Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[JWOC]

Hey @Raptor9 how did you put that link into your craft page sig on KerbalX? 

On 12/16/2016 at 3:13 PM, Raptor9 said:

That goes against my release philosophy I'm afraid.  With the exception of rovers and space station modules, I always release all my craft with an included launcher that is tested and verified to get the payload to where it's designed to go.  For some inexperienced players that may not be good at building launchers, this ensures they get the desired use out of the craft.  For other players, regardless of their experience, it may be just as frustrating to have to put these modules back in to a launcher.  And no, I haven't put the new ones on KerbalX yet.

ok thanks for the update on the surface base modules. it makes sense for putting the modules with the rocket to allow newer players  to easily launch them. 

-JWOC

[Raptor9]

9 hours ago, JWOC said:

Hey @Raptor9 how did you put that link into your craft page sig on KerbalX? 

Insert the text in the following format: [this text is what the user sees](place link address in here)
____________________

EDIT: For anyone that's following craft file update progress, the HLV-5 series landers are updated along with the 'Lightning' medium launcher.  These will provide you a ready solution for shipping MIR and Utility series rovers to the Mun.  Main thing done with these craft are comms antenna updates, and some small tweaks for the new fuel flow logic (in the case of the HLV-5A crew module). Also, an additional small docking clamp was added near the RE-L10 'Poodle' engines to allow the HLV-5 Propulsion modules and the LITE upper stages to refuel each other if no orbital propellant depots are available.

On that note, next up for updating are the IV-1 series 'Meerkat' robotic ISRU landers and the 'Camel Hump' orbital propellant depots.  These will close the cis-Munar ISRU propellant infrastructure with the HLV-5's and the MIR family.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Raptor9

[JWOC]

21 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

Insert the text in the following format: [this text is what the user sees](place link address in here)
____________________

EDIT: For anyone that's following craft file update progress, the HLV-5 series landers are updated along with the 'Lightning' medium launcher.  These will provide you a ready solution for shipping MIR and Utility series rovers to the Mun.  Main thing done with these craft are comms antenna updates, and some small tweaks for the new fuel flow logic (in the case of the HLV-5A crew module). Also, an additional small docking clamp was added near the RE-L10 'Poodle' engines to allow the HLV-5 Propulsion modules and the LITE upper stages to refuel each other if no orbital propellant depots are available.

On that note, next up for updating are the IV-1 series 'Meerkat' robotic ISRU landers and the 'Camel Hump' orbital propellant depots.  These will close the cis-Munar ISRU propellant infrastructure with the HLV-5's and the MIR family.

thanks @Raptor9! cant wait to download your new stuff. 

-JWOC

[Jester Darrak]

@Raptor9 When you are revising the IV-1s you might wanna look at Heat Dissipation. 1.1.3 Version Meerkats (at least the Bravo) exceed optimal operating temperatures a lot. I solved it by MacGyvering 4 Large Radiators on it. 1 close to each drill and 2 for the converter were enough to keep it running stable at desired core temperatures. Also, one or two fuel cells to counter night operation also greatfully help sustained operations.

[Nerfclasher]

On December 18, 2016 at 0:20 PM, Raptor9 said:

Insert the text in the following format: [this text is what the user sees](place link address in here)
____________________

EDIT: For anyone that's following craft file update progress, the HLV-5 series landers are updated along with the 'Lightning' medium launcher.  These will provide you a ready solution for shipping MIR and Utility series rovers to the Mun.  Main thing done with these craft are comms antenna updates, and some small tweaks for the new fuel flow logic (in the case of the HLV-5A crew module). Also, an additional small docking clamp was added near the RE-L10 'Poodle' engines to allow the HLV-5 Propulsion modules and the LITE upper stages to refuel each other if no orbital propellant depots are available.

