Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Jester Darrak]

I wish we wouldn't need mods to see action groups during flight...

[ExplorerKlatt]

5 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

I wish we wouldn't need mods to see action groups during flight...

I second this. Kinda silly to expect people to remember every action group to every vessel over the course of a game. 

[Raptor9]

That's why I try to standardize each action group.  Below are some of the most common conventions, but keep in mind they are not all inclusive.

SPH Planes/Spaceplanes
[1] Toggles alternate engine functions, like Thrust Reversers, Afterburners, or toggles VTOL engine groups
[2] Toggles Flaps and/or VTOL RW, or RAPIER modes
[3] Toggles Engines
[4] Toggles Cabin Lights/Exterior illumination (leaving landing lights for that actual Light key)
[5] Toggles Interior Lighting (like cargo bays)
[6] Raises/Lowers Cargo Ramp

VAB Ships/Landers/etc
[1] Initializes/Toggles power generation equipment like solar panels and fuel cells -or- Toggles Ascent Engine(s) or second axis engine (HLV-5 landers)
[2] Toggles RCS Thrusters
[3] Toggles Main Propulsion Engines -or- Toggles Descent Engines
[4] Toggles Antenna/Comms Dish
[5] Jettisons Launch Escape System -or- Opens/Closes Docking Shield
[6] Toggles Cargo Bay Doors -or- opens enclosure panel of some sort to include rover ramps
[7] Decouples equipment latches inside cargo enclosures, like rovers

Edited August 14, 2017 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

I've expanded the SM-series collection to include a new "interplanetary tier".  These modules were borne from the need to establish stations around other planets and moons outside of Kerbin's SOI.  As such, the main design techniques I wanted to emphasize was module versatility, resource distribution, and low part count.  Modules like the SM-TN and SM-RN can be used as crew passageways, or components of a large truss system, or docking nodes for propellant depots.  Reusable stages like the LITE and the NITE are fully supported and intended to be integrated in the use of these modules, as displayed in the one of the latest station example graphics of 'Depot Station'.  With the NITE's long range, a deep space station can easily be set up with 2 or 3 'Titan 4N' launches with a few modules on each NITE, not to mention the NITE's could then provide an on-site depot mechanism.

The SM-TSR provides a single solution for power generation and thermal management, but still retains the ability to accept SM-MSAT augmentations for those outer planet locales that suffer from significant solar energy drop-off.  The SM-PCP not only provides a comms retrans capability, but with it's RC-L01 core, it establishes a local source signal to control uncrewed craft (through multiple hops) without relying on a powerful relay from Kerbin.  Then of course the SM-LITE provides a parking spot for up to 4 LITE upper stages or HLV-5 propulsion modules.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Raptor9

[DMSP]

3 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

-snip-

Hell yes, just in time for the video!

[Avery616]

These are some interesting models. This came at the perfect time as i am planning a unmanned recon mission for surface study and resource scans for plausible landing sights for a mun colony. I just need to know what are the best models in the LV series for a munar colony. 

[Raptor9]

10 hours ago, Avery616 said:

These are some interesting models. This came at the perfect time as i am planning a unmanned recon mission for surface study and resource scans for plausible landing sights for a mun colony. I just need to know what are the best models in the LV series for a munar colony. 

For constructing a Munar colony, unfortunately the only ones I can offer are the BM-series of base modules transported by LV-3C 'Bullfrog' landers.  The HLV-5 'Porpoise' family of landers will give you the most utility however since they are designed to be reused/refueled using Mun-refined propellant, and they fulfill personnel, fuel, and cargo needs; and they fit perfectly in my CisMunar Economy.

The LV-3A and LV-3B are also useful, but the LV-3A is generally a one sortie lander, and the LV-3B is sort of like a singular research outpost that happens to be capable of landing itself.

The LV-2B and LV-2D are also single-stage, reusable Mun landers, but are limited in their usefulness on the Mun Base/Colony scale of operation.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Raptor9
grammer...again

[Avery616]

56 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

For constructing a Munar colony, unfortunately the only ones I can offer are the BM-series of base modules transported by LV-3C 'Bullfrog' landers.  The HLV-5 'Porpoise' family of landers will give you the most utility however since they are designed to be reused/refueled using Mun-refined propellant, and they fulfill personnel, fuel, and cargo needs; and they fit perfectly in my CisMunar Economy.

The LV-3A and LV-3B are also useful, but the LV-3A is generally a one sortie lander, and the LV-3B is sort of like a singular research outpost that happens to be capable of landing itself.

The LV-2B and LV-2D are also single-stage, reusable Mun landers, but are limited in their usefulness on the Mun Base/Colony scale of operation.

