Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, Jester Darrak said:

Performance and cost matters and more variations make it easier to chose the right launch vehicle for a certain payload.

To reduce a payload comparison to a text graph, they'll end up looking like this when it comes to payload-to-LKO capability (left being less payload, right being more payload):

Thunder 1----------------Thunder 1B------------------------------------------------- Cheapest, simple, but lacking any kind of precise orbital placement capability

--------------------Thunder 3--------------Thunder 3-1-----------Thunder 3-2--- Still relatively cheap, good performance with a course orbital placement capability

--------Thunder 4--------------Thunder 4-1--------------Thunder 4-2------------ Has a fine orbital placement capability at the expense of overall performance

And then of course the 'Thunder 4 Heavy' and the 'Lightning' are in classes by themselves for different reasons.

1 hour ago, Jester Darrak said:

Ok, I'm not disappointed, but I don't like rockets that have some sort of wasp thigh (decreasing diameter and then increasing again) and that centaur upper stage does look quite ugly

Meh, no one will ever have the exact same taste in craft design as the next player.  But you can of course tweak them to your own uses and playstyle like you did with your EV-2C+. 

1 hour ago, Jester Darrak said:

On a side note I can also predict the future: You are planning on using the upcoming 1.875m parts in the centaur once the DLC becomes available.

I don't know about that.  At the risk of speculating about things that we don't have any idea about (as in the DLC details)...My intention isn't to sprinkle DLC parts among the existing craft files I have published, thereby limiting their use from non-DLC owners.  I'm not saying I won't release craft files with said parts, I'm just saying it's still very early to be making plans about it.  But if the 'Thunder 2' upper stage does it's job the way it's intended, and doesn't have significant drawbacks (like a high part in the case of the EV-2C service module), than I don't see a reason to inject DLC components.  Again, no promises either way.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Raptor9

[Jester Darrak]

Dang it, everything I just wrote went down the drain, so here I go again:

From an engineers standpoint I must say that some crafts have quite the potential for improvements or alteration, e.g. swapping LF+O and MP fuel tanks but accessabilty is at some of them bad at best. The radiation panels on the EV-2C and LV-2D would make a great shell with all the landing gear stuff attached to them and then the fuel tanks inside this shell would be one big cluster like in the image below. When I see something that could be changed or improved I first try it myself but never would I touch the looks of the craft because it's YOUR design and your design is beautiful. So, take a look at it and be gentle with me, in the end we're just engineers, right? And yes, I'm bad in inventing or designing stuff myself, I'm more the guy that takes awesome stuff and tries to make it even more awesome!

 

Anyway, I have proposal towards a LF+O Cricket:

Spoiler

Main stats comparison:

	LV-2D (Mono)	LV-2D (LF+O)
Parts	72	92
Mass (kg)	14,360	12,647
delta V (vac, m/s)	1903	1926
Fuel (total, units)	1940 + 40	638/522
Fuel (RCS, units)	shared	240 + 40

 

Both variants have a combined engine output of 60 kn with better athmospharic rating for the liquid fuel variant. Additionaly the LF+O variant costs ~2000 bucks less with quite the increase in part count. It is even a greater PITA to refuel with the amount of clicks needed but overall accessability could be slightly improved without clipping.

 

And then I have a kind request for you for a Cricket style re-usable lander for duna unless you're not into that at all. You've seen a first draft a few posts before (the love child), but nowhere I am near your skills when it comes to completing a design (RCS balance is a bête noire to me) so I'm hoping it could be some sort of inspiration for you. I still don't know how you make this insane strutting (Cricket RCS arms, T2 upper stage, etc.).

[Raptor9]

@Jester Darrak, believe it or not, that LF+O 'Cricket' variant is almost exactly what the first published LV-2D was last summer, minus the radiator panels. Same fuel tank layout, same engine config, etc. I switched to a pure monopropellant system when I revamped the entire LV-2 lander family last fall. One reason was it reduced the dozens of Oscar-B fuel tanks to a handful of mono tanks, and it also brought all LV-2 landers to a mono-fuel commonality.