On that note, next up for updating are the IV-1 series 'Meerkat' robotic ISRU landers and the 'Camel Hump' orbital propellant depots.  These will close the cis-Munar ISRU propellant infrastructure with the HLV-5's and the MIR family.

Nice to see you updating craft

[Raptor9]

On 12/19/2016 at 3:34 PM, Jester Darrak said:

@Raptor9 When you are revising the IV-1s you might wanna look at Heat Dissipation. 1.1.3 Version Meerkats (at least the Bravo) exceed optimal operating temperatures a lot. I solved it by MacGyvering 4 Large Radiators on it. 1 close to each drill and 2 for the converter were enough to keep it running stable at desired core temperatures. Also, one or two fuel cells to counter night operation also greatfully help sustained operations.

They do run a little hot (in the the IV-1B's case, both the drills and the converter about ~90K above target temp), but I believe it's acceptable in the long-term scheme of things.  I've never been in a situation where I need peak efficiency in propellant generation, like if I was in a hurry.  ISRU sites (in my opinion/playstyle) are designed to be logistics sites that support the long-term strategies of exploration in KSP.  Because I establish these sites to run in the background for weeks or months before I expect to need their generated resources, a few assumptions I make in my design are as follows:
1) They don't need to be in the 90-100% efficiency range; and even if they did, a manned pod with an engineer on board is supposed to help (I've never tested this myself mind you), and that could easily be added or docked to the ISRU mechanism.
2) They don't need to run continuously through the day/night cycle.  I don't have any hard math numbers, but I imagine that using a portion of the propellant generated to run fuel cells to then power the propellant generation process is wasteful.  I'd rather save the part count and funds of adding on fuel cells (one fuel cell array is 4,500).

Those are some good suggestions for design improvement though.  I just don't think they're particularly necessary to implement.

EDIT: Efficiency could be a concern if harvesting from an asteroid as those have a finite amount of ore, but again, a few slap-on radiators could obviously do the trick, or have additional radiators mounted on a docked fuel tanker to assist (the deployable Thermal Control System kind that cool the entire craft).
__________________________

EDIT 2: The SEP-AC Mk1 and HLV-6 landers are updated/re-uploaded to KerbalX.  Next up on my list to tackle is the rest of the LV-3 family of landers, and by extension the Mun surface base modules.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Raptor9

[Frednoeyes]

Howdy Raptor, I've been a fan of your work for a long time now, and it's been very inspiring to me. Just recently After taking inspiration from your Ares lander and nuclear Clipper, I created a stock replica(kind of) of the Ares ship from the Steven Baxter novel Voyage.  Your lander design (as reinterpreted by me) performed nearly perfectly!

Just thought I'd give you a shout out for the design and tell you to keep up the great work!

 

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, Frednoeyes said:

Howdy Raptor, I've been a fan of your work for a long time now, and it's been very inspiring to me. Just recently After taking inspiration from your Ares lander and nuclear Clipper, I created a stock replica(kind of) of the Ares ship from the Steven Baxter novel Voyage.  Your lander design (as reinterpreted by me) performed nearly perfectly!

Just thought I'd give you a shout out for the design and tell you to keep up the great work!

Thanks @Frednoeyes, glad your design was so successful.  I've never read (or heard of) the novel Voyage.  My 'Armadillo' lander and 'Clipper' were actually designed based on Boeing's "Integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft" design documents from the late 1960's.

[robm]

the rcs thursters on ntr assembly not working

[Raptor9]

33 minutes ago, robm said:

the rcs thursters on ntr assembly not working

Did you ensure the fuel tank valves were open on the monopropellant tanks before trying to use the RCS?

[robm]

no but will give that a try thanks

 

[Frednoeyes]

17 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Thanks @Frednoeyes, glad your design was so successful.  I've never read (or heard of) the novel Voyage.  My 'Armadillo' lander and 'Clipper' were actually designed based on Boeing's "Integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft" design documents from the late 1960's.

