Rune's Slightly Used Vehicles

[Rune]

Well, the station is up. Grab it here! Now, let's see how many of you feel up to the task of doing this ultra-precise docking. I'll be very happy if you provide 'visual confirmation' that there are a lot of expert KSP players out there!

I really like how it turned out. From the incredibly smooth semi-automatic gravity turn, to the tidy 110 part count in orbit, definitely one of my tighter designs. I don't think you can take out a single part and still have all the features it has, like say, full six degree rotation and translational authority with only the vernor RCS system, for example. It does require some short of docking master to make everything line up properly, so I encourage the use of both SnapDock with a tight tolerance (I have mine set to 0.995 through the .cfg), and Docking Alignment Indicator. Oh, and mind the 'launch manual' in the description, it's a tight dV budget.

 

Rune. Did I mention it comes with a reusable booster that brings the launch cost to something around ~15k√ for the whole ~25mT, ~90k√ station?

Edited March 12, 2017 by Rune

[ryan234abc]

Embarrassingly, I didn't realise you were making craft again until today. Great to see you back!

[Rune]

1 hour ago, ryan234abc said:

Embarrassingly, I didn't realise you were making craft again until today. Great to see you back!

I never stopped! I may have slowed down a bit, but that's because I am more or less happy with what I've got, and instead of spending all the time in the VAB and the testing save, I've been advancing my career save like, a lot. You should see it, it's glorious. Moho is pretty much all tamed, and I've got stuff outgoing to everywhere but Eve, with a sizeable Dunian flotilla only a few weeks from orbital insertion. Plus, I've decided Kerbin didn't have enough moons, so there's a standing order of capturing all Class E's that happen to come close by, and an kerbolnaut corp that's frankly crowding the KSC (61, and I still pick up everybody that shows with a special name). So far I've got six rocks with two more incoming, and still no magic boulder. One of these days!

 

Rune. Still in the first in-game year, tough.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Rune

[SingABrightSong]

*Grabs the new Von Braun*

Glad to hear that your craft has such excellent performance. Good work. Now I just need to boot up KSP again...

I noticed that you posted in the expansion announcement thread. With the understanding that you do plan to purchase it, should we expect to see craft from you incorporating the added parts? I do intend to purchase it, myself, but for others who do not, would you continue to maintain non-DLC craft in the event that DLC-added parts outperform the extant components in your designs? 

Perhaps these questions should wait until the DLC is actually released, heh.

 

[Rune]

3 hours ago, SingABrightSong said:

*Grabs the new Von Braun*

Glad to hear that your craft has such excellent performance. Good work. Now I just need to boot up KSP again...

I noticed that you posted in the expansion announcement thread. With the understanding that you do plan to purchase it, should we expect to see craft from you incorporating the added parts? I do intend to purchase it, myself, but for others who do not, would you continue to maintain non-DLC craft in the event that DLC-added parts outperform the extant components in your designs? 

Perhaps these questions should wait until the DLC is actually released, heh.

 

Good luck on the assembly!

As to the DLC, well, I won't have to purchase it, since I'm one of those that bought KSP soon enough. I might throw someone a gift coupon or something to show Squad my support, tough. But as to what parts I'll use or won't use, well, as you say, it's way too early to tell.

I can guarantee you one thing, tough, I will always post ships that everybody can use on RSUV. Not that I won't post ships with DLC content, but RSUV is for everyone, so just like with mods, I will keep this thread for what it's for, and mayhaps post elsewhere whatever isn't appropiate here. Who knows, I might bring back the skunkworks if the DLC parts are really cool, but behind a paywall.

 

Rune. And if that encourages Squad to make the parts stock in a future update, well, even better.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Rune

[SingABrightSong]

New Von Braun looks good. Something that comes to mind, though, is the HL-20 escape pod. The VB 11 can carry 18 kerbals, 19 with a Cupola Tug attached, but the HL-20 seats only four. You'd need four of them to be able to evac only most of its capacity, which would leave no room for docking anything else. Do you use some sort of pod bay? I'm attempting to design one myself at the moment. Trying to make one with doors, because reasons.

In other thoughts as regards your craft, I notice that the Lackluster still uses its pre-fuel-priority design. Were there not plans to update that? I also notice that the Drive Pods included with the Magdalena seem to be broken(that is, not drawing LF through the tiny docking port), though that could just be a mistake I made when installing them.

