Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[septemberWaves]

I like it. Do you plan on connecting solar modules like that to a main base with docking ports? Also, is that communications tower designed to relay signal to/from surface modules which might not have very powerful antennae?

[Raptor9]

12 minutes ago, eloquentJane said:

I like it. Do you plan on connecting solar modules like that to a main base with docking ports? Also, is that communications tower designed to relay signal to/from surface modules which might not have very powerful antennae?

Yes and yes. (Provided it all works out in the end)

[Rune]

On 24/8/2017 at 7:03 PM, Raptor9 said:

A screenshot from some surface concept testing with gravity "hacked" to match Duna surface gravity for the tests themselves.

 

In the image I was testing out the feasibility and part count impacts of making a surface outpost solar farm.  Each row of solar panels is composed of four modules, each placed using the new logistics rover in the image.  Also messing around with other small devices like a comms tower (also capable of being repositioned using the same rover), as well as some miscellaneous "implements" like the shovel on the front of the rover.  Some practical uses of such a device would be to more easily nudge small modules into position without actually attaching to them, or moving debris from a crashed lander out of the way.  You could also say it's for "scooping dirt or regolith around a mining site". 

Just a small sample of surface elements I'm testing out for various destinations.

Those are really good-looking. And the Comms relay not having to be actually connected to the base is something that hadn't occurred to me!

 

Rune. Nice!

[Raptor9]

Yet another update on M3V (becoming a weekly thing almost )

I've started to create some graphics for some of the craft files that I'm confident won't change.  Like the 'Titan 4N', if these craft are ready and aren't likely to change somehow as the project progresses, it's my intention to push them out the door on KerbalX so they can be used.  If anyone hasn't guessed already, M3V will follow a depot-based architecture.  As such, it will utilize LF+O engines in lieu of Liquid Fuel-only LV-N 'Nerv' engines like on the EV-3 and EV-4.  Nor will there be any xenon-fueled 'Dawn' engines in the case of the EV-5.  The reasons for this are as follows:

1) LV-N engines have a much higher mass penalty to make them less justifiable with smaller spacecraft, despite the higher Isp.  Since M3V is depot-based, large ships like the EV-3 or EV-4 are unnecessary, cumbersome, and costly.  Smaller ships, working in expedition groups, with higher thrust-to-weight ratios can be better utilized for the same missions.  Therefore, high-efficiency RE-L10 'Poodle' engines are the primary propulsion selection.  The LV-909 'Terrier', KR-2L+ 'Rhino', and T-1 'Dart' are also engines of similar efficiency, but as of right now, haven't been utilized yet.

2) IX-6315 ion engines (and their xenon fuel) are extremely expensive, and can only be fueled using xenon launched from the surface of Kerbin.  Plus, the largest xenon container currently available is the PB-X750, of which the EV-5 Block 1 has 18, and the EV-5 Block 2 has 24.  This makes refueling operations fairly tedious.  Further, any spacecraft of reasonable size is going to require many 'Dawn' engines (for any semblance of TWR), and the only way to power that many engines without incurring a huge mass penalty is solar panels; which makes the use of such engines impractical the further out beyond Duna you go.  The intent behind M3V is to be able to utilize as much of the architecture as possible in all parts of the Kerbol system; and half of the celestial bodies we can travel to are significantly farther out than Duna.
_____________________________

Regarding some craft specifics, in the process of designing a new lander for Ike, I inadvertently improved on the design of the LV-2D 'Cricket'.  The LV-2E, while intended for Ike, can be utilized on the Mun as well, although with less dV reserves for inclination changes or low-altitude maneuvering around the landing site.  It's much easier to refuel, and requires a pilot since it lacks the autonomous control capability of the D-model.  In a direct comparison, the LV-2E carries less total fuel and ~200m/s less dV than the LV-2D, but carries an additional Kerbal, has a higher TWR, has less parts, is 5 tons lighter fully-fueled, and is 2/3 the price.

