Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Jestersage]

7 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Not really, it was simply based on following image of Boeing's lander, or in this video.

I guess there are only so much combination with lab, habitat, cargobay, thrusters and heatshield...

In that case, how do you suppose the Mars direct mission can launch the Direct Lander without the need of something like your EV-4?

[chlbutterworth]

21 hours ago, Beetlecat said:

Oh! C TV...

There are 4 different versions of the CTV.

1 of the CTV-A and 3 of the CTV-B. The CTV-B is the open cargo carrier, the 3 different version are the 3 different lengths of the vehicle with the CTV-B-300 being the longest and the CTV-B-100 being the shortest.

https://kerbalx.com/chlbutterworth/CTV-A
https://kerbalx.com/chlbutterworth/CTV-B-100
https://kerbalx.com/chlbutterworth/CTV-B-200
https://kerbalx.com/chlbutterworth/CTV-B-300

[Raptor9]

15 hours ago, Jestersage said:

In that case, how do you suppose the Mars direct mission can launch the Direct Lander without the need of something like your EV-4?

I assume it would have been done using conventional chemical rockets since the Mars Direct was supposed to be used with the current "off-the-shelf" technology of the time.  Whether that ended up being a large rocket launched directly from the Earth or orbitally-assembled, who knows.  Regardless of how the Mars Direct study would have turned out had it come to fruition, I think the running consensus among the various public and private space agencies nowadays is any spacecraft capable of carrying enough payload to Mars to support a manned expedition would be large enough that orbital assembly would be necessary; even with SLS Block 2.

EDIT: Also, I've finished a new graphic that hopefully should provide some key understanding of how to set up a self-sustaining propellant and transportation economy in "cisMunar space".  These have been inserted on the applicable KerbalX craft download pages as well; the 'Lightning' rocket, HLV-5 landers, and 'Camel Hump' depots (not for the ISRU hardware since those aren't necessarily designed solely for cisMunar in mind).  They'll also be searchable using the  tag by typing "cismunar economy", or even just "cismunar".  For more real-world inspiration, you can watch United Launch Alliance's "CisLunar 1000" concept video.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

My Duna rover/skycrane is finished and available for download on KerbalX.  Like the HLV-6A, some Control From Here action is required to ensure the proper control axis during launch and during orbital maneuvers.  The root part is on the sideways-mounted QBE core on the rover, to ensure the game maintains focus on the rover and not the skycrane after release.  The skycrane is obviously inspired from the "Curiosity" rover delivery method, but the rover itself is closer in appearance to "Pathfinder".  This craft can be found in the VAB>Satellites & Probes section.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Raptor9

[Biggen]

Raptor,

Your designs are beautiful. Its amazing what you have come up with! Anyway, Im trying to take some inspiration from your EV-4 Block 3 to create my own of similar design and have some questions. I actually havent downloaded the craft files. Im just using the pictures you provided to generate my own designs.

First, Im asuming you built this craft (and the other EV-4 class ships) before the Nuke engines were converted to LF only. Is this correct? It seems the ships are currenty carrying a lot of wasted mass around using those giant Kerbodyne LF+O tanks around instead of using dedicated MK3 LF only tanks. I could see carrying a smaller LF+O tank in order to refuel a lander if the desired mission necessitated multiple biome hops for the lander and it needed refueling however.

Secondly, did you design the EV-4's to withstand any aerobraking either at the destination or back at Kerbin? Or is the expectation to capture burn upon arrival?

Third, the drop tanks are ingenious! Are there any issues decoupling tanks under acceleration and causing damage to the ship as they bounce off?

Again, your designs are great! I look forward to incorporating them into my gameplay!

Edited February 4, 2017 by Biggen

[Raptor9]

@Biggen, thanks for your compliments.  ...and here comes a novel, ha ha.

