Raptor9

Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

Recommended Posts

@Majorjim!, the portion you quoted was regarding the layout of the airframe and the center-of-lift calculations in the stock aero model.  Since I'm not using FAR (nor do I intend to), concessions had to be made, since there would be virtually no body lift generated by the forward fuselage components.

6 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

This could easily be achieved by using radiator panels as body panels. They cause a lot of drag. Remember our discssions on constellation lander fairings?

 I don't forsee any issue landing like that.

I remember, but you're comparing apples and oranges.  The constellation-style landers jettisoned those fairings prior to touchdown, and the whole lander didn't have to return to orbit.  The Lockheed-inspired lander is an SSTO, and while the additional drag would help with slowing down during the EDL sequence, it would also hinder the return to orbit significantly.  As an experiment, I once tried modifying my LV-3D ascent stage with radiator panels as body panels instead of the one-piece fuel tanks on the booster portion.  The additional drag caused by the panels and smaller fuel tanks they enclosed resulted in the ascent vehicle coming nowhere close to achieving orbit; even with a thin atmosphere like Duna's.

Yes, there could be other ways of compensating for this, but then the other problem you would run into is part count.  This craft has to operate in vicinity of an orbital station or interplanetary ship, and/or land near a surface base.  By piece-mealing a fuselage together to shroud a series of smaller fuel tanks inside would drive up the part count significantly, and I don't like my KSP playing like a slow-motion replay.  It's very easy to let part count creep up on you when you are designing a series of individual craft that will end up working together within render/physics range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

@Majorjim!, the portion you quoted was regarding the layout of the airframe and the center-of-lift calculations in the stock aero model.  Since I'm not using FAR (nor do I intend to), concessions had to be made, since there would be virtually no body lift generated by the forward fuselage components.

I remember, but you're comparing apples and oranges.  The constellation-style landers jettisoned those fairings prior to touchdown, and the whole lander didn't have to return to orbit.  The Lockheed-inspired lander is an SSTO, and while the additional drag would help with slowing down during the EDL sequence, it would also hinder the return to orbit significantly.  As an experiment, I once tried modifying my LV-3D ascent stage with radiator panels as body panels instead of the one-piece fuel tanks on the booster portion.  The additional drag caused by the panels and smaller fuel tanks they enclosed resulted in the ascent vehicle coming nowhere close to achieving orbit; even with a thin atmosphere like Duna's.

Yes, there could be other ways of compensating for this, but then the other problem you would run into is part count.  This craft has to operate in vicinity of an orbital station or interplanetary ship, and/or land near a surface base.  By piece-mealing a fuselage together to shroud a series of smaller fuel tanks inside would drive up the part count significantly, and I don't like my KSP playing like a slow-motion replay.  It's very easy to let part count creep up on you when you are designing a series of individual craft that will end up working together within render/physics range.

Hmm, I still dont think there wold be an issue matey. I agree I was incorrect in omitting the part about using lift in the descent manuvers but as far as drag goes there wont be any issue at all.

 I have extensive experience with Duna ascents and descents, as I'm sure you do too but in my experience drag during ascent is not an issue. You need the extra drag of the panels during re-entry. A craft with a faring body will just not slow down enough, as we know. You will I assume be re-entering at interplanetary transfer speeds and it is this speed that causes the drag you need.

 Now, during  the ascent from the Duna surface you will not be travelling at anywhere near those speeds so the drag issue will be small.

 I know this as I have done this many times with an ascent craft made almost entirely of radiator panels. Yes there will be drag on ascent but to make the craft work would simply be an issue of balance. One thats easily overcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

You need the extra drag of the panels during re-entry. A craft with a faring body will just not slow down enough, as we know. You will I assume be re-entering at interplanetary transfer speeds and it is this speed that causes the drag you need.

You don't need the drag if you have a longer shallow-er entry, giving the craft more time to bleed off speed.  The lander doesn't use a fairing anywhere on the craft, nor is it entering from interplanetary speeds.  It's staged from an established Duna orbit, to preclude the requirement of a heatshield, or other more aggressive decel equipment, like spamming drogue/parachutes.

5 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

 Now, during  the ascent from the Duna surface you will not be travelling at anywhere near those speeds so the drag issue will be small.

 I know this as I have done this many times with an ascent craft made almost entirely of radiator panels. Yes there will be drag on ascent but to make the craft work would simply be an issue of balance. One thats easily overcome.

I would disagree, solely based on our different build styles.  Like I said in my previous comment, I've tried the technique of making fuselage bodies using radiator panels, and it's too much of a problem in my opinion to warrant their use.  Not to mention the part count issue again, which is a huge consideration for me considering the mission architecture it's designed to fit within.