[Crobal]

Hi Raptor9,
(I am french so i will do what i can with my english)
First of all, i would like to thank you for all of your crafts, they are just amazing. I use them for all my save, I learn so much from them.
The wait for patch 1.3.1 is too hard, so much craft standing by.. can we have some sneak peek like the thunder 3..plzz 
 I try to anticipate your craft thanks to the preview, it's funny to compare.. i was so close with the thunder 2 upper stage

Thx again o7
 

[Raptor9]

@Crobal, bonjour, and welcome to the forums.  I'm glad you enjoy and learn from the craft.  Here's a couple of preview images from craft waiting for the final 1.3.1 release.

The first is mostly stuff people have seen, the various configurations of the HLV-5 'Porpoise' landers.  But you'll notice that there will be a fourth variant, the HLV-5D.  Simply a HLV-5B that carries a monopropellant hopper on the front instead of Liquid Fuel + Oxidizer.  But they can be easily swapped out on the surface if need be, or one brought up to orbit while the other is getting filled at an ISRU site.

The second image is the new LV-4A.  Again, it won't have the rover or the materials bay like the current one, but it will be only 70 parts, instead of 240.  Much more manageable and easier to use.

The third image is the new EV-5 'Drifter' Block 2 for going to Eve.  More ion engines, more delta-V, more cool. (I think so at least ).

Edited August 31, 2017 by Raptor9

[Crobal]

Yeah, so cool. 8) I was expecting the new thunder 4 familly but it's not bad, good work again.

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, Crobal said:

I was expecting the new thunder 4 familly

The 'Thunder 4' rockets aren't very different than they're previous versions.  With the exception of the 'Thunder 4 Heavy', they're virtually the same as the 'Thunder 3's but with a different upper stage for more precise payload delivery.  If you look at VAB>Rocket Market section on the OP, you can see two of them.

[KerBlitz Kerman]

Can we have a save file with all the ships landed and downloaded?

[Raptor9]

4 minutes ago, KerBlitz Kerman said:

Can we have a save file with all the ships landed and downloaded?

If you want all the craft that are on KerbalX, just click on the VAB, SPH, and Subassembly links on the OP and download each of those hangers, and place all craft from each zip file in the respective folder.

[Crobal]

Quote

 If you look at VAB>Rocket Market section on the OP, you can see two of them

Oh! I didn't noticed..
Just after the new T 3 was out i made my own T 4, 4-1, 4-2 based on the new T 3 CCB with old T 4 upper stage, i am not too far in fact no? 

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, Crobal said:

Just after the new T 3 was out i made my own T 4, 4-1, 4-2 based on the new T 3 CCB with old T 4 upper stage, i am not too far in fact no? 

Not far at all.  I've made some slight tweaks to the 'Thunder P' payload stage on the 'Thunder 4' rockets, but you'd have to look really closely to see any difference.  Performance would be virtually identical to the old craft. The 'Thunder P' does have a slight delta-V penalty compared to the 'Thunder 2' upper stage, but that doesn't take into consideration any orbital adjustments made from the RCS thrusters.  The main trade-off of using the 'P' versus the '2', is you can put payloads into much more precise orbital parameters, or even rendezvous and dock a payload to something else.  Without translation capability (only rotation attitude control), the 'Thunder 2' has some limitations in capability, but has better delta-V performance.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

In addition to the ongoing M3V project that I keep blabbing about, I've been looking at some other craft deficiencies that I'm trying to fix.  One that has been particularly annoying for the past year is when craft are reloaded, drop ramps are getting kicked away from their parent craft.  I understand this is just how things are in KSP with physics loading, cuz the ramps are separate debris after decoupling, but I'd like to keep that from happening if able.  The first two I've tackled is the LV-3A and LV-3B.  These are my favorites in the LV-3 'Bullfrog' family, and I really wanted the ramps to "stay" where they're dropped.  So I put up a couple of small docking clamps to reattach the ramps to the parent craft after dropping.  The craft aesthetics look kinda goofy, so I'm interested with what you all thought about it.  I can't argue with the results though, having a reliable ramp that stays right where it's supposed to be.  It's especially nice with the LV-3B, allowing the Kerbals to walk into the bay to conduct science, or park one of the rovers up there if a player wanted.  Anyway, let me know what you all think, whether you think the benefits outweigh the goofy aesthetics.

