Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Majorjim!]

4 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

I'm not going to argue with you.  And by the way, careful 'engineering' is how I described my 24-77 engine placement/thrust limiting, and component placement according to mass.  My CoM definitely does travel, a lot compared to other landers I've made.  But I've been able to mitigate this issue by routing a few fuel lines here and there, and by finding a happy medium in my CoT.  As it stands, during the initial descent, my CoM is aft of my CoT.  By the time I've landed, it's traveled forward of the CoM.  But the control authority is within acceptable margins.

And I completely understand how to balance landers/VTOLs in the manner you described.  That's the main advantage of designing a vertical lander such as my LV-3-series (all symmetrical around the CoT axis), but the problem is getting Kerbals and rovers down from the usually high- or top-mounted pods/platforms.  Horizontal landers like the ULA XEUS don't have this logistical issue, but building a KSP-analogue along a similar design layout means overcoming limitations that the "lego"-part system of KSP has.  I'm not saying your solution isn't a solution to address such limitations, but the function imitation of this lander isn't suited to it.

Sorry I have no interest in arguing dude. I didn't mean to sound combative. It's just a different way of doing it.

 

5 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

the function imitation of this lander isn't suited to it.

That's where the misunderstanding lies. I suppose you have more fuel in there other than the oscar-Bs.

8 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

but the problem is getting Kerbals and rovers down from the usually high- or top-mounted pods/platforms.

 

Did you see NASAs designs for the deployment of the Altair Moon vehicles? A mobile ramp would do just as good a job and would not require many parts. And would be much more elegant than the 'drop'.

[Spearka]

Isn't roleplaying against the forum rules?

[Raptor9]

6 minutes ago, Spearka said:

Isn't roleplaying against the forum rules?

It is against the rules, and there is no role-playing here.

[Raptor9]

Working on an alternative LV-3 Ascent Stage.  This one is a little more akin to the proposed Altair LSAM ascent stage.  Compared to the existing LV-3 Ascent Stage, this one carries one less Kerbal, and requires a pilot Kerbal since it doesn't have an integrated probe core.  I don't see these as disadvantages however, since my existing EV-2 orbiters only carry three Kerbals anyway, and I try to stay away from using too much probe core tech.  I don't want to make my pilot Kerbals irrelevant.

     

EDIT: oh and this alternative design is one less part than the current one...that should help with framerates 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Raptor9

[Whovian41110]

hey @Raptor9 How should I launch any of the SVR series with mechjeb ascent?  Also I can't get the SR-19 to go supersonic at a 15 degree climb

[Raptor9]

3 hours ago, Whovian41110 said:

How should I launch any of the SVR series with mechjeb ascent?

I don't use mechjeb so I'm afraid I can't help you there.

3 hours ago, Whovian41110 said:

Also I can't get the SR-19 to go supersonic at a 15 degree climb

Are you placing the nose "watermark" on 15 degrees or the flight path vector?  The nose should be what's placed at 15 degrees; placing the flight path vector at 15 degrees above the horizon will put the SR-19 into a slightly steeper climb than optimal.  To make sure, I just took the SR-19B for a test sortie (in KSP 1.0.5) and I went supersonic just over a minute after leaving the runway.  I chose the B-model since the crew cabin is heavier than the A-model's cargo bay, unless you put something really heavy in the SR-19A's cargo bay like a full ore tank or a bunch of metal girders.  Also, I don't use FAR or NEAR aero models, and these craft files are untested in KSP 1.1 pre-release.  Not sure if any of this applies to you, just trying to think of possible causes why you would be getting different performance.

I will say the SR-19's will be getting tweaked somewhat after 1.1 is officially out of experimentals/pre-release.  I want to squeeze a little more performance out of them for an increase of in-orbit delta-V.  As it stands, they're only able to rendezvous with low orbiting space stations or place payloads in low-orbits, and only after careful rendezvous/orbital adjustments.  They're right on that line of being non-useful.  The first thing to go will be those radial monoprop tanks mounted inboard of the engine nacelles.  They're the biggest sources of drag in the transonic to high supersonic speed regions.  I may publish a new model in 1.0.5 if I can get them to my liking, but I'm pretty busy with real-life stuff at the moment.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Raptor9

[Whovian41110]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

I don't use mechjeb so I'm afraid I can't help you there.

