Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[redmonddkgamer]

Can the EV-2C be flown unmanned?

[Biggen]

Yeah, I tried for an hour getting a single door to drop properly without coming out of the hinges.  Didn't happen and I gave up.  I'll just have the door decouple and hit the ground when I land on a planet.  The kerbals can hit the gas on the rover and "catch some air" when they are deploying it.

56 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

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.

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

Eh.  My time is more valuable then messing around with a freaking antenna hinge for an hour.  It would be much easier for squad to just give us a basic hinge. 

[Raptor9]

43 minutes ago, redmonddkgamer said:

Can the EV-2C be flown unmanned?

Sure can.  It has an OKTO2 core allowing autonomous operations if necessary.

1 hour ago, Majorjim! said:

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

I wouldn't go that far.  The ramps I use are gravity-powered so once they drop, you can't raise them again in case you want to reposition the lander.  There are obviously ways to make ramps powered using landing gear or airbrakes and such, however even then it's not a full solution.  A lot of times, especially after the latest update, that when physics load for a lander with a dropped ramp, the ramp doesn't load quite back into it's original spot and drops to the ground.  I've tried using "Physics ease in" on and off, but neither seems to be a consistent solution.

Then, when you throw things in to the ring like landing on a slope for instance...there's just a lot of headaches when trying to make decent ramps that don't look like crap and aren't a bunch of additional parts.

12 minutes ago, Biggen said:

It would be much easier for squad to just give us a basic hinge. 

I'm no programmer, but I do hope we get them sometime.  But honestly, there's other things I would rather have if given a choice between one or the other.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Raptor9

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Raptor9 said:

I wouldn't go that far.

LOL I would. Other wise I would not have made half the things I have. In the absence of dedicated parts I just make the best of what we have.

Just now, Raptor9 said:

The ramps I use are gravity-powered so once they drop, you can't raise them again in case you want to reposition the lander.  There are obviously ways to make ramps powered using landing gear or airbrakes and such, however even then it's not a full solution.  A lot of times, especially after the latest update, that when physics load for a lander with a dropped ramp, the ramp doesn't load quite back into it's original spot and drops to the ground.  I've tried using "Physics ease in" on and off, but neither seems to be a consistent solution.

Well as you know I started these separate craft drop/raise ramps with the invention of the thermo hinge so I know the limitations well. That is part of the reason I made the first one a lifter design,

so it could 'close' again. That coupled with the fact that the lander has no need or reason to reposition (that's the point of scouting a landing site) there was no issue with having the door as a second craft. I also never saw my doors detach after loading in when using my thermo design. Perhaps this only affects the way you built them. Building in some movement of the hinge will stop this from happening.

[Raptor9]

48 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

LOL I would. Other wise I would not have made half the things I have. In the absence of dedicated parts I just make the best of what we have.

Making do with what we currently have is one thing, but saying we "don't need part X because we figured out how to jerry-rig something similar" isn't sound logic.  If that was the case, we would still be using landing gear struts to dock vessels together like pre-v0.18, or making space shuttle payload bays out of dozens of structural panels.

48 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

That coupled with the fact that the lander has no need or reason to reposition (that's the point of scouting a landing site) there was no issue with having the door as a second craft.

There are a lot of possible reasons that a lander may need to reposition, no matter how much scouting you do.  Things happen, it's KSP.  A "landing site" doesn't mean the "staying site".  On the other hand, if a player knows he/she is going to takeoff again (ie to biome hop or what have you), then a ramp probably isn't the way to go to carry a rover along with you anyway.  That's a lot of moving parts that could potentially go wrong, not to mention...more parts.

48 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

Perhaps this only affects the way you built them. Building in some movement of the hinge will stop this from happening.

I wouldn't say that's a solid assumption, I've seen ramps load in as far as one structural panel length away from the hinge location.  Again, this only started happening in 1.2.X.  Also, the wheels are a lot more sensitive now to the gaps between the edge of the floor and the beginning of the ramp.  Building in a lot of play with the hinges may decrease the occurrences of ramps not loading inside the hinge mounts, but it will just exacerbate the rover "jump" when driving onto the ramp from the payload bay.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Raptor9

[Jester Darrak]

When looking at your CISMunar Economy thingy it looks like you have all the stuff in a clockwise orbit (at least around the Mun). What is the difference (advantages and disadvantages) in putting something into a clockwise or counter-clockwise orbit of the Mun? At least what I understood was when entering any orbit against the bodies rotation you need less DeltaV, but was that all or did I miss something there?