I have been experimenting with various types and layouts of single-stage landers for Duna for a while now. But still working on it and I can't say what they'll end up looking like. As I like to point out on the OP, my real-life job keeps me busy.

[Jester Darrak]

4 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

@Jester Darrak, believe it or not, that LF+O 'Cricket' variant is almost exactly what the first published LV-2D was last summer, minus the radiator panels. Same fuel tank layout, same engine config, etc. I switched to a pure monopropellant system when I revamped the entire LV-2 lander family last fall. One reason was it reduced the dozens of Oscar-B fuel tanks to a handful of mono tanks, and it also brought all LV-2 landers to a mono-fuel commonality.

I have been experimenting with various types and layouts of single-stage landers for Duna for a while now. But still working on it and I can't say what they'll end up looking like. As I like to point out on the OP, my real-life job keeps me busy.

Giggidi!

[Jester Darrak]

Welcome to the Kerman Canyon Mün Base!

 

It took two satellites equipped with different surface scanning equipment doing countless orbits, three Lightning rockets, each carrying a different version of the HLV-5 utility module carrier sometimes even refuelling at the Mün Gateway Station and many many bucks but finally all the stuff successfully touched down at the surface of the Mün. The landing site is located on a intermediate plateu at the entrance to an enormous canyon at the eastern edge of Mün's Far Eastside Crater close to the Mün's equator. Soon the landing site looked like a disturbing, mechanized version of Tchaikerbsky's Swan Lake before the engineers ran into the first problems. The MPC power carts were initially intended to act as a connector between the different HLV-5 modules but due to a simple measurement error from an intern over at the robotics lab, this proofed to be quite difficult. Two days ago, one of the engineers found a solution during one of the many office chair races held by the night shift in the mission control center. He did not provide any vocalized presentation of his solution but instead just giggled heavily while using the height adjustment function of his office chair to visualize his idea. One office chair race later mission control started to connect the modules with the power carts and finally construction of the first stage of the Kerman Canyon Mün Base was completed. It has to be noted that the outpost facing west greatly improves solar energy generation as the MPCs solar panels have a east-west orientation as well as giving great oversight over the approach corridor.
 

Spoiler

 

 

The 4th MPC, seen still connected to the HLV-5C ramp, epxerienced a connector malfunction und couldn't be disconnected. This problem will be solved when the first mission crew arrives later that year.

[Raptor9]

I'm sure you're already aware, but the MPC's weren't intended to power the HLV-5's, hence the difference in docking port mounting position.  You'll see on the MIR-2O or MIR-2P that they have a second docking port on the back that is mounted higher for loading ore or propellant into lander ports, or pulling it from 'Meerkat' ISRU rigs.  Just trying to clear up any misunderstanding.
_________________________________

In other news, I've been considering streaming on Twitch again for the purpose of tutorials.  The two most common requests I get are showing a video of how to set up a CisMunar Economy or how to launch and land the SVR-16 shuttle.  These two are some of the more complicated things in this thread, but I'm open to suggestions for other things that players are finding trouble wrapping their head around, even after reading through the accompanying graphics.  If and when I decide to do one of these streams, I'll announce several days to a week prior to ensure people are aware of the stream time.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Raptor9

[CptAWatts]

I'm fairly new to mods so what is a CisMunar Economy?

[Raptor9]

11 minutes ago, CptAWatts said:

I'm fairly new to mods so what is a CisMunar Economy?

It's not a mod, it's a self-sustaining propellant generation and distribution system that can be set up using a collection of craft files I have on KerbalX.  It's inspired by ULA's CisLunar-1000 concept, and can be set up using craft from my CisMunar Economy KerbalX hanger along with my ISRU Hardware KerbalX hanger.  A descriptive graphic of these craft files working together is below: 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Raptor9
ULA's CisLUNAR, not CisMUNAR (facepalm, too much KSP)

[Jester Darrak]

9 minutes ago, CptAWatts said:

I'm fairly new to mods so what is a CisMunar Economy?

