Raptor9

KerbalX does notify which craft have been updated since the last time you've logged in, provided you follow a user or a hanger on the site. Having said that, if you go to my craft file list on KerbalX and use the 1.3.0 version filter, that pretty much narrows it down.

Thanks @DaMichel.

@Nertea, you're a monster of modders. Regarding your PTD-8R 'Pier' Station core, out of curiosity will it be a single-hop control point like the stock RC-001S probe core or multi-hop like the stock RC-L01? Can't wait to see that cargo bay, and the inflatables...aw heck, I can't wait to see them all! Lol! I'm sorry to laugh, cuz I know how much you hate IVA's, but your comments get more and more entertaining every time somebody asks.

A few more craft files updated to 1.3.0 on KerbalX. Mostly subassemblies in the form of the ER-1, -2, and -3 rovers, the MIR rover family, and the utilty rovers. The main thing being lower part count in the range of 2 to 4 parts less on each of these. Additionally, the 'Thunder' rocket family, as previewed in this post, has also been updated. The new 'Thunder 3' variants have replaced the 'Thunder 4' and 'Thunder 4 Heavy' download slots on KerbalX, unfortunately. The 'Thunder 4' sub-family will be returning after the strut bug fix of 1.3.1 hopefully stops them from exploding on the launch pad. ______________________________ The following is mainly just talking about my thoughts this past weekend during a marathon design and testing period. I'm happy to announce that a project I first mentioned on February 28th is finally gaining some practical application. This project has languished in perpetual development since then because 1) I set some pretty high performance objectives, and 2) I was stuck in a bit of an archaic design methodology. The original goal was to design a new interplanetary "EV-X" ship to go to (at a minimum) the Joolian SOI and return without refueling. There were a lot of other requirements I mandated for myself as well, including but not limited to robust and redundant systems, while still maintaining modularity like my EV-4 'Longship' variants. The problem was it was going to be so logistically cumbersome (and costly in a career save) to launch and assemble given all the components, that I found myself resorting to figuring out ways to adapt the EV-4 system for Jool instead. While the EV-4 'Longship' Modular Exploration Vehicle or MEV system is nice for going to and from places...that's really all it was designed to do. Load a bunch of fuel tanks with a handful LV-N engines, put some cargo or a crew section on the front, and send it on it's merry way. That's when I realized that "modular" didn't necessarily mean "multipurpose" within my current building style. The EV-4's could be reconfigured based on their destination, making them "multi-mission" and reusable to transport crews/cargo to/from Duna, or Eve, or anywhere else provided you had enough delta-V strapped on. So, I scrapped my "EV-X" project and instead drew up a new project called M3V, or Modular, Multimission, Multipurpose Vehicle system. It's not so much a singular exploration vehicle like the previous EV craft I've built, it really is a "system" of multiple craft. Whether or not it's successful for a Joolian level expedition, I have no idea at the moment. How many different craft or subassemblies will end up being part of the project, I have no idea either. But bottom line, it's gaining maturity, I've got some craft already being tested; now I just have to make sure I can squeeze out as much potential as I can. I'm excited to see where I can take "M3V".

Each time you do, place a Kerbnet waypoint at your deorbit burn point. If it doesn't work out just right, try again and whichever one is closer, delete the other waypoint. Keep refining the location until you have the waypoint exactly where you need it. Keep in mind there may be some variance depending on which orbital altitude you're deorbiting from.

Just saw this on KerbalX, awesome graphics.

