Raptor9

Without mod plugins like @eloquentJane mentioned, I'm afraid not. Generally, I'm never in a big hurry to get anywhere, so it doesn't tend to bother me. The alternative to save trouble and part count would be to replace the lower half of the LV-2D with the 2.5m FL-R1 tank, but that only holds 750 units of monoprop, so I guess there's some notional structural components in there that reduces the total volume. Although it would make the lander a lot cheaper and lighter in mass. I can pack way more monoprop in a 2.5m service module (or similar size area) with the smaller monoprop tanks, so the benefits of more fuel outweigh the hinderance of refueling operations IMO. I pretty much do the same thing. Dedicated craft for dedicated roles and destinations. I was trying to make the EV-2C resemble the Orion MPCV a little more with the 1.2 revision. Unfortuneately, it did result in a craft that is much harder to refuel and higher in part count, but the EV-2C's were never meant to be a "workhorse craft" per se. I mainly saw them as a way to send crews around the Kerbin SOI and return them again through Kerbin reentry. Very rarely do I ever need to refuel them. I use them at the beginning of the mission, and then again at the end. If I use them during the mission phase itself, it's probably because something went wrong, or I need to use it as a back-up power source of some sort. They're really just the commuter car to get to work, and then the Kerbalnauts hop into their big rigs to do some serious work.

Oh I have no idea. I know I released a new SR-19A spaceplane, and probably all the ISRU refinery stuff and PD-32/64 propellant depots was within the last 30 days I think. Sorry, I really haven't kept track of all that beyond the last seven days.

That's quite a large probe, way larger than my largest one. The structural panels themselves would make the smallest cubesat 1.25m across, which is much larger than I would probably make for a satellite. However, I gather it makes them easy to scale up or down in size. To summarize, all my craft are now updated to 1.2 as of a couple days ago. So yeah, a lot of craft were updated before the Ravens. While we're on that topic, I just updated the LV-3C/Mun Base modules to correct for the misaligned resource transfer port on the sides of the LV-3C's themselves.

Does the QBE count? Actually, I haven't; I try to keep my sats as small as possible.

So the final craft files, the LV-3D and LV-3E, are updated to 1.2. Nothing significant changed on the landers, just some tweaks here and there, and swapped some antennas out. Now I can focus on new stuff (like satellites & probes) and my career save.

@DMSP= aeroTech Support, at your service. __________________________ EDIT: The SVR-23 'Raven' vertically-launched spaceplanes are updated to 1.2 on KerbalX. RE-EDIT: The SVR-16 'Ranger' (my space shuttle analogue) is also updated to 1.2...finally. To reiterate, it's not quite as flexible in mission as the real-life space shuttle, but primarily a space station module carrier in KSP. There are a lot design compromises that are made due to the limits of KSP craft engineering in-game. But I think I have a decent balance of aesthetics and functionality without resorting to personal no-go's such as canards or reaction wheels clipped into the craft for enhanced control/stability. Main changes between the 1.1.3 and the 1.2 versions are: - Re-engined OMS system. Instead of LF+O-powered Mk55 'Thuds', the OMS is now monoprop-powered O-10 'Puff' engines. The OMS pods themselves hold a decent amount of LF+O to power the four fuel cells. However, if you plan on doing a lot of science transmissions, I would load some additional LF+O or solar cells in the cargo bay - Stronger main and nose landing gear. The nose gear does have a tendency to bounce if the nose comes down hard on landing. Use caution. - Larger and more powerful launch stack. The SVR-16's 'Vector' engines are limited 10% higher, and the RE-M3 'Mainsail' boosters have been replaced with a pair of KR-1x2 'Twin Boar' boosters from the 'Titan 4C+' heavy rocket. The external fuel tank is also slightly longer with more fuel. - Tweaked RCS thruster layout and orientation for better control. - Better control scheme for launch & ascent, to include a decent launch abort sequence. A small docking port on top of the external fuel tank should be used as the control point until MECO/ET seperation. Happy launching. __________________________ ANOTHER EDIT: The LV-3C cargo lander and BM-series Mun base modules are all updated to 1.2 and re-uploaded to KerbalX. Minimal changes; the O-10 engines needed to be swapped out after the external model was made much larger. LF+O-powered 24-77 engines have replaced them. The part count of the LV-3C lander itself was also reduced slightly.