That's no mod, it's a concept to mine the moon and transport the ores and products: Infopaper by ULA

14 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

I'm sure you're already aware, but the MPC's weren't intended to power the HLV-5's, hence the difference in docking port mounting position.  You'll see on the MIR-2O or MIR-2P that they have a second docking port on the back that is mounted higher for loading ore or propellant into lander ports, or pulling it from 'Meerkat' ISRU rigs.  Just trying to clear up any misunderstanding.
_________________________________

In other news, I've been considering streaming on Twitch again for the purpose of tutorials.  The two most common requests I get are showing a video of how to set up a CisMunar Economy or how to launch and land the SVR-16 shuttle.  These two are some of the more complicated things in this thread, but I'm open to suggestions for other things that players are finding trouble wrapping their head around, even after reading through the accompanying graphics.  If and when I decide to do one of these streams, I'll announce several days to a week prior to ensure people are aware of the stream time.

That's what the story is about. But I wanted to have some sort of solid connection between the HLV-5s to create the look of a modular but still single storage facility. Next will be a MIR-2P fuel truck folowed by an IV-1B. This should complete the mining outpost. The HLV-5A will not be used as taxi but as center of mining operations and space traffic control.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Jester Darrak

[CptAWatts]

35 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

It's not a mod, it's a self-sustaining propellant generation and distribution system that can be set up using a collection of craft files I have on KerbalX.  It's inspired by ULA's CisLunar-1000 concept, and can be set up using craft from my CisMunar Economy KerbalX hanger along with my ISRU Hardware KerbalX hanger.  A descriptive graphic of these craft files working together is below: 

Wow that's pretty impressive. I like how it all fits so well. I'm still trying to get the tech for all of this in my Career mode

Edited July 27, 2017 by CptAWatts

[Raptor9]

14 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

In other news, I've been considering streaming on Twitch again for the purpose of tutorials.  The two most common requests I get are showing a video of how to set up a CisMunar Economy or how to launch and land the SVR-16 shuttle.  These two are some of the more complicated things in this thread, but I'm open to suggestions for other things that players are finding trouble wrapping their head around, even after reading through the accompanying graphics.  If and when I decide to do one of these streams, I'll announce several days to a week prior to ensure people are aware of the stream time.

To add another inquiry (to the one quoted above I posted last night), I've been looking for a better way to model a MEM-style (Mars Excursion Module) than my current LV-4 'Armadillo'.  The current LV-4 comes in at 240-ish parts, essentially doubling the part count of a fully-assembled EV-3 'Clipper'.  I've been experimenting with alternatives, and I currently have one that is only 50 parts, however it's not nearly as analogous to the MEM concept in the Boeing IMIS study of 1969.  Additionally, it would only have a basic set of scientific survey sensors, which means it won't have the lower cargo bay, rover, or Materials Bay.  Further, unlike the MEM, this alternative low-part count LV-4 would be a single-stage lander, without a separate ascent stage.  The Mk1-2 capsule would still detach from the rest of the lander after redocking with the EV-3 in Duna orbit, so it could be re-used as a Kerbin reentry vehicle.

Pros (compared to the current LV-4):
1) Massively lower part count
2) Simpler in operation
3) Slightly more delta-V to play with during descent and ascent
4) Aerodynamically stable during Duna atmo entry (The current LV-4 isn't balanced very well, even with RCS thrusters aiding in stability)

Cons:
1) Less scientific returns per landing
2) Less analogous in function to the real-life MEM concept
3) No rover

The one additional thought I have to justify this alternative LV-4 and it's smaller array of science equipment is that, like the real Apollo program, the EV-3 mission architecture is a lot of money and components to expend for one landing.  So the EV-3/LV-4 missions could be seen as an early short-surface-stay pathfinder mission to Duna, performing a few basic science readings; and the EV-4/EV-5 missions as the more long-surface-stay, expanded scientific missions that would come later.  Yes, I know the later Apollo missions had a rover, but the part count to add a well-functioning rover bay in a MEM-style lander is pretty high with my current building skills.  So anyone feel free to comment with your thoughts.

