Jump to content

Raptor9

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,599

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Raptor9

  1. Raptor9
    No worries, no rush. IRL always comes first.
  2. Raptor9
    That would require a ridiculous amount of flight testing to determine, which I don't want to do.
  3. Raptor9
    That sounds awesome, thank you. I know a lot of players will appreciate it, and not just the ones that use this thread. I'm sure doing a couple captchas will probably still be faster than clicking away at dozens of download buttons.
  4. Raptor9
    This has been something that has been requested many times, and I had plans this spring after getting back from a business trip to set up such a method, via dropbox or google drive or something. However during the setup I realized that if I did this, it would negate even having KerbalX links in this thread all together, since most users would undoubtedly download the single zip file and then remove whatever craft files they did not want. As a supporter of @katateochi's KerbalX website, this presents a bit of a conflict of interest for me. Not a legal one, but a bit of a kick in the nuts sort of thing. So I've decided against setting up a single download, or a series of categorized downloads. I would also like to respectively request that in the future no one post my craft files for download outside of reposting KerbalX links to the same. I hope anybody reading this understands my reasons and respects them.
  5. Raptor9
    @smotheredrun, glad you like love it and getting a lot of use from it.
  6. Raptor9
    No idea where you're inferring that from. The description doesn't say anything about refueling or fuel storage on the station. The intent behind it is a staging location for surface missions. The concept behind this type of small station is an SLS-like rocket carrying a crew capsule and reusable lander (like the EV-2C/LV-2B configuration) is sent to the station to deliver the first station crew and lander for a single, initial surface expedition, supported by follow-on research in the station's processing lab. The crew would then return home via the EV-2C. The second mission would follow with a similar rocket configuration, but with a propellant module in place of the lander in the payload fairing under the EV-2C. After arriving with the second crew, the propellant module would refuel the lander for another surface landing, and so on so forth. This mission scheme is illustrated in the 'Wernher Station' graphic, which shows the crew capsule bringing with it a propellant module to dock to the station. Having said all that, these station graphics are not exclusive configurations. They're only examples based on real-life analogies on how you can assemble the station module subassemblies. There is nothing stopping players from adding additional modules...like fuel storage tanks.
  7. Raptor9
    Indeed, it's been corrected.
  8. Raptor9
    Not at this time
  9. Raptor9
    Unfortunately, I have long since deleted those older designs. But as someone that has mild OCD, if I recognize a capability gap within my craft file list, I try to fill it. Even though I personally no longer have a need to move >60 Kerbals in one sortie, I still maintain the C7 300/310 designs just in case I or anybody else requires a mass airlift in the future.
  10. Raptor9
    @eloquentJane, if you're intending to use mods for this project, Nertea designed the new Mk4-1 command pod in Near Future Construction based on the MEM ascent module. Just a suggestion if you're looking for something to fit that bill.
  11. Raptor9
    I've only used them on reusable craft due to their high cost, however those craft were well over 60 tons. I just had a lot of them to maintain a decent TWR. But I will admit, even refueling them to take advantage of reusability isn't cheap either. Xenon is quite expensive too. The cost and limiting them to the inner planets are the biggest disadvantages in my opinion. EDIT: Wow, this topic really was necro-ed, lol. Whoops.
  12. Raptor9
    Nice to see someone else emulating this apparently less-known Mars mission concept. There were a lot of really ambitious exploration proposals in the 60's. This and the Apollo Applications proposals are my favorites.
  13. Raptor9
    @drhay53, I originally designed the 300 and 320 when I had a grand plan to set up a research station on the Kerbin north pole as a precursor to a Munar base. It never worked out, but the two planes taught me a lot about the new Mk3 fuselage pieces when I designed them. A lot of my X-planes are in the same boat in that they were never designed for regular use. Story time: when the SSTO pieces first started appearing in KSP, I thought probably the same thought as most KSP players at the time. "I'm gonna make an ultra-sleek, ultra-fast spaceplane!"...at which I failed miserably (such is the way of KSP ). I went through a few cycles of getting the spaceplane bug, trying to build a spaceplane, failing, giving up for a few months, and then repeating the cycle again. I then just tried to make a MiG-21-like basic jet plane, which sucked. So I started a sequential X-plane series (along with the origins of this thread) to teach myself how to build planes in KSP. I should note that this was also the alpha version of KSP with the soup-o-sphere atmospheric placeholder. I tried straight(-ish) wings, swept wings, delta wings, flying wings, canard-delta wings, supersonic planes, etc. These all resulted in a series of revisions when the new atmosphere/aerodynamic system was added. Granted, there are still a lot of KSP-isms with the way the stock aero model works; I'm not going to get into a stock vs FAR debate. But the bottom line is that trying the various airframe designs and layouts taught me a lot on how KSP planes handle when equipped with certain wing pieces, engines, fuselages, etc. I still use my favorite X-plane derivatives to perform atmospheric surveys like the T-4, WR-8, and SR-9.
  14. Raptor9
    @drhay53, glad you got it sorted. I haven't had any trouble before, but maybe I'll revisit the ladder locations during the 1.3 craft update. Thanks for letting me know. @Razordraac, love that screenshot! Glad you like the designs. The SR-19 isn't really friendly to more equipment or tweaks. I've squeezed as much delta-V as I can from that design layout. The SR-21's have a larger delta-V reserve that you could play with for making small tweaks. But at the end of the day, experiment and see what you come up with. The C7 140/142 airframe layouts are inspired by the V-280 "Valor" concepts. I do have a couple working prototypes of additional C7-series aircraft I'm working on. Namely, I'm trying to build longer-ranged utility aircraft that can expand the science-collection mission around Kerbin. A lot of designs in the early pages of the thread were designed in alpha versions of KSP, like 0.25-era. They've since become removed from my inventory for a variety of reasons, usually because they no longer worked or no longer viable. The Mk IV-based VTOL and the CV-15 are such designs that fall in that category, along with the XV-series or prototypes. I design and test them in Sandbox before moving them over to my Career save. These are all craft that I have designed for my own uses in Career mode at some point or another, so sometimes I'll encounter a design deficiency I wasn't aware of, prompting me to execute a craft update or revision of some sort. To all, I apologize for the late reply, my real-life job has kept me quite busy; and will probably continue to do so for the next couple weeks.
  15. Raptor9
    I assume you're referring to the LV-3C and the BM-series modules. That being the case, the drop down text box in the VAB below the craft title will have a series of action groups listed for each payload configuration. Since you mentioned the BM-PL, the following is the list for that payload: LV-3C Action Groups: [1] Initiates BM-PL lift sequence from LV-3C [3] Toggles LV-3C Engines BM-PL Action Groups: [1] Activates 24-77 Lift Engines [2] Toggles Landing Legs [3] Deactivates 24-77 Lift Engines The vertical lift engines that allow each payload to "hop" off the LV-3C to the surface is thrust-limited so that for each payload/cargo rack you should place the throttle at ~50% prior to initiating the lift sequence via Action Group [1]. This will ensure a smooth, clean and controlled separation from the LV-3C lander itself. The BM-PL and BM-H are identical in use, but the cargo rack that lifts the BM-A, BM-P, BM-U, and BM-4H modules are a little different so make sure you look at those and perform a good pre-seperation check.
  16. Raptor9
    @Firemetal & @jacob backer, thanks. Welcome to the forums BTW, @jacob backer.
  17. Raptor9
    I should also note that I always launch all my rockets keeping the G-meter no higher than 2 G's. Anything above 2 and I'll continuously throttle down to keep the acceleration under control. If you keep the throttles maxed on these rockets you'll probably be encountering drag losses along with a difficult gravity turn.
  18. Raptor9