The latest configuration of my ISS-alike 'Pioneer Station', with one of my SR-19A 'Valkyrie' spaceplanes docked. The KSC can be seen through the cupola as it passes below. The "aft" section that represents the real-life Russian Orbital Segment modules was detached and re-positioned to Munar orbit as the beginning of a MIR-alike station.

Glad you like the VTOL's @Beetlecat . To answer your question, I always liked the design of the VTOL's from the first Crysis games, and I wish we had the ability to have dedicated servos and hinges in the stock game. But I don't care for the look of the Infernal Robotics parts, nor the post-update wait for mods to be updated. As for the Mk IV spaceplane parts, however, I love them. Nertea does some awesome work in all of his mods. His parts not only fit the stock look and feel, but they're intended to be balanced as well when comparing the usual stats such as cost, mass, ISP, size, etc. If I were to publish modded VTOL craft in the future with his Mk IV parts, I would make use of the new liftfans included in his set, rather than use a design like the "original X-19". Those liftfans are awesome. For publishing purposes, I try to stick to stock for two reasons: 1) KSP updates have a much lower chance of breaking my craft, and 2) accomplishing craft designs relying only on stock parts has taught me a lot in KSP craft engineering. I've definitely gotten better at "macgyvering" over the past two years since relegating myself to stock only designs. Having said that, there are a few mods that I keep an eye on and still play around with for pure fun. The following mods are on my short list for late-game progression and/or fun use. - All of Nertea's mods, especially the Near Future collection and MkIV Spaceplane parts. Awesome visual work, and very stock-alike. - Nils277's Kerbal Planetary Base Systems. This mod is also extremely well done, especially in the IVA aspect. Makes me want to just chill in IVA view. - CaptRobau's Outer Planets Mod. Definitely will need the above two mods whenever I get this far...I've never even been to Jool. *Speaking of which, there are some threads in the Add-On section missing right now, so the link to Near Future is broken. ______________________________ 10 Jan EDIT: SVR-20 'Raven' spaceplanes are finished testing. The 1.2 versions have been re-designated SVR-23. Changes are stronger main landing gear, comms antenna switch, removal of the ventral airbrakes, and a tweaked launch stack to make it more controllable during ascent. The models remain the same: A-model for small satellite-sized payloads, B-model for carrying four Kerbal passengers in addition to the two crew. Also, as written at the bottom of the OP in the Future Plans section, I'm designing a family of satellites and probes for functions such as comms relays, resource scanning, landing site and biome surveys, and science gathering. So far I have 5 satellite/probes and 1 rover built and tested, I just need to generate the graphics for them. Descriptions of each can be read about in the OP. I restarted my career (again) in 1.2 to take advantage of some of the contract system changes, as well as the CommNet/KerbNet features. I'm at the point where I'm building my first Mun surface base, so I'm using this opportunity to test out the updated base modules to ensure they're working as they should. As soon as I'm satisfied that the updated base modules and LV-3C cargo lander is good to go, I'll be re-uploading these to KerbalX. My real-life job is keeping me busy, so no real estimate on when that might be, unfortunately.

I think it just comes down to KSP is a game of trade-offs. Usually every significant changelog mentions something about balancing this and re-balancing that. Take the "Dawn" ion engines for example: an ion powered craft has ridiculous amounts of delta-V, blowing even the LV-N's out of the water on that account. Yet, they are extremely expensive (as is the xenon fuel), require a lot of electricity, are low thrust, and cannot be supported with ISRU equipment. I believe the main deciding factor on which technique to use comes down to your own proficiencies and preferences in KSP craft design. Some players prefer to make SSTU (Single-Stage-To-Universe) spaceplanes that can cover the entire Kerbol system, I personally don't take spaceplanes past Kerbin orbit. So to answer you question, IMO I don't think RAPIER's are overrated, I think it's simply a choice of how you want to design your spaceplane to function and/or look. EDIT: Oh, IIRC one additional consideration is RAPIER's can run in much lower air densities than the Whiplashes, so you can push higher into the atmosphere before switching to pure rocket power. Again, a given spaceplane design may make this irrelevant depending on how the player engineers it.