[Rune]

1 hour ago, SingABrightSong said:

New Von Braun looks good. Something that comes to mind, though, is the HL-20 escape pod. The VB 11 can carry 18 kerbals, 19 with a Cupola Tug attached, but the HL-20 seats only four. You'd need four of them to be able to evac only most of its capacity, which would leave no room for docking anything else. Do you use some sort of pod bay? I'm attempting to design one myself at the moment. Trying to make one with doors, because reasons.

In other thoughts as regards your craft, I notice that the Lackluster still uses its pre-fuel-priority design. Were there not plans to update that? I also notice that the Drive Pods included with the Magdalena seem to be broken(that is, not drawing LF through the tiny docking port), though that could just be a mistake I made when installing them.

Those are mostly accurate points. I should totally update the Lackluster, plenty of minor revisions since the one on KerbalX. As to how to evacuate a VB... Don't have an emergency in the first place!

But seriously, I rarely have anything more than a standard crew of three, two at the most, the extra space is purely for RP purposes. I would like to see that docking bay when you finish it, tough!

And the Drive Pod thing is very weird indeed. I have actually launched that very same file, and I've never had that happening... with any of my pods, on this file or any other. I might have to investigate further, details appreciated.

 

Rune. AFK right now, tough, until sunday at least.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Rune

[SingABrightSong]

Upon further inspection, it seems that the Magdalena's drive pods not working was my fault. I had attached them in the VAB, but they were node-snapped to the rear end of the docking ports rather than, you know, the docking end. Actually attaching them properly yields no problem.

I had to scrap putting the HL-20 into a cargo bay, as they don't quite fit in most orientations. Instead, I've gone for a modular girder construct.

Spoiler

I think it's a fitting aesthetic for an emergency evac.

 

In other news, you may have seen my Kentipede mobile base. I've designed a transport for it, but it includes a modified version of your Cupola Tug as a means of assembling the payload for landing. Should I end up publishing it, would I be able to redistribute your work, or should I direct users to obtain it from you?

Spoiler

 

 

[Rune]

12 hours ago, SingABrightSong said:

Upon further inspection, it seems that the Magdalena's drive pods not working was my fault. I had attached them in the VAB, but they were node-snapped to the rear end of the docking ports rather than, you know, the docking end. Actually attaching them properly yields no problem.

Glad to hear that!

12 hours ago, SingABrightSong said:

I had to scrap putting the HL-20 into a cargo bay, as they don't quite fit in most orientations. Instead, I've gone for a modular girder construct.

  Reveal hidden contents

I think it's a fitting aesthetic for an emergency evac.

Yeah, they fit a Mk3 bay, but only if you twist them 45º, to use the bigger diagonal for the wings. Anyhow, the docking bay is pretty cool... tiny quip, I would have tried to use the Hub-Max Multi-point connector (the six-way connector that has almost no use). But that's because I like to RP that the kerbals only move through kerbal-sized parts.

And as for the cuppola tug, I wouldn't dream of calling dibs on something that simple. Convergent design with the same parts and all that. Give me a bit of credit in the thread if you really think I inspired it (I noticed the mention in the Kentipede's thread, BTW, thx), but I think it is very fair to say that particular pod, that's one you built.

 

Rune. I like the looks of that Nuclear Fury, BTW.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Rune

[Rune]

Holy mother of edits. I'm done. I'm finally done! Everything is updated and compliant with 1.3.1, and I even whipped up a couple of fancy pics (I'm not ashamed to say I stole the idea from @Raptor9) and organized things and everything. Check it out!

 

Rune. Now, to put moar things inside!

Edited November 16, 2017 by Rune

[septemberWaves]

Glad to see you're back.

[Rune]

Update! Added the Centaur, a 20 mT VTVL cargo SSTO. What a mouthful of acronyms! Post below:

CENTAUR

 

The first of a new breed: Practical cargo chemical SSTOs, with a payload bay and a generous maximum payload. Why would I bother, if I have a ton of airbreathing SSTOs that can do the same thing, for less fuel and cost? Well, airbreathers are not really that much slower than rockets in getting to orbit, but they are slower. And some people just don't like them. Plus, legendary designs like the DC-X and Bono's monsters have always intrigued me. If only our earth was a tiny bit less massive, or our chemical engines a bit better, we could have one of these. Wouldn't that be cool? And isn't that a good enough reason to build such a thing in KSP? Besides, it is actually useful.

