Raptor9

Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jester Darrak said:

The parr with the yellow stripe between the fins and the antenna.

That yellow stripe is from the small fins, the radiators are sticking through making the arch shape.

1 hour ago, septemberWaves said:

These new modules are looking excellent.

Thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how well your Constellation-like parts would work for my Constellation-style challenge. I might download them some time to test them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff Raptor! I really need to finish my constellation stuff. I fear rebuild three might be in order given the new parts we have. Keep up the good work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally got off my lazy rear-end a few weeks ago, hunkered down, and rebuilt my HLV-6 'Warthog' Duna landers from v1.3.1.  As a reminder, the concept these landers, and the EV-4 'Longship', are based on can be viewed HERE.  I think the aspect I am most proud of from this redesign is the fact I was able to narrow down a reliable EDL sequence that can place these landers on a surface target.  The EDL sequence graphics can be viewed in the OP and on the HLV-6 KerbalX pages.  As for the landers themselves, here are the new grapics.

HLV-6A%20Warthog%20Small_zpsha9oozaf.png     HLV-6B%20Warthog%20Small_zpsc3moadtl.png

While I was at it, I revamped and improved the EV-4 'Longship's and the associated component lifters.  I also streamlined the designs and removed some of the module options that I felt were redundant and unnecessary.  Taking a page from some of the design techniques of the new EV-6 kits, I made the Hab+Lab modules larger and more "realistic" in my opinion.  I also re-did the truss systems to have less mass, less parts, and I think they look better.  Of particular note is the SEV 'Mustang', which is the first formal element of a dedicated Gilly mission architecture.  The next element I'm designing will be a dedicated Gilly surface base that will be (hopefully) well optimized for the ultra-low gravity of the moon.

There are notes in the OP and on the respective KerbalX pages for the NTR Type B and the In-Line Tank.  To simplify the number of craft files, the In-Line Tank has two HG-55 comms dishes on it in the VAB, and depending on which configuration of the EV-4 you are constructing, you will want to remove one or the other prior to launch.  Same thing with the NTR Type B.  You can see why in the graphic below.  Technically it also applies to the NTR Type A, but really shouldn't be necessary if you are building true to the established Block configurations.

EV-4%20Longship%20Small_zpsdhdhz1on.png

EDIT: I almost forgot, at the recommendation of @Jester Darrak, I reorganized and updated the thread OP somewhat.  Hopefully it's a little more logical and concise now.  I also moved the "Latest updates and future plans" section to the second post of the thread.

Edited by Raptor9
repaired image url, because photobucket is stupid sometimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giggidy!

The new OP is now much shorter and easier to understand. The Longship now really looks like the Constellation ships. But how much DeltaV losses do you get for wrapping the drop tanks in fairings?

Feature, hidden in plain sight: Use the Saddle and NTR as cargo transfer vehicle for Base Modules.

Awesome!

Btw: what about swapping the NTR with the NITE, does that work?

Edited by Jester Darrak
Because reasons

Share this post


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

snip

That looks really great man! Really nice work, I especially like the MEV variants. Your landers have an almost identical Ibeam frame to my ones (unreleased rebuilds) I prefer my EDL routine though. :cool:

Share this post


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

But how much DeltaV losses do you get for wrapping the drop tanks in fairings?

Hardly any.  The additional weight of the fairings is offset by reducing the mass of the 'Saddle' truss itself.  All those I-beams on the older trusses added a lot of mass.  All in all, the changes in delta-V to the assembled Block 1 and 2 are minimal.  In fact, even the Block 1 (with an EV-2C mounted on the front) was able to launch from low Kerbin orbit to either a 65km Duna orbit or 25km Gilly orbit, and still have more than enough delta-V to return to low Kerbin orbit for reuse if desired.  Some numbers:

EV-4 v1.5 to v1.6 comparisons
Block 1: 1.3 ton increase, 14 part decrease
Block 2: 0.9 ton increase, 13 part decrease
Block 3: 4.3 ton decrease*, 6 part decrease

*I should note that the reason the Block 3 configuration's mass is so much less, despite the 'Star' Truss and it's drop tanks being heavier than their previous versions, is the fact that the Block 3 is using a smaller 'In-Line' tank, which does have a noticeable impact on it's total delta-V.  However, during testing to and from Dres, this didn't have a mission impact on the Block 3's ability to return to low Kerbin orbit (120km, just barely).  However, due to the wide variances in Dres's orbit the delta-V requirements for each transfer may vary, so it's probably safer to launch and return to Munar orbit between Dres missions.  But the Dres test was just to see how far I could push the Block 3.  In practice, I would prefer to use an EV-6 Windjammer to go to Dres, and retain the EV-4 Block 3 for more aggressive transfer trajectories between Kerbin and Duna (or Eve) with reduced travel times; which was the original design goal of the later configurations of the real-life NTR-STS anyway.