I got rid of the O-10's because they were re-sized to be much bigger and out of proportion. Instead, the four RCS thrusters on the aft bulkhead of the EV-1C provide enough thrust to adjust the orbit by using the "Translate Forward" command. _______________________ In other news, the C7 100 'Falcon, C7 140 'Kestrel', C7 142 'Seahawk', and X-20 Vertical Takeoff Flight Test are now available on KerbalX (links in the OP). EDIT: The new LV-3B 'Bullfrog' is also updated on KerbalX. Be careful driving the rovers off the ramps. Sometimes the wheels don't play well with them. EDIT 2: The revised SR-19 'Valkyrie' is updated on KerbalX. Unfortunately, the current SR-19 only comes in one flavor, passenger transport.

Not necessarily. Only two X-planes planned for near-term release at the moment, the X-20 and X-22. Here's the current line-up of the X-planes following the X-18: X-19 - Unreleased prototype of the SR-19 'Valkyrie'. The SR-19 itself is currently under revision. (Having "Spaceplane Block" at the moment ) X-20 - Initial VTOL technology demonstrator. Nearing release. Replaces X-20 prototype of SVR-20 'Raven' spaceplane. SVR-20's will be depreciated and revised... X-21 - Unreleased prototype of the SR-21 'Phoenix'. X-22 - Supersonic VTOL technology demonstrator. Nearing release as well, but not quite as refined as the X-20. X-?? - Future design plans include prototypes for a new set of 'Raven' vertical-launch spaceplanes, a Mk3 fuselage SSTO, and a VTOL-capable SSTO Laythe spaceplane (if my VTOL methods continue to improve) I never intended to release the X-19 or X-21, since they're so similar to the operational variants, the SR-19 and SR-21. Likewise, I never released the X-10 since it was simply a glide-test prototype of the SVR-10 'Thunderbird'. It would just lead to confusion for downloaders and I don't believe it's necessary.

I had to take a break from the LV-3 landers for a little bit, and crafted some new SPH designs. These include the new 100-series models and a couple new X-planes. The top left picture is the C7 100 'Falcon', inspired by any number of small private jets. For those that read the early few pages of this thread, you may remember the XV (eXperimental Vertical) Program. The project was pretty much shelved after a lot of the stock aero and jet engine changes last year, along with any other VTOL ideas I had. However, I've been experimenting with vertical propulsion again obviously. Some of my personal design rules prevent me from clipping engines inside fuselage bodies (self-imposed challenges ). But after developing some new building techniques, I've started to get a handle on some light VTOL craft. The top right picture is the X-20 Vertical Takeoff Flight Test, a relatively slow fighter-type VTOL demonstrator inspired by the Soviet Yak-38 "Forger". The bottom picture is the C7 142 'Seahawk', inspired by the V-280 "Valor". Not pictured, but also nearing publish-ready status, are the C7 140 'Kestrel' and the X-22 Supersonic VTOL Flight Test. Two major advantages these new craft have over my XV-series VTOL's are their speed and range. The XV's could barely cover the lower peninsula that the KSC is on, these 2nd generation VTOL's can go hundreds of kilometers, some even to the neighboring continents. The major role the 'Kestral' and the 'Seahawk' will play into are those surface science survey contracts that keep causing me to break landing gear on uneven terrain when trying to land a jet without a runway. CAVEAT: The LV-3B isn't published just yet. I'm trying to fix an issue I'm having with the rover ramps I found during some last-minute testing.

That's not a bad idea at all. Good thinking!