@Cynor, welcome back to KSP. For an optimum entry trajectory, using Trajectories mod, I recommend deorbiting in a manner so that the atmospheric entry phase (red portion of the Trajectories display) begins over the desert region west of the KSC, about 60 degrees around the planetary sphere prior, and the trajectory impact being vicinity of the KSC. At atmo entry (70km), place the nose at 15-20 deg above the horizon, set the SAS to hold it there with RCS and control surfaces on. As the SR-21A descends, the nose will track up on the flight ball as you continue around Kerbin in the upper atmosphere, which is fine. This is essentially using the entire underside of the SR-21 as an airbrake. When your speed drops below 1300-1400 m/s, you can let the nose come down and start working through powered atmospheric flight back to the KSC. Additionally, you can add a little more braking power with the vertical airbrakes (the rudders will deploy out) if need be. The same type of entry works with the SR-21B as well, but it does have a slightly different forward airfoil layout and isn't as nose heavy, so be careful. Keep practicing the trajectory angles and entry points until you find a repeatable procedure that gets you close enough to the KSC (without burning up obviously) so you have enough fuel to return to the runway. I would still recommend testing it out in a vanilla KSP if you keep experiencing trouble. This has been a repetitive comment on KerbalX when users have issues, which is why I've placed it in the FAQ section of the OP.

What's up there, neighbor? Welcome to the cul-de-sac.

You, sir, pretty much summed up my pre-pubescent period of my youth. (All the Calvin and Hobbes books are literally sitting on my bookshelf three feet away as I type this)

I do add a little bit of what I call "Kerbalverse" background to it. I use distinct rocket designs for each of the major rocket component companies, as if they were marketed like real-life competitors. My small-scale 'Javelin' rockets are only made utilizing Jeb's Junkyard parts, my medium-scale 'Thunder' and 'Lightning' rockets are made with Rockomax parts (with a few parts bought from Jeb's Junkyard for upper stages), and my heavy-scale rockets are made with Kerbodyne parts (again, with a few components bought from the previous two companies for specific upper stages). I also have similar manufacturer emphasis on types of station modules or even interplanetary ships. My EV-3 'Clipper' was a so-called "joint collaboration" between Jeb's Junkyard and Rockomax to produce an interplanetary ship without one component from Kerbodyne used in either the ship, nor on any of the rockets used to assemble it in orbit. I also have a specific career pipeline for Pilots, Engineers, and Scientists. For example, after a recruit pilot is hired: 1) Trainee: His/her first mission is being sent on an atmospheric survey mission, followed by an orientation spaceflight on an LKO service mission (usually involves crew swaps to my ISS-style station). 2) Kerbalnaut: He/She now follows one of two paths, rostered for an upcoming science/service mission to either the Mun or Minmus, which usually involves a few months stay at a space station. 3) Advanced Kerbalnaut: After completion of either a Mun or Minmus mission, the pilot is now permanently paired with an Engineer (as a flight crew) and assigned to either the "SpacePlane Division" or "Near-Kerbin Asteroid Operations". The "SpacePlane Division" equates to more flight time and missions, but is limited to atmo/LKO flights around Kerbin. "NKA Ops" usually involves "managing remote operations from mission control" involving asteroid miners and redirect probes, but occasionally gets tagged with a deep-space rendezvous. 4) Deep Space Expedition: Whenever a deep space exploration mission beyond the Kerbin SOI comes up (excluding near-Kerbin asteroids), the flight crew is chosen from the existing pool of Advanced Kerbalnauts, and given an expedition crew with however many Scientists are required for the mission, provided the scientists have also been qualified as Advanced Kerbalnauts and available for rostering. The Engineers and Scientists have similar and parallel career pipelines leading up to Deep Space Expeditions, and most get a chance to go on both a Mun and Minmus mission before going on a deep space mission. This is how I ensured that all my Kerbals received as much experience and leveling up as possible before leaving for other planetary SOI's.

For constructing a Munar colony, unfortunately the only ones I can offer are the BM-series of base modules transported by LV-3C 'Bullfrog' landers. The HLV-5 'Porpoise' family of landers will give you the most utility however since they are designed to be reused/refueled using Mun-refined propellant, and they fulfill personnel, fuel, and cargo needs; and they fit perfectly in my CisMunar Economy. The LV-3A and LV-3B are also useful, but the LV-3A is generally a one sortie lander, and the LV-3B is sort of like a singular research outpost that happens to be capable of landing itself. The LV-2B and LV-2D are also single-stage, reusable Mun landers, but are limited in their usefulness on the Mun Base/Colony scale of operation.