 

And also, I found your Titan 3M missing the struts between the the SRBs and the first stage. Is that only for me or is there something wrong with the download?

And is there a reason why you changed the (inter-vessel, strut-supported) docking ports on the Camel from large to regular?

Edited February 11, 2017 by Jester Darrak

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, Jester Darrak said:

When looking at your CISMunar Economy thingy it looks like you have all the stuff in a clockwise orbit (at least around the Mun). What is the difference (advantages and disadvantages) in putting something into a clockwise or counter-clockwise orbit of the Mun? At least what I understood was when entering any orbit against the bodies rotation you need less DeltaV, but was that all or did I miss something there?

That's just how I chose to portray the graphic.  All my orbits in my save are in the direction of rotation, so don't take the orbit lines literally.  The key thing to take away from the graphic is the overall concept on how to use which craft for what, at each stage of the economy.

1 hour ago, Jester Darrak said:

And also, I found your Titan 3M missing the struts between the the SRBs and the first stage. Is that only for me or is there something wrong with the download?

With the new autostrutting feature, those became unnecessary and so I removed the struts between outboard boosters and core stages on all my rockets.

1 hour ago, Jester Darrak said:

And is there a reason why you changed the (inter-vessel, strut-supported) docking ports on the Camel from large to regular?

Actually, I removed them entirely and integrated the Camel depots into the LITE stages permanently.  The only difference between the previous 'Camel Humps' and the latest revision was the 2.5m docking ports were removed and the solar panels re-positioned.  The front bulkhead of the 'Camel Humps' always had the 1.25m and 0.625m docking clamps.
___________________________________

In other news, I was shuttling propellant up to my fuel hub in low Munar orbit with my HLV-5B landers one at a time.  On the return trip of the first lander, I caught this interesting screenshot of the ISRU site as the 'Porpoise' was on final approach.  The glow from the 'Meerkat' rigs was kinda pretty in the darkness of the Munscape.  You can see two additional HLV-5B's staged and ready to take full payloads of liquid fuel and oxidizer to the station.

[Jestersage]

Raptor9, how did you do the upside down parachute in your capsules?

[JWOC]

36 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

Raptor9, how did you do the upside down parachute in your capsules?

It's attached to the top node and flipped using the rotate tool 

[Jestersage]

3 hours ago, JWOC said:

It's attached to the top node and flipped using the rotate tool 

Except if you take each item down one by one (eg: EV-2B), there are items "above" the parachute node...

Edited February 17, 2017 by Jestersage

[JWOC]

4 hours ago, Jestersage said:

Except if you take each item down one by one (eg: EV-2B), there are items "above" the parachute node...

The docking port and escape tower are mounted to the parachute by a cubic octag structural peice 

[Raptor9]

@Jestersage, the offset and rotate gizmos have become my best friends in reducing part count and getting a lot of "things to work" without adding additional parts.  Case in point is fuel line routing.  Lets say you have all your fuel mounted on one side of a "No Crossfeed" structural part and your engines are mounted on the other.  Instead of routing fuel lines around the structural piece, you can mount the engines to the fuel tanks and then offset/rotate them back to the other side of the structural piece, and they'll still work.

Is it cheaty? Maybe, maybe not.  That is an extremely subjective debate that a lot of players always want to bring up.  But if you want to put a bunch of complex craft in the same physics bubble, shaving off the part count here and there becomes a constant endeavor, at least one I strive for.

So in my usual long-winded way, to answer your question...if you disected a lot of my craft designs (especially ones designed recently), you'll probably see a lot of wierd part placement and routings.  All this is to reduce part count, enable proper fuel distribution, or to make modifications easier down the road.

[Jester Darrak]

@Raptor9

I have some sort of issue with the SM-U1. If I use the Hab hatch for EVAs my station starts flipping. Not heavily, but enough to "ruin the picture". Seems like the Kerbonaut collides with one of the Heat Dissippation Panels thus sending the station into rotation. I tried retracting said panel but extended or not, the only difference is the strength of the rotation, it comes nonetheless. I suggest blocking the Hab hatch and using a dedicated airlock module. In case you build the Mun Gateway station you need to add an airlock module to the standard layout since the other Hab has solar panels very close to it, making entering and exiting that Hab pretty difficult.

