Raptor9

I'm glad this is over. My surface base module revamp/expansion project is now complete. I don't think any previous project I've done went through so many iterations or testing/tweaking/retesting/retesting cycles. I think I've found a good balance between functionality, part count and aesthetics. In recent posts I've already talked about how the mechanics work regarding how to load modules on cargo landers and assemble them on the surface. I'll just show the higher res photos below. And the LV-3C and LV-3D cargo landers below: I would like to note that as mentioned above, while the surface modules themselves are complete (until I think of more I need ), I still need to make some better rovers to go along with the infrastructure. But in the meantime, I'm going to swing back to the LV-3A and LV-3B and see if I can iron out some deficiencies.

There's not really a single target orbit you need to aim for, but rather one that supports your mission(s). If you are about to launch a rocket that can only get a heavy payload to a low (say 80km) orbit, but it needs to go further, then place your depot there. Top off the upper stage and continue on with the payload as necessaary. "Distributed launches" on two smaller rockets is a lot of times cheaper than a single big one. If you need a depot to support an ISRU site on the surface of the Mun, then you can use up however much propellant you need to in order to get it to low Munar orbit; since you will be filling it from Munar refined fuel anyway. If you need to stage the propellant depot somewhere and you need it arrive with as much fuel as possible, send it to an orbit that uses up 50% of your total onboard fuel, then send another depot to top it off again before continuing. You may want to retrieve the second (now empty) depot later somehow, but that's the concept of a depot-based architecture. It's preferable to leverage forward-staged ISRU sites, but if necessary you can stage fuel by directly sending fuel depots and tankers. The downside to the second method is it gets more and more logistically intensive the further you want to go. Tanker>refuels tanker>refuels depot, etc.

Meh....no. I mean, I could make a truss-type design with other parts, but it would just add to the part count unnecessarily.

Not necessarily. Sometimes I do what I call the "pitch-and-catch" method where I plot a course when within CommNet range, "pitch" the probe/satellite on it's way through space where there may be no comms link, but "catch" the craft when it nears it's destination that is within range of a local communications bridge. The downside is that if you muck up the transit trajectory, you're stuck with it unless you have a probe core that has the required SAS functionality to correct.

No, I don't recall ever needing them on those since they never needed to go further than keo-stationary orbit.

Having a bone-stock version and a Restock version of my craft catalog would be entirely too much work to maintain. If I were to convert my craft files to Restock versions, I would commit to it entirely. Not saying I will or will not, just saying it would be one or the other.

The differences in the "production" models are explained on each respective graphic (ie WR-6, TR-9, T-11, T-14, WR-18U). _____________________________ Quick update. Testing on the surface base modules are now complete, work on graphics has started. In this initial set of revised base modules, there will be 12 subassemblies to choose from, with a 13th that will come pre-loaded on the LV-3C/D landers. There is some capability gap, mainly in the realm of rovers, that I will be working on after I get the current modules published. I also completed the landing trials of the LV-3C on Vall and Moho with the heaviest payload (4.85 tons) in the new module list, and it's doable. You just have to be smart about your approach and landing trajectory to manage the lower TWR and the additional gravity losses. However, still looking at an LV-3E variant down the road for future growth.

I never realized how much better a consistent art style and precision diameter match-ups make KSP ships look so much better until I saw this screenshot. That is gorgeous. The smooth lines and consistent stock-a-like style of that nose shroud, Mk1-3 nose diameter, and service bay are in a word "seamless beauty". Well done.

1st Stage - 'Thunder 3' family: standard length core booster with options of no SRB's, 1 pair, or 2 pair - 'Thunder 4' family: extended length core booster with same booster options as 'Thunder 3' family - 'Lightning': further extended core booster with 6x SRB's to counter the additional propellant weight (player can remove some, but will suffer TWR penalties with heavier payloads) 2nd Stage - 'Thunder 3' family: OKTO-controlled upper stage with stability assist, 3.5 dimensions of RCS control (rotation and forward translation only), limited battery life - 'Thunder 4' family: OKTO2-controlled upper stage with multiple SAS modes, 6 dimensions of RCS control (full rotation/translation), limited battery life, 75% the propellant load when compared to the 'Thunder 3' upper stage, but with more precise payload placement/delivery capability - 'Lightning': OKTO-controlled upper stage with stability assist, 6 dimensions of Vernor control, fuel cell power generation, dedicated comms antenna, re-usability improvements, almost twice the propellant load of the 'Thunder 3' upper stage, and twice the thrust compared to either 'Thunder' upper stage _____________________________ EDIT: While I'm here, a quick update on the new surface base modules. I'm at about a 85% completion status regarding the final testing, before I move on to creating graphics. There are a couple more small logistics modules I'm putting the finishing touches on in the VAB that I still need to test, but these are primarily to facilitate easier ISRU/propellant refueling on the surface in conjunction with IV-1 mining rigs. The main set of modules for the bases themselves are finished, as are two of the cargo landers. I've already finished constructing a small test base on the Mun, as well as an even bigger base on Duna. The first cargo lander is a revision of the legacy LV-3C 'Bullfrog', however it's been reduced in part count, is more compact, and is less expensive. It's currently proven to handle all of the new base modules, and is rated for the Mun, Ike, Dres, and Eeloo (if you could get it there). The brand new LV-3D is a more compact lander than even the new LV-3C, and comes equipped with an inflatable heatshield. As such, it is well-suited to land base modules on Duna, with a reasonable propellant margin at the bottom to re-position all but the heaviest modules up to 10km away from the initial trajectory in case the atmospheric entry predictions are off. Landing some of the heavier modules on Moho or Vall is near the upper margins of the LV-3C's TWR and delta-V allowances, so I'm looking into a potential LV-3E version that may come down the road with more propellant and additional engines. Additionally, I haven't messed with the really low gravity bodies like Minmus, Bop or Pol, so I'm not gonna say definitively that the base modules or landers would remain stable there until I have time for further testing after uploading all the modules to KerbalX. I don't want to have these modules stuck in perpetual testing like the previous iterations of base modules.

