• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,098 Excellent

About Raptor9

  • Rank
    Spacecraft & Rocket Dealer

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

12,354 profile views
  1. They did not. But regardless, I just didn't want to deal with them anymore, so they're completely removed from all my lifters. In fact the only craft that uses a tube while exposed to drag is the EV-1C. But with a more powerful lifter, the drag doesn't impact the launch to LKO that much so I stuck with it. I just built a new EV-2B, without necessarily basing it on the CST-100 or Crew Dragon. The main thing I tried to achieve compared to my (never-published) EV-2B 1.4.1 revision was low launch costs, simplicity of use, and a relatively low part count. So I threw any real-life influences out the window and went with what made sense going from the A to the C model EV-2. On the surface, the latest EV-2B is a couple hundred funds cheaper to use per mission than the current SVR-10. However, the SVR-10 is technically the cheaper means to get a three-kerbal crew to LKO since it can be landed back on the KSC runway for full funds recovery; whereas the EV-2B capsule would return more funds but depending on the distance from the KSC will incur recovery losses which drives its actual end-of-mission price a little higher than the SVR-10. But compared to any spaceplanes, the EV-2B is the easiest and cheapest craft to get to LKO, including tourism contracts since it doesn't require a pilot. ________________________________ EDIT: Also, for all those Space Shuttle fans out there, I forgot to point out this weekend I updated the 'Ranger', and re-designated it from 'SVR-16' to 'SVR-20' to fit into the revamped SPH designations. As promised earlier this year, as my most-downloaded craft, I kept it DLC free. However, I swapped out the O-10 engines for Mk55's to serve as the OMS engines. Other than that, I tweaked the action groups slightly, but everything else remained the same.
  2. Raptor9

    KerbalX, plagiarization, and Downvoting

    @katateochi, I hear ya on the real-life commitments piece. If my real-life job wasn't so busy with no set schedule (I'm typing this as I'm getting ready for work), I would volunteer as a moderator. But I'm afraid my time that was available to serve such duties would be too inconsistent to be viable. Personally I think you're doing a great job managing the site, and I would say the banner example you displayed is just fine for the purpose it serves.
  3. Raptor9

    KerbalX, plagiarization, and Downvoting

    As someone that has personally communicated with @katateochi on a number of issues regarding the KerbalX site (to include not just the occasional plagiarized craft, but also website issues, growth, etc), I would just like to point out that he is very approachable with suggestions to improve a user's experience on the site, and he genuinely cares about such things. If he does not implement a valid feature request, he usually has a good reason; such as website server loads, coding limitations, real-life priorities that may take precedence over site management, etc. By no means am I discounting the merits of this thread. It's insulting to have someone claim another player's creativeness and ingenuity as their own. I've been copied multiple times in the past, and as someone that takes pride in their creations, I completely sympathize with the situation. However, I generally try to temper my frustration with the idea that for all I know, the user re-posting a plagiarized craft is a 10 year old kid somewhere that either doesn't know any better, or isn't mature enough to care. In the end, people will be people. Moving the "Copied" banner to the top and/or making the color more obvious are reasonable IMO, but in the mean time I think @XLjedi's technique is probably the best mitigation. As long as we don't start a trend of flame wars on KerbalX of users throwing each other's craft into insultingly-named hangers just out of spite (like "Hanger of crappy designs by a crappy designer").
  4. @Nertea, just when I think I've seen the best of your work, you go and out-do yourself again...again. That is some gorgeous work you put together! Question, what are the nose protrusions supposed to be on the nose of the Mk1-X 'Phoebe' and the Mk3B 'Pandora'?
  5. That was exactly my line of thinking; it was also a decision to have the 'Saddle' truss the size it is to be proportional to the 2.5m drop tank it would carry. I think all in all, it's a smooth enough transition from the 2.5m Hab+Lab, to the 'Saddle' truss diameter, to the 3.75m NTR tank in the back. I tried to make the Lab look a little chubby using the radiators with equipment storage underneath.
  6. Raptor9

    JS Hangtian Crafts (JS航天)

