Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Raptor9]

On 6/5/2017 at 8:30 AM, Jester Darrak said:

Also, there seems to be a weird issue with stuff that's inside cargo fairings. When moving to the launchpad either the payload or the second stage (if placed inside a fairing) kinda wobbles and collides with something. I think it has something to do with the struts, the cargo fairings or a/the combination of both. Latest confirmed issue was on the Pathfinder Titan-3P.

Edit: I seem to have this sorted out. Since 1.3 it looks like you need more struts to actually secure whatever payload you put inside the fairing. It took me 12 struts for both the satellite and the Titan-2P upper stage to make it not fall apart upon vessel unpacking. Weird...

Do you have any mods installed? I haven't had any such issues.

On 6/5/2017 at 8:30 AM, Jester Darrak said:

Can you add the fuel hub station you used for your CISmunar Space Economy display (the one you can see in the KerbalX PD-64 Camel download page)?

I plan on revising/updating most of my Station Module subassemblies (not to mention a number of other craft).  This will include additional modules that I was prototyping in my 1.2.2 career save, some of which are used to build that station.  However, I'm kind of taking a hiatus from KSP to avoid getting burned out, which is why I haven't finished some of the utility aircraft I was talking about recently.  I do occasionally boot it up to tinker with a few ideas, but I'm trying to avoid it for the time being.

[Jester Darrak]

I tried without mods - still breaking at the launch pad on unpacking the vessel.

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, Jester Darrak said:

I tried without mods - still breaking at the launch pad on unpacking the vessel.

Do you have "Ease in Gravity" in the settings enabled?  If so, try turning it off and see if that helps.

[Jester Darrak]

Whatever it does, turning it off indeed helped. Thank you very much, sir!

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Whatever it does, turning it off indeed helped. Thank you very much, sir!

This was a quote from @5thHorseman last October: "so that you don't go from 0g to a full 1g in a single frame when you load a ship. I don't know if it's just for the launch pad or counts ships landed on other planets. In the past, that sort of thing could destroy a ship. It's a toggle because in rare cases, easing in gravity can be worse for a ship than snapping it on. I've never encountered one of these cases so can't give any details, but I've heard others say it."

I too have encountered cases in that were favorable for one or the other.  Generally I leave it on, unless I'm encountering something that's causing joint failures or a part's G-force limits (also a toggle-able feature) to be exceeded.  I bring this up because I'd hate for other things in your save (like surface bases) to get messed up after switching this off.  Just some food for thought to keep in the back of your mind as you continue to play.  Don't want to be the advice-giver that creates more problems than solutions for you. 

[Jester Darrak]

59 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

This was a quote from @5thHorseman last October: "so that you don't go from 0g to a full 1g in a single frame when you load a ship. I don't know if it's just for the launch pad or counts ships landed on other planets. In the past, that sort of thing could destroy a ship. It's a toggle because in rare cases, easing in gravity can be worse for a ship than snapping it on. I've never encountered one of these cases so can't give any details, but I've heard others say it."

I too have encountered cases in that were favorable for one or the other.  Generally I leave it on, unless I'm encountering something that's causing joint failures or a part's G-force limits (also a toggle-able feature) to be exceeded.  I bring this up because I'd hate for other things in your save (like surface bases) to get messed up after switching this off.  Just some food for thought to keep in the back of your mind as you continue to play.  Don't want to be the advice-giver that creates more problems than solutions for you. 

Well, I'll keep that in mind. But just by knowing this, one feels much safer towards encountering glitches or issues. It's like the famous "turn off V-Sync to actually get more frames" or "toggle mods to find what's happening". Like a go or no-go switch.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Jester Darrak

[kbz]

Hi, made an account just to post this lmao

Slightly off topic but how did you do the renders of your builds in those pictures?

[Triop]

2 hours ago, kbz said:

Hi, made an account just to post this lmao

Slightly off topic but how did you do the renders of your builds in those pictures?

Lmao of too, you didn't need to make an account, the answer is in the first post.

Q: How do you make the brochure-style graphics for each craft download?
A: I start by taking screenshots using Kronal Vessel Viewer, then do all the rest manually using Microsoft Paint.  Simple and easy.