I've expanded the SM-series collection to include a new "interplanetary tier". These modules were borne from the need to establish stations around other planets and moons outside of Kerbin's SOI. As such, the main design techniques I wanted to emphasize was module versatility, resource distribution, and low part count. Modules like the SM-TN and SM-RN can be used as crew passageways, or components of a large truss system, or docking nodes for propellant depots. Reusable stages like the LITE and the NITE are fully supported and intended to be integrated in the use of these modules, as displayed in the one of the latest station example graphics of 'Depot Station'. With the NITE's long range, a deep space station can easily be set up with 2 or 3 'Titan 4N' launches with a few modules on each NITE, not to mention the NITE's could then provide an on-site depot mechanism. The SM-TSR provides a single solution for power generation and thermal management, but still retains the ability to accept SM-MSAT augmentations for those outer planet locales that suffer from significant solar energy drop-off. The SM-PCP not only provides a comms retrans capability, but with it's RC-L01 core, it establishes a local source signal to control uncrewed craft (through multiple hops) without relying on a powerful relay from Kerbin. Then of course the SM-LITE provides a parking spot for up to 4 LITE upper stages or HLV-5 propulsion modules.

@Nertea, showing off again.

That's why I try to standardize each action group. Below are some of the most common conventions, but keep in mind they are not all inclusive. SPH Planes/Spaceplanes [1] Toggles alternate engine functions, like Thrust Reversers, Afterburners, or toggles VTOL engine groups [2] Toggles Flaps and/or VTOL RW, or RAPIER modes [3] Toggles Engines [4] Toggles Cabin Lights/Exterior illumination (leaving landing lights for that actual Light key) [5] Toggles Interior Lighting (like cargo bays) [6] Raises/Lowers Cargo Ramp VAB Ships/Landers/etc [1] Initializes/Toggles power generation equipment like solar panels and fuel cells -or- Toggles Ascent Engine(s) or second axis engine (HLV-5 landers) [2] Toggles RCS Thrusters [3] Toggles Main Propulsion Engines -or- Toggles Descent Engines [4] Toggles Antenna/Comms Dish [5] Jettisons Launch Escape System -or- Opens/Closes Docking Shield [6] Toggles Cargo Bay Doors -or- opens enclosure panel of some sort to include rover ramps [7] Decouples equipment latches inside cargo enclosures, like rovers

@Legedus, welcome to the forums. Glad you're getting uses out of the craft. For the following two paragraphs, reference the graphics at the bottom of the page. First thing to keep in mind is that a lot of my SM-series (Station Module) subassemblies were meant to be assembled by EMU's (EVA Maneuvering Unit). Since there is nothing like a Shuttle RMS system in stock KSP to move modules around, the EMU's are my "simple" method of carrying modules out of a cargo bay to their destination docking port. You'll notice, in the truss pieces for example, each one has a pair of small docking clamps on opposite sides for EMU's to attach to. In the case of the SM-MSAT solar extensions, they have only one set of RCS thrusters on one side. This is because they are attached to the main truss using a single EMU. When the EMU docks to the outside at the top of the "T", the EMU's thrusters become the second set of thrusters to balance out the maneuvering of the SM-MSAT so it can be "flown" into position. The second thing I will point out, is that the solar array arms were designed to be operated as a single, ISS-inspired solar array. Specifically, a SM-TP2, SM-TP3, along with the 4x SM-MSAT's come together to form an ISS-style port solar array truss section. However, since we don't have rotation servos in stock KSP, there is no way to rotate a solar array arm to a different direction. At this point, you can simply undock the SM-TP2 from the SM-TP1 at the 1.25m docking clamp, and rotate the entire port solar array truss to the desired angle, and then re-dock it. To do this, you need a probe core, RCS thrusters, and a monopropellant supply. The probe core is supplied on the SM-TP3, and the RCS/monoprop is supplied by the SM-MSAT's. The last thing I'll say, for everyone's awareness as well, is that the SM-station modules and trusses in particular, are about to be updated to make them lower in part count and more balanced for EMU assembly. Even the EMU's are about to get updated to a revised model. I was going to wait for the 1.3.1 patch to avoid the mass craft file updates again, but with all this station assembly going on, I'll put them out today.

