Raptor9

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

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. 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. 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.

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

Are you referring to the frame? The HLV-6 frames are just a collection of I-beams and structural panels. Nothing special. Is that what you were referring to?

I'm afraid I agree with the players that would rather have more things to do at their destinations, instead of just more destinations. As much I would love to see OPM in stock, I would much prefer some parts that are more conducive to building surface outposts, like Kerbal Planetary Base Systems, and/or some other game mechanic that creates more depth to EVA activities or surface-based science.

I've never heard that myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's true. But in my mind, that's a waste of resources to accomplish in KSP. For one, when I land a rover on a body, whether it be the Mun or Duna, I really can't see myself trying to get it back to orbit just so I can use it as a zero-g spacecraft. Like the base modules, once it's there, it stays there. If I need one for space exploration, I'll just send another variant "out there". Plus, it allows me to optimize each variant for their specific function while keeping part count lower. I don't want to have a rover variant driving around that has RCS thrusters protruding everywhere. The NASA SEV is probably designed that way for ease of manufacturing process and modular construction. I doubt it makes any more sense in real life to retrieve an SEV from the surface of the moon to serve as a spacecraft elsewhere.

The BM-LS (Logistics Shelter). As you can see, some small tweaks are still needed after the first delivery test to Duna. The docking clamps are a little too low on each side, and some other bits here and there. Even after repeated testing around the KSC with gravity hacked to match Duna's (or the Mun's), it's always interesting to see what issues pop up when you try to integrate and use a new base module for the first time with an full surface outpost at your actual destination. It's not readily apparent from these images, but the ER-4 is currently docked to the shelter and can take on propellant for it's fuel cells. I also want to point out that this module can operate completely on its own if need be. It has a singular solar panel to keep it's batteries powered for it's artificial night lighting, and can store two Oscar-B's worth of LFO propellant in it's side-mounted tanks. This means it can refuel an ER-3 twice, or refuel an ER-4 (seen parked inside) to half-capacity. The ER-4 'Mustang', which will be available as both a subassembly as well as pre-mounted on the updated HLV-6A, has 4 Oscar-B's worth of LFO, giving it plenty of endurance during hours of darkness via it's two fuel cells. Based on NASA's Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV), the ER-4 will also be featured in a variant for zero-G space exploration as part of my upcoming Gilly mission architecture. On the topic of the HLV-6 update, the final testing has been completed and graphics are almost done. I even managed to iron out a reliable Entry, Descent and Landing sequence for both landers to precisely touch down on a target, which is important given the architecture. The HLV-6A needs a minimum ore concentration for it's ISRU process, and the HLV-6B needs to be able to land close enough to the HLV-6A to deliver the crew to the surface. Like the LV-7, the HLV-6 KerbalX pages will come with a separate graphic instructing a player how to perform the EDL phase. In the second picture, you can also see the side-mounted docking clamps on the ER-4 rover. These allow the rover to be refueled via the high-mounted docking port on the BM-Logistics Adapters if necessary. Also visible is the new MRPS (Mobile Reactor Power System) rover, which replaces the older and outdated SRTG on the HLV-6A. I still need to finish the graphics on all the new EV-4 'Longship' modules, which go hand and hand with the new HLV-6 landers. My main priority right now is to put the final touches on the EV-4's and HLV-6's and get those out the door before I return to the new Base Modules.