And what is a 'generous maximum payload', I hear you ask? Well, in this case, 20mT to 100kms circular, which is nothing to sneer at. Basically, as long as you aren't carrying mostly fuel, you will max out the payload volume long before you max out the payload weight (for handy calculations, the maximum takeoff weight is indicated on the description). Handling is superb, with the powerful RCS system and the almost-empty mass in orbit being relatively low. And once it's time to get back, you won't take any longer than to reenter any capsule: point your butt to the wind, and let the gods of newtonian mechanics carry you down, you will barely see a few temperature gauges turn brownish. Happy launches!

Spoiler

A few notes on flying this. First, for your convenience, the ship is slightly tilted eastwards, so that if you engage SAS (and RCS!) before take off, it will follow a slightly eastwards skewed vertical trajectory at first. By doing so, you can 'fly it' by selecting the prograde autopilot at the right time to initiate a perfect gravity turn. With full load, the magic number that warns you to do so is 85m/s on the surface speed indicator, but with a smaller load you will get more TWR off the pad, and you will have to start it sooner. In any case, once the gravity turn is started, you can take care of any slight inclination misalignment (any imperfection will get magnified as you tilt over), it a pretty hands-free ascent otherwise. If you happen to find that your apoapsis is rising too fast by the end (meaning you started grav-turning a bit late), you can always throttle down by pressing '2', shutting off one third of the engines. And once you are circularizing, using just that third (press '1' to toggle all engines to switch between 2/3rds thrust and 1/3rd) helps nailing a precise insertion.

Oh, and RCS on at all times, if that wasn't evident by now. The thing barely has reaction wheels, and no engine gimbal, but it has powerful vernors placed strategically so you have decent six-axis control. Which may seem a bit wasteful (and it kind of is), but it gives you a lot of maneuverability, makes docking quite easy, and it isn't that much more wasteful than gimbaling your engine. You can save some fuel by switching on fine controls with Bloq. Mayus., of course. Apart form that, don't worry about the fuel cell, it turns on automatically once you stage, and note that using the docking port through the action group ('6') uses the shiny new feature of 'control from here', to reset the orientation... which shouldn't change once you decouple the payload, but just in case.

Landing is also easy: just focus on targeting KSC (the Trajectories Mod is amazing for that), and do nothing until the things goes subsonic frighteningly close to the ground. Then you can pull the chutes, freak out because it seems like they won't open in time, and breathe a final sigh of relief as speed suddenly drops to ~15m/s a couple hundred meters from the ground. If you get used to all that, you can use that time of heavy aerodynamic deceleration as you drop below 900m/s and get back comms to do some fancy inverted flying to precisely target the landing site (basically all controls work the other way around, you pitch up by pressing 'S', for example). Once the chutes deploy, tough, all that is left to do is turn the lights on, drop the landing gear, and provide a bit of thrust on the last meters to bring speed to a safe 5-10m/s for final touchdown, to ensure nothing blows up. But don't worry too much, a lot of stuff has to explode before you start crashing expensive engines. And with a bit of practice, you too will get 100% recovery rates over the runway!

 

DOWNLOAD:

https://kerbalx.com/Rune/VSSTO-MkXXIV-Centaur

 

 

Rune. New naming convention for VSSTOs, too. Why do you think that is?

Edited November 18, 2017 by Rune

[septemberWaves]

5 hours ago, Rune said:

New naming convention for VSSTOs, too. Why do you think that is?

I very much suspect we'll be seeing more similar vehicles. Which I'm definitely looking forward to, since just this one is a nice-looking (and evidently very effective) addition to your spacecraft portfolio. I particularly like how you've used a lot of small aerospikes to form essentially one big aerospike. The base does look somewhat outsized (what is it, like at least 8 meters in diameter?) but I don't think that takes away from the overall appearance.

[Raptor9]

10 hours ago, Rune said:

Plus, legendary designs like the DC-X and Bono's monsters have always intrigued me. If only our earth was a tiny bit less massive, or our chemical engines a bit better, we could have one of these. Wouldn't that be cool?