[chlbutterworth]

5 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

@Raptor9

Seems like the Kerbonaut collides with one of the Heat Dissippation Panels

The hatch should be on the Nadir (pointing towards kerbin) of the station. In this orientation you should be clear of the radiator panels.

[Jester Darrak]

Ok, it looks like @Raptor9 used 2 different iterations of SM-U1 modules. Gateway Station and Freeport station both don't have the 2 HDPs at the -U1 while the Depot Station and the module itself in the Station Modules subassembly section in fact do show the 2 HDPs. Just a minor (continuity) error, I just EVA them off with an electric screwdriver.

[Raptor9]

20 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

I have some sort of issue with the SM-U1. If I use the Hab hatch for EVAs my station starts flipping. Not heavily, but enough to "ruin the picture". Seems like the Kerbonaut collides with one of the Heat Dissippation Panels thus sending the station into rotation. I tried retracting said panel but extended or not, the only difference is the strength of the rotation, it comes nonetheless. I suggest blocking the Hab hatch and using a dedicated airlock module. In case you build the Mun Gateway station you need to add an airlock module to the standard layout since the other Hab has solar panels very close to it, making entering and exiting that Hab pretty difficult.

This isn't an issue with the SM-U1 design itself.  This happens with other craft as well.  Seems some sort of inertia is generated when a Kerbal is spawned outside a hatch, and then grabbed onto the handrails.  Craft "flipping" seems to be dependent on total mass and whether or not any RCS/Reaction Wheels can compensate; smaller craft tend to flip more/faster during EVA then say a large station or interplanetary ship.  Further, I've had no problems EVA'ing Kerbals from my 'Gateway Station' or the 'Depot Station', with or without heat radiators.

11 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Ok, it looks like @Raptor9 used 2 different iterations of SM-U1 modules. Gateway Station and Freeport station both don't have the 2 HDPs at the -U1 while the Depot Station and the module itself in the Station Modules subassembly section in fact do show the 2 HDPs. Just a minor (continuity) error, I just EVA them off with an electric screwdriver.

To be clear, there was no continuity error, it was deliberate.  Let me explain: The SM-U1 (originally just SM-U), started out as a Zvezda-like module as part of my efforts to recreate a large Kerbal station analogous to the ISS.  However, when I started expanding the SM-series to include more Soviet/Russian style modules, I noticed the "Zvezda" on the ISS and the one on Mir had one significant visual difference. The DOS-7 version of "Zvezda" on Mir was launched with two main solar arrays, but a third solar array was added the following year when "Kvant-1" was delivered.  Since this third solar array differed slightly in appearance to the first two, I decided to instead use a pair of small deployable radiators to imitate the visual difference.

Now, the SM modules are meant to be used as baseline modules; meaning they're fully functional off the bat, but they can of course be modified however the player wants.  The SM-U1 is labeled as a utilities module, that can be used as a key "first launch" module that provides a lot of what a station needs to get up and running in a hurry: propulsion, attitude control, communications, power generation, docking ports, and thermal management.  Since I have no idea what kind of station a player may want to build, or where, I tried to make it as versatile as possible.  Which is why I added the four TCS radiators, in case someone wanted to use an ISRU around Moho for example.  If someone doesn't want the radiators on there, simply remove them, such as in the case of building an ISS-alike 'Pioneer Station' or a 'Gateway Station'.  If someone wants to build a Mir-alike station, they can either remove the bottom two TCS radiators or just leave them retracted.

Remember, the space station graphics are just examples of how the SM-series subassemblies can be put together, not necessarily the only way.  I've built more stations outside of the Kerbin SOI that aren't pictured, and I mix and match modules for whatever I need, or modify them for specific purposes and/or destinations.  On that note, I'm working to redo a lot of the modules for improvements, such as lower part counts and easier resource logistics.  Some new modules will also be published.  More on this later as I've already typed up a large novel already.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Raptor9

[Jester Darrak]

14 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

[...]

Oh I totally understand that. I was just reporting my issue, no negative critique here. Wouldn't be using your crafts if I wouldn't like them, eh?

[Raptor9]

No worries, I didn't take it as criticism.  I just wanted to clarify some of the design and publishing decisions.

[dalekusa]

What order would you recommend launching the SM modules for constructing the Pioneer Station, and what altitude should I build it at?

