Raptor9

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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

Ok, I'll remove the mod folders, re-download fresh copies, and re-install just to be sure. Thanks.

@Snark, very intriguing re-arrangement indeed. Please forgive my ignorance, but could you tell me what configs you used with SVE and Scatterer to get the screenshots in the OP? I have my Kerbin looking like yours with the clouds, but your Duna atmospherics look gorgeous and I can't seem to replicate.

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. 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.

The main reason I don't like playing multiplayer games, and wouldn't play KSP multiplayer even if I could. When I actually have time to play KSP, the last thing I want is a bunch of trolls and immature adolescents trying to destroy everyone else's fun for the sake of their own.

I would have loved to use the Cubs (I could have made the gimbaling work out). Not only would they have been a higher TWR, but they are even sized correctly and look like the engines in the Boeing infographs showing their Mars lander. But the huge housings they come in is what nixed it. I really wish we could get more engines in "bare" variants, such as the Mk-55 Thud. The Thud engine is pretty flexible in it's use, but it's just so big with that darned housing. To clarify, I'm not going out of my way to add DLC parts to existing craft, but if it makes the craft function better or reduce part count significantly, then sure. The best example of this is the Station module subassemblies. The majority of them are still non-DLC, but a small handful went to DLC because of the part count reductions, such as the node modules using the DLC structural tubes instead of a bunch of radiator panels. Thankfully most of the 'Titan' rocket line-up remained non-DLC, save the 'Titan 3P' (and 'Titan 4N' when I finish testing). The 'Titan 3' and 'Titan 3P' are almost exactly the same in both cost and delta-V/lifting capability. The only difference is the upper stage engine selection of DLC vs non-DLC.

Not quite. First off, if you download the 1.4.3 EV-5, it won't even load in 1.3.1 unless you manually edit the craft file version in Notepad or something. Second, if you do this, the 1.4.3 tank volumes will most likely carry over into 1.3.1, since those are saved in the craft file itself. However, I don't know if the lower tank dry masses will carry over, so you may handicap yourself with the higher masses, and lower tank capacities. Bottom line, I don't recommend trying to import any of my 1.4.3 craft files into pre-1.4 game versions. I take no responsibility for craft behavior or performance outside of the intended KSP version, nor will I troubleshoot any issues.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. If you're asking if previous versions of craft will have their mono & xenon masses/volumes/capacities updated, then no. It's like the depreciated parts. Unless you physically remove the older, depreciated mono/xenon tanks from an imported craft file, and grab fresh ones from the part list, the volumes (and dry masses) will remain the same. It's like taking the old Mk1-2 capsule off your craft, and putting on the new Mk1-3. The difference being the mono/xenon tanks have no visual differences between the old and the new.

My Duna 3.0 mission architecture is complete and updated on KerbalX. First off, to reiterate a couple of key notes I previously mentioned: the previously-designated LV-3D/LV-3E 'Bullfrog' landers are now designated LV-2D 'Cricket' and LV-2E 'Heavy Cricket' respectively. The former LV-2E in 1.3.1, which was an Ike/Dres-optimized lander, has been removed from the forum catalog and KerbalX to avoid confusion with the new LV-2E (not to mention it was nerfed just as bad as the 1.3.1 LV-2D). I'll address this in more detail at the end of the post. To round all the updates up in one line: the EV-5 'Drifter' Block 1, the three component lifters associated with it, and the LV-2D and LV-2E landers are now live. The EV-5 'Drifter' really didn't change in appearance or part layout per se. But the monopropellant and xenon tanks were all switched out for the volume re-balance. So you will have to be a little more patient and deliberate with the monopropellant reserves, but the overall delta-V has improved. Due to the slight increase in delta-V, and the revision of the LV-2D/E landers, the mission architecture has changed as well. Instead of a three-kerbalnaut crew going to the Duna surface, the Duna DRA 3.0 mission is now capable of a four-kerbalnaut, split-destination mission between Duna and Ike. With the LV-2D/E landers only capable of two crewmembers, the remaining two kerbalnauts reposition the EV-5 to Ike orbit after dropping off the LV-2D in low Duna orbit. Mounted to the front of the Hab/Lab Mk1 module can be an LV-2C 'Grasshopper' reusable Mun lander, easily capable of a surface expedition to Ike. The remaining two kerbalnauts would take the LV-2C to the Ike surface, take some measurements, a surface sample, and an EVA report, and then return to the EV-5 to conduct research in Ike orbit while the Duna crew does the same in the LV-2E on the Duna surface. This has some inherent advantages to it, assisted by the LV-2D revision. When the return transfer window to Kerbin approaches, the Duna surface crew climbs into the LV-2D ascent vehicle, and launches to orbit. The new ascent vehicle is so much more capable that it can travel to low Ike orbit and rendezvous with the EV-5 there. After which, the EV-5 takes advantage of the delta-V savings of an Ike departure to Kerbin, much like it did departing Munar orbit to Duna. All in all, a significant science return from a single mission, which helps offset the cost of the Dawn/xenon-powered EV-5 ship. Now for the graphics... Another strategy change I wanted to explain. I more or less swapped the equipment loadouts between the crew lander and the habitation/research lander, whereas the rovers are now loaded into the research lander, and the bulk of the science experiments are in the crew lander. The reasoning behind this is mainly contingency brainstorming. With the rovers loaded on the LV-2E (which is meant to be pre-staged during a previous transfer window), you can confirm the safe touchdown of the habitat and surface transportation on Duna before the crewed ship even departs Kerbin. That way, even if the LV-2D crashes a good distance away from the LV-2E, the rovers will still be safe and capable of transporting the survivors to the LV-2E until a rescue mission can be assembled. On the flip side, if the crew needs to leave the surface in a hurry before they are able to re-locate to the LV-2E hab, a good deal of science can still be performed at the LV-2D landing site before departing back to orbit. Additionally, if a player doesn't want to even use a separate LV-2E, and just do a flags and footprints landing on Duna, all science experiments that can be accomplished, can be from a standalone LV-2D (minus the materials bay). TL;DR - lots of info and updates, reference the bolded sentences for the highlights. _______________________________ Regarding the previous LV-2E in KSP 1.3.1; will the former lander return in some form? I don't know. The focus of the LV-3 landers has always been 3-kerbalnaut crews, and I intend to keep it that way. But with the monopropellant revisions, any new iteration of a dedicated 3-kerbal Ike/Dres lander will most likely be LF+O powered. _______________________________ @SiriusRocketry, answering this question is somewhat redundant given the novel I just wrote. However, as stated two posts above yours, the best place to see if anything is updated is in the "Most Recent Updates" section of the OP.