I see what you mean. Yeah, I'll probably do something like this next craft update. EDIT: @Jester Darrak, I've finished a new base module that should fit your "rover recharging station" idea. I'm pretty sure you're gonna like it. It came together quite nicely, and I can't wait to get some screenshots of it in action. What's nice is it will serve double duty as the lifting rack for a rover. So after you pull the module from the subassembly list and place it on the cargo lander, you go back to the subassembly list, choose what rover you want, and attach it to the module. I've successfully tested both the ER-3 'Mongoose' and the ER-4 'Mustang' with it.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I do the same thing. Like a triangle with 5km on each side. What I'll most likely do is take the new ER-4 'Mustang' (which is based on the SEV) and add a surface scanner; don't know why I didn't think of that before. Fortunately, since the ER-4 has a hybrid power system (solar/fuel cell) like the ER-3, it already includes small docking ports on the side that allows it to pull up to the BM-LA and top off it's LF+O supply for it's fuel cells. This means it can plug into the ISRU site's distribution network and add the engineer's efficiency boost. Plus the ER-4 uses the new Mk2 lander can in rover variant, so the IVA looks like the engineer might be examining some rocks inside for ore concentration estimates. I can get behind the control tower idea, like a surface base version of the SM-Probe Control Point module. The recharging station...I'll have to roll around in my head a bit to see how that would look to fit in to the scheme of things. It would have to be fairly unique and an attractive module to want to land, otherwise you could just plug the rovers into any free docking clamp on the base. I've been trying to come up with a solution for air travel on Duna for a while. I've actually looked at that same wikipedia page for ideas. The limitations are the mass of KSP parts, and the fixed aspect ratio of lifting surfaces. What makes aircraft in real-life feasible on Mars is the use of extremely lightweight plastics and composites and being able to shape airfoils so they are optimized for the ultra-low density Martian atmosphere. But maybe down the road I can get something that can fly, be long-ranged enough to compete with a rover, and be able to be packaged on a rocket for transport off Kerbin. This is why I no longer have the ER-V 'Fly-ER', which was based on the Lunar Escape System. It didn't have the range or endurance necessary to out-perform surface rovers, and I learned to hate it like I did the SVR-23 spaceplanes. (ninja'ed by @Jestersage) These are all ideas that would consume excessive amounts of part count cpu cycles, with very little benefit. If you're into these things, you're gonna need mods. Not possible currently in stock KSP. Again, gonna require mods, although I agree that would be an extremely cool concept to have for Eve. These are of course possible, but will be down the road as I continue to flesh out designs for exploring the Eve SOI. A Kerbol solar probe, maybe, but it would be low on the priority list. Maybe a Saturday night when I'm drunk. I've tried to make ships and submersibles, but I usually end up getting frustrated at the buoyancy model in KSP and want to throw stuff. There's already several craft capable of landing on Vall, like the LV-3A and C models (Vall is just outside the performance margins for the LV-3B). In fact, that's the reason those landers, although originally designed for the Mun, are mounted on the large docking plates; so they can be mated to interplanetary stages like the NITE and transported elsewhere. Even the LV-7 is suggested on it's graphic as being used for Vall landings if necessary. There have been so many iterations of the LV-4A, but none of them I would want to go back to. I'm limited by what I can do with the stock parts in making it a better analogue to the Mars Excursion Module. Simplicity and function ended up winning over real-life emulation. Don't really have much interest in doing these. Not to mention that if you want to make early career mode sounding rockets, the stock KSP tech tree (which is silly) doesn't provide those small parts or the science instruments right off the bat like it does with the Mk1 pod and 1.25m rocket parts. I don't design things around the tech tree anyway, but there's just not much to do in the way of 0.625m sized parts.