[Jester Darrak]

For realisms sake I will position the Pioneer in the same orbit as the ISS in real life with the altitude adjusted to Kerbins parameters (70% of the altitude of the real ISS). But with an inclination of 51.something degrees it does not perform well as a gateway and fuel hub since you would be limited to certain launch windows for fuel-efficient launches and returns.

 

@Raptor9, would you use the Mun Gateway Station as an interstellar gateway and fuel hub or is easier (for the MechJeb users like me :P) to start the planetary excursions from LKO?

[Raptor9]

17 hours ago, dalekusa said:

What order would you recommend launching the SM modules for constructing the Pioneer Station

If trying to replicate the assembly of the ISS, you can get more info on this wikipedia page.  As for my 'Pioneer Station', I did it in the following order (which wasn't true to the real-life ISS, but it was more practical and easier IMO):
1) SM-U1, SM-L1, SM-N1, SM-PL(T)
2) SM-T0 was launched along with two EMU's for assistance in assembly, which remained attached to the station.
3) The remainder of the truss/solar array assemblies were sent up.  Somewhere during this process I sent up the SM-A2 module to bring more monopropellant for the EMU's.  I forget exactly when.
4) SM-N2 & SM-H2(EMU) were sent up without the EMU's, since two EMU's were already "up there".  This provided a better parking spot for the EMU's.
5) The SM-S, SM-N3(C), and additional SM-H2 were sent up during the final launches.

10 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

But with an inclination of 51.something degrees it does not perform well as a gateway and fuel hub since you would be limited to certain launch windows for fuel-efficient launches and returns.

I put mine at 100x100km altitude and an inclination of 50 deg, cuz I was lazy and didn't care about the additional 1.64 degrees (real-life ISS orbits at 51.64 inclination according to Wiki).  I built 'Pioneer Station' for the same reason I made a space shuttle analog: because of the iconic status of the Shuttle and ISS.  They go together like peas and carrots (an expression I never understood since I prefer to eat mine separately, but I digress.... ).  Neither my SVR-16 nor my 'Pioneer Station' are very practical in a career mode KSP save.  I can launch the same payloads for the same funds or cheaper using conventional rockets, and for the relatively small amount of science you can perform from LKO experiments, the amount of funds you'd spend building an ISS-alike station doesn't provide an economical pay-off.

However, IMO who wouldn't want to undertake the challenge of building an ISS with a shuttle in KSP?  But...I only use my 'Pioneer Station' for research in generating a little science, and as an early stepping stone in my career pipeline for junior kerbalnauts.  Not only are the orbital characteristics horrible for use as a fuel hub or staging point for large orbitally-assembled ships, the total part count for assembling interplanetary expeditions at 'Pioneer Station' would slow my game to a craw.

10 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

would you use the Mun Gateway Station as an interstellar gateway and fuel hub or is easier (for the MechJeb users like me :P) to start the planetary excursions from LKO?

I assume you meant "interplanetary"?  Then yes, I use it to stage some expeditions.  Early expendable EV-4 launches to Duna I staged from LKO after initial assembly, but later EV-4 reusable variants get refitted and refueled in Munar orbit at my fuel hub in lower Munar orbit (15km).  I've only built one EV-5 Block 1 so far, and it's staged from my 'Gateway Station' as well at a 50km Munar orbit.  Regarding the MechJeb side, I have no idea; I'm not familiar with how that works or how it's used.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

My 'Titan 4N' heavy lifter rocket is finally published on KerbalX.  This particular rocket was designed earlier this year, but I wanted to thoroughly test it in my career save before putting it out there.  Because it has many applications, all of them that I could think of had to be tested in multiple locations.  The short version of this rocket's purpose was a scaled-up version of the 'Lightning' rocket (itself inspired by ULA's Vulcan/ACES), but for payload transportation on the interplanetary level.  However, the NITE (Next-generation Interplanetary Transportation - Enhanced) is much more than simply a reusable upper stage like the LITE; it combines the functions of a reusable upper stage, an interplanetary propulsion stage with large dV reserves, and an orbital propellant depot.  As such, it is outfitted with a docking port of each size to permit servicing of all types of spacecraft.

One example of the NITE's flexibility is sending a pair of NITE's (one carrying an IV-1B 'Meerkat', the other carrying an HLV-5B 'Porpoise') to orbit around Ike.  Using the IV-1B and HLV-5B to refuel the NITE's, you could re-position one to low Duna orbit, establishing an orbital depot around Duna and Ike.  Or you could send one/both back to Kerbin to retrieve more payloads bound for Duna; or use them to shuttle payloads between Duna and Ike, etc, etc.