 

It's this alt-history novel where NASA goes to Mars after Apollo. In that universe their attempt at a NERVA rocket goes wrong and microwaves the crew, so instead they go to mars with liquid fuel. It's pretty cool.

[redmonddkgamer]

On 22/12/2016 at 1:27 PM, Frednoeyes said:

It's this alt-history novel where NASA goes to Mars after Apollo. In that universe their attempt at a NERVA rocket goes wrong and microwaves the crew, so instead they go to mars with liquid fuel. It's pretty cool.

Microwaves. Like microwaves them as in heats up the water and cooks them like a microwave does, or killed by radiation. Because microwave radiation doesn't do that.

Anyway, Raptor, which launcher should I use for putting the "Gateway" parts in LKO?

[Raptor9]

@redmonddkgamer, if you're in career mode, the cheapest least-expensive launcher you can.   If launching any of the Probodobodyne/Rockomax station modules, something as simple as the 'Thunder 1' will suffice since those modules have their own probe cores and propulsion systems for rendezvous & docking.  Something like the 'Thunder 4' should probably be used if launching any of station modules by Jeb's Junkyard/Integrated Integrals.  The 'Thunder 4's payload stage has the probe core/propulsion/RCS needed to get these to the station construction site, since the modules themselves don't have such equipment.

If you wanted to launch all of the modules to LKO at once in a stack, you could probably do it all with a single 'Thunder 4 Heavy' honestly.  That rocket can put over 35 tons to medium Kerbin orbit, and the total mass of a small station like 'Gateway' is well below that.  After you get it in the desired orbit, just do some decoupling and redocking to get it in the configuration you want.  I'm just spit-balling the lift requirements, I'll let you verify the actual numbers for where you want the station and how to get it there. 

Edited December 24, 2016 by Raptor9

[redmonddkgamer]

12 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

@redmonddkgamer, if you're in career mode, the cheapest least-expensive launcher you can.   If launching any of the Probodobodyne/Rockomax station modules, something as simple as the 'Thunder 1' will suffice since those modules have their own probe cores and propulsion systems for rendezvous & docking.  Something like the 'Thunder 4' should probably be used if launching any of station modules by Jeb's Junkyard/Integrated Integrals.  The 'Thunder 4's payload stage has the probe core/propulsion/RCS needed to get these to the station construction site, since the modules themselves don't have such equipment.

If you wanted to launch all of the modules to LKO at once in a stack, you could probably do it all with a single 'Thunder 4 Heavy' honestly.  That rocket can put over 35 tons to medium Kerbin orbit, and the total mass of a small station like 'Gateway' is well below that.  After you get it in the desired orbit, just do some decoupling and redocking to get it in the configuration you want.  I'm just spit-balling the lift requirements, I'll let you verify the actual numbers for where you want the station and how to get it there. 

Thanks, man. What I planned to do is make it symmetrical by putting another SM-PL on the other side of the first one, attacking a frog to the front and bottom of the SM-N1 and using an EV-2C to transfer it to low Munar orbit.

[19chickens]

Probably just me being stupid, but how do you install the launchers without having to install them as full craft?  If I drop them into the Subassemblies folder they end up with no attach points.

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, 19chickens said:

Probably just me being stupid, but how do you install the launchers without having to install them as full craft?  If I drop them into the Subassemblies folder they end up with no attach points.

I assume you are referring to the standalone 'Javelin', 'Thunder', and 'Titan' launchers that have no payloads in them?  There are two ways of going about this.

1) Place another part, like a Mk1 capsule, in the payload bay and re-root the craft so the Mk1 is now the root part.  Grab the launcher from the Mk1 capsule and save it as a subassembly.
2) Build your payload, and then attach the Mk1 capsule to the node that the payload will use to attach to the mount inside the launcher's payload fairing.  Re-root the payload so the Mk1 capsule is the root part as the previous technique, and save the payload as a subassemly.  Place the payload (as a subassembly) in the launcher fairing.

