Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Jestersage]

Thanks for clarifying the issue.

On a sidenote, how do you decide how to build the Apollo Capsule? Specific, compare to the dime-a-dozen MH Apollos, I notice you actually stick with the X200-8 tank+2.5m Service Bay, and use a Standard Size Port, instead of using the Conical service bay for the Parachutes. (Asking because I am debating whether to change my Orion Clone to use Standard Port too)

[Raptor9]

21 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

I notice you actually stick with the X200-8 tank+2.5m Service Bay

My Apollo-analogue EV-2A was one of the first craft I redesigned after 1.4.0 came out.  At the time, there were still some bugs with the SM-25 service module, and it was ridiculously long IMO.  I thought it would have been better to be in similar length to an X-200-16 tank, versus an X-200-16 plus X-200-8.  Anyway, after I finished re-building my 1.4 EV-2A's service module and all, I liked it so much I decided to keep it, and as you sort of pointed out, it has it's own unique look compared to the standard Apollo replicas.

25 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

and use a Standard Size Port, instead of using the Conical service bay for the Parachutes

This was mainly due to my decision to use the original Mk2 lander cans in lieu of the MEM for my lunar lander analogue (the reasons behind that decision explained HERE).  I thought it looked rather silly to have this wide lander can with a little bitty docking port on top, so I went with the standard 1.25m docking port, which meant getting rid of the conical service bay.  It helped that I didn't like how the conical service bay is wider in diameter than the Mk1-3 capsule where the two meet.  Among the various KSP sizing errors, IMO the Mk1-3 capsule is the most glaring of them all, and wish they would bite the bullet and match it up with the common part usages.  Almost every single 1.25m diameter part that you might want to put on the nose of the Mk1-3 capsule is slightly bigger.

[Jestersage]

I see. In my case, My decision to use the Jr Port is due to the Mk1 capsule, as I want to make sure it carries 4 instead of just 3 Kerbalnauts.

[Raptor9]

8 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

I see. In my case, My decision to use the Jr Port is due to the Mk1 capsule, as I want to make sure it carries 4 instead of just 3 Kerbalnauts.

Meh, it'd be a lot cheaper in funds and mass if you just used an EAS-1 external command seat. 

[Jestersage]

29 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

Meh, it'd be a lot cheaper in funds and mass if you just used an EAS-1 external command seat. 

Yes, but both of us care about looks. (Okay, in comparison to you, a bit less)

[Raptor9]

Just a quick heads-up to anyone that uses any craft that plugs into my ISRU equipment, whether it be the IV-1 ISRU rigs, MIR rovers, or reusable landers.  The standard height docking ports for surface refueling or propellant transfer are moving slightly.  This was a necessity for future craft revisions and planning I'm doing.  As a result, I just updated the EV-2C/LV-2C craft file with the updated LV-2C docking clamp location.  While we're on that topic, I also updated the craft files with the LV-1B and LV-1U/LV-1H 'Frog' landers for some tweaked rover wheel settings.

As I was redesigning my MIR rovers, I wanted to reduce the tendency to roll-over if I were to turn sharply while at speed.  While holding full steering deflection to one side will still cause them to tip over easily on the Mun when going more than 3 or 4 m/s, the tendency has been mitigated somewhat by manually reducing the wheel friction (and widening the wheel base).  As a result, they do slip and slide a little more, especially when fully-loaded with ore or fuel, but I would rather have a rover spin out then flip on it's back.  I originally experimented with manual friction settings, along with tweaking suspension setting combinations, with the new ER-2 rovers loaded in the LV-2E (which is why those new Duna landers took so long), but I had to go back and apply similar settings to the rovers on the LV-1 'Frog' landers.  Again, these rovers are still easy to flip over, but it's slightly more forgiving than before.

The only thing you may have to do is manually increase friction on one of the wheels to prevent the rover from drifting while parked, but I consider that extra step as setting the parking brake or throwing down wheel chocks.  Meh, the compromises of KSP. 

