Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Raptor9]

On 8/8/2016 at 7:41 AM, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

with the changes to the Wheesley in the newer versions, could you get the XV vehicles flying again?

Doubtful, I was still having issues with it even when starting a new craft file from scratch in 1.1.3.  Also, I no longer have a desire to do VTOL's of that sort with the current selection of stock parts. I still hope that maybe down the road we will get some dedicated air-breathing VTOL tech to help with moving around Laythe (or Kerbin of course).

However, if anybody wishes to build such craft, I recommend getting @Nertea's Mark IV Spaceplane System mod, which includes several different kinds of liftfans.  The liftfans have tweakable wing segments in the VAB/SPH to easily embed them in wings, and they're switchable in flight between liquid fuel-burning and electrically-powered.  Which means they can be used on Eve if given adequate power supply. 

EDIT: A new round of subassembly rovers are now published on KerbalX. The first is a larger ore transport/storage rover, the MIR-2O.  The rest are dedicated power generation and communications rovers.  The SRTG and MPC have technically been released for a while, pre-packaged on the HLV-6A 'Warthog', but now they're available as standalone subassemblies.  Additionally, the MPC-L and MCR are available to round out the capabilities nicely. 

A few more things in the final testing phase are designs in Project 'Meerkat'.  Expanding the ISRU capabilities, these craft designs are inspired by this image from ULA's CisLunar Economy document from this past April.  These designs will enable more robust and efficient surface/asteroid resource extraction with a lower part count and decreased logistics to emplace them when compared to the MIR-series of ISRU rovers.

EDIT (Again): Three new craft files are now available for download via KerbalX download links in the OP (VAB>Robotics).  The IV-1A, B and C-models are single-module ISRU vehicles that only require a single launch.  Like with most of my low-gravity landers, these three 'Meerkat' variants come equipped "out of the fairing" with large docking clamp mounts for mating propulsion modules to send them on interplanetary transfers.  This is obviously important for the IV-1C since it's designed for Duna mining operations, but the IV-1B could be sent to Ike or Dres for surface mining, and the IV-1A could be sent to Dres as well for Dres SOI asteroid mining.  As surface ISRU hardware, the B and C 'Meerkats' are compatible with existing resource transfer systems such as the MIR-series.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Raptor9

[Talos]

Those utility rovers look awesome! I was thinking about building Mun outposts and I might just snag a few of those for power generation.

[Raptor9]

6 hours ago, Talos said:

Those utility rovers look awesome! I was thinking about building Mun outposts and I might just snag a few of those for power generation.

They do come in handy, especially if you need just a little more power supply than what you already have, or if you want to have a mobile power solution on hand to reposition where they're needed.

Also, for anyone that already downloaded the A-model 'Meerkat', I recommend you snag a fresh version from KerbalX.   I apologize for posting something and turning right around and updating it; normally I catch such a functional design flaw.  In a nut shell, the 'Meerkat' layout began as a Mun surface ISRU platform during the design phase, which was adapted to operate on Duna, as well as asteroid mining.  The top-mounted docking port was never intended as a resource transfer port, but when I was modifying the IV-1 for the asteroid variant, I thought "well that docking port can be used to offload fuel too."  The flaw in that thinking was that the 'Meerkats' aren't designed to hold large amounts of fuel, they would pump the fuel directly into propellant tankers.  Therefore, a fuel/ore tanker of some sort needs to be docked to the IV-1A to receive the "overflow", whether it be fuel or ore.  But the main solar arrays, which block the IV-1A's docking port, need to be deployed to power the drills and ISRU module...hence problem.

I've updated the IV-1A with two side-mounted docking ports that shouldn't interfere with the resource refinement processes, unless you build a tanker so big it blocks the solar panels or bangs into the radiators. 

Edited August 10, 2016 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

So I'm especially excited about my latest endeavor: a complete Eve mission architecture to include landing multiple Kerbals on the surface and back (something I've never been able to do; and I've been playing KSP since 0.13; early 2012)...Yeah.  Getting more than one Kerbal off the surface on the same ascent vehicle was the primary goal, and having an ascent vehicle that could do it from sea level (or fairly close) was a capability that I would like to have.  The bottom stage is still being finalized, but this image is the ascent vehicle's upper stage crew vehicle in a 96x107km orbit after probably my 100th or so test launch over the past three days of spare time.