Thanks for your help! Ill begin Kerbinside testing. And if all goes well you can expect a order from the Kerbal Aerospace division for your HLV-5 and LV-3B units soon. 

[Cynor]

Hey all, I'm recently coming back to KSP after a bit of a break and getting myself back into trying to use these crafts (especially the SSTOs) as I really like the design. However note the "trying" part... I'm having a pretty hard time with actually landing the Space Plane, specifically the SR-21A, and I'm not 100% sure where I'm going wrong. Every time I try to land it it ends in a fiery explosion due to the cockpit going critical. I've tried to keep the angle super low, under 5 degrees on Nav Ball, but the results seem to be the same every time.

Although I am using mods, admittedly a decent chunk of them (though I've seen more highly modified versions), I don't believe any change the spaceplane parts or re-entry heat. The fact I can get to orbit just fine 100% of the time seems to confirm this for me too. So this really makes me wonder what is going on and if anyone could help I'd appreciate it.

I should note here that it's quite possible I'm not setting up the de-orbit burn correctly here, it's been forever since I flew a spaceplane period, and even then I wasn't the best. Right now I'm using the Trajectories mod to line up the marker over the KSC, but I'm not 100% sure how well that plays with spaceplanes since I believe that does put my PE into the planet. I'll try some other de-orbit burns later, but if anyone could assist before then it'd be appreciated.

[Raptor9]

@Cynor, welcome back to KSP.  For an optimum entry trajectory, using Trajectories mod, I recommend deorbiting in a manner so that the atmospheric entry phase (red portion of the Trajectories display) begins over the desert region west of the KSC, about 60 degrees around the planetary sphere prior, and the trajectory impact being vicinity of the KSC.  At atmo entry (70km), place the nose at 15-20 deg above the horizon, set the SAS to hold it there with RCS and control surfaces on.  As the SR-21A descends, the nose will track up on the flight ball as you continue around Kerbin in the upper atmosphere, which is fine.  This is essentially using the entire underside of the SR-21 as an airbrake.  When your speed drops below 1300-1400 m/s, you can let the nose come down and start working through powered atmospheric flight back to the KSC.  Additionally, you can add a little more braking power with the vertical airbrakes (the rudders will deploy out) if need be.  The same type of entry works with the SR-21B as well, but it does have a slightly different forward airfoil layout and isn't as nose heavy, so be careful.

Keep practicing the trajectory angles and entry points until you find a repeatable procedure that gets you close enough to the KSC (without burning up obviously) so you have enough fuel to return to the runway.

8 hours ago, Cynor said:

Although I am using mods, admittedly a decent chunk of them (though I've seen more highly modified versions), I don't believe any change the spaceplane parts or re-entry heat.

I would still recommend testing it out in a vanilla KSP if you keep experiencing trouble.  This has been a repetitive comment on KerbalX when users have issues, which is why I've placed it in the FAQ section of the OP.

[Cynor]

7 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

I would still recommend testing it out in a vanilla KSP if you keep experiencing trouble.  This has been a repetitive comment on KerbalX when users have issues, which is why I've placed it in the FAQ section of the OP.

A little after that post I actually did make a totally vanilla/stock/zero mod (not even kerbal engineer or trajectories) just to be sure. I had the same fireworks display in the sky that I've come to know and love.

HOWEVER!

7 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

At atmo entry (70km), place the nose at 15-20 deg above the horizon, set the SAS to hold it there with RCS and control surfaces on.

Well... derp! I feel really silly now for trying to have the nose around 0-5 deg (that's how I read the shallow decent thing) and this totally fixed all the issues. I did overshoot the main runway the first time, coulda landed at the island rofl, but at least I'm not exploding now which lets me figure out where to put the node, where the lines go, etc. I'll be trying your suggestion on where to deorbit and see how that works.

 

Thanks!

[Raptor9]

48 minutes ago, Cynor said:

which lets me figure out where to put the node, where the lines go, etc. I'll be trying your suggestion on where to deorbit and see how that works.

Each time you do, place a Kerbnet waypoint at your deorbit burn point.  If it doesn't work out just right, try again and whichever one is closer, delete the other waypoint.  Keep refining the location until you have the waypoint exactly where you need it.  Keep in mind there may be some variance depending on which orbital altitude you're deorbiting from.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Raptor9

[Cynor]

11 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

Each time you do, place a Kerbnet waypoint at your deorbit burn point.  If it doesn't work out just right, try again and whichever one is closer, delete the other waypoint.  Keep refining the location until you have the waypoint exactly where you need it.  Keep in mind there may be some variance depending on which orbital altitude you're deorbiting from.

Good idea! TBH I haven't messed kerbnet much yet, but that seems like a great idea for a starting point. I also like to fly all my stuff at either 80 or 100k depending, so maybe I could make one for each and then if i'm between that for a rescue or something can go between them for a good point.