The good news is now that I have the new MIR rover family finalized (re-designated LR-2 'Mole' series), I was able to finalize the HLV-5C along with the rest of the HLV-5 family.  I just need to do a test mission tomorrow setting up a CisMunar architecture using all the new designs, finish the graphics, and they should be ready tomorrow or the next day (barring any kind of issues found in testing).

[Jester Darrak]

I didn't look at the new Rover wheels but I wish there was the possibility to have the HLV-5 motorized without the need to burn that prescious LfOx.

[Raptor9]

3 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

I didn't look at the new Rover wheels but I wish there was the possibility to have the HLV-5 motorized without the need to burn that prescious LfOx.

Way ahead of you @Jester Darrak, last week I was trying to see if it would be feasible to have the two main landing gear replaced by the retractable M1-F rover wheel from the DLC, but the tests didn't pan out very well.  The main issue was the ability for just a pair of those rover wheels to handle the mass of a full HLV-5.  The stopping distance was abyssal when using wheel brakes alone, and the wheels didn't save on fairing diameter space when folded either.

So I decided to keep the LY-10 landing gear.  You really don't burn that much propellant in the grand scheme of things by using it to reposition for liftoff after disconnecting from the ISRU rig.  IMO, it's no different than an airplane or helicopter using main engines to taxi around prior to takeoff, while burning a little "go-juice" in the process.

[Raptor9]

A bunch of updates this afternoon.  Most of the CisMunar Propellant Economy craft files are updated.  This includes EV-2L 'Runabout', HLV-5 'Porpoise' landers (all variants), the HLV-5C Cargo Rack lifter, PD-32/64 'Camel Hump' orbital propellant depots, the 'Titan 4N' heavy rocket with NITE reusable upper stage, and the LR-2 'Mole' rover series.

Next on my list are the IV-1 'Meerkat' and IV-2 'Badger' ISRU rig variants, and the SLV-M 'Tender'.  These will close the remainder of the gaps in the ISRU areas.  I still need to do a couple of outliers, like the EV-1C 'Skiff' direct Munar lander, EV-2B 'Runabout' LKO crew vehicle, and LV-2B 'Heavy Grasshopper' Minmus habitation lander.  I keep forgetting about those three.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Raptor9
repaired img url

[Jester Darrak]

Is it possible for the HLV-5 Crew Transport to have landing legs too? Makes it some sort of habitation and/or ISRU control unit.

[Raptor9]

5 minutes ago, Jester Darrak said:

Is it possible for the HLV-5 Crew Transport to have landing legs too? Makes it some sort of habitation and/or ISRU control unit.

I never had an intention of using it that way, but you could easily put some on yourself. 

[Jester Darrak]

29 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

I never had an intention of using it that way, but you could easily put some on yourself. 

Well, if there is one good use for the engineer class it's operating mining and processing equipment. And the problem with attaching legs myself is to find the right angle an position to bring them in line with the other stuff. Maybe even a dedicated mining control module for the HLV-5 series could be useful. With the cupola on top to give the engineer superb 360 degrees field of view.

[Raptor9]

On 5/27/2018 at 10:25 AM, Jester Darrak said:

Maybe even a dedicated mining control module for the HLV-5 series could be useful. With the cupola on top to give the engineer superb 360 degrees field of view.

I think if anything, maybe a dedicated rover for that function would be more appropriate I think, but that's just my opinion.  Maybe even one that could tow HLV-5's around the landing zone, like tugs do at airports.  That was the original justification for putting the DTAL XEUS lander on wheels, so that spent stages could be towed clear of the landing area to a marshaling area for reuse or disposal.
_______________________________

IV-1 'Meerkat' ISRU rigs are also updated.  Minimal changes, mainly just adjusting the surface transfer port height, tweaking the inflatable heatshield jettison sequence on the IV-1D, and swapping out monoprop tanks with new versions.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

First of all, a roll up of the last day or so.  The SLV-M 'Tender' monopropellant service/lander vehicle and LV-2B 'Heavy Grasshopper' Minmus habitation lander are now updated and published on KerbalX.  Also, I updated the EV-2L to include a capsule protective shroud with the Launch Escape System.

