboard and mouse. Is that what you're asking?
  2. When I'm playing my career, I try not to get bogged down on one mission set for too long. For example, if my largest mission going on is an expedition to Duna, or sending a probe to a new destination, I never timewarp from Kerbin departure to destination arrival. After I get the probe or interplanetary ship on it's way out of the Kerbin SOI, I immediately plan the next maneuver (usually a mid-course correction or plane-change burn). As soon as I have that plotted, I'll check the maneuver's ETA to see how much "free time" I have to accomplish other tasks. The "free time" usually goes something like this: - check contract listings in Mission Control - transmit all research lab accumulated science to "empty their reservoirs" of science points - make a couple of resupply runs from ISRU sites to orbiting propellant depots - do some crew rotations to the various stations/surface bases around the Kerbin SOI to get lower-tier kerbalnauts the required XP so they are as experienced as they can be prior to being assigned an interplanetary expedition (I have my own kerbalnaut career pipelines I send pilots, engineers, and scientists through) - and by this time I'm looking to chill, so I'll pour a cup of coffee or an adult beverage; and either go for an aerial survey contract around Kerbin, take a rover for a drive near a surface outpost to close out a local research contract; or monitor a satellite's KerbNet around a planetary body for a while and scan for anomalies or future landing sites for research/ISRU potential. This way I avoid the repetitiveness of one type of mission profile. Especially when I'm trying to keep orbital propellant depots topped off; instead of emptying them completely and doing resupply run after resupply run to the ISRU rigs, I just do a couple now and then between other missions to gradually build them back up to capacity. Other missions will be undertaken in parallel. So by the time I'm doing crewed missions to the Duna surface or starting to construct a base, I'm already preparing for the next planetary SOI like Eve or Dres by sending pre-positioned assets. Communications links, initial science and survey probes, setting up ISRU infrastructure if necessary, and then start scanning for possible landing sites for future expedition crews. I don't see myself doing that any time soon. Namely because I don't have the time. What "gaming" time I do have I would rather be playing my KSP career save, designing new stuff, or playing whatever other games I have as well. Corrected. Thanks.
  3. There were some minor positional tweaks to some of the parts, but nothing to write about. And it received a dedicated payload adapter. Not sure. The SEP-AC redirects the asteroid to a location where the crew can rendezvous, dock, collect samples, and then depart. So I never intended for the ion engines to function while the crew vehicle was docked. In this case, it's the same scenario as the Station Modules. Without knowing where the modules are going, or how the player wants to get them there (or how many/which ones in single launch), the required or appropriate launch vehicle could be widely different. It's more about flexibility and player choice. ___________________________________ EDIT: Also, I forgot to mention that I updated the EV-5 component lifters as well, similarly to the EV-4 modules. The EV-4's and EV-5's now share a common naming convention across their component designations to be in line with the EV-3. The new EV-5 Hab+Lab is derived from the new EV-4 Hab+Lab, since they were both supposed to be inflatable habitats in their real-life concepts. These adjustments to my catalog and graphics are intended to make the designs and graphics production more streamlined and efficient.
  4. Two craft updated today, along with one brand new one. I updated the SEP-AC (Asteroid Capture) to be a subassembly, re-designated the SM-PB (Power Bus) to SEP-PB, and added the SEP-PT (Payload Transport) subassembly to the collection. The SEP-PT was originally going to be my SEP-AC Mk2, but decided to make it a general purpose transport instead. It would be too easy to swap out the docking port with a Klaw if a player wanted to change it's mission however. The SEP-PT can be used to ferry a bunch of payloads around the Kerbin SOI if a player doesn't want to set up ISRU on the Mun or Minmus, but it does come at a high launch cost due to the ion engines and xenon propellant. It can also be used like the SEP-PB as a space station utilities module, with the added benefit of having an RCS system for R&D maneuvers. The SEP-PT will also take an important role in my expansion of the Eve/Gilly mission architecture. It can also be used around Duna, but is limited to ~50% throttle due to solar energy drop-off. But with 4x ion engines, it has more TWR flexibility compared to the others. Each of these subassemblies comes with a pre-mounted payload adapter for easier integration into whatever lifter you want to use. This is part of the strategy that depending on where you want to use these, you may need to use smaller or larger rockets. So I decided to make these as subassemblies and just toss them on whatever rocket you want to use. I know they come with plenty of delta-V being ion-powered craft, but there may be circumstances where you can't or don't want to use those engines until you get to where you're going; whether that be the Mun or another planet.
  5. I suspect that the Munar launch site is a consolation prize given to the console community since the Mission Builder feature won't be available to them. However, I agree with @GregroxMun and the others that have stated their opinions on why they think it's a bad idea. In the end, I don't really care since it has no affect on my gameplay. Even if it comes to PC, I'll just choose not to use it...And look disapprovingly at anyone that "lands" a rover on the Mun by driving it off the launch platform ramp.