But welcome, you won't regret becoming a member.

[Raptor9]

@kbz, hello and welcome to the forums. 

EDIT: Also to everyone else.  I finally made dedicated mass download hanger links on KerbalX for my SPH, VAB, and Subassembly folders. (I forgot I hadn't done that yet )  These three zip downloads will give you all of my published craft files pre-sorted for the appropriate save game sub-folders.

*The one caveat I have is the 'Titan 4C+' will not be included in either the VAB or the Rocket Market zip downloads.  This one will need to be downloaded manually from its craft page.  Will report back if a solution is found.
____________________________

I would also like to thank the users that have recently, and in the past, identified problems with my craft.  I can only test these craft so much from my standard design approaches, so the feedback I receive only helps to improve my own techniques.  Since all these craft are used in my own KSP gameplay (not just showroom candy) you're helping me out in my career save.  Even if the issue isn't related to the craft design itself, please keep constructive feedback coming.  I may not always implement your suggestions, but they do provide a broader perspective of gameplay beyond my narrow scope.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

As the PSA states on the OP, I'm still doing some light experimenting and tweaking of some craft files while I wait for the 1.3.1 patch.  The main focus is the never-ending effort to reduce part counts and costs.  The latest version of the 'Lightning' rocket (inspired by ULA's Vulcan/ACES), has a reduction of 9 parts and nearly a ton of dry mass from the LITE reusable upper stage.  This will equate to better performance for use in the CisMunar space economy, and the overall cost of the 'Lightning' rocket itself has been reduced by over 10,000 funds.  The 'Thunder' rocket family is also undergoing some tweaking to squeeze out more performance gains.  It's my goal to hopefully shift some payloads (ie IV-1 'Meerkat' series) to the single-core 'Thunder' & 'Lightning' rockets from the SLS-inspired 'Titan' family, which are twice as expensive.

Other craft that have seen slight improvements are the EV-1B 'Skiff' (better launch performance), and the CST-100 inspired EV-2B 'Runabout' (reduced part count; important for servicing high part count ISS-type space stations).

I'm also interested in some feedback from users of the LV-2D 'Cricket' reusable singe-stage lander.  The existing version of the 'Cricket' is designed to depart from an orbiting space station in low Munar orbit, land on the Mun, and then return to the station before exhausting its monopropellant fuel supply.  To attain maximum performance from it's propellant reservoir, I tightly packed (not-clipped) inside the lower fuselage 8x Stratus-V Cylindrified mono tanks around two FL-R25 core tanks, plus 4x externally mounted Stratus-V Roundified mono tanks.  This arrangement resulted in some nice aesthetics and enough performance to make large inclination changes pre-landing and post-ascent, but refueling the lander is a bit of a pain with so many tanks inside of the lander.

I've tested a new version of the lander that has replaced tank arrangement in the lower fuselage with a single FL-R1 2.5m monopropellant tank, and added two additional externally-mounted Stratus-V Roundified tanks.  The result is an LV-2D that is lower in part count and much easier to refuel, but with a slash to it's delta-V budget due to reduced propellant capacity.  Landing to Munar equatorial regions is still possible (assuming the station staging orbit is prograde and equatorial of course), but large inclination changes to reach higher latitudes isn't possible unless a disposable descent booster is brought along for each landing attempt.

So let me know what you guys and gals think about it.
Existing LV-2D Pros: Large delta-V, more landing sites in reach from staging orbit
Existing LV-2D Cons: Higher part count, tedious/time-consuming to refuel after each landing

New LV-2D Pros: Lower part count (11), easy to refuel after each landing
New LV-2D Cons: Less delta-V (~400 m/s), limited landing site selection, disposable descent booster is required for non-equatorial landing sites (resulting in higher costs and less than 100% reusability)

[Jester Darrak]

I'd vote for the old LV-2D. It is designed with great love for detail AND packs a punch that nothing else comes close. If you ask me, with all the categories you covered, it has won the "best in stock" award. It's just perfect and in my opinion un-improvable and any attempt to do so would kill it's formidable reputation and legacy. Are the new Thunder/Lightning series of rockets already uploaded? The medium sized rockets are my personal favorites for any mission within Kerbin SOI and some probe missions all around the Kerbol System. Any improvements to them are very much welcome and my engineers and flight planners are even more hyped than The Jeb himself!