@Fyrem so far, the craft/subassemblies that have been removed are below: - SVR-23A/B 'Raven' spaceplanes; because I hated them and I think I can do better down the road when my spaceplane skills improve. - LV-2D 'Cricket' (the 1.3.1 version, there will be a Duna lander taking the designation/name); monopropellant tank re-balancing nerfed this craft, but the new LV-2C pretty much does the same thing, but better. - All of the Utility Rovers (MPC, MPC-L, MCR, and SRTG) as separate subassembly downloads. The MPC and SRTG will remain on the HLV-6A, I just didn't want to maintain separate downloads and graphics for the subassemblies. The MCR and MPC-L just didn't make sense from a cost/benefit standpoint. To clarify, I'm considering doing the same thing with the ER-series rovers as well after I finish updating them, but we'll see how it goes. It's just more work to maintain the additional file downloads and associated graphics. The MIR rovers will remain as separate subassembly downloads, since those are placed on the HLV-5C cargo racks by cherry-picking them from the subassembly list in the VAB. On the topic of those, the MIR rovers are planned to be merged into an entirely new LR (Logistics Rovers) series to run parallel to the ER line. The most complete list is at the bottom of the OP. At the top of the OP, right below the main logo, is a time and date of the last KerbalX update. If it's a later time/date than the last time you checked, scroll to the bottom of the OP and there will be a list of all the new or updated craft files within the last 7 days. _______________________________ Speaking of updates, I'm almost done with my Duna DRA 3.0 updates. The EV-5 'Drifter' Block 1 is finished, I just need to put the final touches on the LV-2D 'Cricket' and LV-2E 'Heavy Cricket' tomorrow.

Mainly what fits the layout or aesthetics of the lander. I never get hung up on the impact tolerance differences since the LT-05 strut is 10 m/s, and the other two are 12 m/s. I never touch down anywhere close to those speeds. Since I usually design my landers to have very little ground clearance between the engine bell or the bottom fuselage, landing at higher speeds would probably bottom out the suspension travel, damaging the lander anyway. I've never really had that issue. If the gravity is really low, like Minmus or Gilly, I'll make the suspension really stiff or just use some kind of solid structural piece as a landing leg. I did have a bit of an issue when making the IV-2A 'Badger' ISRU rig for Gilly. Even at maximum stiffness, the landing legs still had a slow bounce, so the upcoming revision ditches them entirely and uses rigid structural pieces.