  6. Hardly any. The additional weight of the fairings is offset by reducing the mass of the 'Saddle' truss itself. All those I-beams on the older trusses added a lot of mass. All in all, the changes in delta-V to the assembled Block 1 and 2 are minimal. In fact, even the Block 1 (with an EV-2C mounted on the front) was able to launch from low Kerbin orbit to either a 65km Duna orbit or 25km Gilly orbit, and still have more than enough delta-V to return to low Kerbin orbit for reuse if desired. Some numbers: EV-4 v1.5 to v1.6 comparisons Block 1: 1.3 ton increase, 14 part decrease Block 2: 0.9 ton increase, 13 part decrease Block 3: 4.3 ton decrease*, 6 part decrease *I should note that the reason the Block 3 configuration's mass is so much less, despite the 'Star' Truss and it's drop tanks being heavier than their previous versions, is the fact that the Block 3 is using a smaller 'In-Line' tank, which does have a noticeable impact on it's total delta-V. However, during testing to and from Dres, this didn't have a mission impact on the Block 3's ability to return to low Kerbin orbit (120km, just barely). However, due to the wide variances in Dres's orbit the delta-V requirements for each transfer may vary, so it's probably safer to launch and return to Munar orbit between Dres missions. But the Dres test was just to see how far I could push the Block 3. In practice, I would prefer to use an EV-6 Windjammer to go to Dres, and retain the EV-4 Block 3 for more aggressive transfer trajectories between Kerbin and Duna (or Eve) with reduced travel times; which was the original design goal of the later configurations of the real-life NTR-STS anyway. Absolutely, these modules are extremely versatile. Here's an example similar to the one a few pages back: The 'Star' Truss drop tanks themselves have small docking ports on the tips to allow EMU's grab on and attach them to a station and serve as propellant storage, or you can change out one of the end ports for a medium-sized version and put a single short drop tank in a reused 'Saddle' truss. The Hab+Lab retains it's ability to dock an EV-2C in place of the docking/service module, and landers that are 2.5m in total diameter or smaller can also dock in the truss sections. Since the drop tanks or the In-Line tank have oxidizer storage in them (just emptied), they can easily be converted into service as LFO tanks, which fits nicely with any sort of LFO conversion to the EV-4's. Any of the 'Titan'-series upper stages, especially the NITE, could be put into service as the propulsion module of an EV-4. The bottom example could be put into service as a research/fuel depot station supporting Ike landing missions. All it takes is some imagination and planning. Thanks @Majorjim!. I was glad I could improve these since these were the first craft I ever published on KerbalX several years ago. The "original" craft files of this thread as they were.
  7. I finally got off my lazy rear-end a few weeks ago, hunkered down, and rebuilt my HLV-6 'Warthog' Duna landers from v1.3.1. As a reminder, the concept these landers, and the EV-4 'Longship', are based on can be viewed HERE. I think the aspect I am most proud of from this redesign is the fact I was able to narrow down a reliable EDL sequence that can place these landers on a surface target. The EDL sequence graphics can be viewed in the OP and on the HLV-6 KerbalX pages. As for the landers themselves, here are the new grapics. While I was at it, I revamped and improved the EV-4 'Longship's and the associated component lifters. I also streamlined the designs and removed some of the module options that I felt were redundant and unnecessary. Taking a page from some of the design techniques of the new EV-6 kits, I made the Hab+Lab modules larger and more "realistic" in my opinion. I also re-did the truss systems to have less mass, less parts, and I think they look better. Of particular note is the SEV 'Mustang', which is the first formal element of a dedicated Gilly mission architecture. The next element I'm designing will be a dedicated Gilly surface base that will be (hopefully) well optimized for the ultra-low gravity of the moon. There are notes in the OP and on the respective KerbalX pages for the NTR Type B and the In-Line Tank. To simplify the number of craft files, the In-Line Tank has two HG-55 comms dishes on it in the VAB, and depending on which configuration of the EV-4 you are constructing, you will want to remove one or the other prior to launch. Same thing with the NTR Type B. You can see why in the graphic below. Technically it also applies to the NTR Type A, but really shouldn't be necessary if you are building true to the established Block configurations. EDIT: I almost forgot, at the recommendation of @Jester Darrak, I reorganized and updated the thread OP somewhat. Hopefully it's a little more logical and concise now. I also moved the "Latest updates and future plans" section to the second post of the thread.
  8. That yellow stripe is from the small fins, the radiators are sticking through making the arch shape. Thanks
  9. Are you referring to the frame? The HLV-6 frames are just a collection of I-beams and structural panels. Nothing special. Is that what you were referring to?