Are you placing the nose "watermark" on 15 degrees or the flight path vector?  The nose should be what's placed at 15 degrees; placing the flight path vector at 15 degrees above the horizon will put the SR-19 into a slightly steeper climb than optimal.  To make sure, I just took the SR-19B for a test sortie (in KSP 1.0.5) and I went supersonic just over a minute after leaving the runway.  I chose the B-model since the crew cabin is heavier than the A-model's cargo bay, unless you put something really heavy in the SR-19A's cargo bay like a full ore tank or a bunch of metal girders.  Also, I don't use FAR or NEAR aero models, and these craft files are untested in KSP 1.1 pre-release.  Not sure if any of this applies to you, just trying to think of possible causes why you would be getting different performance.

I will say the SR-19's will be getting tweaked somewhat after 1.1 is officially out of experimentals/pre-release.  I want to squeeze a little more performance out of them for an increase of in-orbit delta-V.  As it stands, they're only able to rendezvous with low orbiting space stations or place payloads in low-orbits, and only after careful rendezvous/orbital adjustments.  They're right on that line of being non-useful.  The first thing to go will be those radial monoprop tanks mounted inboard of the engine nacelles.  They're the biggest sources of drag in the transonic to high supersonic speed regions.  I may publish a new model in 1.0.5 if I can get them to my liking, but I'm pretty busy with real-life stuff at the moment.

Thanks.  None of those apply though I used a MM patch to slightly increase the thrust of the R.A.P.I.E.R.

[Raptor9]

For whom this may concern, I'm updating my craft one by one to KSP 1.1.  I'm trying to equally divide up my work between SPH and VAB craft files, however I am sorry to say that I will not be updating any of my landers until the landing leg bug is fixed.  This in my opinion is a significant enough issue to not waste time playing around with it.  I may release updates to my v1.0.5 Mun-bound 'Titan 5' rockets this week though.  I've overhauled the LV-1 'Frog' landers a little, so I'm probably going to push new 1.0.5 craft out for those this weekend.

For the most up-to-date list of 1.1 updated craft files, reference the SPH/VAB directories on the OP, or the most recent update list at the bottom of the OP.

[Frank_G]

Your craft are very inspiring! I love the realistic and detailed approach you take in your builds.

Hopefully we see a fix to the landing leg bug in the patch coming this week. 

[Raptor9]

So far, since 1.1, 1.1.1, and 1.1.2 have dropped, I've successfully updated and re-published 20 craft files and 21 subassemblies to KerbalX, all now to 1.1.2 currency.  I decided to take a break from the latest round of updates to publish something new I developed late in the 1.0.5 game.

Going along with my Apollo-era craft analogues such as the EV-2A 'Runabout' crew vehicles and LV-1 'Frog' landers, the 'Sky Lab' single-launch space station is obviously derived from the real-life "Skylab" launched in 1973 with left-over Saturn rocket hardware.  Now available for download on KerbalX, direct link is on the OP in the VAB drop-down section.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

In between updating existing craft files from 1.0.5 to 1.1.2 (landers and rovers giving me headaches ), I've been working on expanding my collection of Station Module subassemblies.  The original set was made with modules based on the ISS and conceptual Exploration Gateway Platform.  This expanded set will feature more Soviet/Russian-centric modules.  Please keep in mind that some of these modules may change in appearance; trying to find a good balance between functionality and appearance. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by Raptor9
typo

[drhay53]

hey raptor just wanted to say thank you for all of the crafts, they are of really exceptional quality.

I'm going to try to work some of your station assemblies in with the USI Kolonization station parts. Or at least use your stations as a guide for how to modularize everything really well. Should be interesting

[Raptor9]

On 5/12/2016 at 7:00 PM, drhay53 said:

hey raptor just wanted to say thank you for all of the crafts, they are of really exceptional quality.