A blog-style post with an update and a question. Work to update the Constellation program-inspired HLV-6 Duna landers is going quite well. The HLV-6A was finished, but after I began working on the new HLV-6B I realized I needed to go back to the A-model and correct some things. But all in all, they're shaping up. Among the refinements is a revision of the SRTG rover, which is inspired by the NASA FSPS (Fission Surface Power System) rover as seen below in the first picture. Along with a new designation, the legacy SRTG rover will receive an upgrade in capability and size, as well as being the basis of a new BM-series surface module. One of the main issues with making KSP craft (like the SM- or BM-series modules) to be used across multiple planetary destinations is the vast differences in power requirements. Near the inner planets solar energy is in an abundance so just a handful of solar panels is capable of generating plenty of power for whatever you need. However, when you push out past Duna, solar panels become increasingly less effective, not to mention their obvious uselessness in shadow or hours of darkness. This can become quite an issue, especially on the Mun or any other celestial body where the night can last for days or more. An easy alternative is to use fuel cells, since a lot of spacecraft will most likely have an abundant supply of liquid fuel and oxidizer on board for propulsion, but the obvious limitation of that is the finite supply of propellant, and ISRU may not always be an option. Additionally, depending on your location and power requirements, the power demand may outpace the ability to produce propellant via ISRU means. Which is why I personally think fuel cell powered ISRU systems are silly. That leaves nuclear power; or at least the next best thing in stock KSP (which is RTG clusters ). The first BM-series module I've designed for a follow-on release is a surface reactor, similar in concept to the Kilopower fission generators seen below in the second picture. A surface base on Dres or any of the moons of Jool, let alone Eeloo, probably isn't going to get a sufficient source of power from solar panels, and fuel cells can burn through a lot of propellant supporting a large base. So fission power is a capability gap I'm trying to fill in. This brings me to my question. I'm opening the door to suggestions on what surface base modules could be added in the future. What modules have I not thought of, or what modules do I seem to be lacking? I tried to design the BM modules to cover as many possible ways a player might want to use them, but I'm still limited by my own ideas and I might never conceptualize the same things that other players might. Just keep in mind that any suggestions put forth here doesn't guarantee they'll be implemented.

Uhhhh, I'm afraid I'm missing the clue. Launch the rest of the EV-6 I suppose?

The SAS logic could probably use some refining before any more automated control methods are added to the game. I can't count how many times I have to "assist" the SAS in maintaining orientation in roll, otherwise it just eats through monoprop wastefully rolling back and forth, back and forth. I personally don't want such high levels of automation creeping into the game, but if I could have one additional SAS function, it would be the ability to hold attitude relative to the horizon for those long atmospheric survey contracts around Kerbin.

You need to use the [ and ] keys to switch to the rovers to drive them around. These keys allow you to cycle between any craft within physics range, usually around 2.2 km. By the way, welcome to the forums and glad you're enjoying the craft.

In KSP, there isn't necessarily a need to place satellites in keostationary orbit, or the equivalent around other planets, because the game doesn't require communications antennas to physically remain pointed at and track their targets. KSP relay antenna mechanics are kind of like the low-Earth-orbit Iridium network in real-life. As one satellite passes beyond the horizon, the signal is picked up by the next one right behind it. In essence, you could place 3 or 4 relay satellites, equally-spaced apart, halfway between Ike and Duna and it will still function the same way as a keostationary network. The difference being they won't be holding position over set points on the Duna surface. However, since dish antennas operate identically to omnidirectional antennas in KSP, this detail is irrelevant (aside from user preference to emulate real-life). As for maintaining orbits that have no signal occlusion occurances, I normally place a "master" comms satellite, that serves as a single dedicated communications bridge between other SOI's, on a high-inclination highly-elliptical "Molniya" orbit. This ensures that comms blackouts are quite infrequent but predictable, and having a mirrored pair ensures none. The "lower tier" network is optimized for continuous coverage of the planetary surface, while the "upper tier" comms bridge satellites are optimized for little to no signal occlusions. This two tier approach IMO is the easiest and cheapest means to establish a continuous, planet-wide communications network.

Another big part of it is efficiency of work and avoiding publishing a "working draft". I try to avoid showing a particular craft or design until I'm almost certain that nothing will change. The best example of some past designs that I forgo this practice was the surface base modules. I started showing screenshots of not just prototypes, but modules that were still in the midst of being tested. Not only did I end up changing a lot of the modules anyway, some of the components were never even published because they failed the testing process miserably. Not to mention the time delay between first showing the project screenshots to when they were actually published was an abhorrent amount of time. I first showed concepts for new surface base modules in September...of 2017! For some reason, I went through a phase that autumn where I was showing a lot of teasers for stuff I was working on, with nothing ever published. Heck, the EV-7 'Skipjack' has been collecting dust on my hard drive for almost as long. A lot of that was 17-20 pages back on this thread. Some of those screenshots make me cringe. Yeah, KSP parts look much better now with all the revisions since 1.4 and onward, but man I shake my head at some of my older craft versions. Yuck.