To answer your first question, the early version of the EV-4 was built when the LV-N's still needed oxidizer as you assumed, but that's not why I kept the large Kerbodyne tanks.  Originally, the EV-4 was built to emulate the function of the Mars Transfer Vehicle in NASA's Constellation expedition to Mars, which can be seen in this "old" video HERE (I should also note that my HLV-6 'Warthog' landers were modeled after the Cargo and Habitat landers in that same video).  However, upon doing research into some of the systems and design decisions in the actual documents, I started seeing ways I could expand the EV-4 series into a modular system that could be reconfigured for multiple missions.  Namely, THIS DOCUMENT provided a lot of inspiration into the various components of the EV-4 'Longship' Modular Exploration Vehicle, and the growth into different Block configurations.  While I haven't tried the EV-4 craft in all it's potential, such as transporting Mun/Minmus landers or conducting asteroid rendezvous's, they can easily be adapted to such purposes (which is why there are discreet docking ports in the 'Saddle' Truss bulkheads and such).

The actual reasons behind keeping the Kerbodyne tanks in lieu of swapping them out with the Mk3 tanks are this: 1) The Mk3 tanks didn't give me the build options I was looking for to get the "Constellation" NTR-STS look to it, or the physical profile I was looking for. 2) The real-life NTR-STS would have used hydrogen for fuel for it's NTR engines, which has a very low density and high volume.  "Pretending" that the liquid fuel in those Kerbodyne tanks actually occupied that much volume normally shared with oxidizer was how I further justified keeping the designs as you see.  @Rune famously pointed this out to me a while back that the modules had horrible tank ratios.  I couldn't argue with it. 

To answer your second question: No, the EV-4's weren't designed with aerobraking in mind.  Which is why the EV-4 Block 2 has the additional in-line tank to provide the additional propellant to slow down back into Kerbin orbit for refuel/reuse.  The EV-4 Block 1 lacked enough propellant to do this, which is why it's labeled as expendable.

Regarding the drop tanks, I can't take credit for them as these craft were based on NASA documents.  I will note that the drop tanks weren't meant to be "jettisoned" while under acceleration (if you do they'll probably bust some antennas or solar panels on the aft modules).  They're simply undocked and the EV-4 fires a few short RCS puffs to translate clear.  An example of use would be the EV-4 Block 3 would burn enough fuel to empty a pair of the 'Star' truss tanks during it's initial burn away from Kerbin into a high elliptical orbit.  It decouples two of the tanks at the completion of the burn, and when it comes back around for it's second burn at the periapsis using the Oberth effect, it empties out the second pair of tanks while burning to gain enough velocity to escape from the Kerbin SOI.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Raptor9

[Biggen]

Raptor thats great info! I think ill make some modifications and see if any kind of aeobreaking is possible to those craft. Id like to extend their range beyond Duna (inner planets too!) so aerobraking at Kerbin on the return would be very helpful.

Ill have to cut some weight and redesign either your cricket or frog lander a bit but as well so I can attach them to the front of those EV-4 but II look forward to using your base vehicles.

I wish I had your creativity!

[Jestersage]

How do you make the beautiful posters? I know you said "MS Paint and etc", did you have some kind of templates? If so where can I find it?

[chlbutterworth]

9 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

How do you make the beautiful posters? I know you said "MS Paint and etc", did you have some kind of templates? If so where can I find it?

Use Kroval Vessel Viewer (KVV) and PowerPoint. There are no templates, just a lot of adjusting to make the screen shots the same size and angle.

[Jestersage]

3 hours ago, chlbutterworth said:

Use Kroval Vessel Viewer (KVV) and PowerPoint. There are no templates, just a lot of adjusting to make the screen shots the same size and angle.

What's the RGB code? Mine is 0,102,153

Edited February 5, 2017 by Jestersage

[Raptor9]

13 hours ago, Biggen said:

Id like to extend their range beyond Duna (inner planets too!)