[Raptor9]

I had to take a break from the LV-3 landers for a little bit, and crafted some new SPH designs.  These include the new 100-series models and a couple new X-planes.  The top left picture is the C7 100 'Falcon', inspired by any number of small private jets.  For those that read the early few pages of this thread, you may remember the XV (eXperimental Vertical) Program.  The project was pretty much shelved after a lot of the stock aero and jet engine changes last year, along with any other VTOL ideas I had.  However, I've been experimenting with vertical propulsion again obviously.  Some of my personal design rules prevent me from clipping engines inside fuselage bodies (self-imposed challenges ).  But after developing some new building techniques, I've started to get a handle on some light VTOL craft.  The top right picture is the X-20 Vertical Takeoff Flight Test, a relatively slow fighter-type VTOL demonstrator inspired by the Soviet Yak-38 "Forger".  The bottom picture is the C7 142 'Seahawk', inspired by the V-280 "Valor".  Not pictured, but also nearing publish-ready status, are the C7 140 'Kestrel' and the X-22 Supersonic VTOL Flight Test.

Two major advantages these new craft have over my XV-series VTOL's are their speed and range.  The XV's could barely cover the lower peninsula that the KSC is on, these 2nd generation VTOL's can go hundreds of kilometers, some even to the neighboring continents.  The major role the 'Kestral' and the 'Seahawk' will play into are those surface science survey contracts that keep causing me to break landing gear on uneven terrain when trying to land a jet without a runway. 

CAVEAT: The LV-3B isn't published just yet.  I'm trying to fix an issue I'm having with the rover ramps I found during some last-minute testing.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Raptor9

[Heckspress]

the X-22 looks quite nice! Does that number mean we'll be getting 4 more X-planes?

[Raptor9]

23 hours ago, Heckspress said:

the X-22 looks quite nice! Does that number mean we'll be getting 4 more X-planes?

Not necessarily.  Only two X-planes planned for near-term release at the moment, the X-20 and X-22.  Here's the current line-up of the X-planes following the X-18:

X-19 - Unreleased prototype of the SR-19 'Valkyrie'.  The SR-19 itself is currently under revision.  (Having "Spaceplane Block" at the moment )
X-20 - Initial VTOL technology demonstrator.  Nearing release.  Replaces X-20 prototype of SVR-20 'Raven' spaceplane.  SVR-20's will be depreciated and revised...
X-21 - Unreleased prototype of the SR-21 'Phoenix'.
X-22 - Supersonic VTOL technology demonstrator.  Nearing release as well, but not quite as refined as the X-20.
X-?? - Future design plans include prototypes for a new set of 'Raven' vertical-launch spaceplanes, a Mk3 fuselage SSTO, and a VTOL-capable SSTO Laythe spaceplane (if my VTOL methods continue to improve)

I never intended to release the X-19 or X-21, since they're so similar to the operational variants, the SR-19 and SR-21.  Likewise, I never released the X-10 since it was simply a glide-test prototype of the SVR-10 'Thunderbird'.  It would just lead to confusion for downloaders and I don't believe it's necessary.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Raptor9

[Jestersage]

Question re: MOL clone (LV-1C) On your old version, you have 4x RCS thrusters. On your new versions, there are no thrusters at all; is there any reason why you forgo it?

[Raptor9]

On 1/3/2017 at 1:01 AM, Jestersage said:

Question re: MOL clone (LV-1C) On your old version, you have 4x RCS thrusters. On your new versions, there are no thrusters at all; is there any reason why you forgo it?

I got rid of the O-10's because they were re-sized to be much bigger and out of proportion.  Instead, the four RCS thrusters on the aft bulkhead of the EV-1C provide enough thrust to adjust the orbit by using the "Translate Forward" command.
_______________________

In other news, the C7 100 'Falcon, C7 140 'Kestrel', C7 142 'Seahawk', and X-20 Vertical Takeoff Flight Test are now available on KerbalX (links in the OP).