The Eve Ascent Vehicle at launch is currently only 6.2m in diameter, and 13.7m in height, but I still need to iron out it's landing sequence in advance of the crew arriving on a separate craft.  But I didn't want it to be so ridiculously big in either diameter or height, so I think I'm on track.  And this craft was launched from an elevation of 606 meters.  Not quite sea level, but close enough in my opinion that should put the majority of Eve's terrain within the capabilities of this craft.  I really didn't want to limit myself (or any potential KerbalX downloaders ) to trying to land the ascent vehicle to mountain tops or ridgelines to take advantage of higher elevation launches.  So let's do this! 

EDIT: I'm continuing my near-sea level test launches to try to document a repeatable ascent profile that has a consistent outcome of a low circular orbit.  At the moment, I've been able to increase the performance of the EAV to end up at a 100x100 km orbit with over 100m/s dV remaining.  No parts are changed or removed, this is simply narrowing down the most optimal ascent profile.  Of course, the higher in elevation the EAV is launched from, the "more loose" the ascent profile can be adhered to.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Raptor9

[Beetlecat]

Really looking forward to this experiment! I love using your craft as a guide or training aid for my own missions, and it's fun to work my way through the progressions of craft.

Good luck!

[Raptor9]

On 8/12/2016 at 6:27 PM, Beetlecat said:

Really looking forward to this experiment! I love using your craft as a guide or training aid for my own missions, and it's fun to work my way through the progressions of craft.

Good luck!

Thanks @Beetlecat. I will admit though that I'm in unknown territory at this point.  Everything I do from here on in the Eve SOI is going to be a learning experience for me.  It will undoubtedly take me a significant amount of time to get an Eve mission setup designed, tested, finalized and published.  To further complicate matters, I'm encountering less time to play KSP these days.

EDIT: @Probe 1, wanted to give you a heads-up that the ATSV is now published on KerbalX.  Download link available on the OP in the Subassemblies section.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Raptor9

[Probe 1]

There was a glitch. Now I must delete this. But I can't, for reasons.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Probe 1
Glitchs

[Probe 1]

On 8/13/2016 at 5:28 PM, Raptor9 said:

Thanks @Beetlecat. I will admit though that I'm in unknown territory at this point.  Everything I do from here on in the Eve SOI is going to be a learning experience for me.  It will undoubtedly take me a significant amount of time to get an Eve mission setup designed, tested, finalized and published.  To further complicate matters, I'm encountering less time to play KSP these days.

EDIT: @Probe 1, wanted to give you a heads-up that the ATSV is now published on KerbalX.  Download link available on the OP in the Subassemblies section.

Great. And I'm saying that both literally and sarcastically at this point. Literally because the ATSV is finally out, but sarcastically because from now on we are in (figuratively) unexplored territory. Some advice: send an emergency escape vehicle before the actual mission.

[Raptor9]

Due to real-life commitments, I will be unable to regularly play KSP for the foreseeable future.  Because of this reason, craft file development or updates to existing downloads will most likely not occur.  This will probably include updating craft files after KSP v1.2 is released.  This is unfortunate, however I do plan to return to KSP as soon as I am able.  If anyone has any questions regarding existing designs, I will try to stop by the forums on occasion.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Raptor9 said:

Due to real-life commitments, I will be unable to regularly play KSP for the foreseeable future.  Because of this reason, craft file development or updates to existing downloads will most likely not occur.  This will probably include updating craft files after KSP v1.2 is released.  This is unfortunate, however I do plan to return to KSP as soon as I am able.  If anyone has any questions regarding existing designs, I will try to stop by the forums on occasion.

I'm sorry to hear that man.. You have made enough to keep anyone busy for quite a while though so don't worry about updates or new stuff for a while!

[Beetlecat]

22 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Due to real-life commitments, I will be unable to regularly play KSP for the foreseeable future.  Because of this reason, craft file development or updates to existing downloads will most likely not occur.  This will probably include updating craft files after KSP v1.2 is released.  This is unfortunate, however I do plan to return to KSP as soon as I am able.  If anyone has any questions regarding existing designs, I will try to stop by the forums on occasion.

Totally understand, but you've given us a vast wealth of craft and designs. I may have to spin off a pre-1.2 KSP in case it breaks your stuff.  I look forward to your eventual return for the Eve missions! I've no doubt the 1.2 and beyond updates will provide some interesting and exciting changes to the game.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Beetlecat

[Probe 1]

I got bored. So I turned the X-18 into a nuclear bomber.

[DMSP]

13 minutes ago, Probe 1 said:

What have you done.... What monster have you created!?