Regarding brand new craft ready to be published when 1.3.1 is finalized, I have six (or nine if you include the separate EV-5 Block 2 lifters).  I know that seems low, but those are craft that I simply have to do a quick verification test in 1.3.1 final version, and then publish on KerbalX.  Graphics done, packaged up in a nice bow, ready to go.  There are more that are nearing completion, it's just tweaking that is ongoing and of course the final tests and graphics that need to be completed.

There will be a handful of other revisions, such as the 'Thunder 4' sub-family of rockets, a revised 'Lightning' rocket, a revised ATSV, a lower part count LV-4A, and EV-4 components with better comms.  Also, with the helpful suggestions from @Jester Darrak on page 26 of this thread, he's managed to squeeze out a little more delta-V from the EV-2C, so those will be updated as well.

[septemberWaves]

If I'm making a decision which might cause a negative impact on vehicle aesthetics, I generally have several things which I'll consider with regards to whether I make the change or not. One of those things is whether the vehicle I'm designing has a sort of "end state", meaning it's going to be sent somewhere, changed in some way, and then not moved too far or changed again (as is the case with the vast majority of surface base modules). If the negative appearance caused by making a positive design change is temporary and will not be visible when the vehicle is in its "end state" - as is the case with the docking port for those ramps on the vehicles you showed earlier - I'll usually make that change for practicality. If, however, I'm designing a vehicle which needs to move around a lot and is likely to get constant use without much change in appearance (like a single-stage reusable lander) I'd try to find a workaround to achieve the same practical benefit without damaging aesthetics.

In short, since the strange-looking docking port is added to base modules (or well, a lander module which isn't expected to ever move once it's deployed) I think it's worth keeping it because in this case the final appearance of the vehicle is what's important.

[Frank_G]

After i had lots of issues with my Constellation style lander, concerning the ramps, i came up with a very similar design as you @Raptor9, but i later found a way to hide them inside the craft, using the unlimited offset tools of the Editor Extensions Mod. The mechanic however stayed the same. Regardless of the mod used during construction, the craft still load up fine in any stock installation. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Frank_G

[Raptor9]

12 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

-snip-

Thanks, that's good advice.  I should be able to perform the same modification to my HLV-6 'Warthogs', but the LV-3D and E-models will have to do without unfortunately.  The base of the landers (where the ramps mount to) are so darned close to the ground, there's no room for any docking ports.  On the upside, this makes the ramps almost redundant, so not a huge impact to gameplay.

8 hours ago, Frank_G said:

I later found a way to hide them inside the craft

Yeah, I was looking at using that technique myself, but there's really no room "inside" the landers' structures to do such a thing.  Fortunately, future cargo landers I'm working on will hopefully be able to incorporate this feature from the get-go, so it shouldn't require any big craft revisions.

[Majorjim!]

On 09/04/2017 at 6:09 AM, Raptor9 said:

I've been looking at some other craft deficiencies that I'm trying to fix.  One that has been particularly annoying for the past year is when craft are reloaded, drop ramps are getting kicked away from their parent craft.

Hi matey, I don't have this issue on my yet to be shown constellation landers. I'm not sure what could be causing this but I have never had one fly away when loading in before.

 The only issue I had was the small rover wheels getting stuck on the ramp lip when driving back up into the rover bay on the lander. I fixed that with two solar panels.

 Having said that the docking port solution not only looks fine and dandy it also guantees no movement in the ramp. Even when the ramp has no issues guantees are nice. Good work mate!

[KerBlitz Kerman]

It does look fine.

[Raptor9]

Project updates:

The surface base stuff is going well for the most part.  It's still a WIP obviously, especially on the part of landing the hardware on the surface of Duna.  Just to clarify, it's my intent that the surface base modules can be used on other places besides Duna, but Duna is just the preliminary test location.  However, the surface base element is turning out to be a monumental task to make sure all the pieces work together, and the fact that there is a lot more variety of parts and pieces compared to the BM-series modules delivered to the Mun surface by LV-3C cargo landers.  For this reason, I've decided to take a break from the surface elements for a bit for because I need a break, and because it's turning out to be such a huge project.  Because of the scope of the surface elements, I've decided to re-focus my efforts on testing and refining the M3V orbital and interplanetary elements to bring those to a state of completion.  That way I can finish those and get them pushed out the door without waiting on the surface components.