I'm going to try to work some of your station assemblies in with the USI Kolonization station parts. Or at least use your stations as a guide for how to modularize everything really well. Should be interesting

Your welcome  Feel free to throw up some screenshots of how you integrated the USI parts whenever you get there.

Meanwhile, on KerbalX, I've finally published a series of craft in a project I've been working on for longer than I care to admit.  A while ago I decided to create and publish a series of pre-manufactured and tested lifters for delivering payloads to orbit.  My goals were to create a very distinct series of rockets separated by payload class and/or target orbit altitude.  I had used standardized launchers on my previously published craft before, except now they're download ready for any payload the individual player desires to place on them.  During this process, I began to immerse the rockets themselves into the Kerbal universe by limiting (for the most part) the parts used in each rocket to a specific Kerbin company.  Jeb's Junkyard & Spaceship Parts Co. produced the 1.25m LV-series engines and FL-series fuel tanks, which became the 'Javelin' rockets.  Rockomax produced the 2.5m RE-series engines and X-series/Jumbo-64 fuel tanks, which became the 'Thunder' rockets.  Kerbodyne produced the 3.75m S3 series tanks/engines, "Kickback" and "Twin Boar" boosters, which became the 'Titan' rockets.  These rockets are now available on KerbalX.     

All KerbalX download links are on the OP in the VAB>Rocket Market section.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Raptor9

[EVA_Reentry]

Raptor9, your graphics are beatiful. Also, you make such accurate replicas with so little parts! And all stock! Seriously, you are one of the best KSP builders I know. Nice job, and thanks for having everything ready for 1.1+ (I just switched).

 

[Frank_G]

On 14. Mai 2016 at 5:27 PM, Raptor9 said:

Your welcome  Feel free to throw up some screenshots of how you integrated the USI parts whenever you get there.

Meanwhile, on KerbalX, I've finally published a series of craft in a project I've been working on for longer than I care to admit.  A while ago I decided to create and publish a series of pre-manufactured and tested lifters for delivering payloads to orbit.  My goals were to create a very distinct series of rockets separated by payload class and/or target orbit altitude.  I had used standardized launchers on my previously published craft before, except now they're download ready for any payload the individual player desires to place on them.  During this process, I began to immerse the rockets themselves into the Kerbal universe by limiting (for the most part) the parts used in each rocket to a specific Kerbin company.  Jeb's Junkyard & Spaceship Parts Co. produced the 1.25m LV-series engines and FL-series fuel tanks, which became the 'Javelin' rockets.  Rockomax produced the 2.5m RE-series engines and X-series/Jumbo-64 fuel tanks, which became the 'Thunder' rockets.  Kerbodyne produced the 3.75m S3 series tanks/engines, "Kickback" and "Twin Boar" boosters, which became the 'Titan' rockets.  These rockets are now available on KerbalX...

The transfer stage on that Titan 2P launcher is beyond awesome. I like that W shaped strut structure, the covered RCS tanks and the quad engine setup very much. Very nicely done.

[Raptor9]

All 'Titan'-series heavy lifters are now available on KerbalX via VAB>Rocket Market>Kerbodyne on the OP.  Like father always said: "lift with your legs, not your back"      

EDIT: The 'Lightning' rocket with LITE upper stage is also now available on KerbalX.  Modeled after ULA's "Vulcan"/ACES upper stage, the 'Lightning' falls between the 'Thunder 3' and 'Thunder 4 Heavy' when it comes to lifting power, but has the advantage of reusable payload delivery to/from Munar orbit.

ULA's Vulcan page
ULA's ACES youtube video

Edited July 30, 2017 by Raptor9

[Majorjim!]

Hi there,

  Did you manage to find a replacement for your LV-3B 'Bullfrog' ramp hinge? I see the ant engine geometry change put it out of action.. That made me sad too..

 Keep up the good work man.