[Probe 1]

1 hour ago, DMSP said:

What have you done.... What monster have you created!?

I just attached 2 small nuclear weapons and the various bits of BDA necessities onto its wings. it was destroyed in the explosion anyway.

[Dubious Degu]

Loving the ISRU equipment, made a tweak to the tank docking ports to dock side by side to double as fuel storage.

[Raptor9]

On 8/30/2016 at 11:06 AM, Dubious Degu said:

Loving the ISRU equipment, made a tweak to the tank docking ports to dock side by side to double as fuel storage.

Very nice, and welcome to the forums. 

[zar]

Hi, I'm trying your SVR-16 Shuttle, but I'm not able to send it out of the atmosphere: it rolls and I can't keep it with its nose up. I'm using windows version 1.1.3.1289 (64bit). What am I doing wrong?

 

Thank you very much!

[Beetlecat]

I'm slowly working my way through the X- Series of aircraft, and so far, so good on functionality with 1.2. The new fuel flow feature even fixed the drop-tanks!

 

[Nerfclasher]

22 hours ago, Beetlecat said:

I'm slowly working my way through the X- Series of aircraft, and so far, so good on functionality with 1.2. The new fuel flow feature even fixed the drop-tanks!

 

Liking hearing this

[septemberWaves]

I can't believe I haven't seen this thread before. There are some truly incredible vehicle designs; I just spent a few hours looking through most of them. Your designs have actually given me a lot of new inspiration for some of my future vehicles. I particularly like the Porpoise heavy landers and the ISRU rovers.

[Raptor9]

On 9/11/2016 at 3:38 AM, zar said:

Hi, I'm trying your SVR-16 Shuttle, but I'm not able to send it out of the atmosphere: it rolls and I can't keep it with its nose up. I'm using windows version 1.1.3.1289 (64bit). What am I doing wrong?

Thank you very much!

@zar, sorry I haven't replied sooner.  I haven't been in a position to do much KSP.  The SVR-16 is a very complex and asymmetric launch system, and requires a lot of practice to successfully launch and deorbit successfully.  It's more of a novelty design; my payload rockets are probably a more useful and economical design.  Having said that, try using smaller input nudges in the roll and yaw control axes during launch and try to utilize SAS Prograde mode as well to keep you more stable than just the standard SAS hold default.

I'm planning to have a revamped SVR-16 in the future.  The most notable differences are the OMS engines swapped from Mk-55 "Thuds" to O-10 "Puff" monopropellant engines, along with an upgrade to the launch stack.

On 10/24/2016 at 0:36 AM, Beetlecat said:

I'm slowly working my way through the X- Series of aircraft, and so far, so good on functionality with 1.2. The new fuel flow feature even fixed the drop-tanks!

Cool, good to hear. 

On 10/24/2016 at 11:50 PM, eloquentJane said:

I can't believe I haven't seen this thread before. There are some truly incredible vehicle designs; I just spent a few hours looking through most of them. Your designs have actually given me a lot of new inspiration for some of my future vehicles. I particularly like the Porpoise heavy landers and the ISRU rovers.

Thanks. 

I'm still doing a lot of traveling so I don't really have much time to play around with KSP, let alone upload new/updated craft files and design graphics.  However, I have managed to play around a little bit with it recently since 1.2 dropped.  The main thing everybody should know is that any design that utilized the O-10 "Puff" monopropellant engine is now defunct due to that part's revamp.  These include such designs as the SR-21A/B, LV-1A/B, LV-2A/C, EV-1C, and the ER-V mounted on top the LV-1C.  But I already tweaked some of these designs with different propulsion options.  For example, the LV-1A & B upper stages now utilize a single "Spark" LFO engine in place of the twin O-10's.  The EV-1C has been completely redesigned and now has much better functionality and appearance closer to the US Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory it was based on.

Through the redesign of the EV-1C, I even became inspired to revamp the entire EV-1 series.  They're now much more fun to use.   The EV-1 line-up will include the following craft files:

EV-1A/'Arrow' launcher: suborbital early career rocket based on Mercury program. No changes in 1.2.
EV-1B/'Javelin 3' launcher: orbital capsule based on Gemini program.  A few small tweaks to include a slight increase in LF+O capacity and fuel cell power generation.
EV-1C/'Thunder 1' launcher: based on USAF MOL concept of the 60's.  Completely rebuilt from scratch to include the mobile lab for LKO science generation.
EV-1B/'Javelin 4' launcher: based on a concept to utilize Gemini components for a moon mission.  The EV-1B launched on the 'Javelin 4' has the capability to travel to Mun orbit and back.
EV-1D/'Thunder 1B' launcher: brand new craft file based on the extended Gemini mission architecture for lunar landing missions.  The EV-1D is a multi-stage EV-1B derivative that is launched to Munar orbit, lands, and relaunches back to Kerbin.  No orbital rendezvous or docking required.