I assume you are referring to the standalone 'Javelin', 'Thunder', and 'Titan' launchers that have no payloads in them? There are two ways of going about this. 1) Place another part, like a Mk1 capsule, in the payload bay and re-root the craft so the Mk1 is now the root part. Grab the launcher from the Mk1 capsule and save it as a subassembly. 2) Build your payload, and then attach the Mk1 capsule to the node that the payload will use to attach to the mount inside the launcher's payload fairing. Re-root the payload so the Mk1 capsule is the root part as the previous technique, and save the payload as a subassemly. Place the payload (as a subassembly) in the launcher fairing.

I'm afraid @eloquentJane brings up a good point. Without knowing the experience level of the OP (or computer specs), certain pre-built craft may not be usable. @Kalzzz, if you're just into flying and not building, I recommend perusing KerbalX and searching for certain keywords and the filters to narrow down what you need. I personally learn a lot of what to do and what not to do by building my own craft and experimenting with their uses. Whether you download someone else's or build your own, good luck and have fun getting to the Duna surface. Just make sure you don't leave any Kerbals on the surface when you leave.

@redmonddkgamer, if you're in career mode, the cheapest least-expensive launcher you can. If launching any of the Probodobodyne/Rockomax station modules, something as simple as the 'Thunder 1' will suffice since those modules have their own probe cores and propulsion systems for rendezvous & docking. Something like the 'Thunder 4' should probably be used if launching any of station modules by Jeb's Junkyard/Integrated Integrals. The 'Thunder 4's payload stage has the probe core/propulsion/RCS needed to get these to the station construction site, since the modules themselves don't have such equipment. If you wanted to launch all of the modules to LKO at once in a stack, you could probably do it all with a single 'Thunder 4 Heavy' honestly. That rocket can put over 35 tons to medium Kerbin orbit, and the total mass of a small station like 'Gateway' is well below that. After you get it in the desired orbit, just do some decoupling and redocking to get it in the configuration you want. I'm just spit-balling the lift requirements, I'll let you verify the actual numbers for where you want the station and how to get it there.

Did you ensure the fuel tank valves were open on the monopropellant tanks before trying to use the RCS?

Thanks @Frednoeyes, glad your design was so successful. I've never read (or heard of) the novel Voyage. My 'Armadillo' lander and 'Clipper' were actually designed based on Boeing's "Integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft" design documents from the late 1960's.

Don't forget hilarious...in a sociopathic sort of way.

They do run a little hot (in the the IV-1B's case, both the drills and the converter about ~90K above target temp), but I believe it's acceptable in the long-term scheme of things. I've never been in a situation where I need peak efficiency in propellant generation, like if I was in a hurry. ISRU sites (in my opinion/playstyle) are designed to be logistics sites that support the long-term strategies of exploration in KSP. Because I establish these sites to run in the background for weeks or months before I expect to need their generated resources, a few assumptions I make in my design are as follows: 1) They don't need to be in the 90-100% efficiency range; and even if they did, a manned pod with an engineer on board is supposed to help (I've never tested this myself mind you), and that could easily be added or docked to the ISRU mechanism. 2) They don't need to run continuously through the day/night cycle. I don't have any hard math numbers, but I imagine that using a portion of the propellant generated to run fuel cells to then power the propellant generation process is wasteful. I'd rather save the part count and funds of adding on fuel cells (one fuel cell array is 4,500). Those are some good suggestions for design improvement though. I just don't think they're particularly necessary to implement. EDIT: Efficiency could be a concern if harvesting from an asteroid as those have a finite amount of ore, but again, a few slap-on radiators could obviously do the trick, or have additional radiators mounted on a docked fuel tanker to assist (the deployable Thermal Control System kind that cool the entire craft). __________________________ EDIT 2: The SEP-AC Mk1 and HLV-6 landers are updated/re-uploaded to KerbalX. Next up on my list to tackle is the rest of the LV-3 family of landers, and by extension the Mun surface base modules.