9 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Feature, hidden in plain sight: Use the Saddle and NTR as cargo transfer vehicle for Base Modules.

Btw: what about swapping the NTR with the NITE, does that work?

Absolutely, these modules are extremely versatile.  Here's an example similar to the one a few pages back:

EV-4%20Modifications_zps4sbaiwuj.png

The 'Star' Truss drop tanks themselves have small docking ports on the tips to allow EMU's grab on and attach them to a station and serve as propellant storage, or you can change out one of the end ports for a medium-sized version and put a single short drop tank in a reused 'Saddle' truss.  The Hab+Lab retains it's ability to dock an EV-2C in place of the docking/service module, and landers that are 2.5m in total diameter or smaller can also dock in the truss sections.  Since the drop tanks or the In-Line tank have oxidizer storage in them (just emptied), they can easily be converted into service as LFO tanks, which fits nicely with any sort of LFO conversion to the EV-4's.  Any of the 'Titan'-series upper stages, especially the NITE, could be put into service as the propulsion module of an EV-4.  The bottom example could be put into service as a research/fuel depot station supporting Ike landing missions.  All it takes is some imagination and planning. :)

7 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

That looks really great man! Really nice work, I especially like the MEV variants.

Thanks @Majorjim!.  I was glad I could improve these since these were the first craft I ever published on KerbalX several years ago.  The "original" craft files of this thread as they were.

Edited by Raptor9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two craft updated today, along with one brand new one.  I updated the SEP-AC (Asteroid Capture) to be a subassembly, re-designated the SM-PB (Power Bus) to SEP-PB, and added the SEP-PT (Payload Transport) subassembly to the collection.  The SEP-PT was originally going to be my SEP-AC Mk2, but decided to make it a general purpose transport instead.  It would be too easy to swap out the docking port with a Klaw if a player wanted to change it's mission however.

The SEP-PT can be used to ferry a bunch of payloads around the Kerbin SOI if a player doesn't want to set up ISRU on the Mun or Minmus, but it does come at a high launch cost due to the ion engines and xenon propellant.  It can also be used like the SEP-PB as a space station utilities module, with the added benefit of having an RCS system for R&D maneuvers.  The SEP-PT will also take an important role in my expansion of the Eve/Gilly mission architecture.  It can also be used around Duna, but is limited to ~50% throttle due to solar energy drop-off.  But with 4x ion engines, it has more TWR flexibility compared to the others.

SEP%20Subassemblies%20Small_zpsyfuir5oe.png

Each of these subassemblies comes with a pre-mounted payload adapter for easier integration into whatever lifter you want to use.  This is part of the strategy that depending on where you want to use these, you may need to use smaller or larger rockets.  So I decided to make these as subassemblies and just toss them on whatever rocket you want to use.  I know they come with plenty of delta-V being ion-powered craft, but there may be circumstances where you can't or don't want to use those engines until you get to where you're going; whether that be the Mun or another planet.

Edited by Raptor9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: In what situation would you put up a component by itself instead of joining it with a Launcher?

Share this post


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

So, the SM-PB got nothing changed but the name?

There were some minor positional tweaks to some of the parts, but nothing to write about.  And it received a dedicated payload adapter. :)

4 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Can the SEP-AC use the Ion Thrusters with the EV-2C docked?

Not sure.  The SEP-AC redirects the asteroid to a location where the crew can rendezvous, dock, collect samples, and then depart.  So I never intended for the ion engines to function while the crew vehicle was docked.

3 hours ago, Jestersage said:

Question: In what situation would you put up a component by itself instead of joining it with a Launcher?

In this case, it's the same scenario as the Station Modules.  Without knowing where the modules are going, or how the player wants to get them there (or how many/which ones in single launch), the required or appropriate launch vehicle could be widely different.  It's more about flexibility and player choice.
___________________________________

EDIT: Also, I forgot to mention that I updated the EV-5 component lifters as well, similarly to the EV-4 modules.  The EV-4's and EV-5's now share a common naming convention across their component designations to be in line with the EV-3.  The new EV-5 Hab+Lab is derived from the new EV-4 Hab+Lab, since they were both supposed to be inflatable habitats in their real-life concepts.