And now for the new craft, the PD-1080 'Dromedary'.  As the PD-32/64 'Camel Hump' depots were derived from the LITE upper stages, the PD-1080 is derived from the NITE.  It retains all of the functions of the NITE except one: serving as an upper stage for payloads.  However, along with transporting propellant and serving as an orbital depot, the PD-1080 can still transport payloads that are docked to it in space.  Download link available in the VAB>Robotics section of the OP.

Also, I updated most of the VAB category graphics, so you can more easily see the new craft versus the older craft that need updating.  There is still plenty to do however, with more brand new craft to finish testing and publish.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Raptor9

[Jester Darrak]

6 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

*snip*

That, sir, is a monstrousity. And I like it. I like it a lot.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Jester Darrak

[Jestersage]

Completely off topic: If you are building a craft, would you go out of the way to maintain it non-DLC, if it works just as well (and maybe even better) except having more parts -- especially if you already made something before that works well in 1.3?

Asking for myself -- want to convert some of the 3.75 parts to 5m parts due to increase capacity, but you know -- DLC.

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, Jestersage said:

If you are building a craft, would you go out of the way to maintain it non-DLC, if it works just as well (and maybe even better) except having more parts -- especially if you already made something before that works well in 1.3?

In some instances, perhaps; it really depends on a number of things.  A big factor might be a change in mission strategy for a given destination.

Obviously I was going to the Mun without difficulty with just the 3.75m parts prior to the DLC.  But I switched my early Mun craft to the DLC for the sole purpose of it being a "more true" Apollo-Saturn analogue, which I thought was more fun.  Fun always trumps other factors for craft decisions.  (Which is why I try to keep part count low for larger vessels/stations. KSP slideshow isn't fun for me)

That, sir, is a monstrousity.

Yeah, it's interesting to see the scale of it compared to the EV-2L in the far right screenshot around Gilly.  The EV-2L is lined up for the docking port, so it's not a size/distance illusion at all. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

My 'Sky Lab' space station is updated.  Keep in mind this does require some assembly by the first station crew that arrives.  But the graphic (and the Engineer's Notes in the OP above the download link) explain the few steps you need to perform.  All in all though, I think it turned out well.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Raptor9

[Fyrem]

On 5/27/2018 at 2:05 PM, Raptor9 said:

I think if anything, maybe a dedicated rover for that function would be more appropriate I think, but that's just my opinion.  Maybe even one that could tow HLV-5's around the landing zone, like tugs do at airports.  That was the original justification for putting the DTAL XEUS lander on wheels, so that spent stages could be towed clear of the landing area to a marshaling area for reuse or disposal.
_______________________________

IV-1 'Meerkat' ISRU rigs are also updated.  Minimal changes, mainly just adjusting the surface transfer port height, tweaking the inflatable heatshield jettison sequence on the IV-1D, and swapping out monoprop tanks with new versions.

does the https://kerbalx.com/Raptor9/IkeDres-Logistics-Kit-Titan-4N need any updating? or is it 'good as is""?

[Raptor9]

24 minutes ago, Fyrem said:

does the https://kerbalx.com/Raptor9/IkeDres-Logistics-Kit-Titan-4N need any updating? or is it 'good as is""?

Well, it does need updating to incorporate the changes of the three individual craft within the kit.  However, even though the craft file of the kit itself is still the 1.3.1 version, it should still work if you needed to use it now.

[Jestersage]

22 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Fun always trumps other factors for craft decisions.  (Which is why I try to keep part count low for larger vessels/stations. KSP slideshow isn't fun for me)

Thanks for the reminder. That's basically my design philosophy: No need for adapter if it does not affect looks. Also thanks for reminding the more ships/subassm you dock, the p[art count goes HUGE.

 

[Jester Darrak]

What has happened to the Lockheed Martin style Duna Lander/SSTO, the one I suggested bringen christened Dragonfly? Is that still a thing? Because I don't like leaving stuff around that has no purpose anymore.

[Raptor9]

8 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

What has happened to the Lockheed Martin style Duna Lander/SSTO, the one I suggested bringen christened Dragonfly? Is that still a thing?