I recommend sending an LV-2D 'Cricket'. It was designed to be a single-stage reusable Mun lander, so it has plenty of power for Minmus; plus it can be controlled autonomously so you can send it down uncrewed to pick up two Kerbals. If you need to pick up more than that, you'll either need to make multiple surface trips or send an HLV-5A 'Porpoise'. The HLV-5A has over twice the seating capacity of an LV-2D, and can also be flown autonomously, but is grossly over-powered for Minmus. Should still be useful though. Like the LV-2D, the HLV-5A is intended for the Mun, so I doubt the pre-loaded launchers they come with will be able to send them all the way there, and still have fuel for a landing and return to orbit. Probably need to refuel them at some point along the way.

Are you referring to rescue missions on Kerbin or off-world?

I was working on the following two craft in late March/early April before I went on my KSP break, and I totally forgot about them until this weekend. Since these craft are fairly simple, and aren't affected by any 1.3.0 bugs plaguing my launchers, I decided to knock out the performance tests and graphics and publish them on KerbalX. I sincerely doubt anyone will need to be told what real-life aircraft these are inspired by. However, if you do it's listed along with the download links in the OP in SPH>C7-Series subsection. These craft are fast, maneuverable, stable, and have decent short-takeoff-and landing (STOL) handling thanks to their light weight, strong thrust, and thrust reversers. I would like to point out that if you wish to swap the 'Swift' crew cabin out for a couple of 1.25m service modules and a materials bay, simply grab the intake part and detach it from the back of the crew cabin. The rest of the plane will detach with it as one piece; then reattach it after you make your modifications. If you don't want to land to take surveys, you could also easily rig a few pylons under either of these aircraft's wings and airdrop survey packages onto mountainsides, rivers, etc.

@Jester Darrak, the Vernor ports on the LITE stages are currently thrust-limited down to be more controllable, to the point of barely any exhaust plume FX showing up. So if you have a heavy payload on the front, without seeing the plume FX, you could think that they are inoperable. This may not be the case at all and they really are not working in your game. As to why, I have no idea. I will say that the new LITE configuration I'm testing has the thrust limiters turned up a little more than the current published version to have better attitude control with heavier payloads. _________________________ So here's the prototype for a potential LV-4 replacement, clocking in at 47 parts as seen (again, a far cry from 240 as with the current published LV-4A), but it still needs a basic science survey package added, which will probably put it at 51 or 52 parts. The last image is demonstrating the jettison functionality of the lander module. Since the capsule has no engine/RCS, this would be performed after redocking with the EV-3. The capsule would then undock again after the final NTR stage put it on a precise atmospheric entry trajectory into Kerbin. The more I play around with this, the more I'm hating the current LV-4A, despite that it mirrors the functionality of the MEM more than the low-part count one I'm experimenting with. The real-life MEM concept for reference:

They look pretty dissimilar, however the new lower part count alternative looks closer to the MEM, despite being less functionally accurate. Not wanting to post screenshots until I have a more finalized version...we'll see. That shouldn't be a problem.