First of all, people that advertise "STOCK" in the title are not elitists, I imagine most of them (myself included) try to stick to stock for one or both of two reasons: 1) When KSP is updated, the player doesn't have to wait for his favorate mods to be updated to resume the game or dive back in with their existing craft file designs. 2) If they post a lot of craft for other users (which by the way is the entire point of the "Spacecraft Exchange" subforum), they're probably trying to make the craft accessible to as many people as possible, to include inexperienced players that may not be familiar with what mods are out there. You're grouping a large portion of the player-base into a generalization that you perceive. As a stock-only player, in no way do I think I'm better than any other KSP player, and I find your OP insulting. It's not a problem. This is a video game. Stop taking it so seriously...ironically, your OP is as rude as the "elitist" mentality that you're posting about. EDIT: I imagine this thread is probably a good candidate to be locked by a moderator soon. IMO, nothing can come from this but arguments and mud-slinging.

Insert the text in the following format: [this text is what the user sees](place link address in here) ____________________ EDIT: For anyone that's following craft file update progress, the HLV-5 series landers are updated along with the 'Lightning' medium launcher. These will provide you a ready solution for shipping MIR and Utility series rovers to the Mun. Main thing done with these craft are comms antenna updates, and some small tweaks for the new fuel flow logic (in the case of the HLV-5A crew module). Also, an additional small docking clamp was added near the RE-L10 'Poodle' engines to allow the HLV-5 Propulsion modules and the LITE upper stages to refuel each other if no orbital propellant depots are available. On that note, next up for updating are the IV-1 series 'Meerkat' robotic ISRU landers and the 'Camel Hump' orbital propellant depots. These will close the cis-Munar ISRU propellant infrastructure with the HLV-5's and the MIR family.

That goes against my release philosophy I'm afraid. With the exception of rovers and space station modules, I always release all my craft with an included launcher that is tested and verified to get the payload to where it's designed to go. For some inexperienced players that may not be good at building launchers, this ensures they get the desired use out of the craft. For other players, regardless of their experience, it may be just as frustrating to have to put these modules back in to a launcher. And no, I haven't put the new ones on KerbalX yet.

I did have to tweak the fuel routing and part placements of the LV-3A for it to work in 1.2.X. However, the rest of the LV-3's still aren't finished. What's holding up the LV-3C is I still need to redesign/update the Mun base module collection. However, the LV-3B is a design that I think I can do better at. I'm looking to make the new LV-3B more than just a lab and rover you plop down on the Munar surface. My goal is to make it like a single-landing outpost that you could strategically place at any location on the Mun that you don't want to commit to building a long-term, multi-module base with the LV-3C/Base Modules. The reasoning behind getting more bang for the buck with the LV-3B is being able to alternatively use it as a quick surface outpost setup that can be applied to locations of similar gravity to the Mun like Dres or Ike.

Thanks @Jester Darrak. I'm glad you're getting good use out of these designs. I enjoyed the screenshot. Regarding the changes to each craft. Most of the changes are very small. Maybe shifting some struts around and swapping antennas due to the recent KSP changes. But other than that, the only significant changes in the craft are the ones that are entirely rebuilt, like the LV-2's, LV-4, etc. I would say anything that previously had the O-10 'Puff' engine should be re-downloaded since that engine was made much bigger. But it did give me some good ideas for new landers in the case of the LV-2's. Others, like the LV-1A & B landers, I had to completely replace the engine for something else. I'd really like to see the MITS when it's done. Always interested to see how others approach the interplanetary ship design, especially if modularity is used. _____________________________ In other news, the EV-5 and supporting component lifters are updated. Only major change is autostrutting to make the truss more sturdy, and swapping the DTS-M1 comms dishes for a pair of RA-2 relay antennas. Also updated are the MIR-series rovers (with a brand new one added to the series), and the Utility rovers updated as well. The LV-2D 'Cricket', ATSV and a new SR-19A spaceplane are about to be updated as soon as I finish the graphics. Next on my list is the 'Lightning' rocket, HLV-5 lander and components, and the IV-1 'Meerkat' variants. EDIT: The SR-19A won't be released as soon as I thought. Still needs some more work, but this is why I QA my designs prior to uploading to KerbalX.