[Skylon]

2 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

To add another inquiry (to the one quoted above I posted last night), I've been looking for a better way to model a MEM-style (Mars Excursion Module) than my current LV-4 'Armadillo'.  The current LV-4 comes in at 240-ish parts, essentially doubling the part count of a fully-assembled EV-3 'Clipper'.  I've been experimenting with alternatives, and I currently have one that is only 50 parts, however it's not nearly as analogous to the MEM concept in the Boeing IMIS study of 1969.  Additionally, it would only have a basic set of scientific survey sensors, which means it won't have the lower cargo bay, rover, or Materials Bay.  Further, unlike the MEM, this alternative low-part count LV-4 would be a single-stage lander, without a separate ascent stage.  The Mk1-2 capsule would still detach from the rest of the lander after redocking with the EV-3 in Duna orbit, so it could be re-used as a Kerbin reentry vehicle.

Cons:
1) Less scientific returns per landing
2) Less analogous in function to the real-life MEM concept
3) No rover

You could have two variants, one with a rover and one without, depending on how similar they look. Without a picture though, I'm not sure

[ExplorerKlatt]

23 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

In other news, I've been considering streaming on Twitch again for the purpose of tutorials.  The two most common requests I get are showing a video of how to set up a CisMunar Economy or how to launch and land the SVR-16 shuttle.  These two are some of the more complicated things in this thread, but I'm open to suggestions for other things that players are finding trouble wrapping their head around, even after reading through the accompanying graphics.  If and when I decide to do one of these streams, I'll announce several days to a week prior to ensure people are aware of the stream time.

If you do decide to do the streams, could you also record them for those of us that may or may not have to work or be otherwise engaged?

[Raptor9]

9 hours ago, Skylon said:

You could have two variants, one with a rover and one without, depending on how similar they look. Without a picture though, I'm not sure

They look pretty dissimilar, however the new lower part count alternative looks closer to the MEM, despite being less functionally accurate.  Not wanting to post screenshots until I have a more finalized version...we'll see. 

3 hours ago, ExplorerKlatt said:

If you do decide to do the streams, could you also record them for those of us that may or may not have to work or be otherwise engaged?

That shouldn't be a problem.

[Jester Darrak]

At some times I'm getting into trouble with your ACES upper stages. The Vernier RCS ports close to the drone core sometimes just stop working although there is no sign of damage and still plenty of fuel left. This happens sporadically so I'm not quite sure how to reproduce this behavior. Do you have any idea what could possibly cause this? Last thing I remember doing was cargo-swapping with a HLV-5 in low munar orbit before leaving it alone for 1-2 days in game. Only mods I use is MechJeb 2.

[Raptor9]

@Jester Darrak, the Vernor ports on the LITE stages are currently thrust-limited down to be more controllable, to the point of barely any exhaust plume FX showing up.  So if you have a heavy payload on the front, without seeing the plume FX, you could think that they are inoperable.  This may not be the case at all and they really are not working in your game.  As to why, I have no idea.

I will say that the new LITE configuration I'm testing has the thrust limiters turned up a little more than the current published version to have better attitude control with heavier payloads.
_________________________

So here's the prototype for a potential LV-4 replacement, clocking in at 47 parts as seen (again, a far cry from 240 as with the current published LV-4A), but it still needs a basic science survey package added, which will probably put it at 51 or 52 parts.

The last image is demonstrating the jettison functionality of the lander module.  Since the capsule has no engine/RCS, this would be performed after redocking with the EV-3.  The capsule would then undock again after the final NTR stage put it on a precise atmospheric entry trajectory into Kerbin.  The more I play around with this, the more I'm hating the current LV-4A, despite that it mirrors the functionality of the MEM more than the low-part count one I'm experimenting with. 