To add another inquiry (to the one quoted above I posted last night), I've been looking for a better way to model a MEM-style (Mars Excursion Module) than my current LV-4 'Armadillo'. The current LV-4 comes in at 240-ish parts, essentially doubling the part count of a fully-assembled EV-3 'Clipper'. I've been experimenting with alternatives, and I currently have one that is only 50 parts, however it's not nearly as analogous to the MEM concept in the Boeing IMIS study of 1969. Additionally, it would only have a basic set of scientific survey sensors, which means it won't have the lower cargo bay, rover, or Materials Bay. Further, unlike the MEM, this alternative low-part count LV-4 would be a single-stage lander, without a separate ascent stage. The Mk1-2 capsule would still detach from the rest of the lander after redocking with the EV-3 in Duna orbit, so it could be re-used as a Kerbin reentry vehicle. Pros (compared to the current LV-4): 1) Massively lower part count 2) Simpler in operation 3) Slightly more delta-V to play with during descent and ascent 4) Aerodynamically stable during Duna atmo entry (The current LV-4 isn't balanced very well, even with RCS thrusters aiding in stability) Cons: 1) Less scientific returns per landing 2) Less analogous in function to the real-life MEM concept 3) No rover The one additional thought I have to justify this alternative LV-4 and it's smaller array of science equipment is that, like the real Apollo program, the EV-3 mission architecture is a lot of money and components to expend for one landing. So the EV-3/LV-4 missions could be seen as an early short-surface-stay pathfinder mission to Duna, performing a few basic science readings; and the EV-4/EV-5 missions as the more long-surface-stay, expanded scientific missions that would come later. Yes, I know the later Apollo missions had a rover, but the part count to add a well-functioning rover bay in a MEM-style lander is pretty high with my current building skills. So anyone feel free to comment with your thoughts.

It's not a mod, it's a self-sustaining propellant generation and distribution system that can be set up using a collection of craft files I have on KerbalX. It's inspired by ULA's CisLunar-1000 concept, and can be set up using craft from my CisMunar Economy KerbalX hanger along with my ISRU Hardware KerbalX hanger. A descriptive graphic of these craft files working together is below:

I'm sure you're already aware, but the MPC's weren't intended to power the HLV-5's, hence the difference in docking port mounting position. You'll see on the MIR-2O or MIR-2P that they have a second docking port on the back that is mounted higher for loading ore or propellant into lander ports, or pulling it from 'Meerkat' ISRU rigs. Just trying to clear up any misunderstanding. _________________________________ In other news, I've been considering streaming on Twitch again for the purpose of tutorials. The two most common requests I get are showing a video of how to set up a CisMunar Economy or how to launch and land the SVR-16 shuttle. These two are some of the more complicated things in this thread, but I'm open to suggestions for other things that players are finding trouble wrapping their head around, even after reading through the accompanying graphics. If and when I decide to do one of these streams, I'll announce several days to a week prior to ensure people are aware of the stream time.

@Jester Darrak, believe it or not, that LF+O 'Cricket' variant is almost exactly what the first published LV-2D was last summer, minus the radiator panels. Same fuel tank layout, same engine config, etc. I switched to a pure monopropellant system when I revamped the entire LV-2 lander family last fall. One reason was it reduced the dozens of Oscar-B fuel tanks to a handful of mono tanks, and it also brought all LV-2 landers to a mono-fuel commonality. I have been experimenting with various types and layouts of single-stage landers for Duna for a while now. But still working on it and I can't say what they'll end up looking like. As I like to point out on the OP, my real-life job keeps me busy.

To reduce a payload comparison to a text graph, they'll end up looking like this when it comes to payload-to-LKO capability (left being less payload, right being more payload): Thunder 1----------------Thunder 1B------------------------------------------------- Cheapest, simple, but lacking any kind of precise orbital placement capability --------------------Thunder 3--------------Thunder 3-1-----------Thunder 3-2--- Still relatively cheap, good performance with a course orbital placement capability --------Thunder 4--------------Thunder 4-1--------------Thunder 4-2------------ Has a fine orbital placement capability at the expense of overall performance And then of course the 'Thunder 4 Heavy' and the 'Lightning' are in classes by themselves for different reasons. Meh, no one will ever have the exact same taste in craft design as the next player. But you can of course tweak them to your own uses and playstyle like you did with your EV-2C+. I don't know about that. At the risk of speculating about things that we don't have any idea about (as in the DLC details)...My intention isn't to sprinkle DLC parts among the existing craft files I have published, thereby limiting their use from non-DLC owners. I'm not saying I won't release craft files with said parts, I'm just saying it's still very early to be making plans about it. But if the 'Thunder 2' upper stage does it's job the way it's intended, and doesn't have significant drawbacks (like a high part in the case of the EV-2C service module), than I don't see a reason to inject DLC components. Again, no promises either way.