I like the DC-X as well.  I've been trying to make a DC-X style lander that's bigger and better than my existing LV-4 'Armadillo's.  That darned, delicate balancing act of getting the cool and practical to work together. 

[Rune]

9 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

I very much suspect we'll be seeing more similar vehicles. Which I'm definitely looking forward to, since just this one is a nice-looking (and evidently very effective) addition to your spacecraft portfolio.

Yup, pretty sharp right there. It started with the Vega, and we will go up in luminosity a bit yet... There is a Sirius on the works.

9 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

The base does look somewhat outsized (what is it, like at least 8 meters in diameter?) but I don't think that takes away from the overall appearance.

Actually, under that fairing, it's a single S3-14400 tank (3.75m), surrounded by 18x FL-T800s holding the spikes (1.25m each), so the shroud is 'only' a tad fatter than 6.25m in diameter. Though if you consider the annular wing, yeah, it's more like 9.1m diameter in the engineer's report. Lots of volume to store lots of fuel! It is a surprisingly simple build under the hood, actually. I even placed the FL-T800 with 6x symmetry three times, spaced 20º, so that I could turn the engines on/off in thirds... which means I didn't even need Editor Extensions to build it! (I still used it of course, to make sure everything was lined up and such... I just didn't need it)

4 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

I like the DC-X as well.  I've been trying to make a DC-X style lander that's bigger and better than my existing LV-4 'Armadillo's.  That darned, delicate balancing act of getting the cool and practical to work together. 

I wish you luck, then, because I really want to see want you can come up with. You usually make pretty cool-looking stuff!

What direction are you leaning right now to shape it, fairing body like this one? Mk3 fuselages, maybe? Or plain cylindrical rocket tanks because of the decent mass fraction? Just curious, because over time I have tired all of them, but I'm sure there is some great idea out there that I'm still to learn about.

 

Rune. So glad to have my old thread active again!

Edited November 18, 2017 by Rune

[Raptor9]

8 hours ago, Rune said:

What direction are you leaning right now to shape it, fairing body like this one? Mk3 fuselages, maybe? Or plain cylindrical rocket tanks because of the decent mass fraction? Just curious, because over time I have tired all of them, but I'm sure there is some great idea out there that I'm still to learn about.

Rune. So glad to have my old thread active again!

Not entirely sure yet, my first iteration this summer used Mk2 Fuselage parts for corners and wing panels in between, to try to mimic the DC-X boxy look.  But after learning a little with my LV-4B and another Duna lander I'm working on, it could either be cylindrical parts or a combo of those and fairings. @Exothermos did an interesting job with his Lockheed Martin Mars lander recreation.

Yeah, it feels good when you get your own thread cleaned and organized for currency.  I need to update some info and screenshots in mine too, not to mention my craft video is grossly outdated, being filmed in 1.0.5.

[Rune]

16 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Not entirely sure yet, my first iteration this summer used Mk2 Fuselage parts for corners and wing panels in between, to try to mimic the DC-X boxy look.  But after learning a little with my LV-4B and another Duna lander I'm working on, it could either be cylindrical parts or a combo of those and fairings. @Exothermos did an interesting job with his Lockheed Martin Mars lander recreation.

Well, I really wouldn't recommend Mk2. The drag is horrendous. I know I've recently released the Vega, which actually uses a bunch of those, but in that case the drag is a big part of what actually makes the rocket stable pointy side first, and the whole design is mostly for looks first, with efficiency being a distant second. BTW, a quick pic because even tough it was added to the OP, I don't think I have actually posted it here:

Anyhow, the thing uses five engines to put almost the same payload in orbit that the old LackLuster did, and that one also had Mk2-1 adaptors (but only four instead of six), so that kind of proves just how much of a hit each of those things is.