I was being sarcastic. I wouldn't actually watch the mining take place any more than I would watch grass grow.

Why would you want to leave your drills running in the background? I just pour a cup of coffee and watch them in real-time.

Which uses realistic orbital mechanics, with parts inspired by real-life craft, with planets inspired by real-life planets, with Kerbals named after real-life people. Bottom line, you can play KSP however you want. I'm gonna play KSP however I want.

Because IMO they're "cheaty". In reality, a spacecraft like the Apollo command/service module or the Orion MPCV doesn't have fighter jet levels of maneuverabilty from some magic box in the crew capsule. This is why only small satellites or certain space station modules in my catalog have them working, to emulate their real-life applications.

Yes and yes, you just need to zoom in to access it.

The past week has seen the most significant craft revisions since KSP 1.6.0. The LV-1 landers obviously needed redone since the legacy Mk2 lander can is being depreciated. But the new version of the LV-1 looks much better IMO. I even was able to make the ascent module look even more like the Apollo landers, despite the differences in window layout and the external hatch. All the other landers of the LV-1 family received similar treatment where necessary, and for the most part only varied in part count +/- two or three parts. Plus, the external visibility from inside the IVA view is just amazing with these new lander cans. The other half of the major revisions was the LITE reusable upper stage and all the craft derived from it, such as the HLV-5 landers, the PD-32/64 propellant depots, and the EV-2L 'Runabout' crew vehicle. One design decision I'm trying to remove from my catalog in some places is the overuse of the EAS-4 struts. They're heavy, add to part count when used to make complex structural-looking meshes, and don't play well when saved on subassemblies. So along with the Poodle returning to propel the LITE stages, I've also redone the stage as a whole in layout. Compared to the RE-L10 'Poodle', the RE-J10 'Wolfhound' obviously has a higher Isp, even with the 1.6 re-balancing, however the additional mass of the Wolfhound-based LITE negates any performance gains when stacked against the newest Poodle-equipped version. The mass reduction that went along with the stage revision aided in this as well, but even with the latest version of the LITE the Wolfhound had negligible dV gains when pushing the average payload mass I place on the LITE. When pushing large payloads that are usually carried by the NITE the Wolfhound is the solid choice, but for smaller in-SOI cargo runs the Poodle is the more economical selection. This mass difference also had an impact on the HLV-5 revision, which also looks better, performs better, and in the case of the A-model less cumbersome to manage as I explained in the previous post. I've also reverted the HLV-5A crew module to a monopropellant-based RCS system for better control tuning. Not as big an issue compared to the past since I now have a more refined monopropllant supply chain to my ISRU systems, and the EV-2L has a hybrid control system as well. Finally, I've modified the PD-32/64 propellant depots to be a little more common with the NITE and PD-1080, as well as returning the capability to detach the LITE stage from the rest of the depot. The depots themselves only have minimal RW authority in their OKTO probe cores to maintain a stationary attitude after decoupling, so ensure the attitude is stable with the LITE RCS before detaching. This increases flexibility by allowing a player to have a fully-operational LITE stage in case no others are immediately available, as well as freeing up the large docking port to refuel any craft that only have that size of a docking clamp.

Yes (I need to edit those notes on the OP). This was the main reason I wanted to get away from the stack of Oscar-Bs from the crew module. To maintain better CoM balance, the crew module fuel tanks will drain with the propulsion module. But now you only need to transfer to two tanks (one on each side) instead of a dozen or so, prior to launching the crew module separately. Plus it reduces part count. I'll be putting the final touches on the new LV-1 landers today after work; so after I get those updated on KerbalX I'll post a roll-up here of all the significant craft changes recently and the design decisions behind them.

I do.