The EV-4 Block 3 is capable (and designed) to go elsewhere besides Duna.  I've tested the EV-4 Blk3 to low Dres orbit and back, and high Eve orbit and back.  I've also been doing some concept study on how to bring back the Block 4 version.  Using KER, I came up with the following delta-V budgets for the EV-4 Block 4:

Configuration 1: 8357 dV, but costs 629,713 funds per mission
Configuration 2: 8060 dV, but costs 243,204 funds per mission
Configuration 3: 7858 dV, but costs 386,509 funds per mission
Configuration 4: 7561 dV, but costs 0 funds per mission (assuming the ship is refueled by some form of ISRU infrastructure)

The original EV-4 Blk4 costed a lot more to assemble than the Blk3, but offered a relatively small amount of additional dV to justify it all, which is why I removed it from my catalog.

9 hours ago, Jestersage said:

How do you make the beautiful posters? I know you said "MS Paint and etc", did you have some kind of templates? If so where can I find it?

I created the template from scratch on MS Paint for my first graphic; and when I want to make a new one, I just copy one of the existing graphics and edit on top of it.  This way the original layout carries over.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Raptor9

[Biggen]

8300 dV is very good for a ship this size.  My pesonal goal was 10000 dV (for a Moho mission) and Im right at 9500dv. I had to drop to three nukes, reduce the crew cabin to 2 kerbals, and design a star truss similar to yours that holds 8 MK1 LF tanks that can be dropped. The 8 tanks can be replaced by a tug back at Kerbin at once instead of one at a time. I also have a two man lander/return craft docked to the front with 2100 dV worth of fuel for getting my kerbins back up to the station.

Id like to shave another few tons off to get to 10000 dV but Im not sure that's possible without adding more drops tanks.  

I would have not even know how to start a project like this without your designs to aid me.

[Wjolcz]

I really wish I had as much motivation and time to play this game as you do. Amazing vehicles. The Rat rover and X-18 are still my favourites.

[Raptor9]

25 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I really wish I had as much motivation and time to play this game as you do. Amazing vehicles. The Rat rover and X-18 are still my favourites.

Motivation? More like addiction.  I wish I had more time, I'd be a lot further in the Kerbol system than I am.  I'm just now starting to gain proficiency at sending expeditions to Duna.  I've only seen Jool in pictures...I've heard it's a magical place...like T.A.H.I.T.I.

My favorites are the SVR-10 'Thunderbird' and HLV-5 'Porpoise' landers.  Just so much fun to fly. 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Raptor9

[redmonddkgamer]

Could we get assembled craft files for the stations? The attachment nodes on the subassemblies are off, so It's hard to put together a station to hyperedit into orbit in the VAB.

[IronCretin]

What's wrong with the attach nodes? If it's just the wrong root docking port, you can actually re-root floating assemblies now.

[redmonddkgamer]

15 hours ago, IronCretin said:

What's wrong with the attach nodes? If it's just the wrong root docking port, you can actually re-root floating assemblies now.

What?

So I see that it says that the NavComm's max range is 300km. What about it's optimal altitude?

[Biggen]

How does one edit your craft but then put things back together properly?  For example, I downloaded the LV-3B bullfrog.  I wanted to delete one rover, remove the full cells, etc...  I took one door off to make my changes but then couldn't put the darn door back on after that.

Your hinge system is great.  I've been trying to figure this out for days and had just about given up.

[Biggen]

Never mind.  I spent the last hour playing with offset, rotation, and clipping and I got pretty good and modifying to suit my needs.  What I can't figure out is how the docking ports "connect" to the gravity dropped ramps and the rovers.  I don't see any attachments  Is this a trade secret?

Edited February 7, 2017 by Biggen

[Majorjim!]

1 hour ago, Biggen said:

Never mind.  I spent the last hour playing with offset, rotation, and clipping and I got pretty good and modifying to suit my needs.  What I can't figure out is how the docking ports "connect" to the gravity dropped ramps and the rovers.  I don't see any attachments  Is this a trade secret?

I hope raptor won't mind me answering this. 

You can attach docking ports to any nodes in the editor. They just will only reconnect to another port in game.

 Using docking ports instead of decouplers is something I started doing quite a while ago, it makes things a lot cleaner. 

[Biggen]

7 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

I hope raptor won't mind me answering this. 