The real-life MEM concept for reference:
  

Edited July 29, 2017 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

I was working on the following two craft in late March/early April before I went on my KSP break, and I totally forgot about them until this weekend.   Since these craft are fairly simple, and aren't affected by any 1.3.0 bugs plaguing my launchers, I decided to knock out the performance tests and graphics and publish them on KerbalX.  I sincerely doubt anyone will need to be told what real-life aircraft these are inspired by.  However, if you do it's listed along with the download links in the OP in SPH>C7-Series subsection.  These craft are fast, maneuverable, stable, and have decent short-takeoff-and landing (STOL) handling thanks to their light weight, strong thrust, and thrust reversers.

     

I would like to point out that if you wish to swap the 'Swift' crew cabin out for a couple of 1.25m service modules and a materials bay, simply grab the intake part and detach it from the back of the crew cabin.  The rest of the plane will detach with it as one piece; then reattach it after you make your modifications.  If you don't want to land to take surveys, you could also easily rig a few pylons under either of these aircraft's wings and airdrop survey packages onto mountainsides, rivers, etc.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Raptor9

[CptAWatts]

Whats the best craft you have for rescue missions?

[Raptor9]

14 minutes ago, CptAWatts said:

Whats the best craft you have for rescue missions?

Are you referring to rescue missions on Kerbin or off-world?

Edited July 29, 2017 by Raptor9

[CptAWatts]

I guess as far a minmus

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, CptAWatts said:

Whats the best craft you have for rescue missions?
I guess as far a minmus

I recommend sending an LV-2D 'Cricket'.  It was designed to be a single-stage reusable Mun lander, so it has plenty of power for Minmus; plus it can be controlled autonomously so you can send it down uncrewed to pick up two Kerbals.  If you need to pick up more than that, you'll either need to make multiple surface trips or send an HLV-5A 'Porpoise'.  The HLV-5A has over twice the seating capacity of an LV-2D, and can also be flown autonomously, but is grossly over-powered for Minmus.  Should still be useful though.  Like the LV-2D, the HLV-5A is intended for the Mun, so I doubt the pre-loaded launchers they come with will be able to send them all the way there, and still have fuel for a landing and return to orbit.  Probably need to refuel them at some point along the way.

[CptAWatts]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

I recommend sending an LV-2D 'Cricket'.  It was designed to be a single-stage reusable Mun lander, so it has plenty of power for Minmus; plus it can be controlled autonomously so you can send it down uncrewed to pick up two Kerbals.  If you need to pick up more than that, you'll either need to make multiple surface trips or send an HLV-5A 'Porpoise'.  The HLV-5A has over twice the seating capacity of an LV-2D, and can also be flown autonomously, but is grossly over-powered for Minmus.  Should still be useful though.  Like the LV-2D, the HLV-5A is intended for the Mun, so I doubt the pre-loaded launchers they come with will be able to send them all the way there, and still have fuel for a landing and return to orbit.  Probably need to refuel them at some point along the way.

Alright sounds good. It was more for rescuing kerbals in orbit so maybe it might be enough. Thanks!

[Legedus]

Hi Raptor9,

I am very new to this program and using your craft as stepping stones to understand "why" you chose to do this part and that part. I just wanted to say I appreciate your creating these files and making corresponding graphic cards to go with them. Even the labels all correspond to a system that I can understand. I started with various probes and satellites and am currently working my way up to Space Station, Mun, Minmus and even Duna based craft. I noticed that your OKTO probes on the various things do not allow for aligning up solar panel arms for my space station. I simply added a small reaction wheel on top of the probe, is this the correct course of action? Another thing was the RCS thrusters were doubled up on the solar panel arms, what was the reasoning for this?

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Legedus

[Raptor9]

@Legedus, welcome to the forums.  Glad you're getting uses out of the craft.

For the following two paragraphs, reference the graphics at the bottom of the page.

First thing to keep in mind is that a lot of my SM-series (Station Module) subassemblies were meant to be assembled by EMU's (EVA Maneuvering Unit).  Since there is nothing like a Shuttle RMS system in stock KSP to move modules around, the EMU's are my "simple" method of carrying modules out of a cargo bay to their destination docking port.  You'll notice, in the truss pieces for example, each one has a pair of small docking clamps on opposite sides for EMU's to attach to.  In the case of the SM-MSAT solar extensions, they have only one set of RCS thrusters on one side.  This is because they are attached to the main truss using a single EMU.  When the EMU docks to the outside at the top of the "T", the EMU's thrusters become the second set of thrusters to balance out the maneuvering of the SM-MSAT so it can be "flown" into position.