[Raptor9]

A few more craft files updated to 1.3.0 on KerbalX.  Mostly subassemblies in the form of the ER-1, -2, and -3 rovers, the MIR rover family, and the utilty rovers.  The main thing being lower part count in the range of 2 to 4 parts less on each of these.  Additionally, the 'Thunder' rocket family, as previewed in this post, has also been updated.  The new 'Thunder 3' variants have replaced the 'Thunder 4' and 'Thunder 4 Heavy' download slots on KerbalX, unfortunately.  The 'Thunder 4' sub-family will be returning after the strut bug fix of 1.3.1 hopefully stops them from exploding on the launch pad.
______________________________
The following is mainly just talking about my thoughts this past weekend during a marathon design and testing period. 

I'm happy to announce that a project I first mentioned on February 28th is finally gaining some practical application.  This project has languished in perpetual development since then because 1) I set some pretty high performance objectives, and 2) I was stuck in a bit of an archaic design methodology.  The original goal was to design a new interplanetary "EV-X" ship to go to (at a minimum) the Joolian SOI and return without refueling.  There were a lot of other requirements I mandated for myself as well, including but not limited to robust and redundant systems, while still maintaining modularity like my EV-4 'Longship' variants.  The problem was it was going to be so logistically cumbersome (and costly in a career save) to launch and assemble given all the components, that I found myself resorting to figuring out ways to adapt the EV-4 system for Jool instead.  While the EV-4 'Longship' Modular Exploration Vehicle or MEV system is nice for going to and from places...that's really all it was designed to do.  Load a bunch of fuel tanks with a handful LV-N engines, put some cargo or a crew section on the front, and send it on it's merry way.

That's when I realized that "modular" didn't necessarily mean "multipurpose" within my current building style.  The EV-4's could be reconfigured based on their destination, making them "multi-mission" and reusable to transport crews/cargo to/from Duna, or Eve, or anywhere else provided you had enough delta-V strapped on.  So, I scrapped my "EV-X" project and instead drew up a new project called M3V, or Modular, Multimission, Multipurpose Vehicle system.  It's not so much a singular exploration vehicle like the previous EV craft I've built, it really is a "system" of multiple craft.  Whether or not it's successful for a Joolian level expedition, I have no idea at the moment.  How many different craft or subassemblies will end up being part of the project, I have no idea either.  But bottom line, it's gaining maturity, I've got some craft already being tested; now I just have to make sure I can squeeze out as much potential as I can.  I'm excited to see where I can take "M3V". 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Raptor9
Typo: M3V doesn't have "Exploration" in it...mind was still stuck on MEV naming convention

[Jestersage]

Can you go with last 14 days, instead of last 7 days? Want to check what you have added or updated, as KerbalX don't notify which one you had updated

Edited August 16, 2017 by Jestersage

[Raptor9]

11 hours ago, Jestersage said:

Can you go with last 14 days, instead of last 7 days? Want to check what you have added or updated, as KerbalX don't notify which one you had updated

KerbalX does notify which craft have been updated since the last time you've logged in, provided you follow a user or a hanger on the site.

Having said that, if you go to my craft file list on KerbalX and use the 1.3.0 version filter, that pretty much narrows it down.

[Raptor9]

An update on my M3V project.  The testing grounds aren't just the Mun and Minmus, but the Duna and Eve SOI regions as well, since it gives a wide range of environments to operate in.  I'm trying to get as much "multipurpose" uses out of each craft as possible.  The reason the multipurpose aspect is becoming a significant advantage in M3V designs is when operating outside the Kerbin SOI.  If you need something, you gotta wait for a long time for that hardware to be sent from Kerbin (even if you didn't have to wait for a transfer window).

Obviously, using craft for something that it wasn't intended for isn't new in KSP.  Heck, the Apollo 13 crew used their lunar lander as a lifeboat and course correction engine.  But "M3V-rated" craft will be rolled out with multipurpose capabilities already in mind.  This isn't just a logistical advantage, it's an economical one as well.  Adding some more hardware to a craft may increase it's initial purchase costs slightly, but it's offset by the fact that you only need to purchase a single multipurpose craft, instead of multiple single-purpose craft.  There are a few craft in this series that will admittedly be single-purpose designs, like rovers or surface base modules among others.

Speaking of surface activities, my M3V designs have moved to "Stage 3" according to my own design notes.  Stages 1 was simply establishing the concept and requirements of M3V itself.  Stage 2 was the interplanetary/orbital design phases (how to get to where we're going, and how we're going to operate in-SOI when we arrive).  Stage 3 is the surface component.  Getting cargo and modules to the surface, and operating the equipment on the surface.  (This excludes Eve's surface...that's a whole other beast )

My most recent fun this afternoon was designing a new "moon flyer".  Built as a logistics rover for higher gravity planets like Kerbin or Duna, I removed the wheels, added micro-landing struts and thrusters, and it can now cruise a long way across Ike. 