  10. Raptor9

    Gas Planet 2? Poll

    I'm afraid I agree with the players that would rather have more things to do at their destinations, instead of just more destinations. As much I would love to see OPM in stock, I would much prefer some parts that are more conducive to building surface outposts, like Kerbal Planetary Base Systems, and/or some other game mechanic that creates more depth to EVA activities or surface-based science.
  11. I've never heard that myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's true. But in my mind, that's a waste of resources to accomplish in KSP. For one, when I land a rover on a body, whether it be the Mun or Duna, I really can't see myself trying to get it back to orbit just so I can use it as a zero-g spacecraft. Like the base modules, once it's there, it stays there. If I need one for space exploration, I'll just send another variant "out there". Plus, it allows me to optimize each variant for their specific function while keeping part count lower. I don't want to have a rover variant driving around that has RCS thrusters protruding everywhere. The NASA SEV is probably designed that way for ease of manufacturing process and modular construction. I doubt it makes any more sense in real life to retrieve an SEV from the surface of the moon to serve as a spacecraft elsewhere.
  12. The BM-LS (Logistics Shelter). As you can see, some small tweaks are still needed after the first delivery test to Duna. The docking clamps are a little too low on each side, and some other bits here and there. Even after repeated testing around the KSC with gravity hacked to match Duna's (or the Mun's), it's always interesting to see what issues pop up when you try to integrate and use a new base module for the first time with an full surface outpost at your actual destination. It's not readily apparent from these images, but the ER-4 is currently docked to the shelter and can take on propellant for it's fuel cells. I also want to point out that this module can operate completely on its own if need be. It has a singular solar panel to keep it's batteries powered for it's artificial night lighting, and can store two Oscar-B's worth of LFO propellant in it's side-mounted tanks. This means it can refuel an ER-3 twice, or refuel an ER-4 (seen parked inside) to half-capacity. The ER-4 'Mustang', which will be available as both a subassembly as well as pre-mounted on the updated HLV-6A, has 4 Oscar-B's worth of LFO, giving it plenty of endurance during hours of darkness via it's two fuel cells. Based on NASA's Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV), the ER-4 will also be featured in a variant for zero-G space exploration as part of my upcoming Gilly mission architecture. On the topic of the HLV-6 update, the final testing has been completed and graphics are almost done. I even managed to iron out a reliable Entry, Descent and Landing sequence for both landers to precisely touch down on a target, which is important given the architecture. The HLV-6A needs a minimum ore concentration for it's ISRU process, and the HLV-6B needs to be able to land close enough to the HLV-6A to deliver the crew to the surface. Like the LV-7, the HLV-6 KerbalX pages will come with a separate graphic instructing a player how to perform the EDL phase. In the second picture, you can also see the side-mounted docking clamps on the ER-4 rover. These allow the rover to be refueled via the high-mounted docking port on the BM-Logistics Adapters if necessary. Also visible is the new MRPS (Mobile Reactor Power System) rover, which replaces the older and outdated SRTG on the HLV-6A. I still need to finish the graphics on all the new EV-4 'Longship' modules, which go hand and hand with the new HLV-6 landers. My main priority right now is to put the final touches on the EV-4's and HLV-6's and get those out the door before I return to the new Base Modules.
  13. I see what you mean. Yeah, I'll probably do something like this next craft update. EDIT: @Jester Darrak, I've finished a new base module that should fit your "rover recharging station" idea. I'm pretty sure you're gonna like it. It came together quite nicely, and I can't wait to get some screenshots of it in action. What's nice is it will serve double duty as the lifting rack for a rover. So after you pull the module from the subassembly list and place it on the cargo lander, you go back to the subassembly list, choose what rover you want, and attach it to the module. I've successfully tested both the ER-3 'Mongoose' and the ER-4 'Mustang' with it.
  14. While I agree the new revamped model is a marked improvement over the existing one, I am disappointed that the new model hasn't been revised to be more compact to be more interchangeable with the monoprop-powered RCS thrusters. That's quite the large aerodynamic blister to cover the Vernor thrust port, but for vacuum craft, it's excessive and unnecessary.
  15. I believe monopropellant engines in real-life are less efficient as well compared to bipropellants, but the advantage to me is the single resource requirement for both propulsion and attitude control, just like using Vernors permits using just LF+O for propulsion, attitude control, plus fuel cell power generation. Having said that, I wish the Vernor models were smaller and less cumbersome to emplace, like the Place-Anywhere 7 Linear RCS port. Yes please ^ This is my main complaint if you want to use just a single O-10 engine; aligning it with the center-of-mass can be difficult with the precision that is required.