Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Raptor9]

Thanks Rune.  The OP overhaul a month or so ago was a bit of work, turning it into an expandable "tree" of spoiler tags, but it needed to be more user-friendly after the sheer amount of craft I've posted this past year.  But really, the craft file "brochures" that I do aren't too bad when done one at a time as craft are posted on KerbalX.  If I had to do a bunch of them at once (Like with the EV-5/LV-3D/LV-3E and associated lifters last month), that's what becomes a pain in the cheeks.  But it's sort of become my thing, or my standard, so I don't think I can stop now. 

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Raptor9 said:

Thanks Rune.  The OP overhaul a month or so ago was a bit of work, turning it into an expandable "tree" of spoiler tags, but it needed to be more user-friendly after the sheer amount of craft I've posted this past year.  But really, the craft file "brochures" that I do aren't too bad when done one at a time as craft are posted on KerbalX.  If I had to do a bunch of them at once (Like with the EV-5/LV-3D/LV-3E and associated lifters last month), that's what becomes a pain in the cheeks.  But it's sort of become my thing, or my standard, so I don't think I can stop now. 

On that, have you got KVV to work in the newest version?

[Raptor9]

57 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

On that, have you got KVV to work in the newest version?

Well, I should note that it never stopped working for me, aside from certain washout conditions depending on VAB/SPH lighting conditions.  But that can be worked with.  From reading the KVV thread, some people are in fact having issues with KVV not rendering at all.  Assuming some of those users are windows users, it may depend on computer hardware, like what graphics card they have.  I have no idea.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Raptor9 said:

Well, I should note that it never stopped working for me, aside from certain washout conditions depending on VAB/SPH lighting conditions.  But that can be worked with.  From reading the KVV thread, some people are in fact having issues with KVV not rendering at all.  Assuming some of those users are windows users, it may depend on computer hardware, like what graphics card they have.  I have no idea.

It's odd I don't even have the toolbar icon.. I will look into that thread.

[Raptor9]

The updates to my EV-4 'Longship' Modular Exploration Vehicle series are now finished (with the MEV Block 4 undergoing review to determine it's viability, but I'll get to that in a second).  I'm much happier with the refined state of the series now, and managed to iron out a few shortcomings.  I've consolidated all the modular components to a single print which allows players to see the extent of their options for orbital assembly.  [@max_creative, I'm looking in your direction with this next sentence ] I'm also happy to declare my MEV Block 3 is certified for Dres transfers, with the caveat that it's launched from Munar orbit instead of LKO.  The amount of delta-V it takes to get out of LKO to higher altitudes, like the Mun's, is a significant hindrance IMO when going further out beyond Duna's orbit.  Of course, nothing stops anybody from throwing a little more propellant onto their EV-4 if they don't want the hassle of re-positioning to Munar orbit to top off on liquid fuel.  The below image is the EV-4 Block 3's arrival at 15km Dres orbit:

The prints in the OP provide better detail of the EV-4 Block 3, as well as the newly updated list of EV-4 modules.  Notable differences from the Block 1 & 2 configurations include the brand-new EV-4 In-Line Tank Mk3, improved 'Star' Truss Assembly, and the cupola-style cockpit.  When used as a faster transit Duna transfer vehicle, the Hab+Lab Mk2 module should probably be swapped out with a Mk1 so an EV-2C 'Runabout' crew vehicle can be docked on the front.  As usual, download links available on the OP.  And please report any issues (as with any craft file really)      

Some future additions I'm looking into are strategically placed O-10 'Puff' monopropellant-powered engines.  When a series of In-Line Tanks are used on an EV-4, the amount of monopropellant reserves climbs significantly, and this resource could be put to good use as a more logical rendezvous & docking (R&D) engine instead of firing up the LV-N's.  The real-life NTR-STS vehicle from the Constellation program was to use it's maneuvering thrusters for R&D maneuvers as well.

Regarding the Block 4, this is shamefully a design I hadn't play-tested since 0.25 or 0.90 timeframe. Yeah.  I tried a test Eve transfer mission today, and no dice.  By the time I reached the target 100x100 km equatorial altitude, I was down to 4000 units of liquid fuel left.  There was no way I was going to get anywhere close to escape velocity out of Eve's SOI.  So for now, the Block 4 is on indefinite hiatus.  Most likely I'll have to come up with a new module combination to increase the total delta-V while retaining the higher TWR of the MEV Block 4, or develop new modules altogether.  We'll see, but don't expect much progress on this front.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Raptor9

[freakneek]

looks awesome! cant wait to test them out

 

[Majorjim!]