Fortunately, I also have a new LV-4 model coming out that is an SSTO as well, but is simpler in use for those not wanting to deal with the additional challenge of the lander above.  It uses the standard teardrop capsule shape like the Mars Excursion Module for deceleration, and a drogue-assisted retro-propulsive.  But as soon as it enters the atmo, it's ballistic trajectory is commited, whereas the cross-range capabilities of the other one we're talking about (I really should name it already) allows greater flexibility to hit the target LZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

I really should name it already

How about Dragonfly?

 

I haven't been able to play KSP for some time now but from time to time I'm stopping by to see what's new and I'm really looking forward to testing the new Lander. Some time ago I tried to build the new Depot Station but the new modules are a PITA to fit on top of a rocket. At least they fixed the struts, my career save was unplayable with 1.3.

 

But still, great work on the new stuff!

Edited by Jester Darrak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

How about Dragonfly?

I'll throw that into my short list of candidates for consideration. :)

6 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

At least they fixed the struts, my career save was unplayable with 1.3.

Yeah, 1.3.0 drove me nuts with that bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/10/2017 at 6:51 PM, Raptor9 said:

Yes, there could be other ways of compensating for this, but then the other problem you would run into is part count.  This craft has to operate in vicinity of an orbital station or interplanetary ship, and/or land near a surface base.  By piece-mealing a fuselage together to shroud a series of smaller fuel tanks inside would drive up the part count significantly, and I don't like my KSP playing like a slow-motion replay.  It's very easy to let part count creep up on you when you are designing a series of individual craft that will end up working together within render/physics range.

This. When you actually play a lot, and like to do complex architectures with lots of moving parts, part count becomes a priority. If you can make it look almost as good with half the parts, you will pat yourself on the shoulder every time you fly it for a docking.

Still, Mk3 adaptors kind of look really good for short rockets, and I always allow myself to hide some wing surfaces if it at least looks realistic. And if you build the rocket simple enough, with a decent payload on top and the tank in the middle, you don't actually need much to get the short-of-stable (I've noticed my Lackluster and derivatives with a payload bay find a stable attitude at almost 90º AoA that I don't know where is coming from). This thing here, my Heinlein, is actually built with no wing parts, and it can flip itself backwards with or without the airbrakes, being normally stable forwards ('cause the docking port heat tolerance is awesome).

0mQwnaS.png

Considering it is a Kerbin SSTO, you could add a lot of fluff to a similar design, take out the short-of-cheaty side tanks (still visible and clickable, and only two! :blush:), and whip up a good-looking analogue with a consistent color scheme and higher heat tolerance all around.

 

Rune. And in case of doubt, enough Vernors will get anything pointed anywhere.

Edited by Rune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rune said:

[snip]...and whip up a good-looking analogue with a consistent color scheme...[snip]

Ha ha, yeah, that's why I use two Rockomax X200-16 fuel tanks instead of a single X200-32 in some craft.  The -16's are more white-ish to match a lot of the crewed parts and Kerbodyne tanks, whereas the -32's are much more gray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rune said:

Considering it is a Kerbin SSTO

Isn't this the one of yours that's only just barely a Kerbin SSTO though, and reaches a low orbit station pretty much right as it runs out of fuel? Incredibly engineered to get such good precision, of course, but I'm not sure it's the best example for a highly-modifiable spacecraft since it only just reaches Kerbin orbit as it is (although in the context of Duna specifically I'm sure it's more than capable even without the cheaty side tanks).

EDIT: Just went back to your old thread and realized I was thinking of a different (though visually similar) Kerbin SSTO.

Edited by eloquentJane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side distraction today.  I was doing the revised LV-3D/E tests in 1.3.1 when I ended up reading about the F-82 "Twin Mustang".  As an aerospace junkie, I can't believe I had never heard of it.  At first glance, it looked like simply a prototype aircraft, but after reading about it, the F-82 was a fully operational long-range, day/night fighter.  It was deployed in various locations in the United States for the post-World War 2 air defense mission, with other notable deployments to Panama, Alaska, and Japan.  In fact, according to Wikipedia, the first three North Korean aircraft shot down by US forces during the outset of the Korean war were shot down by F-82's operating out of Japan.  Further, the F-82 played a key role in the Alaska region during the late 40's and early 50's due to the fact that contemporary jet fighters at the time lacked the range necessary to perform the missions of that theater.