@AlchemicRaven, already way ahead of you. Already have one built, gonna try to put it on the new HLV-6's, and possibly a standalone subassembly for loading on the LV-3 cargo landers.

Nice @Jester Darrak, if you have any screenshots I'd love to see them. It's always interesting to see all the different build combinations and layouts of space stations and surface bases when players are using a set of separate modules to choose from. _________________________________ In other news, with my LV-3A and B landers updated, I'm continuing updates to round out my Constellation-inspired craft. The main focus will obviously be to finally get the HLV-6A and B landers updated. And updated they will be; good Lord these eye-sores are still on v1.3.1 for crying out loud. But an update to the HLV-6 landers wouldn't be complete without an accompanying update to the EV-4 'Longship' NTR-powered ships as well. These are already complete, I just need to finish a couple verification interplanetary transfers to ensure their performance hasn't been impacted. I've already completed a Block 1 test, I just need to send out a Block 2 and 3 now. I'm also removing the NTR Assembly Mk3 from the module list because it's useless and really doesn't create any performance benefit when using LV-N's in this manner. I'm also considering removing the In-Line Tank Mk3, we'll see. Another small reason I needed to update the EV-4's is due to the LV-909 revision in 1.6 my EV-2C's are now a little longer, and could no longer be docked in the short saddle truss section of the EV-4 Hab/Lab modules. Some numbers: The new EV-4 Block 1 and Block 2 are both only 1 ton heavier than their existing versions, and 7 parts less. The new Block 3 is 2.5 tons heavier, but 4 parts more than it's existing version. However, these new EV-4's look much cooler and closer in appearance to the real-life concepts they are analogous to.

Sorry, if I am being a bit impatient, but are you going to address this? I have no plans to build these at this time. Actually, they were designed to be sister spacecraft to the 'Specter' and 'Scorpion' orbiter/lander combos, to serve as 1st Generation communications relays. And compared to the 2nd Generation probes/sats that picked up those missions around Duna and Eve, the earlier probes had much more robust delta-V reserves, to allow players some more wiggle room for their first time "out the door". So yes, they were sort of "practice probes" that had operational missions. After gaining experience sending these first probes out and about, the delta-V margins shrank considerably when progressing to the 2nd Gen probes/sats. I didn't feel it necessary to have a "practice probe" for every milestone in a space program. But when you see the ratio of Kerbin SOI craft to interplanetary craft on KerbalX, or hear the comments from so many forum users that never go interplanetary, I'm hoping these spacecraft will hopefully encourage players to try. A player can experience so many more and varied engineering challenges when they go interplanetary, which brings more re-play-ability to their KSP install.