On a somewhat, but mostly unrelated note, I think I am going to change my standard tank dimensions. Specifically, I have fallen more and more in love with my half-of-a-previously-standard-length ore tanks, and what you can do with them. Anyhow, I decided to see what I could do with a similarly sized LFO tank, so I started experimenting putting subassemblies together on the VAB to see what I got:

KER has a fit when it tries to work out the dV of such a contraption, especially since most of the reaction mass is kept as ore (very volumetrically efficient, and the ore tanks  have the best tankage ratio in the game). But, working my trusty KSP excel, I get more than 4km/s out of such a configuration. Yup. Using 340s Isp aerospikes as the engine. That is a lot of fuel in that thing (218mT out of 302 total, in fact). And the hexagonal pattern is pretty pleasing to look at, too, not to mention it has a lot of double-docks to give it rigidity. And it all came out of a humble five part tank subassembly, that the Vega can put inside its payload bay to be refueled on the surface of wherever. Even tough that is a lot of docking ports and extra parts, well, each of them is only five, most destinations won't require the full 14 tanks to get the interesting hexagonal pattern, or I will use nukes to halve the required reaction mass... and what the hell, the whole thing is under 300 parts, I guess I can handle the tankage section being 70 (14x5).

So yeah, in other words, let it be known that 'payload section' in the OP is soon to get some movement, after all if I show all these things is because I intend on you guys getting your hands on them. I actually plan on it becoming just as important, as the VAB or SPH sections. After all, these days I end up thinking way more about payloads than launchers! I am also quite interested on feedback on that idea. What payloads would you guys like to get? Would you like them in subassembly form (as they are now), as a completed file for you to pick apart, or something different altogether?

 

Rune. Who's up for some Lego in space?

Edited November 19, 2017 by Rune

[Raptor9]

4 hours ago, Rune said:

I am also quite interested on feedback on that idea. What payloads would you guys like to get? Would you like them in subassembly form (as they are now), as a completed file for you to pick apart, or something different altogether?

I approach it from what the payload is and how/where it can be used.  For example, all my station parts are subassemblies since any given station a player wants to build or where he/she wants to build it is so various, I didn't want to put them in pre-set payload packages or pre-fit launchers.  That and there are so many.

However, other large payload combinations such as my EV-4 components or my M3V kits are smaller in number and are specifically grouped together for a purpose and/or destination, so I took some of the work out of the process and pre-fit them with ideal launchers, ready to hit LAUNCH.

It all comes down to how you want to present them and how they're meant to be used.  At the end of the day, if a player wants to use them differently, they can always change it themselves.  You can't accommodate every possible combination or technique of applications. 

Oh, and if a craft has fuel ducts or struts, I would avoid publishing it as a subassembly since their placement might come back wonky, especially if you used the offset tool on them.

[SingABrightSong]

Ah, I've been waiting a long time for an update from this thread. And it was not a disappointment. The Centaur is of particular interest to me; could it be deployed on an interplanetary mission? Say, to deploy your Base-In-A-Box to Tylo?

 

As for payloads, there are of course the usual suspects. Comms satellites, station components, and fuel tanks. I do believe, however, that I could come up with some more exotic payloads... Ah, there's one. Crew transfers are a payload not often considered, but one of certain importance. Carry a crew cabin to orbit, then transfer the cabin, crew and all, to a deep space transport. Brake at the destination, and transfer the crew to a dedicated lander, to man a remotely-assembled surface base.

Another payload type I might like to see is for surface missions. A standard design of manned or unmanned rover to be deployed in your standard cargo bay. And while I currently have the market cornered on modular mobile bases, my own Kentipede MkV serves best in a more ruggedized niche(how rugged? I drove the thing off of the edge of the Dres canyon and landed it intact at the bottom! It's not rated for the Mohole, but that's more because the newly-included expendable launch and transfer stages can only get it as far as Laythe), I think you would be able to come up with something that would fit into your existing design standards(including an actual usable part count).

 

Definitely planning to try these all out, at least as soon as my attempt at a 10x/SMURFF career crashes and burns(pun not intended).

[Rune]

3 hours ago, SingABrightSong said:

Ah, I've been waiting a long time for an update from this thread. And it was not a disappointment. The Centaur is of particular interest to me; could it be deployed on an interplanetary mission? Say, to deploy your Base-In-A-Box to Tylo?