At the moment, the two M3V-rated craft that are ready to be published immediately are a new EV-2 variant, and a new Service/Lander Vehicle for multiple applications.  The SLV-M is inspired in appearance by Orbital ATK's Cygnus robotic supply craft, but has a slightly different purpose. It's more akin to a monopropellant counterpart to the LITE stage. When launched from the KSC, it rides a 'Thunder 3' to LKO, and can resupply space stations with monopropellant anywhere in the Kerbin SOI.  However, it can also serve as a cargo transport stage like the LITE if necessary.  It can also land on low gravity bodies like Minmus to retrieve monoprop directly from an IV-1 'Meerkat' ISRU rig (a new IV-1 variant optimized for Minmus is also ready to be published).  This landing capability also allows the SLV-M to serve as a crew lander if necessary. If a properly configured crew capsule is docked to the front of the SLV-M instead of cargo, Kerbals can climb down the length of the SLV-M using pre-installed access ladders.

It should be noted that the SLV-M doesn't have the TWR to land on the Mun, Ike, or Dres to retrieve monoprop, but with the new D-model HLV-5 'Porpoise', this mission requirement won't go unfulfilled.  Other craft still being refined, but should follow in the short-term, are an LV-4B and the previously mentioned LV-2E.  The LV-4B is an SSTO reusable Duna lander that is meant to be refueled in orbit, but can also be refueled on the surface if necessary.  And like the LV-2E, it doesn't have a dozen small fuel tanks to transfer propellant to (like the LV-2D ), making refueling way easier.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

I think I have the orbital components pretty much rounded out.  I don't think I've missed anything.  At this point, I'd be open to any "lessons learned" from other players that have been out beyond Duna.  Namely any design features that they hadn't thought about when going to the Jool SOI.  Power generation is of course the first thing that comes to mind, so I've been sure I've included options across the full breadth of generation methods: solar, fuel cells, RTG power.  The latter example being a "Nuclear Reactor" module that has a cluster of RTG's inside.  As stated before, the proving grounds for these craft will be Duna and Eve SOI regions, but I'm trying to think ahead as much as possible for use beyond Kerbin's neighboring planets.  So now, it's down to fitting the handful of orbital elements to the appropriate launchers and generating graphics.
__________________________

I spent last night building a concept demonstration base in the arctic region of Kerbin using the new surface elements intended for Duna [and elsewhere].  The main thing I'm using this to test out is all the docking clamp alignment heights and such when under various gravity strengths.  It was assembled with the standard 1.0g gravity of Kerbin, but I'll be hacking gravity this weekend to test out Duna (0.30g) and Dres (0.12g) gravity levels.  Anything in between or lower should, in theory, still work.  In the image below, everything you see is still a work in progress.

So far, I've designed 20 unique module types for surface base assembly.  13 of them can be seen in the above screenshot.  Notable other modules include a surface "nuclear reactor", dedicated passageway modules between clusters of Habitation modules, more ISRU equipment, etc.  In total, there are 26 modules and 1 rover in the picture, amounting to 359 parts.  If I had planned it better, i would have had the solar array clusters on the opposite side facing south so the base modules don't obscure the sunlight, but whatever.  Everything was placed and assembled using a pair of a new type of logistics rover.  There are several versions planned; the one visible is an ore transport with an ore hopper, "regolith shovel" mounted on the front, and a remote sensor mast for tele-operations.

Still working to perfect the lander and associated cargo off-loading method, but it's looking promising.  I also want to point out that this was all done in stock without mods like KIS/KAS (as amazing as those two are ).

