Jump to content

Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

Raptor9

By Raptor9
in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

 Share

Recommended Posts

Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Crobal said:

Hi Raptor9, with your last update on KerbalX, when we try to download 'Basic Windjammer Kit'-Titan 3P it download the extended kit. Cya and as always, great work :wink:

It's been rectified; thanks for that prompt report. :) 

Last night I was placing a payload on a Titan 3P and noticed during a test launch the RCS ports on the payload fairing base weren't working due to being masked by the part's collider.  I moved them up slightly to fix the issue, which required me to apply this fix to all the craft files pre-fitted on Titan 3P launchers.  Needless to say, it was a flurry of rapid-fire KerbalX updates.  Anyone that notices any other errors please let me know so I can correct them.

Edited by Raptor9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crobal

Crobal

Posted
Posted (edited)

Oh, and about that, why on almost every plane there is a flap action but nothing in the group? (i fix it myself every time i use one of your planes but juste in case ^^)

 

EDIT: @Raptor9 For exemple, take the C7 325R.On the graphic and the description IG (when you put your mouse on the name of the craft) there is "[2] Toggles Flaps" but in fact nothing in the custom 2 action group. Thats all, sorry if i wasn't clear, i did my best ( i'm only french.. :D).

Edited by Crobal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

There may be a few aircraft that I removed the action but didnt update the action group list on the graphic. In some cases I later discovered that, due to the airframe layout, the "flaps" had no positive effect or even an adverse effect on takeoff/landing. I'll do a aircraft review tonight when I get gome from work. Thanks. :)

EDIT: @Crobal, I looked through my SPH aircraft, and there doesn't appear to be any aircraft that are labeled to have a "Flaps" action group and doesn't.  Each one that does have it on the graphics has it in the craft action assignments; and those that shouldn't have it, don't have it.  There are some craft that initially had it when published back in the day, like the X-5, but since have been removed after airframe redesign or further testing.  Bottom line, if the action group list has no flaps assigned, the craft shouldn't have it.

Having said that, if you want them, you can of course assign them as you wish. :) If you spot any inconsistencies in the future, please let me know.

Edited by Raptor9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Another thing @redmonddkgamer pointed out on KerbalX, is using the 'Ike/Dres Logistics Kit' on/around the Mun.  Not only would it only require a single launch to establish a propellant generation capability at the Mun, but the kit would provide 30% more in-orbit propellant storage capability in the NITE stage when compared to a PD-64 orbital depot, and the entire kit is 16% cheaper than launching an IV-1B, HLV-5B, and PD-64 separately using legacy configurations.  Not to mention the time savings. :)
______________________________________________

In other news, I'd like to report that most of the previous projects mentioned recently are still being worked on.  I've just been really busy with real-life stuff to preclude any substantial progress.  But the current major project standings are as follows:

1) New surface base modules as previewed here are still a thing.  Trying to package them up into a reasonable delivery method is taking more time than I wish.  Right now, I'm planning on two delivery systems for placing these modules on the surface of Duna.  The smaller modules and equipment like power generation, resource distribution lines, utlities, etc will be delivered by a reusable SSTO teased here. The larger modules will be delivered using an expendable cargo lander.  As with all my other M3V-rated projects nowadays, these systems will be evaluated for feasibility on other planetary bodies...It's worth noting that the expendable lander has already been tested as suitable for landing equipment on the surface of Laythe. 

2) Building on the EV-6 mission capabilities, notably a Long-Range Sortie configuration for Jool, along with additional M3V kits.  One such example is a 'Pol Logistics Kit', with a new IV-2B 'Badger' ISRU rig for establishing an ISRU footprint in the Joolian SOI.

3) The EV-7 'Skipjack', teased here, is also showing versatility in application.  Right now, 3 of the 4 modules from the 'EV-7 Mobile Mission Kit' can also be utilized by the EV-2L 'Runabout' to expand it's capabilities.  More on this later as the EV-7 is closer to being finalized.

4) As mentioned here, a Kerbin-based expeditionary airstrip/refueling infrastructure.  But I'm forcing myself not to commit to any of this until items 1, 2 and 3 are finished.

5) I'm wanting to do a re-vamp and expansion of my Satellites & Probes category.  Ever since Cassini took it's death plunge into Saturn, I've been reading more about the various probe programs of the US, Russia, and other countries.  I've never been much interested in the area of satellites or probes from a KSP gameplay perspective, so I was thankful that the KerbNet and CommNet features of 1.2 gave me an excuse to commit to the area.  But as @Cupcake... continues to demonstrate, doing "more with less" is a challenge in itself in KSP, so this is a skill set I'm looking to develop after items 1 through 3 are finished.

All these items are of course subject to change, but there are a lot of things to keep me busy when I have time to "KSP".  At the very least, I would really like to have item 1 finished before the end of the year, but I'm hoping the holidays will give me time to accomplish more. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
redmonddkgamer

redmonddkgamer

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Another thing @redmonddkgamer pointed out on KerbalX, is using the 'Ike/Dres Logistics Kit' on/around the Mun.  Not only would it only require a single launch to establish a propellant generation capability at the Mun, but the kit would provide 30% more in-orbit propellant storage capability in the NITE stage when compared to a PD-64 orbital depot, and the entire kit is 16% cheaper than launching an IV-1B, HLV-5B, and PD-64 separately using legacy configurations.  Not to mention the time savings. :)
______________________________________________

True, but the TWR on the NITE when paired with the logistics kit is appalling. The transfer is extremely slow.