I'm already cutting out some existing craft that are not worth keeping, either due to redundancy or being replaced altogether. The reason for this is I'm trying to reduce the amount of time and effort it takes to keep the catalog maintained and up to date. Granted, the 1.4 update was a big one, and most KSP updates don't have this much of an impact, but the last thing I want to do is double the catalog size. Not to mention that goes down the slippery slope of people demanding I post craft files tailored to whatever version of KSP they're running, and I'm not touching that practice with a ten-foot pole. I would still like to have some KSP time to actually play the game. _______________________________ The EV-3 'Clipper', LV-4A 'Armadillo', and associated component lifters are also updated at this time. EDIT: The EV-4 'Longship' block variants and all associated component lifters are updated as well.

Due to the way the comms ranges are calculated between antennas in KSP, you need a really strong antenna to talk to the internal 5K probe/pod antennas from even a relatively short range. From trying to improve my satellites and probes, I discovered that trying to combine a pair of like antennas isn't nearly as effective as replacing them with a single, better one. Plus direct antennas can only combine with other direct antennas, and relay antennas can only combine with other relay antennas. But again, you really get into the law of diminishing returns trying to combine a bunch of smaller antennas instead of just getting a single, stronger one. I built a low-orbiting comms network around Kerbin, with each satellite having a single HG-5 relay antenna. This way I didn't need to put antennas on every UAV or autonomous rover flying or driving around on Kerbin. But due to the above range calculation, the satellites had to be less than 300km orbit IIRC just to reach the internal probe core antennas, even though the HG-5 can talk to the DSN from well beyond the Mun.

Yes. The plan is at the moment that the Wolfhounds will be the engine selection for all LITE and NITE stages, as well as any craft derived from them. This includes the PD-32, PD-64, the upcoming PD-1080, as well as the EV-2L and HLV-5's. So far, I'm fairly confident I have the HLV-5A, B, and D models at a point I'm satisfied with, but some more testing is still required under various conditions before I publish the revisions. I'll have to get back on that after I do some performance comparisons. Definitely worth looking into. _______________________________ My focus today was more HLV-5 testing and generating graphics for the EV-3, LV-4A, and associated component lifters. The EV-3 and LV-4A really didn't change too much. The LV-4A does look better though.

Actually, all three node modules have 6; the four around the sides and the two on the end caps. Well, I like the Wolfhound on both because of the better TWR (and the better Isp, but mainly the TWR). Since the 'Lightning' is intended to be analogous to ULA's Vulcan rocket, which is supposed to be more competitive in the heavy-lift market and more powerful than even their Delta IV Heavy, the better TWR of the Wolfhound compared to the Poodle makes it more attractive on the "surface-to-orbit launch" side of the house. The 'Lightning' is still slightly less powerful compared to my 'Thunder 4 Heavy', but not by much. With the NITE, being heavier and intended to push larger payloads on interplanetary trade routes, having the Wolfhound's better TWR also means shorter burns. With the HLV-5 'Porpoise' landers however, the additional 1.33 tons on the backside of a Wolfhound-equipped stage versus a Poodle is making the CoT vs CoM balancing a little more challenging, but I'm trying to work with it. I haven't ruled out that the HLV-5's may end up utilizing "down-rated" LITE stages equipped with Poodles, but I haven't made that decision just yet, I'm still experimenting. I used three Cubic Octagonal Struts as embedded mounts, since they can be surface-attached.

All of my Station Module (SM-series) subassemblies are updated. Most just needed some monopropellant tanks switched out to stay consistent with the 1.4 volume re-balance, but a handful received some decent makeovers. The SM-U1 and the SM-PB look and function much better IMO, and the SM-N1, N2, and N3 node modules had a drastic cut in part count thanks to the new structural tubes. ________________________________ In other news, a major design overhaul I've been occasionally mentioning has taken it's final shape, and I'm extremely pleased with the results; both in visual appeal as well as functionality. I want to say thank you again to @RoverDude for those shiny new gold-wrapped LFO tanks. They definitely add that nice touch of authenticity, as do the new structural panels. The new LV-2D and LV-2E Duna landers are re-designated from the previous LV-3D's and LV-3E's respectively. They've been completely rebuilt from scratch. The new LV-2D 'Cricket' follows the Boeing concept of using a small reusable lunar lander as a technology-proving demonstrator, and then adapting it to be the Mars ascent vehicle of a two-stage lander. The LV-2D's ascent vehicle is essentially an LV-2C, with a fully-enclosed frame, landing legs removed, and a single upper stage engine. The more significant change is that the new LV-2D can only carry two Kerbals, whereas the v.1.3.1 LV-3D could carry three. However, the justification for this change will become a little more apparent when the rest of the updated mission architecture strategy is finished. I'm finishing the updated EV-5 'Drifter' Block 1, and testing the new LV-2E Duna habitat lander. My pace is just intermittent due to work in real-life.