8 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

By the time I reached the target 100x100 km equatorial altitude,

Why not leave the craft in a highly elliptical orbit? That way you can use the significant Oberth effect for the burn home and if you are dropping anything, I assume nothing manned, you can just spend a tiny amount of fuel dipping your Pe into the atmosphere and use an inflatable heatshield for EDL. If you are feeling brave you could even use one to aerobrake the main craft into that elliptical orbit. I would love to see that! Stabilize it with vernier motors.

[Raptor9]

4 hours ago, Majorjim said:

Why not leave the craft in a highly elliptical orbit? That way you can use the significant Oberth effect for the burn home and if you are dropping anything, I assume nothing manned, you can just spend a tiny amount of fuel dipping your Pe into the atmosphere and use an inflatable heatshield for EDL. If you are feeling brave you could even use one to aerobrake the main craft into that elliptical orbit. I would love to see that! Stabilize it with vernier motors.

The two immediate problems with leaving the interplanetary transfer vehicle in a highly elliptical orbit are:

1) The periapsis would be out of position for the Eve ejection burn.  I could either adjust the orbit so the periapsis is synced with the proper ejection angle, or use the periapsis as is to enter into an interplanetary transfer trajectory and adjust the trajectory during one or several mid-course correction burns.  In either case, I estimate the amount of delta-V required to do either would be significant.  Further, depending on the interplanetary approach angle back to Kerbin, I may have to spend an even greater amount of delta-V to capture into Kerbin orbit due to the steeper approach angles.

2) Any ascent vehicle would have to have a large delta-V reserve to not only make it out of the Eve atmoshere, but also speed up enough to enter the same elliptical orbit as the transfer vehicle.  (Same problem they encountered in "The Martian" when trying to intercept the Hermes at the end)

Remember, the whole point of the EV-4 'Longship' block configurations are to serve as a transfer vehicle for Kerbalnauts in the same manner of the Constellation NTR-STS.  While you can use some of the components to transport cargo or other unmanned stuff to other destinations (which can get away with being one-way trips), the ships themselves are designed for crewed missions.  That means they need to support an efficient landing & ascent strategy, as well as efficient interplanetary transfers.  To that end, these are the two possible mission architectures I'm looking into:

Mission Option A (similar to NASA's Mars DRA 5.0, with a slight variation):
1) Ascent vehicle is sent to Eve ahead of crewed mission.  EAV (Eve Ascent Vehicle ) conducts EDL to a suitable landing site.  ISRU generates propellant for EAV (I'm assuming I'll need to burn the bottom stage engines to adjust final landing and touchdown location).
2) Crew lander is sent to Eve ahead of crewed mission in same transfer window of the EAV.  Crew lander propulsively captures into a high circualr orbit around Eve.
3) Crew transfer vehicle departs Kerbin during next transfer window, assuming the EAV has generated propellant for ascent trajectory.  Transfer vehicle rendezvouses with crew lander in high Eve orbit.
4) Crew lander alters orbit to enter a low Eve orbit (~100x100km).  The lander will consist of three modules:
     - A lander module itself which will bring the crew to the surface.
     - A habitation and docking module.
     - A propulsion module most likely powered bya single LV-N.
5) Crew lander leaves habitation and propulsion section in low Eve orbit while the lander itself touches down near the EAV.  Crew conducts surface activities for whatever amount of time.
6) Crew uses EAV to return to low Eve orbit and R&D with the propulsion/habitation module.  Ascent vehicle is jettisoned and propulsion module propels the habitation module back to the interplanetary transfer vehicle in high Eve orbit for the return trip back to Kerbin.

Mission Option B (almost the same as Option A, with additional objectives to Gilly):
1) Ascent vehicle is sent to Eve ahead of crewed mission.  EAV conducts EDL to a suitable landing site.  ISRU generates propellant for EAV.
2) Eve crew lander and Gilly lander is sent to Eve ahead of crewed mission in same transfer window of the EAV.  Eve and Gilly landers propulsively captures into Eve SOI and transfers to parking orbit around Gilly.
3) Crew transfer vehicle (carrying additional crew for Gilly surface exploration) departs Kerbin during next transfer window, assuming the EAV has generated propellant for ascent trajectory.  Transfer vehicle rendezvouses with crew landers in Gilly orbit.
4) Eve surface crew executes same sequence of events as before, staging from Gilly orbit.
5) Gilly surface crew executes Gilly landing.  Both surface crews conducts surface activities for whatever amount of time, after which Gilly crew returns to the interplanetary transfer vehicle in the same single-stage lander.
6) Eve crew uses EAV to return to low Eve orbit and R&D with the propulsion/habitation module.  Ascent vehicle is jettisoned and propulsion module propels the habitation module back to the interplanetary transfer vehicle in Gilly orbit for the return trip back to Kerbin.