As a result, I built an F-82-inspired derivative from my C7 120 'Swift'.  The C7 124 'Skua', with external fuel tanks, has the second longest range of any other aircraft in my catalog, surpassed only by the X-9/SR-9 'Banshee'.  Practical uses include long-range science survey missions on other continents from the KSC, or as a support aircraft for search-and-rescue operations if your gameplay includes such missions.  Available for download in the SPH>C7 Aerospace-Series section of the OP.

Edited by Raptor9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I myself will modify it to use the Wheesley as a front engine option (reverse thrust). What's your opinion regarding this kind of "frontal jets"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

Interesting. I myself will modify it to use the Wheesley as a front engine option (reverse thrust). What's your opinion regarding this kind of "frontal jets"?

I've tried it myself, but I didn't care for the looks, or the way the exhaust appeared to come out.  But I think it's a decent stock way of simulating a prop-inspired plane in KSP, short of mods or making stock propellers using colliders/reaction wheels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

Isn't this the one of yours that's only just barely a Kerbin SSTO though, and reaches a low orbit station pretty much right as it runs out of fuel? Incredibly engineered to get such good precision, of course, but I'm not sure it's the best example for a highly-modifiable spacecraft since it only just reaches Kerbin orbit as it is (although in the context of Duna specifically I'm sure it's more than capable even without the cheaty side tanks).

EDIT: Just went back to your old thread and realized I was thinking of a different (though visually similar) Kerbin SSTO.

Yup, they are Kerbin up-and-down SSTOs, getting only a couple hundred m/s once they are in orbit. But since I have a ~1000mT rock on a 100km orbit at all times with ISRU attached, from there they can take themselves anywhere, and serve as universal landers in my 100% reusable career infrastructure. If they can make Kerbin, they can make anything with a solid surface that isn't purple. If I need payload fraction in order to lift fuel (which I don't, really, but sometimes I build stuff too complicated to dock to my asteroid station, and it's more convenient to launch fuel), then the Claymore airbreathing SSTO version I use these days has been known to pull off >50mT to orbit, which is the weight of one of these things fully fuelled.

 

Rune. I seriously need to update my thread one of these moons. In the meantime, KerbalX is 'only' one or two game versions out of date, and I've mostly only polished stuff since then.

Edited by Rune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

I've tried it myself, but I didn't care for the looks, or the way the exhaust appeared to come out.  But I think it's a decent stock way of simulating a prop-inspired plane in KSP, short of mods or making stock propellers using colliders/reaction wheels.

One use that I found by modifying your craft and switch to the original 2 engines on the fuselage design: the empty area cleared allows me to place science equipments, not unlike F-82G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

One use that I found by modifying your craft and switch to the original 2 engines on the fuselage design: the empty area cleared allows me to place science equipments, not unlike F-82G

Nice. :)

One thing I've been thinking about doing is a series of roll on/roll-off expeditionary modules for cargo planes built with the Mk3 cargo bays/ramp.  These pieces of equipment would be designed strictly for utility purposes, allowing you to set up "bush airfields" around Kerbin.  The idea is sort of applying a depot-based space infrastructure to the Kerbin surface.  This would allow you to set up a network of refueling sites around Kerbin, enabling refueling of aircraft to support survey contracts, biome data-mining, manual search & rescue of Kerbalnauts, or simply for the purpose of it in itself.

From a personal gameplay perspective, the convenience of operating around Kerbin would be offset by the challenge of locating suitable landing sites that are both long and flat enough, and located on an adequate concentration of ore for ISRU refining of liquid fuel.  A few example modules I can think of that would be interesting to set up (besides the ISRU/refueling equipment) would be a deployable air traffic control tower, a small shelter/lounge building, and a deployable aircraft shelter that would hopefully be big enough to park a C7 120 or 140 sized aircraft underneath.

I'm always looking for ways to incentivize my gameplay around Kerbin, and this sounds like something I'd be motivated to work on.   However, I'm not gonna tackle it until I get the M3V project done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to my Mechjeb DV stats, the LITE upper stage has almost 4km/s of DV. Is Mechjeb lying or can it really make it to Duna?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, redmonddkgamer said:

According to my Mechjeb DV stats, the LITE upper stage has almost 4km/s of DV. Is Mechjeb lying or can it really make it to Duna?

I think it can. But then you would still need a payload which might decrease available dV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jester Darrak said:

I think it can. But then you would still need a payload which might decrease available dV

Still highly impressive for a relatively small upper stage. I got that reading with an SM-N1 on top, bound for low Munar orbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, redmonddkgamer said:

Still highly impressive for a relatively small upper stage. I got that reading with an SM-N1 on top, bound for low Munar orbit.