Possible, yes. But it went against my overall strategy. I approach the Mun and other low gravity bodies with two broad strategies. 1) Maintain small orbital research stations in orbit, and use reusable landers to make sequential landings to biome after biome to retrieve science to bring back to the station for conducting research. This can be augmented by small surface research sites in the form of the LV-3B, which are akin to remote research locations in the arctic/antarctic here on Earth. The principle here is to keep the total launches to set up or implement this strategy as few as possible, with propellant refueling needed for just the lander. 2) Fully commit to large, expensive surface infrastructure with redundant habitation and logistics infrastructure, supported by a combination of surface ISRU distribution via rovers and in-SOI orbital ISRU distribution by propellant depots. In the case of surface activities, especially on higher gravity/atmo bodies like Duna or Laythe, equipment delivery is a one-way street to the surface. The orbital activities leverage as much re-usability as possible to, along with funds generated from surface research/contracts, offset the long-term hardware costs of all the equipment that is sent to the surface. Using cargo landers in an expendable fashion on the Mun (or Ike, Dres etc) sort of unnecessarily commits to the 2nd strategy given other craft I've designed, but when I imagine myself sending module after module to the surface with a return to orbit and rendezvous/refuel between each one, makes my eyes roll back in my head. The same reason why I don't care for SSTO spaceplanes. It gets monotonous after a while. I might save one or two LV-3C's to use as propellant depots on the surface, but otherwise I just delete each LV-3C or LV-3D from the Tracking Station after each module delivery. This is why I used a docking clamp instead of a decoupler as a cargo mount on the LV-3C lander. If someone (including myself) down the road wants to implement a more reusable delivery method, the lander can already dock and re-dock with multiple modules. The only thing that requires modification is the surface modules and find a way to stack them on a propulsion stage for delivery to the destination. But the part count will climb rapidly having a bunch of individual modules on one rocket. I put that there mainly to offload excess propellant for use by the surface base fuel cells. But as stated above, there is room for growth to implement refueling for re-usability.

Whatever, I'm not going to have a debate with someone on the internet over something so silly and inconsequential. Nor am I going to change how I publish my craft.

No, they don't. None of them do. No, it's not. It takes 2 seconds to remove a launcher. I don't just upload craft with launchers, that's exactly how I keep them saved in my VAB. I load and go. That's what I like about the trade-offs in KSP. "Look at all this Isp I get from ions, and it thrusts like paint dries" Thanks.

Another small update today, this one focused on my EV-6 'Windjammer' and Advance Equipment Kits in my M3V section. I was never really satisfied with how the M3V-H and M3V-PL modules turned out. But it was the best I could do given my building skills at the time. Now that I've discovered other ways of making the modules closer to the way I envisioned them (without resorting to a ridiculously high part count), it was good timing for getting them up to 1.6 currency. Along with the new shape (which more closely resembles the Mars Base Camp concepts that were its inspiration), the modules also provide additional features such as better communications, surface biome/terrain scanning via KerbNet, and several small docking clamps for attaching probes or science equipment racks as necessary. The modules did increase in part count by 7 to 9 parts each, but this increase was thankfully offset by the part count reduction in the EV-2L crew vehicles which are meant to be integrated as part of the overall spacecraft. I also decided to add some black stripe accents to the modules, which break up the monolithic white, and also serve to match the accents on the EV-2L and LV-7A in the screenshot below. Additionally, it would make sense that certain areas like around the docking ports you might want to reduce glare if you were visually docking a craft manually, or the borders around the recessed observation windows.

I'm afraid I don't know what you are referring to.

I normally just try to propulsively capture into Duna orbit straightaway. It's low enough gravity that it doesn't require that much dV to go straight in, and shouldn't really matter whether it's prograde or retrograde that much. For the most part, the Kerbol star system isn't big enough that retro/prograde orbits make that much of a difference outside a few difficult bodies like Eve or Tylo. I'm not a fan of aerobraking, since I'd rather just carry a little bit more fuel than deal with carrying along extra hardware for hypersonic aerobraking protection. Aerobraking will always be more efficient since you aren't expending any fuel, but gravity assists will be safer. Unless you are playing with life support and if you botch the gravity brake you get flung into deep space without enough consumables to survive. It all comes down to preference and skill I suppose. Whatever you're better at, go for it. Almost. The Spark is superior in thrust and Isp in both atmo and vacuum, but the 24-77 Twitch can be radial-mounted and has a gimbal limit of 8 deg, whereas the Spark only has 3 deg. I won't hold it against the Twitch that it only has one variant since it hasn't received the same overhaul treatment as the Spark (yet?). The Twitch works wonderfully for my Duna landers like the LV-2D/E, LV-4B, and the IV-1D ISRU rig.