This expanded EV-1 line-up allows players to more easily execute Munar missions at a fraction of the costs as the EV-2A/LV-1 combinations launched on the 'Titan' rockets, and a cheaper alternative to orbital science research than the 'Skylab' station.  Unfortunately, again it will most likely be some time before I can upload these as I am mostly at the mercy of my mobile internet connection.  For now, all my KerbalX downloads are still only supported by KSP v1.1.3.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Raptor9

[Jestersage]

Thank you for doing all these spacecrafts, and I actually utilized many of your launchers due to the ease of use and design.

I would like to pick your brain, Raptor9: Now that in 1.2, we need relay satellites. Two real world analogues I can think of are TDRS (NASA) and TianLian (China; word means "SkyChain"). What kind of Satellite bus (probe core) would you use to create them? And if you are making a TDRS clone, would you settle for 3 to 4 HG-5 (the only foldable relay antenna), or would you go with RA-2?

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, Jestersage said:

I would like to pick your brain, Raptor9: Now that in 1.2, we need relay satellites. Two real world analogues I can think of are TDRS (NASA) and TianLian (China; word means "SkyChain"). What kind of Satellite bus (probe core) would you use to create them? And if you are making a TDRS clone, would you settle for 3 to 4 HG-5 (the only foldable relay antenna), or would you go with RA-2?

In my opinion, a TDRS-alike would be overkill since more than one antenna on a satellite is a waste (unless you're using Remotetech).  In stock you don't need multiple dishes to point at multiple receivers.  The first thing I did in 1.2 was whip up a small inexpensive communications satellite called NavComm.  The idea is to use these small satellites deployed in a GPS-style constellation to ensure any atmospheric UAV's or robotic spacecraft have complete control so they can "navigate" around Kerbin or LKO without worrying about DSN holes, especially around the poles or high inclination orbits.

I made them after referencing pictures of US Air Force GPS satellites, but decided to water them down to what is actually needed from an economical aspect in career mode.  They came out looking a lot like those Chinese satellites in the second link you provided, like the DFH-3.  The NavComm is a QBE probe core with two OX-4L 1x6 solar panels on each side, a spare Z-100 battery, and a HG-5 relay antenna.  I have a pair of them launched aboard a 'Javelin 3' to MKO, from which they're released with a small LV-1-powered payload booster on each satellite to insert them into the appropriate orbit higher up.  Total cost for that launch configuration is only 15,621.

My designs are built with the intent to properly balance functionality, aesthetics, and career economy.  But if you're not worried about costs, I would say pick whichever is more visually appealing to you. 

EDIT: I think I read somewhere on the forums that having multiple antennas on a craft "boosts" it's transmission range a little, so I suppose that might be a reason to put several antennas on one.  Don't take my word for it though.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Raptor9

[JWOC]

hey @Raptor9, did you think of,  or have you been thinking about making surface ships like tracking or recovery ships? i think it would add a lot of fun to recovering capsules such as your EV-2 and EV-1 series of capsules. 

[Raptor9]

8 hours ago, JWOC said:

hey @Raptor9, did you think of,  or have you been thinking about making surface ships like tracking or recovery ships? i think it would add a lot of fun to recovering capsules such as your EV-2 and EV-1 series of capsules. 

I did consider it couple versions ago, when I was trying to get back into VTOLs.  After I made a successful Harrier-alike jet, I was working on making a carrier with a ski-jump type bow, but it was just too many parts, even with the welding mod.  I thought the same thing: it would be interesting to try to get a capsule into the designated recovery zone in the ocean.  But I reconsidered and decided to focus my efforts elsewhere, like getting more interplanetary craft files developed.  Up until 1.1 came out, the majority of my craft files were for Kerbin SOI missions.  I didn't even have any ISRU or asteroid redirect capability.  So I figured I should start gaining personal experience in those areas instead of surface ships.

One of my long-long-term goals is to develop some sort of surface and sub-surface exploration craft for exploring Laythe and Eve's oceans.  But that's a long ways off.  I still haven't finished my Eve mission architectures.