The SM-N1 is also a really lightweight payload, at 0.86t.  But even in the EV-2L configuration, which is basically a LITE with a 7.6t crew module as it's payload, it should still be able to make a one-way trip from low Kerbin orbit to low Duna orbit.  But that's just using straight numbers and a delta-V map, and I wouldn't "subject my Kerbals to an interplanetary trip in a single capsule". :P 

Actually using some of these craft in such a manner is another story since I don't use MechJeb, and sometimes I'm not exactly on my game when I plot maneuver nodes for interplanetary transfers.  This is why I always take my craft on a test mission before publishing; sometimes the margins are just a little too close, needing some craft tweaking.  This is also precisely what I'm doing with my M3V interplanetary/orbital elements this week...
_________________________________

Instead of being packaged like the EV-4 modules, which was one launcher per one module; or as subassemblies like the SM station modules, requiring the player to mate them to rockets; a lot of the M3V components are being packaged as "Kits".  An example of one of my verified/tested kits is the 'Ike Logistics Kit': a Titan 4N loaded with an IV-1B ISRU rig and an HLV-5B fuel transport lander.  Since the NITE upper stages from the Titan 4N's serve as both interplanetary propulsion stages and then remain as fuel depots, you can establish an initial propellant refueling capability in the Duna SOI with one launch.

So far I've built 11 of the 14 initial series of kits, and tested/verified 8 of them.  I'm sure more kits will come later, but I'm also sure they won't cover all the various combinations a player may want to assemble into an expedition.  Some of these kits will have spare payload space for additional equipment the player wants to throw in.  But outside of those cases, it will be on the individual player to reconfigure as necessary to suit their needs.

Edited by Raptor9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

This is also precisely what I'm doing with my M3V interplanetary/orbital elements this week...

Is that boring trial & error stuff or actually worth watching when streamed? *wink*

I'd really like to see how potentially chaotic your career safe looks like with all that stuff you built so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you really don't want me to stream most of this stuff...it is agonizingly boring to watch I'm sure.  It's not boring for me, because building large complex projects that solve engineering problems is satisfying for me, but there's a lot of sitting there and thinking while staring at the monitor.

20 minutes ago, Jester Darrak said:

I'd really like to see how potentially chaotic your career safe looks like with all that stuff you built so far.

Ha ha, my career really isn't that chaotic, but it does have a substantial persistent file size. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 1:16 PM, Raptor9 said:

One thing I've been thinking about doing is a series of roll on/roll-off expeditionary modules for cargo planes built with the Mk3 cargo bays/ramp. 

I have similar, but less ambitious plans. I finally got into 1.x last week, and I've been playing with various Ekranoplan designs, and getting really good and convincing low-level performance.

Perhaps you can answer this: Is there an occlusion bug with Mk3 Cargo Bays? I'm toting two orange tanks as test mass, and the docking ports show no drag, but the tanks, which span cargo bays, do. Ordinarily, I wouldn't care too much, but L/D ratio is kind of the whole point with an Ekranoplan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FleshJeb said:

Perhaps you can answer this: Is there an occlusion bug with Mk3 Cargo Bays? I'm toting two orange tanks as test mass, and the docking ports show no drag, but the tanks, which span cargo bays, do.

I really am not the best to answer that.  I believe there was a bug like that before, but I don't recall for sure.  "1.X" covers a LOT of versions and bugfixes, so that's another wildcard.  I personally would recommend getting 1.3.1 if you're just getting back into it, before you get really invested in a save file, but that's your prerogative.
_______________________________

In other news, I updated four craft today.  The first I wanted to point out is the EV-2L 'Runabout'-Lightning.  For some reason, a lot of the RCS thrusters on the crew capsule had "Fore by Throttle" enabled in the Actuation toggles, I have no idea how or why that happened, but the version on KerbalX has been corrected.

The other three are the PD-32 and PD-64 orbital propellant depots in the Robotics section, and the 'Lightning' rocket itself in the Rocket Market.  Each of these craft lacked the Communotron 16S on the LITE stage's probe core. This could either be a big deal or a non-issue depending on the state of your comm network. or even if you play with CommNet enabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2017 at 7:46 PM, Raptor9 said:

I would disagree, solely based on our different build styles.  Like I said in my previous comment, I've tried the technique of making fuselage bodies using radiator panels, and it's too much of a problem in my opinion to warrant their use.  Not to mention the part count issue again, which is a huge consideration for me considering the mission architecture it's designed to fit within.

Bah! that's a silly excuse! I find folks always talking about part counts but adding a few radiators will not create a slide show dude. Unless your PC is older than me. Try it. I am right in this instance. The radiator panels will work wonders for creating the drag needed for Duna entry.