    "Kluster's last stand" I can think of another play on words using "Kluster", but it would violate the forum guidelines.
  7. A few more craft have been updated this weekend, even a few that have been languishing since 1.3.1. As always, the full list is annotated at the bottom of the OP. I also took some time to explore other uses of some older craft. The purpose was to see what older designs could be re-used and implemented in the current M3V and ISRU/depot mission architectures. In the example below, I was revisiting some thoughts I had on growth options for the EV-4 'Longship'. The original inspiration for these options can be read in a NASA document HERE; specifically figure 6 on page 9. I had read this paper a while ago, and it was on my mind when I updated my EV-4 design this past spring. I implemented docking ports inside the EV-4 saddle truss segments so that other modules and equipment could be inserted as needed, and I had considered the possibility of using EV-4's converted from LF-only LV-N propulsion to conventional LF+O propulsion. In this case, an EV-4 Block 1 has already jettisoned its LF drop tank from the 'Saddle' truss and its docking/service module from the Hab/Lab truss. The aft NTR Assembly has been replaced with an LFO-powered NITE stage, and a single drop tank with LF+O added to the aft 'Saddle' docking port. This allows an EV-2C and LV-2C to be docked in the remaining truss real-estate. This concept is why I replaced the solar panels on all my EV-2C's with the models that can be retracted (and it only cost a few m/s of dV). This configuration has 3,858 to 3968 m/s of dV (not including the propellant on board the EV-2C or LV-2C), depending on whether the drop tank is jettisoned when empty, or retained for reuse later. That's just enough for a one-way trip from low Kerbin orbit to low Dres orbit, at which the LV-2C can easily conduct a single landing. For the return trip, propellant could be sent ahead to Dres orbit, or an ISRU site could be set up using an M3V 'Ike/Dres Logistics Kit'. Anyway, you get the idea. Certainly a lot of possibilities remain to adapt some of the EV-4 modules to existing missions. I'm actually designing an Ike mobile refueling station that is essentially built from a used EV-4 Block 3.
  8. As long as they don't make it subject to abhorrent amounts of drag like the Making History structural tubes.
  9. Raptor9

    JS Hangtian Crafts (JS航天)

    I think as you get more variety and depth to your craft collection, you will start attracting more followers and players will start coming back to you more when you release additional craft.
  10. Yeah, the 'Thunder 3' family and 'Lightning' are my workhorses too. The LITE is better at pushing heavier payloads, but the economy of the 'Thunder 2' is definitely a plus when you're sending lighter probes on interplanetary trajectories. On the other hand, the LITE is intended to be reusable for other missions, so you recoup funds over time the more you use it after it's initial mission, to push payloads around in space. After I had my CisMunar propellant economy established with a handful of LITE stages operating around the Kerbin SOI, I would just put payloads on the 'Thunder 3' to get it to LKO for pick-up by the next available LITE, and ship it elsewhere. That's where the true pay-off begins.
  11. Raptor9

    JS Hangtian Crafts (JS航天)

    Aww, you missed the sale this past week, it was under $10 US dollars IIRC. I highly recommend it...at current market prices, Making History is like buying 3 over-priced Starbucks coffees, or 2 movie tickets. But I digress.... Looking good @Jestersage. As stated previously, I like your graphic presentation style. It's quite unique among the sea of the blueprint-style graphics on KerbalX.
  12. With a solid majority of my craft updated/revised to 1.5.1, I found some time after work this evening to publish the first craft files from Phase 2 of my Sat/Probe revamp project. The trio of satellites all come with a basic scientific sensor package and at least a short-range comms relay capability. The 'Crimson Sky' is your basic biome/terrain scanning satellite, with the Duna Survey and Resource Scanning (DSRS) satellite acting as an identical platform plus a narrowband resource scanner. The 'DunaLink' is the main communications bridge between the Kerbin DSN and the Duna SOI, with the smaller satellites acting as short-range relays. This orbital comms infrastructure is important to establish prior to sending other probes such as the 'Scarab' surface rover. However, these craft files are representative of later generations of spacecraft. I'm planning to publish analogues to earlier counterparts, like an orbital comms relay based on the Mariner 9 probe, and a Duna lander based on Viking 1 and 2. And then of course more craft for other planetary bodies to expand and add more depth to my satellite/probe collections. One final note: each of these satellites above include a small docking clamp so they can be serviced with propellant in orbit. If an ISRU infrastructure is established in the Duna SOI, a player can be more generous in adjusting the satellite orbits as necessary to scan specific target locations around Duna.
  13. I think what @SQUAD was going for was a balance between a round lander can and a rover cockpit inspired by the prototype rover in the 1st picture. However, perhaps a more up-to-date analogue with a front window assembly like in the second picture above might be an acceptable compromise. The windows have more rounded and beveled corners, with trapezoidal shaped windows, and perhaps even better downward visibility. Of course, as stated by several posts above, since we have no idea the IVA seating positions of the revised lander can, we really can't make any solid assumptions regarding the downward visibility. I like the window layout of @SuicidalInsanity's example two posts above this one, but I still like the idea of a protruding window frame assembly, whether it's on the lander or rover variant. Maybe have the center row of windows pulled out a little bit, with the top and bottom rows angled out more to meet them like the second rover picture. Either way, the current lander can/rover cockpit is a dramatic improvement over the existing Mk2, and I look forward to using it.
  14. I'm loving this @SQUAD, can't wait to see what the new IVA looks like.