So a lot of moving components, but I believe that these scenarios provide a good solution to managing delta-V budgets as well as keeping the individual ship part counts low.  There will undoubtly be a large part count in physics range when the EV-4 'Longship' rendezvouses with the crew lander in high Eve orbit/Gilly oribt, but it would be less than with a heavily-fuel-tanked EV-4 R&D with the crew lander in low Eve orbit.  (If you've made it to this point in reading this long tangent, I'm impressed )

[Majorjim!]

Lol I skipped a bit as I'm at work, will read in detail later.

 Yeah I assumed you would not use current craft for an Eve return. Just to drop off cargo, hence my comment about being unmanned. 

I don't see how being in an illiptical orbit would put you in the wrong position for the return burn. I've flown many Eve orbit and return missions and you can place the craft in any directional orbit for a tiny ammount of dv on the way there. Any return burn to kerbin would require very little dv, I har done this myself before and it worked a treat. 

[Rune]

I'll provide a TL;DR version:

Duna and Eve are so close in terms of dV from LKO, that the nuke's Isp means even (relatively) low mass fraction ships can do the roundtrip form low parking orbits in a single stage. Thus, employing tricks to save fuel may end up creating more problems than it solves.

 

Rune. As you say, any return burn would require very little dV. Plus, Oberth helps.

[Raptor9]

6 minutes ago, Rune said:

Duna and Eve are so close in terms of dV from LKO.

If that's true, I must be drastically messing up the interplanetary transfer from Kerbin to Eve and coming in at a much steeper angle across Eve's orbital path than necessary.  I'll run a few more test transfers to Eve this week.  Maybe I was just having one of those days during my last attempt.

1 hour ago, Majorjim said:

I don't see how being in an elliptical orbit would put you in the wrong position for the return burn. I've flown many Eve orbit and return missions and you can place the craft in any directional orbit for a tiny amount of dv on the way there. Any return burn to kerbin would require very little dv, I have done this myself before and it worked a treat. 

Well you still have the problem of ensuring the ascent vehicle has either enough remaining delta-V to accelerate into a matching orbit, or you dock with an orbiting fuel/propulsion section to do it for you.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Raptor9

[Majorjim!]

My reply was assuming that there would be no ascent man. I think I wasn't clear on that though, I just said unmanned cargo hoping that would be clear enough. So yup, no ascent. 

[Rune]

3 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

If that's true, I must be drastically messing up the interplanetary transfer from Kerbin to Eve and coming in at a much steeper angle across Eve's orbital path than necessary.  I'll run a few more test transfers to Eve this week.  Maybe I was just having one of those days during my last attempt.

If you want the exact numbers, transfer window planner gives me just a shade over a km/s for the perfect transfer to Eve form 100km LKO, then a bit over 1,6km/s to circularize at 100kms there. Runs the numbers in reverse for the trip back, and it's not much over 5km/s for the roundtrip. Call it six to be safe. That's mass ratio 2.15, and that would be if you take all your starting mass with you and don't drop any payloads. Aerobraking (not aerocapturing) would shave quite a bit form those 1.6km/s, nothing to be sneered at, but if it brought it back to 5km/s that would only mean a mass ratio of 1.90 showing the other ugly side of the exponential nature of the rocket equation. Then again, you put so much fluff in your designs, you must have horrible tankage ratios...

 

Rune. Don't get me wrong, I respect the self imposed challenge, and love the greeblies.

[Raptor9]

6 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

My reply was assuming that there would be no ascent man. I think I wasn't clear on that though, I just said unmanned cargo hoping that would be clear enough. So yup, no ascent. 

You were clear.  That's why I had this paragraph in my long post a few hours ago in response to your initial comment posted 9 hrs ago (with emphasis added just now ):

" Remember, the whole point of the EV-4 'Longship' block configurations are to serve as a transfer vehicle for Kerbalnauts in the same manner of the Constellation NTR-STS.  While you can use some of the components to transport cargo or other unmanned stuff to other destinations (which can get away with being one-way trips), the ships themselves are designed for crewed missions.  That means they need to support an efficient landing & ascent strategy, as well as efficient interplanetary transfers."

I understood what you were getting at with unmanned cargo drop offs, but I was countering your point by clarifying the purpose of the 'Longships' themselves.  The EV-4 'Longships' are interplanetary crew vehicles, not cargo transports.  However, it just so happens you can use their propulsion and fuel tank modules as a means to transport cargo, but the primary focus of the EV-4 design considerations remains crewed missions.