[Raptor9]

10 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Are the new Thunder/Lightning series of rockets already uploaded? The medium sized rockets are my personal favorites for any mission within Kerbin SOI and some probe missions all around the Kerbol System.

They're not uploaded yet, I'm waiting for 1.3.1 to drop to fix a couple bugs with struts.  The 'Thunder'/'Lightning' series are my favorite too.  With the new update, I'll be expanding the 'Thunder' rocket family from 5 configurations to 9.  The rather heavy RE-I5 Skipper-powered upper stage on the 'Thunder 3' has been replaced with a modest upper stage closer in comparison with ULA's Centaur.  These additional configurations will hopefully provide a more tailored launch selection for whatever payload mass you're wanting to launch to orbit; and they are more analogous to their real-life Atlas V and Delta IV inspirations.

[Jestersage]

Question: How would you do a surface based rover scan on kerbin? Plane, VTOL, rover, or flying car?

[Raptor9]

3 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

Question: How would you do a surface based rover scan on kerbin? Plane, VTOL, rover, or flying car?

I prefer to load a rover into a long-range plane, land near the border of several biomes, kick out the rover, go do it's thing, return to plane, find another area of multiple biomes, rinse, repeat, etc.

Coincidentally, that's exactly what I originally designed the ATSV for.  Which reminds me, I need to make another version of it powered by fuel cells...(*sigh* So much to do)

Edited June 27, 2017 by Raptor9

[Jester Darrak]

Jeb just tweeted:

"OMG! Can't wait for #Thunder and #Lighting. Preparations for the reveal festivities aka #launchparty are under way! #Raptor9rulez #KSC"

8 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

They're not uploaded yet, I'm waiting for 1.3.1 to drop to fix a couple bugs with struts.  The 'Thunder'/'Lightning' series are my favorite too.  With the new update, I'll be expanding the 'Thunder' rocket family from 5 configurations to 9.  The rather heavy RE-I5 Skipper-powered upper stage on the 'Thunder 3' has been replaced with a modest upper stage closer in comparison with ULA's Centaur.  These additional configurations will hopefully provide a more tailored launch selection for whatever payload mass you're wanting to launch to orbit; and they are more analogous to their real-life Atlas V and Delta IV inspirations.

 

[Jester Darrak]

I was playing around with some of your designs, creating a little love child (language filter wouldn't let me use an abreviation that started with "bast" and ended with "ard") out of the EV-2C and the LV-2D to make a reusable lander for Duna. The goal was a single stage lander with at least 2200 m/s dV to get off a station, onto the surface and back up without the need to refuel on the ground. What happened is that I accidentally put it into LKO instead of LDO and still was able to bring it down safely. Still waiting for the fuel truck though...

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Jester Darrak

[Jester Darrak]

I once criticised your EV-2Cs fuel tank layout being to unaccessable. While accepting the throw-away concept I was sniffing a bit under the hood and found that it has way too much monopropellant for such a tiny vessel. Even for an absolute beginner in docking maneuvers the amount of monopropellant is a little bit over the top and I was looking for an improvement. So here is what I found: Swapping the 4 cylindrified MP tanks for a total of 8 Oscar-Bs and 2 other Oscar-Bs for 2 FL-R10s gave the EV-2C an improvement in deltaV from 951 m/s to 1243 m/s. That's a massive 30.7% and gives the EV-2C+ (why not call it that? :D) the ability to reach a 30 km circular orbit around the Mün with around 10% fuel left as error margin.

 

EV-2A: 1174 m/s

EV-2B: 593 m/s (what happened there?)

EV-2C (current): 951 m/s

EV-2C+ (proposed): 1243 m/s

 

Following image compares current and proposed layout for EV-2C+:

Edited July 24, 2017 by Jester Darrak

[Skylon]

1 hour ago, Jester Darrak said:

-snip-

 found that it has way too much monopropellant for such a tiny vessel. Even for an absolute beginner in docking maneuvers the amount of monopropellant is a little bit over the top and I was looking for an improvement. 