The tank volumes and dry masses were adjusted to be consistent with the rest of the fuel tanks; same thing happened to the xenon tanks, except it buffed the xenon tanks but nerfed the monoprop. The Roundified radial tanks had 60 units of monoprop, but now are 20, the Cylindrified radial tanks had 150, but now have 50. I think the stack RCS tanks were adjusted too, with the exception of the large 2.5m tank, which still has 750 units.

Unfortunately, the monoprop nerfing would have rendered it obsolete anyway. But the new LV-2C is very similar to the old 'Cricket', since it's a single-stage reusable lander with a surface refueling port and a 2-Kerbal crew capacity; nonetheless, a quick rundown of the differences below. Craft Version v1.3.1 LV-2D 'Cricket' v1.4.3 LV-2C 'Grasshopper' Part Count 66 47 Mass 14,060 tons* 5.883 tons delta-V 1,968 m/s* 2,028 m/s Cost 21,574 12,043 Fuel Required Monoprop LFO & Monoprop Control Optionally-crewed Pilot required *With the monoprop adjustments in KSP v1.4, the old LV-2D's mass would have dropped to 8.380 tons and the dV to 1,276 m/s. That would still have been enough for Minmus landings and a little hovering around, but not much; and it would have eliminated it's viability for the Mun, and possibly even Ike and Dres. Additional LV-2C improvements over 1.3.1 LV-2D: - secondary power generation from fuel cell for operations in darkness/shadow - easier propellant refueling

Latest updates; the LV-2A and LV-2C. Important to note that the LV-2C was previously designated the LV-2B. I decided to swap the designations between the LV-2B and C for a specific reason that I detailed below the images. As a review, these landers, specifically the Mun version, are inspired by this concept by Boeing, minus the rover of course. Additionally, these mission setups can be used singularly, or operate in conjunction with an orbiting research/logistics station, it's up to you. If you leave the landers in orbit or docked at a station, for follow-on missions just remove the lander and it's mount from the rocket's payload fairing, and include a logistics module with enough propellant to refuel it. How much is up to you; enough fuel for another landing, or two, or three, etc. To explain the mash-up of naming conventions...up to this point, I always associated the LV-2 landers as all monopropellant powered. However, with the recent changes to monoprop tank volumes and such, they've been nerfed somewhat, and really limited to smaller moons like Minmus. Plus the very small size of the MEM pod makes it ideal for these small landers. Therefore, the delineating factor between the various lander series will be the main crew pods. The LV-2's will be based around the MEM. The currently revised line-up of LV-2 lander family: LV-2A: monoprop Minmus crew lander (Released) LV-2B: monoprop Minmus hab lander (Being rebuilt) LV-2C: LFO Mun crew lander (Released) LV-2D: LFO Duna crew lander; with the ascent stage essentially being a modified LV-2C (Testing) LV-2E: LFO Duna hab/lab lander (Testing) When I have all the LV-2 series completed, the progression from one variant to the next will be more visible and make more sense. But there will be some cross-pollination between the LV-2 and LV-3 families due to revisions in design approaches.

@Jester Darrak Craft Version v1.3.1 EV-2C v1.4.3 EV-2C Part Count 110 49 Mass 15.577 tons 9.779 tons delta-V 1,098m/s to 995 m/s* ~1,282 m/s** Cost 28,098 19,400 *v1.3.1 EV-2C's dV was dependent on what engine set you were using (the single LV-T45 or the 8x LV-1R's), but the maximum you could get was from the LV-T45. **v1.4.3 EV-2C's dV for the LV-909 is 862 m/s, however the large monopropellant supply can be used for secondary propulsion, with an approximate dV of 420 m/s. Combined, this gives 1,282 m/s. However, the calculation for this is not as precise, and doesn't take into account monopropellant expended for attitude control or R&D maneuvers. The main advantages of the new EV-2C are that it is 5.8 tons lighter and less than half (45%) the part count! This is important as it's meant to operate in conjunction with large interplanetary vessels, like in the case of the EV-4's, but mainly carried along as dead weight for the majority of the trip. The reduction in mass means less dV penalties for the larger vessel, and the part count reduction is self-explanatory. The new EV-2C has actually made my EV-2B irrelevant; my current EV-2B in KSP 1.4.3 has 30 more parts, is heavier, costs more, and has less delta-V. So I need to really buckle down and engineer the heck out of that for efficiency and cost effectiveness in the LKO service mission set. ________________________________ I take most of my ideas from real world spacecraft, proposals, or even engineering papers. However, another good source of ideas (to include some awesome images) are on "Eyes Turned Skyward" alternate history. It's where I got the idea for my EV-2A 'Runabout'-Olympus 2 launch configuration, which was based on the Saturn 1C from that website. The main difference is mine needed 2x KE-1 engines for sufficient thrust-to-weight ratio, instead of the single F-1 on the Saturn 1C.