The second thing I will point out, is that the solar array arms were designed to be operated as a single, ISS-inspired solar array.  Specifically, a SM-TP2, SM-TP3, along with the 4x SM-MSAT's come together to form an ISS-style port solar array truss section. However, since we don't have rotation servos in stock KSP, there is no way to rotate a solar array arm to a different direction.  At this point, you can simply undock the SM-TP2 from the SM-TP1 at the 1.25m docking clamp, and rotate the entire port solar array truss to the desired angle, and then re-dock it.  To do this, you need a probe core, RCS thrusters, and a monopropellant supply.  The probe core is supplied on the SM-TP3, and the RCS/monoprop is supplied by the SM-MSAT's.

The last thing I'll say, for everyone's awareness as well, is that the SM-station modules and trusses in particular, are about to be updated to make them lower in part count and more balanced for EMU assembly.  Even the EMU's are about to get updated to a revised model.  I was going to wait for the 1.3.1 patch to avoid the mass craft file updates again, but with all this station assembly going on, I'll put them out today. 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Raptor9

[Legedus]

10 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

@Legedus, welcome to the forums.  Glad you're getting uses out of the craft.

For the following two paragraphs, reference the graphics at the bottom of the page.

First thing to keep in mind is that a lot of my SM-series (Station Module) subassemblies were meant to be assembled by EMU's (EVA Maneuvering Unit).  Since there is nothing like a Shuttle RMS system in stock KSP to move modules around, the EMU's are my "simple" method of carrying modules out of a cargo bay to their destination docking port.  You'll notice, in the truss pieces for example, each one has a pair of small docking clamps on opposite sides for EMU's to attach to.  In the case of the SM-MSAT solar extensions, they have only one set of RCS thrusters on one side.  This is because they are attached to the main truss using a single EMU.  When the EMU docks to the outside at the top of the "T", the EMU's thrusters become the second set of thrusters to balance out the maneuvering of the SM-MSAT so it can be "flown" into position.

The second thing I will point out, is that the solar array arms were designed to be operated as a single, ISS-inspired solar array.  Specifically, a SM-TP2, SM-TP3, along with the 4x SM-MSAT's come together to form an ISS-style port solar array truss section. However, since we don't have rotation servos in stock KSP, there is no way to rotate a solar array arm to a different direction.  At this point, you can simply undock the SM-TP2 from the SM-TP1 at the 1.25m docking clamp, and rotate the entire port solar array truss to the desired angle, and then re-dock it.  To do this, you need a probe core, RCS thrusters, and a monopropellant supply.  The probe core is supplied on the SM-TP3, and the RCS/monoprop is supplied by the SM-MSAT's.

    

The last thing I'll say, for everyone's awareness as well, is that the SM-station modules and trusses in particular, are about to be updated to make them lower in part count and more balanced for EMU assembly.  Even the EMU's are about to get updated to a revised model.  I was going to wait for the 1.3.1 patch to avoid the mass craft file updates again, but with all this station assembly going on, I'll put them out today. 

Well I was specifically mentioning the EV-5 Fwd Truss Assy Titan 3p. I just could not think of the name of it at the time. both of the "arms" with solar panels attached I took that I was supposed to take control of each one to maneuver into position. This is also the same parts with double RCS thrusters, but now I understand why you did that. I had not been using your actions groups!  Thank you so much for releasing updated crafts! If there is anything I can do to help please do let me know. I am currently unemployed and have all the free time in the world (except Aug 21. I am going to see the total eclipse. It will be my first one ever and it's only 40 min from the house).

EDIT: I forgot to turn on the monopropellant tanks! Hours of trying and I finally figured it out. Oh dear! Now the solar arms properly take charge and dock themselves into position.

Thank you again,

Legedus

Edited July 31, 2017 by Legedus