Sort of...I was still playing around with it about the time I decided to stop publishing new stuff last fall, due to the announced re-balance following the 1.4 release.  So I still have it, but I haven't touched it since.  When I go to revise it, I'm going to try to do better, and I've learned a few more craft building techniques I want to apply as well.  I make no promises, but that's where it stands.
_______________________________

EDIT: Update roll-up for today:  EV-5 'Drifter' Block 2 for Eve (and associated lifters), the SEP-AC Mk1, and the EMU subassembly.

Currently working on the M3V logistics kits for Ike/Dres and Gilly, and a revision of the ER-4 Duna rover/skycrane.  There will actually be two variants of the Ike/Dres kit now, a "Bipropellant" kit that has an HLV-5B for just LF+O, and a "Tripropellant" kit that has an HLV-5D for LF+O and Monoprop.

Additionally, I want to make a note in saying that I'm intending to keep the SVR-16 'Ranger', my space shuttle analog, DLC free.  First of all, pretty much no DLC part really fits into any aspect of it's construction, either to make it look better or function better.  Also, I never use it anymore.  It's pretty much gathering dust in the corner of my proverbial SPH after I finished using it to build 'Pioneer Station'.

However, I do intend to update it in the near future.  It's by far my most downloaded craft (by a significant margin), which I attribute to it being such an iconic mainstay of the American space program.  We all know space shuttles in KSP are hard due to the limitations of design.  But as my building skills evolve, so do my designs and strategies; and I think I can do better.  My goal is to make it more controllable and predictable throughout the launchpad-to-orbit phase.  The orbiter itself probably won't change much, but I am going to swap out the OMS engines and revert back to Mk55 Thuds I'm thinking.  The O-10's just don't have the TWR or efficiency, and replacing the bulk of propellant on board from monoprop to LF+O allows a player to trade delta-V for fuel cell endurance, or vice versa.

With the stack configuration, I'm going to attempt to make the lower end of the "payload balance range" more compatible with minimal mass payloads.  Unless you are hauling fuel, ore, or a crap ton of I-beams to orbit, a player would be hard-pressed to reach even 20 tons, let alone the max rating.  Even though it's original purpose in real-life and my KSP save game was to build space stations, I want to make it more practical for other missions.  Mulitple satellite deliveries, retrieving payloads, etc.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

Is it June already?...I really enjoyed this particular craft revision.  The rover was a lot of fun to build.  The skycrane was a headache; trying to get the perfect hexagonal symmetry, but only on four out of the six positions for the engine pylons.  However in the end it came together better than I expected, and I'm satisfied with the results.  For the rare reader that doesn't know what this is supposed to be analogous to, it's the Mars Science Laboratory; also known as the "Curiosity" rover and Skycrane.

During my final verification mission, I launched the craft into a stable 80km Kerbin parking orbit.  Then I used about 1,300m/s for the trans-Duna injection to send the craft on it's way, with just over 200 m/s or 18 seconds of burn time remaining in the 'Thunder 2' upper stage when I released the Cruise Module.  While in transit, the Cruise Module has over 400m/s delta-V for course corrections and final approach trimming, so there really shouldn't be any issue getting this craft into the Duna atmosphere.

I will note that since this craft uses a direct atmo entry from an interplanetary trajectory, it has a built-in safety margin of ablator.  In order to see how hard I could push the aeroshell, the highest I came screaming in on a test run was 3000m/s at the moment of atmospheric encounter, with a 15km periapsis.  I was getting temp warnings, but the craft held up just fine.  When I did my final verification mission, I came in at about half that speed with a 15km periapsis.  I wanted to stay in a shallow trajectory as long as possible to bleed off as much speed as I could so I could safely deploy my parachute.  In the end, you could probably shave off some of that ablator to get more delta-V performance out of your upper stage if you wanted.

Also, you will need a comm relay satellite overhead in the Duna sky to control the craft after you separate the Cruise Module.  The antennas on the rover aren't strong enough, and the antennas on the Cruise Module are direct comms only.  So once it's separated, the rover needs the relay.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Raptor9

[Jester Darrak]

Although I like the reduction in size and probably biting off a big chunk of the launch cost I must say that the revised ScyCrane looks kinda clumsy, it not fat.

But I do like the Rover and it's 'camera'.