The 'Titan 4N' is one piece of a planned series of craft files that are intended to support a much larger design effort that is still in it's conceptual/planning stages of development.  However, the 'Titan 4N' is something that can be used now, and has already been proven to work, so it's getting kicked out the door.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Raptor9

[septemberWaves]

The NITE looks like a very versatile vehicle, and as always looks pretty good too. I'm looking forward to seeing this "much larger design effort" that you mentioned in future.

[Rune]

6 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

My 'Titan 4N' heavy lifter rocket is finally published on KerbalX.  This particular rocket was designed earlier this year, but I wanted to thoroughly test it in my career save before putting it out there.  Because it has many applications, all of them that I could think of had to be tested in multiple locations.  The short version of this rocket's purpose was a scaled-up version of the 'Lightning' rocket (itself inspired by ULA's Vulcan/ACES), but for payload transportation on the interplanetary level.  However, the NITE (Next-generation Interplanetary Transportation - Enhanced) is much more than simply a reusable upper stage like the LITE; it combines the functions of a reusable upper stage, an interplanetary propulsion stage with large dV reserves, and an orbital propellant depot.  As such, it is outfitted with a docking port of each size to permit servicing of all types of spacecraft.

 

One example of the NITE's flexibility is sending a pair of NITE's (one carrying an IV-1B 'Meerkat', the other carrying an HLV-5B 'Porpoise') to orbit around Ike.  Using the IV-1B and HLV-5B to refuel the NITE's, you could re-position one to low Duna orbit, establishing an orbital depot around Duna and Ike.  Or you could send one/both back to Kerbin to retrieve more payloads bound for Duna; or use them to shuttle payloads between Duna and Ike, etc, etc.

The 'Titan 4N' is one piece of a planned series of craft files that are intended to support a much larger design effort that is still in it's conceptual/planning stages of development.  However, the 'Titan 4N' is something that can be used now, and has already been proven to work, so it's getting kicked out the door.

Gorgeous upper stage, but can I nitpick a bit? Just to further confuse the guys that know me as 'a SSTO guy'.

Isn't that like, a huge overkill in liftoff thrust for an underpowered upper stage? I toyed around with the upper stage idea, and in the end, I came up with these two:

What is under the fairing is pretty much a clone of your NITE upper stage, if I can clone going by a picture (there is a tank inside the 3.5-2.5m adaptor, right? a shame not to use the empty space), with just a different RCS/docking port arrangement (I'm a big fan of 'universal 1.25-2.5m ports'). The first one gets 45mT to LKO+1km/s (pretty much your standard trans-Duna injection), and the second one, a whooping 85mT to LKO+650m/s (45mT to LKO+2km/s with the 40.5mT heavier notNITE, i.e a carbon copy of yours).

So yeah, and that is with less liftoff thrust in both cases, and cheaper, lower Isp boosters (better suited to 1.5 staging, IMO, especially when the core already gives roll control). How thrust-limited are you running that core that it needs to be boosted? Because I have to gravity-turn quite aggresively on these two to get a nice apoapsis at core burnout (I have actually found that if I give them a 1º inclination on the launchpad, and use the other ~3º of sag, I can fly them without keyboard just by setting SAS to prograde when velocity goes over a mere 50m/s).

In any case, let this imitation be a form of flattery: I really like the look of the in-space stage, even if I think TWR on it is too low for the fuel load.

 

Rune. I am tempted to start a newer booster line here... the General Lifters are really moldy.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Rune

[Jester Darrak]

That Titan 4N looks sexy! But what I'm missing overall is the option to bring the more expensive boosters and first stages back to Kerbin. I'd rather lose 5-10 tons of payload and bring those Twin-Boar and Mammoth equipped stages back to the surface. That's 73,000 funds for the engines alone so making them recoverable should have a high priority. I for example equipped some of my Titan and Thunder upper stages with a set of chutes to get them back at some point. I also tend to install heavy landing legs on my Titan first stages and keep a bit of fuel for a chute-assisted terminal burn. It takes 8 Mk-2R to slow the first stage to an adequate final descent rate.

 

€dit: After some test launches I found out that the boosters are definetly a loss since they never reach beyond 70km of altitude, so keeping the Mammoth from extinction is the only way to save money.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Jester Darrak