Thanks! I think that would work, yeah. As you can see in the picture, a Base-In-A-Box can also be split into two packs that fit a single long payload bay (like the Orca's, or the Centaur's), and I will be providing it in just that way in the payload section (I call them 'basic pack' and 'expansion pack', what you see in the Centaur's bay would be the 'expansion pack'). Now, getting it safely onto the surface without KAS to rig some short of crane will probably be much more trickier than it seems (you could test on kerbin), because the thing is quite wider than the payload bay, and it has a ways to fall. And of course, it would use humongous amounts of fuel each refuel, with at least one on LKO and one on LTO. Theoretically it could refuel itself, ~20mT at a time, but... there are faster ways, so I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

3 hours ago, SingABrightSong said:

As for payloads, there are of course the usual suspects. Comms satellites, station components, and fuel tanks. I do believe, however, that I could come up with some more exotic payloads... Ah, there's one. Crew transfers are a payload not often considered, but one of certain importance. Carry a crew cabin to orbit, then transfer the cabin, crew and all, to a deep space transport. Brake at the destination, and transfer the crew to a dedicated lander, to man a remotely-assembled surface base.

Another payload type I might like to see is for surface missions. A standard design of manned or unmanned rover to be deployed in your standard cargo bay. And while I currently have the market cornered on modular mobile bases, my own Kentipede MkV serves best in a more ruggedized niche(how rugged? I drove the thing off of the edge of the Dres canyon and landed it intact at the bottom! It's not rated for the Mohole, but that's more because the newly-included expendable launch and transfer stages can only get it as far as Laythe), I think you would be able to come up with something that would fit into your existing design standards(including an actual usable part count).

Those are all good suggestions. I have fiddled a lot with rovers in the VAB, but I hardly ever use them on my save! Maybe that should change... In any case, and in the meantime, you can actually turn any of my modular bases into a rover of sorts by putting construction rovers under each module and retracting all gears. I have the intention of sending three of the little guys to Moho on the next window for that very purpose! (But a busy Jool window comes first) Turns out my peak of eternal light wasn't so eternal after all, and I want to check the nearby Mohole for some photo ops.

 

Rune. And the Orca 'roves' so well...

[Rune]

New stuff! The Sirius, going up in luminosity just like I promised:

And going up quite a bit! I initially was shooting for twice the payload capacity of the Centaur, but turns out that was quite the understatement:

That right there are more than fifty metric tons of payload! So yeah, the Vectors are quite OP. And flying it is quite simple, like the Centaur. In this case, the magic velocity to start the gravity turn is 115m/s at maximum payload, and you do that by selecting the prograde autopilot, because the launch platform is already slightly tilted for you. Practically flies itself! And although it is understandably quite more sluggish than its smaller brethren, it can still do precision terminal guidance for 100% recovery on the runway. It helps that the chutes do the 'suicide burn' automatically and leave you falling at 20m/s, but it is still quite scarily awesome to fly this thing backwards at transonic speeds while the buildings get bigger by the second. And if you are just scared by the prospect, well... some legs were blown up doing the landing tests, but it should survive even an unpowered emergency landing.

 

Rune. So now I have the Claymore equivalent in rocket. Next thing, stuff to put inside!

Edited November 24, 2017 by Rune

[SG Aero]

I have a mini folding winged plane that would fit into that thing like 5 times over!

[Raptor9]

4 hours ago, Rune said:

Pfff...you missed the VAB roof landing pad by several hundred meters....not impressed. 

[Rune]

On 25/11/2017 at 2:18 AM, Raptor9 said:

Pfff...you missed the VAB roof landing pad by several hundred meters....not impressed. 

You know? I've tried, and the best I can do is the VAB lawn. Shame on my poor piloting skills, SpaceX will never hire me to real-time guide their rockets.

But pilot skills aside, I think the trying itself was a testament to a rugged design. I landed it safely all the ~20 times I tried the thing before giving up and realizing the CEP was bigger than the VAB, and even if I hit it, I'm almsot certain I would have blown it up. But even tough I blew up plenty of legs, it never tipped, and dodged all buildings every time.

On 24/11/2017 at 11:26 PM, ShadowGoat said:

I have a mini folding winged plane that would fit into that thing like 5 times over!

So now you can put a couple on top of a beefy transfer, stage, and test them at Laythe!

 

Rune. I'd actually like to see that one.

[Rune]

Waitwaitwait.... SCRATCH THAT, I AM A KSP GOD. (If I can use F9...)

 

Rune. Don't try this at home. Or, you know, do. You feel pretty awesome when you do it.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Rune