15 minutes ago, Rune said:

Then again, you put so much fluff in your designs, you must have horrible tankage ratios...

Rune. Don't get me wrong, I respect the self imposed challenge, and love the greeblies.

 That made me laugh...cuz it's true.  Although I have no idea what "greeblies" are.

[Rune]

4 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

 That made me laugh...cuz it's true.  Although I have no idea what "greeblies" are.

It's so much of a pop reference these days, it's got a wiki page, even. Then again, everything has a wiki page.

 

Rune. Am I teaching english pop culture to an english-speaking person right now?

[Raptor9]

Oh don't worry, I hardly use any pop culture references at all.  I'm actually a pretty boring person to be around in real life.  I don't even use social media...

[Rune]

12 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

I don't even use social media...

Oh, so that's how you have the time to do those gorgeous pictures! You cheater...

 

Rune. The day I stopped paying attention to facebook was the day I recovered 10% of my awake time.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Raptor9 said:

However, it just so happens you can use their propulsion and fuel tank modules as a means to transport cargo

Yup, that's why I said what I said.

Just now, Raptor9 said:

I don't even use social media...

Me neither bud, no need for that BS.

Just now, Rune said:

Then again, you put so much fluff in your designs, you must have horrible tankage ratios...

 

Rune. Don't get me wrong, I respect the self imposed challenge, and love the greeblies.

I don't know where to begin..

 

[EVA_Reentry]

Hey, can we get a sneak peak at the HLV-5?

[Raptor9]

42 minutes ago, Rune said:

The day I stopped paying attention to facebook was the day I recovered 10% of my awake time.

Only 10%...?  You must use it way less than most people I know. 

11 minutes ago, EVA_Reentry/Strangelove II said:

Hey, can we get a sneak peak at the HLV-5?

This post was where I first posted an image of it.  It hasn't changed much, the most noticeable change is I ditched the fixed landing gear so it has a better launch profile inside a fairing.  Yeah, the prototype has been around that long, I've just been focused on other stuff while it gathered dust.  But I'm now simultaneously working on the HLV-5, a brand new reusable lander, and the ISRU rovers to ensure they all work well together.  I'm not just thinking about Mun operations anymore; I'm thinking about Ike, Dres, etc where it just doesn't make sense to have two-stage, expendable landers like the LV-1A/B or LV-3A.  Otherwise every time you wanted to go back down to the surface, you'd have to send another fresh lander from Kerbin across deep space...transfer windows...expensive propulsion stages...AHHH! 

A little ways down that page you may also see this post.  While the HLV-5 will feature a separate crew ascent stage, it's use may become optional depending on total delta-V results after the design is finalized.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Raptor9

[EVA_Reentry]

Nice! Love it.

[Raptor9]

8 hours ago, Rune said:

Duna and Eve are so close in terms of dV from LKO, that the nuke's Isp means even (relatively) low mass fraction ships can do the roundtrip form low parking orbits in a single stage. Thus, employing tricks to save fuel may end up creating more problems than it solves.

So I downloaded and installed Kerbal Engineer for some hard delta-V numbers.  The EV-4 Block 4's outboard NTR Mk3 assemblies I believe were what was hindering my transfers to Eve.  Looks like the additional mass of the NTR Mk3 modules (with four LV-N's on each) were more or less compensating for themselves and doing nothing for my overall delta-V.  Since I waited so long to jettison them, that's probably why I couldn't do an efficient Eve transfer.  The delta-V numbers on the EV-4 Block 3 look promising at just over 6700 delta-V.  That should be enough, but only a few test missions will determine that for sure.  Assuming your quoted statement is correct, and the EV-4 Block 3 can make it to Dres and back, it should be able to do a transit to Eve and back.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Raptor9

[JWOC]

@Raptor9 have you ever thought of making an unmanned cargo craft  like progress or dragon using the EV-2C architecture?  

[Raptor9]

3 minutes ago, JWOC said:

@Raptor9 have you ever thought of making an unmanned cargo craft  like progress or dragon using the EV-2C architecture?  

I sure have, but in my current play style, I don't see any benefit to it.  Unless you're playing with mods that require life support or snacks, their's no requirement for an analogous craft in KSP.

[Probe 1]

On 7/20/2016 at 0:33 PM, Raptor9 said:

2) Any ascent vehicle would have to have a large delta-V reserve to not only make it out of the Eve atmoshere, but also speed up enough to enter the same elliptical orbit as the transfer vehicle.  (Same problem they encountered in "The Martian" when trying to intercept the Hermes at the end)

Quote River Song "Spoilers"