These adjustments to my catalog and graphics are intended to make the designs and graphics production more streamlined and efficient.

Edited by Raptor9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor9, I'm a big fan of your craft. I now use them almost exclusively for my missions. I see that you (obviously) use these in your career saves as well, so my question is not about the crafts themselves, but your saves. What's a day in the life of the Kerbal Space Program on your save like? For example, what is your mission schedule like usually? Do you think you'll ever publish another thread that focuses on your missions in these saves, something along the lines of what Brotoro did for his Long-term Laythe adventures?

By the way, I noticed something while perusing through your catalog. I'm sure this was a oversight while editing the catalog among the plethora of images and items in the catalog, but the graphics for the SR-21A and B are identical.

Share this post


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

What's a day in the life of the Kerbal Space Program on your save like? For example, what is your mission schedule like usually?

When I'm playing my career, I try not to get bogged down on one mission set for too long.  For example, if my largest mission going on is an expedition to Duna, or sending a probe to a new destination, I never timewarp from Kerbin departure to destination arrival.  After I get the probe or interplanetary ship on it's way out of the Kerbin SOI, I immediately plan the next maneuver (usually a mid-course correction or plane-change burn).  As soon as I have that plotted, I'll check the maneuver's ETA to see how much "free time" I have to accomplish other tasks.  The "free time" usually goes something like this:

- check contract listings in Mission Control
- transmit all research lab accumulated science to "empty their reservoirs" of science points
- make a couple of resupply runs from ISRU sites to orbiting propellant depots
- do some crew rotations to the various stations/surface bases around the Kerbin SOI to get lower-tier kerbalnauts the required XP so they are as experienced as they can be prior to being assigned an interplanetary expedition (I have my own kerbalnaut career pipelines I send pilots, engineers, and scientists through)
- and by this time I'm looking to chill, so I'll pour a cup of coffee or an adult beverage; and either go for an aerial survey contract around Kerbin, take a rover for a drive near a surface outpost to close out a local research contract; or monitor a satellite's KerbNet around a planetary body for a while and scan for anomalies or future landing sites for research/ISRU potential.

This way I avoid the repetitiveness of one type of mission profile.  Especially when I'm trying to keep orbital propellant depots topped off; instead of emptying them completely and doing resupply run after resupply run to the ISRU rigs, I just do a couple now and then between other missions to gradually build them back up to capacity.

Other missions will be undertaken in parallel.  So by the time I'm doing crewed missions to the Duna surface or starting to construct a base, I'm already preparing for the next planetary SOI like Eve or Dres by sending pre-positioned assets.  Communications links, initial science and survey probes, setting up ISRU infrastructure if necessary, and then start scanning for possible landing sites for future expedition crews.

3 hours ago, AppleDavidJeans said:

Do you think you'll ever publish another thread that focuses on your missions in these saves

I don't see myself doing that any time soon.  Namely because I don't have the time.  What "gaming" time I do have I would rather be playing my KSP career save, designing new stuff, or playing whatever other games I have as well.

3 hours ago, AppleDavidJeans said:

the graphics for the SR-21A and B are identical.

Corrected. Thanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly how I scheduled my current career game. Sending a excrements-load of stuff to Duna ahead of kerbed missions and then doing contracts and checking in between because I ran out of bucks and science.

Then sending a excrements-load to Eve, meanwhile doing contracts and science, constructing a Mun Base, a Windjammer and sucking Minmus empty of its science.

I only time-warp the complete trip when I'm working in Kerbin SOI. And Minmus trips got me overshoot Duna and Eve encounters/maneuver nodes several times. ^^

Share this post


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

How did you fly your SVR-20 (STS shuttle clone)?

With a keyboard and mouse. Is that what you're asking?

Share this post


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

Who else is worried that the revamp of the RCS parts will make @Raptor9 hang himself because he has to redo every craft of his hangar except the planes?

As long as the geometry doesn’t change he should be ok. Having said that rebuilds are one of reasons I stopped playing. I’ve never played a game that so flagrantly broke content like KSP.. 

Share this post


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

Who else is worried that the revamp of the RCS parts will make @Raptor9 hang himself because he has to redo every craft of his hangar except the planes?