     

EDIT: The new LV-3B 'Bullfrog' is also updated on KerbalX.  Be careful driving the rovers off the ramps.  Sometimes the wheels don't play well with them.

EDIT 2: The revised SR-19 'Valkyrie' is updated on KerbalX.  Unfortunately, the current SR-19 only comes in one flavor, passenger transport.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Raptor9

[JWOC]

@Raptor9 i like the new craft you put up. I can't wait to download the C-140 & C-142. They will help a lot with my KEI program and general use around kerbin recovering crew from capsules 

-JWOC

Edited January 2, 2017 by JWOC

[Beetlecat]

@Raptor9 -- ever have thoughts of returning to the "old" X-19 experiment, as in your second post -- the one using the Mk IV spaceplane parts? I love the look of it. I know you're really rocking stock stuff, and I can't imagine folding in a mod requirement at this point.

I *really* like the new VTOL ships. Perfect for picking up landed crew.

[Raptor9]

Glad you like the VTOL's @Beetlecat .  To answer your question, I always liked the design of the VTOL's from the first Crysis games, and I wish we had the ability to have dedicated servos and hinges in the stock game.  But I don't care for the look of the Infernal Robotics parts, nor the post-update wait for mods to be updated.

As for the Mk IV spaceplane parts, however, I love them.  Nertea does some awesome work in all of his mods.  His parts not only fit the stock look and feel, but they're intended to be balanced as well when comparing the usual stats such as cost, mass, ISP, size, etc.  If I were to publish modded VTOL craft in the future with his Mk IV parts, I would make use of the new liftfans included in his set, rather than use a design like the "original X-19".  Those liftfans are awesome.

For publishing purposes, I try to stick to stock for two reasons: 1) KSP updates have a much lower chance of breaking my craft, and 2) accomplishing craft designs relying only on stock parts has taught me a lot in KSP craft engineering.  I've definitely gotten better at "macgyvering" over the past two years since relegating myself to stock only designs.  Having said that, there are a few mods that I keep an eye on and still play around with for pure fun.   The following mods are on my short list for late-game progression and/or fun use.
- All of Nertea's mods, especially the Near Future collection and MkIV Spaceplane parts.  Awesome visual work, and very stock-alike.
- Nils277's Kerbal Planetary Base Systems.  This mod is also extremely well done, especially in the IVA aspect.  Makes me want to just chill in IVA view. 
- CaptRobau's Outer Planets Mod.  Definitely will need the above two mods whenever I get this far...I've never even been to Jool. 

*Speaking of which, there are some threads in the Add-On section missing right now, so the link to Near Future is broken.
______________________________

10 Jan EDIT: SVR-20 'Raven' spaceplanes are finished testing.  The 1.2 versions have been re-designated SVR-23.  Changes are stronger main landing gear, comms antenna switch, removal of the ventral airbrakes, and a tweaked launch stack to make it more controllable during ascent.  The models remain the same: A-model for small satellite-sized payloads, B-model for carrying four Kerbal passengers in addition to the two crew.

Also, as written at the bottom of the OP in the Future Plans section, I'm designing a family of satellites and probes for functions such as comms relays, resource scanning, landing site and biome surveys, and science gathering.  So far I have 5 satellite/probes and 1 rover built and tested, I just need to generate the graphics for them.  Descriptions of each can be read about in the OP.

I restarted my career (again) in 1.2 to take advantage of some of the contract system changes, as well as the CommNet/KerbNet features.  I'm at the point where I'm building my first Mun surface base, so I'm using this opportunity to test out the updated base modules to ensure they're working as they should.  As soon as I'm satisfied that the updated base modules and LV-3C cargo lander is good to go, I'll be re-uploading these to KerbalX.  My real-life job is keeping me busy, so no real estimate on when that might be, unfortunately.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Raptor9