On another note, I'm T-300 days into my first (hopefully) Hyperedit-free Duna mission with the Mole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 hours ago, redmonddkgamer said:

True, but the TWR on the NITE when paired with the logistics kit is appalling. The transfer is extremely slow.

In this case, ISP efficiency is more important than TWR.  But you could always re-engine the NITE if you wanted, but it may impact other performance aspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted

An update on the surface base modules.  I have almost all of them packaged and fitted to the cargo lander, and I've started testing each cargo run into the Duna atmosphere to ensure attitude stability can be maintained.  As I deliver another series of modules, I incorporate them into a test base (pictured below) to make sure they all still work as designed.  So far, I've completed Phase 1 of the test base assembly, which brings the minimal required equipment to begin operations: power, communications, a research lab, and an airlock.  Not much in the way of living space, but expanded habitation and continuous power generation will be the next steps for Phase 2.  Although there is already a sizeable battery storage capacity, adding a supply of liquid fuel and oxidizer to feed the fuel cell array will help throughout the night.

Duna%20Base%20Preview_zpsqonovaut.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, redmonddkgamer said:

Also, do they have enough DV to go to the Mun without a separately launched transfer stage?

Nope.  Several hundred km circular Kerbin orbit is the best the 'Titan 4+' can do with the HLV-6 landers.

Edited by Raptor9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Current status of my Duna Test Base: Complete.  There's a handful of more surface modules to test, but those will be tested at a separate ISRU Test Site.  Also mated to the cargo lander for shipment to the surface will be the existing All-Terrain Survey Vehicle (ATSV), as well as the new All-Terrain Logistics Vehicle (ATLV); and three variants of the new LR-5 'Mule' remote-control logistics rovers.  Both the ATSV and ATLV are capable of operations at night by fuel cells, and can plug into this surface module system to refuel their LF+O reservoirs between expeditions.

Obviously this base configuration is just an example, and players can set up their surface outposts however they want, big or small, with as many combinations and layouts as long as their CPU can handle it.  The part count of everything in this picture, including the communications tower, is 439.  The second ring of solar arrays was unnecessary, and significantly added to the part count, but I really just wanted to see how it looked. :P  I should note that the third habitation module on the far right didn't need to be located in such a way, I was just using it to test the extended passageway and adapter modules.  If so desired, a node module could be placed there to enable multiple modules or additional passageway branches.

Duna%20Base%20Preview%202_zpsh0qvk0ju.pn

Edited by Raptor9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rune

Rune

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Current status of my Duna Test Base: Complete.  There's a handful of more surface modules to test, but those will be tested at a separate ISRU Test Site.  Also mated to the cargo lander for shipment to the surface will be the existing All-Terrain Survery Vehicle (ATSV), as well as the new All-Terrain Logistics Vehicle (ATLV); and three variants of the new LR-5 'Mule' remote-control logistics rovers.  Both the ATSV and ATLV are capable of operations at night by fuel cells, and can plug into this surface module system to refuel their LF+O reservoirs between expeditions.

Obviously this base configuration is just an example, and players can set up their surface outposts however they want, big or small, with as many combinations and layouts as long as their CPU can handle it.  The part count of everything in this picture, including the communications tower, is 439.  The second ring of solar arrays was unnecessary, and significantly added to the part count, but I really just wanted to see how it looked. :P  I should note that the third habitation module on the fair right didn't need to be located in such a way, I was just using it to test the extended passageway and adapter modules.  If so desired, a node module could be placed there to enable multiple modules or additional passageway branches.

 

Looking mighty good! I'm not sold 100% sold on the piping, or part count, but the cuteness of the whole thing is undeniable. Very good work!

 

Rune. Now a short celebration, and on to the development of the mk II, right? :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Rune said:

I'm not sold 100% sold on the piping, or part count, but the cuteness of the whole thing is undeniable.

I agree, this is more of a novelty base.  The part count could be reduced by half if each of the main modules like the lab and habs mounted solar panels and/or antennas on their roofs, and you simply docked a fuel tank/fuel cell module directly to one of them; and didn't bother with any of the fuel pipes or other smaller parts.  But in my opinion it looks way better than my previous outpost modules for the Mun, but those were much easier to assemble together.  This Duna base looks like a much more permanent and long-term outpost.

Speaking from a "real-life analogue" perspective, any permanent outpost like on Mars/Duna is going to be assembled over the span of many years, if anything due to the long travel times and large gaps between the transfer windows.  This is sort of my way to give myself plenty to do while waiting for the next transfer window.  This concept encourages the following:

1) Extensive pre-landing scouting using probes, remote rovers and/or crewed landings using the LV-4B to survey suitable outpost sites.  The site will cover a large footprint, so a large flat spot is needed so parts of the base aren't partially hanging off either side of a narrow mound.
2) More in-depth pre-mission planning into surface base layout and requirements.
3) Something else to do on the surface aside from land, plant flag, record instruments, sit on hands and wait over a year for next transfer window.

The content in the video below is what my base concept is modeled off of, to include displaced landing, ISRU, and field research sites from the main base.  If anything, this reduces the part count issues of having it all in a small area.  And it gives me an excuse to use more rover action. :)

 

Edited by Raptor9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...