    KSP Making History

    Raptor9 replied to UomoCapra's topic in 2017

    This is an awesome announcement!! Really looking forward to hearing more details on this. As for the imminent debate that will undoubtedly follow about more purchase requirements...I'll also gladly pay for such an expansion as well. EDIT: Also, it should be pointed out that the Tumbler post (linked by Darth Vader) was made in April 2013 for clarification.
  19. Raptor9
    ...the exception being Kerbals of course; I assume that was implied?
  20. Raptor9
    Hi @Hajii, welcome to the forums. I understand what you mean regarding business travel. I myself am currently messing around with KSP on a laptop while on a business trip. Unfortunately, there isn't a way at the moment to download all my craft at once. However, you're not the first person to ask for this, and I've been looking at ways to set up a series of mass downloads. Namely, how do I have a setup that makes the process easy to download, but also efficient enough for me to quickly update the links whenever I update any craft files, which happens on occasion especially after KSP updates. So I am working on it.
  21. Raptor9
    That looks awesome! I've been trying to get a "Rocinante"-looking asteroid miner/ore hauler using the biggest MPD thruster, but could never get anything I was satisfied.
  22. Raptor9
    That made me laugh pretty good. I usually side with Squad with news like this when the community turns sour on them. In the past year or so, a lot of relatively vicious and dissatisfied posts followed Squad "KSP Weekly" posts. I still think a lot of it was people just never being happy with what was reported about current development because we all have quite grand "wishes" for what we want out of KSP. Unfortunately, some people tended to vent their disappointments by trashing Squad's decisions and/or progress. However, having said that, this particular series of events in my opinion was an exception to what has normally occurred in the past. I've been playing KSP since early alpha stages in late 2011, so I've seen how the usual development-release-development-release cycle has been handled in the Daily Kerbal section over the past several years. Historically, whenever Squad has used a "super-secret project" announcement, it was something that they hadn't mentioned at all, and was genuinely a total surprise to the fan base. Squad has teased us with images/clues before leading up to a big feature release, but those were hardly treated as something from Area 51. The best evidence of how misleading this all was is the past several KSP Weeklys spent entire paragraphs detailing the development work of the localisation, but at the end had a blurb about their "big secret thing" they've been working on. In my mind, that alludes to two distinct and separate things. I'm not trying to make light of how much work went into the localisation; I'm no programmer so I wouldn't know. I even commented on a past KSP Weekly how I thought KSP being available in more languages would further grow the community and interest in space/aeronautics (I still believe that). I'm merely saying the Public Relations side of it all was fairly misleading. So to summarize, while I have always given Squad the benefit of the doubt, and have always occupied the "Squad doesn't owe us anything" camp, they did sort of shoot themselves in the foot with how this was handled.
  23. Raptor9
    I've dabbled in that area from time to time, a pure rocket suborbital spaceplane, but I never really found much use or fun out of it. I even tried doing the mothership-drop method, but again, never got it to my liking. I'm pretty picky when it comes to what I publish.
  24. Raptor9
    Obviously Squad doesn't have the Dang It! mod installed... I'll let myself out...
  25. Raptor9
    Well, the purpose of the 'Porpoise' (see what I did there? ) was to provide better surface access to it's payload since it's a horizontal lander. Regarding the B-model 'Porpoise' specifically, as a propellant transport it has the advantage of being able to "taxi" to the side of the mining rig to plug in directly. Otherwise, you would need to have the miner on wheels to drive to the propellant lander, or have a "fuel truck" rover shuttle between the two (which can get tedious). A LITE with landing legs and an additional fuel tank docked on top would be more efficient (and less expensive) in that role since there would be less hardware mass riding along (the HLV-5's array of small landing thrusters and additional Vernors for instance), but again it would require a different approach to propellant loading on the surface. So a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B.
×
×
  • Create New...