EV-2B: 593 m/s (what happened there?)

-snip-

AFAIK, he designs vessels to use monoprop for attitude control, as this is much more realistic. Therefore you need more monopropellant, since you can't use reaction wheels. As for the EV-2B's 593m/s, I'm pretty sure it was designed for LKO

[Raptor9]

@Skylon pretty much nailed it on the head on both points.  These craft are designed with specific mission sets in mind. When comparing the EV-2A's and EV-2C's delta-V requirements for a Munar landing mission, the EV-2A needs the additional propellant for the Munar insertion braking burn. In the case of an EV-2C mission, the 'Titan 2P' (modeled after the SLS EUS) provides the insertion burn before jettison. The EV-2C only needs to perform orbital adjustments and the return trip to Kerbin.

The EV-2B is based on the CST-100, and as such is meant to be a relatively cheap taxi to LKO space stations (which is why it doesn't even have a dedicated comm device).

Having said all that, when I get home from work today I'm gonna look at swapping out the radial monopropellant tanks for those FL-series (since they do hold more; 80 vs 60 units). I'm not gonna cut the monopropellant amount however; 240 units in 4x radial mono tanks was already fairly low by my standards.

EDIT: I've removed the 4 radial RCS tanks from the service module, and instead replaced them with 4 FL-R10 fuel tanks and additional LF+O tankage.  This gives the EV-2C an increase of ~150m/s delta-V and 80 additional units of monopropellant.  Thanks for the suggested alternative @Jester Darrak.  I know it's not exactly what you had proposed, but I'd call 150m/s more delta-V and a slightly larger reserve of monoprop for the cost of 4 additional parts a win. 

I'm hoping the 1.875m parts in the DLC will give me the option to make one large LF+O tank to trim that part count significantly without a hit to performance, but it's still way too early to be making plans around that.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Raptor9

[Jester Darrak]

On 24.7.2017 at 5:01 PM, Raptor9 said:

I'm hoping the 1.875m parts in the DLC will give me the option to make one large LF+O tank to trim that part count significantly without a hit to performance, but it's still way too early to be making plans around that.

That's the first time I ever heard about that and I'm thrilled. And since we have no ETA on the 1.3.1 update, could you give us a little sneak peak at the upcoming Thunder and Lightning revision or the new Thunder 2 upper stage?

[Raptor9]

1 minute ago, Jester Darrak said:

since we have no ETA on the 1.3.1 update, could you give us a little sneak peak at the upcoming Thunder and Lightning revision or the new Thunder 2 upper stage?

The 'Lightning' hasn't changed much in outward appearance, but when i get home from work tonight I'll put up some images of the new 'Thunder' rocket configurations and upper stage.

[CptAWatts]

In regards to the satellites you have. Which one has more range, the navsat or the keosat? Thanks

[Raptor9]

@Jester Darrak, and anyone else that's interested of course, below is the graphic that will correspond with Group 1 of the 'Thunder' rocket family.  Since these haven't been released yet, performance data has been redacted.  The far right screenshot at the bottom is an image of the new 'Thunder 2' upper stage, contract-produced by Jeb's Junkyard & Spaceship Parts Co. (and inspired by the ULA Centaur upper stage).  The 'Thunder 3' configurations are meant to be analogous to ULA's Atlas V.

3 hours ago, CptAWatts said:

In regards to the satellites you have. Which one has more range, the navsat or the keosat? Thanks

The 'KeoSat', having the stronger RA-2 dish, has the longest range.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Raptor9

[CptAWatts]

Thanks! The new rockets look awesome too.

[Jester Darrak]

Ok, I'm not disappointed, but I don't like rockets that have some sort of wasp thigh (decreasing diameter and then increasing again) and that centaur upper stage does look quite ugly, but: Performance and cost matters and more variations make it easiert to chose the right launch vehicle for a certain payload. But still, great work as usual and psyched about the new Thunder 4 class.

 

On a side note I can also predict the future: You are planning on using the upcoming 1.875m parts in the centaur once the DLC becomes available.