You can attach docking ports to any nodes in the editor. They just will only reconnect to another port in game.

 Using docking ports instead of decouplers is something I started doing quite a while ago, it makes things a lot cleaner. 

hmm. Im having a hard time picturing this. How is the docking port connected to a structural panel when its not physically touching it? Is there a video of this being done anywhere?

[Majorjim!]

27 minutes ago, Biggen said:

hmm. Im having a hard time picturing this. How is the docking port connected to a structural panel when its not physically touching it? Is there a video of this being done anywhere?

It's connected in the editor then offset away. Even though it does not touch it's still connected until you decouple it in game. :-)

 In my Duna direct craft I used no offsets to move the door way way from the connecting port at the back of the cargo bay. That was the first time a ramp was made with a tiny hinge and a docking port as the connector. 

Kinda proud of that. 

Edited February 7, 2017 by Majorjim!

[Biggen]

50 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

It's connected in the editor then offset away. Even though it does not touch it's still connected until you decouple it in game. :-)

 In my Duna direct craft I used no offsets to move the door way way from the connecting port at the back of the cargo bay. That was the first time a ramp was made with a tiny hinge and a docking port as the connector. 

Kinda proud of that. 

Ah I didnt know that! Thanks for that info!

Its a shame we have to resort to silly things like this for doors. Even making hinges out of antennas seems ridiculous.  I know there is a debate all the time about clipping but, in my opinion, Squad has really tied our hands behinds our backs with their limited editing system. I dont see clipping at all as cheating seeing as how the half baked editor doesnt give us better tools.

[Raptor9]

10 hours ago, redmonddkgamer said:

So I see that it says that the NavComm's max range is 300km. What about it's optimal altitude?

It actually states "Maximum orbital altitude is 300km".  The HG-5 antenna can go further than 300km, but you have to remember that if it's communicating with another NavComm or a ship on the edge of the line-of-sight horizon, the slant range may be several times that range.  And if that ship doesn't have a very powerful antenna, or just the receive-only antenna of stock pods/cores, it may not be enough.  I originally tested a small constellation of NavComms at 500km orbits, but was getting orange- and sometimes red-colored signal quality with other satellites in the constellation.  You could push the NavComms higher than 300km, but you would need a greater density of them to ensure high signal quality, or rely on KeoSats or other higher-power relays.

There are a lot of ways to skin the cat to increase global satellite coverage/quality, but if one was to rely solely on a NavComm constellation of "reasonable" quantity, 32 NavComm satellites at 300km orbits is what I personally assess to be a good set up, but you could probably get away with less, especially if you didn't worry about coverage around the polar regions.
____________________________
[Not going to quote all of the stuff @Biggen & @Majorjim! already discussed]

Yeah, pretty much what Majorjim pointed out, I place a docking port somewhere on the craft, and then attach the ramp to it by one of the ramp nodes, and then use the offset/rotate gizmos to ensure that the ramp is placed within the "retaining pegs" (antennas) when it's released (decoupled by action group).  This allows me to get rid of the unsightly docking clamps everywhere, and keep them out of the way of the rover, so the rover doesn't have to drive over it to get out for instance.

@Biggen, what I recommend is just panning/zooming the camera into the rover bay to replace/remove parts and components, unless you're comfortable getting the ramp back to it's original position.  But that will probably be easier than moving the ramps.  Getting the ramps placed just right is a pain in it's own right.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Raptor9

[Majorjim!]

6 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

@Biggen, what I recommend is just panning/zooming the camera into the rover bay to replace/remove parts and components, unless you're comfortable getting the ramp back to it's original position.  But that will probably be easier than moving the ramps.  Getting the ramps placed just right is a pain in it's own right.

This, @Biggen learning to get up close to things in the editor is a vital skill to learn if you want to make more complex craft.

12 hours ago, Biggen said:

Even making hinges out of antennas seems ridiculous.

Nah! The lack of dedicated parts means we have to use our imaginations to make these things which is much more fun!