As a point of personal policy I don't make craft available for specific requested versions. Whatever the version is on a given craft's KerbalX page is the only version I will offer, until the next time I update the craft to improve, refine, or fix an issue. Please understand that I have (at the moment) 230 craft files on KerbalX, and I actively maintain all of them in working order. The moment I start posting alternative craft files of different versions, I'm opening myself up to more and more requests to cater to any players wants, and then further questions about how the craft works in that particular version of KSP in contrast to the current version graphics. If you were to ask a modder to make multiple versions of a mod available, a lot of them would probably give you the same answer. Different products, but the same principle applies; when you give to one, others will expect the same treatment. Now as a caveat, I know some modders do make multiple versions of their mod available, but it comes down to how much work and oversight I'm willing to place on myself. As it stands, due to real-life commitments, I have limited KSP time and I really don't want to open up that can of worms.

About half of the catalog has been updated to 1.6.0 on KerbalX, but I would like to point out that a lot of the graphics will still have the pre-1.6 parts on them. This doesn't mean I haven't swapped out the legacy parts with the latest revised ones when necessary...but the amount of time that it takes to create renders using KVV, then updating the graphics, uploading them to Photobucket, and then updating the image links on KerbalX and here on the forums; it's a lot of work for very little pay-off. Plus it seems that Squad is systematically working their way through the parts list and trying to get a handful of parts revised every few months until all parts have reached a more uniform memory footprint and aesthetic style. So I really don't want to update the hundreds of graphics every several months if more possible revisions are in the pipeline. So the main thing to remember is if one of my craft is listed as 1.6.x on KerbalX, and it includes one of the legacy parts that received a revision (like the LV-909 for example), the new part has indeed been swapped in appropriately. If a craft receives a different piece of equipment that alters it's performance or function, than I will update the graphics as necessary. For example, I've replaced the LV-909 Terrier engine on the 'Scorpion Orbiter' with the 48-7S Spark engine. Therefore, I will revise the graphic accordingly to reflect the functional changes. Some significant changes in the Rocket Market are the 'Titan 3M' and 'Titan 4N', along with the 'Lightning' and all the LITE-based craft. Since the ADTP-2-3 adapter is now a fuel tank, this has actually increased the delta-V reserves of the 'Titan 2M' and NITE upper stages, along with the SVR-20 'Ranger' external fuel tank. To continue the discussion with @Jestersage and @Jester Darrak, the LITE has indeed reverted to the Poodle, but the NITE remains with the Wolfhound. As a consequence the EV-2L, HLV-5 landers, and PD-32/64 depots have also adopted the new LITE design. Re-engining the LITE is only half the story however. The LITE itself also received a needed reduction in weight and part count by ditching the EAS-4 struts below the large docking port. The result is a negligible delta-V difference compared to the heavier, Wolfhound-based LITE stage, and allows for easier craft management in the VAB/SPH and lower overall part counts with several LITE's in physics range. The PD-32 and PD-64 propellant depots also received a bit of an overhaul to allow better flexibility in servicing other craft, with lower part counts and purchase costs. The HLV-5 landers, especially the HLV-5A, are also dramatically lower in part counts and look better IMO. That's the main news regarding the catalog for now, but that's not all of it. Along with these revisions, there are still plenty of others ranging from big to small, that will hopefully continue to improve the performance and look of the catalog; along with upcoming new craft that I am working on in addition to the station and surface base modules. TL;DR: Updated craft/non-updated graphics, more craft changes to take advantage of new parts, more projects gaining progress so stay tuned for 2019.

I'm gonna go with the finalized version. The windows and EVA door obviously won't be anything like the real LEM, but the overall appearance will probably be "churched up" like I did with the legacy Mk2 can on the 1.4 version of my LV-1. I don't remember, but I'm sure there's info on it on astronautix.com.

4:45 Now THAT's a Kerbal rescue if there ever was one.

Farewell @Darth Badie. Thanks for always braving the unrelenting forum-users to bring us community news in a positive attitude.

...well played. In all seriousness though, you may be right. I just now finished downloading and installing 1.6, so about to dive in to it and see what I have to work with. I've seen some of the stats from the DLC engine rebalance, but I'm also wanting to tweak the LITE to get a little more performance out of it as well. What it will probably come down to is how much payload I'm wanting to push on either the LITE or NITE in addition to their respective mass and propellant fractions. Kind of how the Terrier has much better ISP than the Spark, but on smaller craft, the lower mass fraction of the Spark leads to better performance over the much more efficient Terrier. We'll see how things are looking as I dive into the latest version over the holidays. Speaking of which, Merry Christmas, Feliz Navidad, Happy Kwanzaa and (a slightly overdue) Happy Hanukkah to all those fellow KSP-ers out there. I wish you peace in mission control and a Yuletide of beaucoup flag-planting.

Very nice, I like how the sensor mounts blend in well with the probe cores.