[Raptor9]

3 hours ago, Majorjim said:

Hi there,

  Did you manage to find a replacement for your LV-3B 'Bullfrog' ramp hinge? I see the ant engine geometry change put it out of action.. That made me sad too..

 Keep up the good work man.

Yeah, I have a new hinge. It's already on the updated LV-3A.  I looked at using Communotron 16s like you said. The hinge actually works better now than before, although the whole setup is 250% more expensive. The six Ant engines cost 720 funds, and now using the six antennas it cost 1800. However I stayed away from using any thermometers since those are 900 a pop

But yeah, ramps are now upgraded. Still need to swap over the LV-3B though, but the A model is already republished.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Raptor9 said:

Yeah, I have a new hinge. It's already on the updated LV-3A.  I looked at using Communotron 16s like you said. The hinge actually works better now than before, although the whole setup is 250% more expensive. The six Ant engines cost 720 funds, and now using the six antennas it cost 1800. However I stayed away from using any thermometers since those are 900 a pop

But yeah, ramps are now upgraded. Still need to swap over the LV-3B though, but the A model is already republished.

It's interesting to hear it from a career angle like that. I never touch it myself, the word 'cost' gives me shivers.

 Here's hoping Squad leave the parts geometries alone finally..

[drhay53]

Hey Raptor, if you're interested in taking requests, I'd love to have the crew-carrying planes verified for 1.1.2; I'm playing with GAP and Kerbinside GAP and your planes are by far my favorite as they fly so well! No pressure just thought I'd put my .02 out there!

Haven't started building my space stations yet as I'm still goofing around with other stuff!

Edited May 17, 2016 by drhay53
grammar

[Raptor9]

9 hours ago, drhay53 said:

Hey Raptor, if you're interested in taking requests, I'd love to have the crew-carrying planes verified for 1.1.2; I'm playing with GAP and Kerbinside GAP and your planes are by far my favorite as they fly so well!

Ask and you shall receive.  C7 200, 300 & 310 are flight-tested and verified for 1.1.2.  Happy transporting 

[DMSP]

@Raptor9, I have checked out your LV-3 series in 1.1.2, and the LV-3A and B work like charms.

The LV-3Cs all work fine too! I only needed to offset the lander sligtly up to prevent clipping, but I have constructed a base with One Habitat, Two Passageways, One Airlock and One Utility Module.

Here is a photo of Descent Stages 1-4.

[Raptor9]

@DMSP, that's awesome!  I'm still updating the LV-3C-delivered Mun base module assemblies.  Namely, tweaking the wheel handling; replacing the roof solar panels on the Passageway, Utility, and Airlock modules with the new large solar panel; and adding a 4-way Hub module.  Thanks for the update though, I'll see about adjusting the LV-3C mounting height to avoid the clipping.  So much to do...soooo much to do...

If anyone reading this thread has any tips about how to tweak rover wheels like the "RoveMax Model S2" to perform better on the Mun, please let me know.

EDIT: Wish I didn't have a real-life job, I would have so much more time for KSP. (and yes, I realize how silly that sounds )

Edited May 18, 2016 by Raptor9

[Frank_G]

6 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

........If anyone reading this thread has any tips about how to tweak rover wheels like the "RoveMax Model S2" to perform better on the Mun, please let me know.

EDIT: Wish I didn't have a real-life job, I would have so much more time for KSP. (and yes, I realize how silly that sounds )

During my Ike mission i had serious problems driving a rover, until setting traction control to a significantly higher setting, which made the rover quite stable and easy to drive.

And yeah, work constantly gets in the way of the important things... Curse you food and money, curse you!

[Raptor9]

21 hours ago, Frank_G said:

During my Ike mission i had serious problems driving a rover, until setting traction control to a significantly higher setting, which made the rover quite stable and easy to drive.

Thanks, I'll experiment with different traction settings.

Meanwhile, the LV-3C cargo landers with Mun BM-series base modules are tweaked and updated to 1.1.2.

EDIT: And the updated graphics are finished along with a new craft file uploaded to KerbalX: LV-3C lander with a 4-way Hub module and a Passageway module.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Raptor9