 Now you and @Rune go but a new CPU. :D

 

On 10/29/2017 at 1:40 AM, Rune said:

This. When you actually play a lot, and like to do complex architectures with lots of moving parts, part count becomes a priority. If you can make it look almost as good with half the parts, you will pat yourself on the shoulder every time you fly it for a docking.

Hmm, nope. You cannot have both Rune. You either make it a complex craft with moving parts and take the part count hit or you make it simple and keep part count down. It's unavoidable. We all know what you prefer to build. :kiss:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

Hmm, nope. You cannot have both Rune. You either make it a complex craft with moving parts and take the part count hit or you make it simple and keep part count down. It's unavoidable. We all know what you prefer to build. :kiss:

Hum.

ZEFvG82.png

There are something like 21 different craft in that picture. Some are 8 part subassemblies (Drive Pods, commsats, and the like), some 50-70 (the two SSTOs, the ring, and the transport). All the pieces are interchangeable, and must be docked individually, to produce one of these stacks. All in all, there are on the order of 300-400 parts in that one picture. And it's not a busy asteroid station, it's a pretty simple interplanetary stack undergoing assembly on LKO, I've launched dozens like it. I'd rather do all of that with the timer not going yellow, if I can help it. I imagine you do a lot of docking and traveling with your several-hundred-parts compound craft, right?

On 27/10/2017 at 1:43 PM, Majorjim! said:

I have extensive experience with Duna ascents and descents, as I'm sure you do too but in my experience drag during ascent is not an issue. You need the extra drag of the panels during re-entry. A craft with a faring body will just not slow down enough, as we know. You will I assume be re-entering at interplanetary transfer speeds and it is this speed that causes the drag you need.

That is entirely dependent on trajectory, and maximum AoA. If you can fly, not just fall, you can change your L/D as you go along, and you can also curve your trajectory to stay in atmosphere at hyperbolic velocities (not that that is the requirement Raptor is after anyway). I've done 3/4th of a kerbin orbit in atmosphere, braking from a hot Minmus +1km/s return just flying the thing upside down to remain in atmosphere as I bled speed and radiated it away slowly, and cruised to KSC the long way around.

 

Rune. I build to play, not the other way around. And I'll play as I see fit, in any case.

Edited by Rune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

Bah! that's a silly excuse! I find folks always talking about part counts but adding a few radiators will not create a slide show dude. Unless your PC is older than me. Try it. I am right in this instance. The radiator panels will work wonders for creating the drag needed for Duna entry.

 Now you and @Rune go but a new CPU. :D

Hmm, nope. You cannot have both Rune. You either make it a complex craft with moving parts and take the part count hit or you make it simple and keep part count down. It's unavoidable. We all know what you prefer to build. :kiss:

I'm not gonna address the clearly overbearing nature of that post, because I know you have no filter.  Instead, listen closely.  It's not a matter of a few radiators, it's a matter of "part count creep", and it is a valid consideration when making a multi-craft architecture (which is what I believe @Rune meant by "complex architectures with lots of moving parts", not literal moving parts)

For argument's sake, it would take 16 large radiator panels to fully enclose the two X200-16 fuel tanks like what are on the lander in question.  Let's take half that to be conservative: 8 parts, and say that an example interplanetary expedition consists of 7 large modules/craft (which is how many sections the basic configuration of my upcoming M3V consists, not even including the lander).  If you can shave off just 8 parts from each module, that's 56 parts in total.

400 parts in orbit is around where the clock starts flashing yellow for me, but I also have Environmental Visual Enhancements installed. 56 of 400 is a 14% optimization of KSP part CPU usage.  That's a 14% margin available for ship/station growth, additional visiting ships in physics range, etc; or in the case for KerbalX-shared craft, a margin for players of lower CPU capability.  Further, in any depot-based architecture where you're doing a lot of orbital refueling and moving propellant around in-SOI, you will be doing a LOT of rendezvous and docking.  That can get tedious enough as it is before prolonging each R&D sequence with a slow clock, even if it's only a small reduction "into the yellow".  The same argument is why I use standardized rocket lifters from the KSC instead of using SSTO's or recoverable SpaceX-style boosters.  It multiplies the repetitive game-time the player has to dedicate to each rocket launch, which again can get tedious when assembling an interplanetary ship or a large surface base somewhere.

Personally, I don't understand why we're still debating this, none of our gameplay styles are gonna change; and like Rune put it, I build to play.  I'm a KSP player first, and craft builder second.  All the craft I publish are craft that I use, or have used, in my career save.  I don't publish anything that doesn't have a practical purpose in my gameplay.  And in my gameplay, a slow clock is a hindrance, therefore part count is not an "excuse", it's an ever-present consideration in the VAB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.