Edited September 17, 2017 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

In light of the IAC2017 conference going on and Lockheed Martin set to reveal details about their Mars Lander Concept, I've decided to post a preview image of some M3V components.  Keep in mind that although the modules in this image are fairly refined, the final craft themselves may be slightly different.  Also, this is only a portion of the M3V line-up.  There are many more modules and parts and pieces to utilize.  Examples include other propulsion and tank storage options, communications modules, other orbital/landing craft, etc.

For those that haven't seen the Mars Base Camp video, you can have a look here.  The influence in the design should be fairly obvious, but there is also influence from ULA's CisMunar-1000 as well as the decades-old Mars Excursion Module.  I'm sure some people will probably think "you've been talking about M3V for weeks and been working on it for months...this is it?"  Well no, this is just a preview.  Utilizing different configuration combinations, other "ships" of various sizes and layouts can be assembled to accomplish different missions at different destinations.  One such example is transforming this orbital outpost into a surface base with a "landing kit".  The habitation and research modules (on either side of the cupola) could be detached, a landing module docked to their bases, and landed on low gravity worlds such as Minmus, Bop or Pol.  These landing modules are also equipped with crew access tunnels that can be linked together, as well as integrated airlocks for standalone operations.

The two spacecraft readily apparent in the image are the new EV-2L 'Runabout' and LV-4B 'Armadillo' reusable single-stage lander.  The LV-4B is obviously derived from the LV-4A, but with a propulsion system inspired by SpaceX's Dragon 2 capsule.  The EV-2L is based on designs to use an Orion capsule mounted to the front of a ULA ACES stage.  In the EV-2L's case, it's mounted to the front of my LITE upper stage, with an additional auxiliary service module in place of where the Orion ECLSS components would be.  When undocked from the LITE stage, the EV-2L capsule is a self-contained spacecraft, with RCS propulsion and solar power generation.  As such, it can be landed on Gilly, or mounted to another craft (not pictured here) to become an entirely new spacecraft that can land on small moons such as Minmus.  In it's original configuration, it fits in well with the CisMunar Economy, with enough delta-V to cover the entire Kerbin SOI.  In other regions, it can be utilized as an in-SOI crew taxi between different stations, orbits, moons, etc.  While intended to be refueled in space and reused for follow-on missions, it can of course be used to return crews to the Kerbin surface by jettisoning the auxiliary service module to expose it's heatshield.

I'm still trying to create a lander analogous to Lockheed's Mars Lander, but...it's hard. 

Edited September 28, 2017 by Raptor9
grammer

[Majorjim!]

It's great to see folks making these complex proper mission craft. So few do these days due the complexity and skill needed to make them. Keep up the great work mate!

[Jestersage]

Question, Raptor9: How do you decide which thrusters is best to use for a replica? Looks? Thrust? TWR? ISP?

[Raptor9]

2 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

Question, Raptor9: How do you decide which thrusters is best to use for a replica? Looks? Thrust? TWR? ISP?

Well, first off (at the risk of sounding like a broken record), I don't try to build replicas, but analogues.  Craft that are inspired by or try to imitate mission or function to a real-life counterpart.  To this end, performance is more important than looks.  If you look at my LITE reusable upper stage, which is inspired by ULA's ACES concept, the engine selection of the RE-L10 "Poodle" is based solely on the fact that it has the highest ISP of any LF+O engine currently available among the stock selection.  But the "Poodle" doesn't look like a comparable real-life vacuum engine with it's long engine "bell".  So in this case, ISP was selected over looks.

On the other hand, if you look at my 'Titan 2P' upper stage (on the 'Titan 3P' rocket),  it was designed to be an analogue to the Exploration Upper Stage of the real-life SLS Block 1B.  The 'Titan 2P' utilizes 4x LV-T30 engines, which are optimized to be first stage boosters, not vacuum engines.  But these were used to give a better TWR for heavier payloads as well as more closely resemble the EUS's engine appearance.  So in this case, I was able to imitate looks as a bonus of achieving a higher TWR since ISP wasn't a concern for me at that point.

TL;DR - Performance will always outweigh looks for me.  If it ends up looking good along the way, that's cool. 

[Jestersage]

Very well. I was trying to figure out how would you make the BFR, since I feel that you focus on NASA missions.