Nah, it will be fine.  Even if I had to replace them all, it wouldn't be hard.  Tedious sure, but replacing small items like that (or antennas or lights for example) are easy.  Replacing large core spacecraft parts like the Mk1-2 to Mk1-3 pod or all the new fuel tanks in 1.4 were a different story.  Those required complete craft rebuilds.

I'm fairly confident the new RV-105 will be a drop-in replacement like the FL-A10 or Small Nose Cone was.  The Vernor, we'll see.

Edited by Raptor9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor, I do not know how you plan to do this, but in my case, I will find out the RCS (and other 1.7) names and do a direct name replacement (text editing), and see how it perform.

Edited by Jestersage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jestersage said:

Raptor, I do not know how you plan to do this, but in my case, I will find out the RCS (and other 1.7) names and do a direct name replacement (text editing), and see how it perform.

I'll probably just do it the old-fashioned way because I try to avoid getting into the game files.  But that's just me; let me know if it works out for you if you end up doing that. :)
_________________________________

I updated the majority of my SM-series station modules today, and added several brand new ones.  The total collection of all these revisions has brought 'Pioneer Station' (my ISS-analogue) down under 460 parts, not including any crew vehicles docked.  I'm fairly pleased I was able to push that number further away from the 500 threshold.  I also improved the look of the truss segments, modified some naming conventions for uniformity, and split the former SM-S into two modules.

The older SM-S was analogous to the Japanese Kibo module, with a large un-pressurized experiment rack on the outside of the module.  Originally holding a compliment of experiments that included the SC-9001 materials bay, I separated the materials bay and added an additional docking port on the lab itself so it resembled the Kibo External Logistics Module.  As a result, the SM-S itself was re-designated SM-PL(ER) [Processing Lab-External Rack] and the materials bay module was designated SM-S [SC-9001].  I also added an external "camera" over the experiment rack so kerbalnauts can remotely monitor the experiments.

The SM-LITE docking adapter was reduced down to reflect the recent changes of the LITE stages, and an additional logistics module was added, which can be seen on the new 'Gateway Station' graphic.  The most distinctive of the new modules are the SM-H2 and SM-H3, which are pictured below.  The SM-H3 (the top modules), was derived from the new EV-4 and EV-5 Hab+Lab modules, but inspired by the real-life inflatable habitats by Bigelow Aerospace.  They contain a rudimentary probe core for stabilization, as well as RCS thrusters for attitude control and autonomous docking during station assembly.  They also include their own utility functions such as short-range communications, solar power generation, and thermal control.

SM-H2%20amp%20H3%20Preview_zpsn3mkwl9k.p

The SM-H2 (the bottom module) was inspired by the Lockheed Martin "Exoliner" concept.  That concept featured two separate modules, the spacecraft bus being the "Jupiter", however for the purposes of this module it is a single spacecraft.  In essence, it's a habitation module paired to a full utilities module that provides robust power and communications, along with attitude control, propulsion, and additional docking ports.  It's really an entire "space station" rolled up into a small, austere platform.

Piggy-backing on this module will be an analogue to the "Jupiter" concept, which will be designed to service satellites and probes for reuse/life extension.  It's not practical or economical to move an entire LITE or NITE to a satellite that has run out of fuel.  That's a lot of excess mass and delta-V to ship a small amount of propellant.  This new service vehicle will be similar to the utility section of the SM-H2, and be much more efficient in refueling those satellites that need to be moved in their orbits.  Planning for such a future capability is why I put small docking clamps on the majority of my interplanetary probes and satellites.

I haven't forgotten about the Soviet/Russian station modules, I just haven't finished them and I didn't want to hold on to the rest of the modules until they were.  I'll probably finish those new base modules and rovers first though.

Edited by Raptor9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

I'll probably just do it the old-fashioned way because I try to avoid getting into the game files.  But that's just me; let me know if it works out for you if you end up doing that:)
_________________________________

It's actually how I did it for most of my files since 1.4, when they start revamping.

First, using the release note, I jot down which part exist. Then I find out the old files name through KSP wiki.

Then, per new release, I create a craft containing the new parts as noted in the release note, so I can find out the new name. Except 1.4, Most files are "<oldFilename>.v2_"; some are just drop in replacement regardless. Then I look through to see, if I straightly replace, will it overwrite parts that should be be written, and add -decoverted "parts"

I then use notepad++, then one at a time, using the "Find in files", point it to my craft archive-use folders, set filter to "*.craft", then do replace.

Then readjust in KSP.

The only problem is some craft does not play nicely. For example, Poodle just does not convert fine. However, the decouplers does.

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.