The M3V craft/subassembly file roster is already over a dozen, with more planned.  To reiterate, when the 1.3.1 update is released my priorities will shift to updating any pre-1.3 craft already on KerbalX, or any craft ready for publishing per my "Short-term plans" on the OP.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Raptor9

[septemberWaves]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

There are a few craft in this series that will admittedly be single-purpose designs, like rovers or surface base modules among others.

If you're open to suggestions regarding making things more modular, I have a few ideas for modular rover/base systems.

The general idea is to use a system that's similar to a modular space station which has interchangeable modules that can be manipulated by a couple of space tugs. However, rather than space tugs with RCS thrusters, you instead have several identical rover bases with a few docking ports in useful positions. Each rover base should be fairly minimalistic, limited to just the wheels, a single command seat or probe core, basic power generation, and the superstructure holding it together. Then the rovers can connect to surface base modules using docking ports (surface docking can of course be made much easier with clever use of landing gear, as I'm sure you're aware by this point). Using this sort of system you can minimize the types of modules you have to land somewhere while still having it be quite multipurpose, because you'd be able to change what the rovers do without having to send entirely new rovers (and you could also drive your entire surface base somewhere else if needed). I'm sure it could lead to some interesting design challenges, but such a modular base system would probably be far better suited to a multi-purpose exploration system like the one you're designing rather than having several rovers and base modules with specific functions.

[Raptor9]

5 minutes ago, eloquentJane said:

[snip]

Heh heh, I guess what I meant to say was:  My rovers are only rovers, and my surface base modules are only surface base modules.  As opposed to a large lander that is also a mini-base, like my LV-1C or LV-2C, or a wheeled rover that has some rocket engines on it so it can also be a lander.

To be honest, I never thought about doing it the way you describe.  I'm doing it the inverse way at the moment; using rovers to attach to and drag the larger surface base modules behind it like a trailer.  I think the main obstacles to doing it like you say (without a longer engineering "thought ponderance") is that I always try to make my IVA's make sense.  The mobile lab piece needs to stand up, since that's the orientation of the inside compartments.  I like the look of the IVA's, and it would drive me nuts to have the IVA's laying on there side.  I really wish there was a second set of Hitchhiker and lab modules that had sideways IVA's to make surface bases more like real-life concepts.

The other personal obstacle is I hate long drives.  Not only for the boredom piece, but also because I'll inevitably get impatient, speed up, and wreck.  I know, F5 helps, but what can I say.  Which is why I design "flyers".  I have a prototype Duna flyer that looks like the Rutan Voyager, but it's still a long way from working the way I want.  I'm still a relative newbie when it comes to Duna surface ops.  But thanks for that idea, I might be able to incorporate some of that into my rover family. 

[septemberWaves]

I'll be designing modular surface vehicles similar to those that I described at some point in the somewhat-near future most likely. I'll want them for Munar exploration as well as for other planets. I suppose it's a lot different designing things with the stock game in mind. I don't mind long rover journeys because I can usually set up MechJeb to drive rovers around and then I'll go do something else while I'm waiting. As for IVAs, I like them to make sense too but I usually have mods like Planetary Base Systems installed, which is very nice for having correctly-oriented IVAs (and also for me the outside of the vehicle and getting it to fit nicely inside a fairing take higher priority than IVA orientation).

6 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

I really wish there was a second set of Hitchhiker and lab modules that had sideways IVA's to make surface bases more like real-life concepts.

I essentially feel the same way about this, but the difference of course is that I'm happy to install mods to add those sort of parts.

 

8 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

My most recent fun this afternoon was designing a new "moon flyer".  Built as a logistics rover for higher gravity planets like Kerbin or Duna, I removed the wheels, added micro-landing struts and thrusters, and it can now cruise a long way across Ike. 

I neglected to mention this previously but I really enjoy this idea. I might have to do something similar for low-gravity worlds. And speaking of which, how do you keep it pointed in the right direction? I think a nice way to have it always pointed up would be to control it from an upward-facing probe core and set that to hold a radial orientation, controlling the hover thrusters with the throttle and lateral propulsion using RCS. Although I imagine the controls for that sort of configuration could take a bit of getting used to.

[Rune]

11 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Heh heh, I guess what I meant to say was:  My rovers are only rovers, and my surface base modules are only surface base modules.  As opposed to a large lander that is also a mini-base, like my LV-1C or LV-2C, or a wheeled rover that has some rocket engines on it so it can also be a lander.

To be honest, I never thought about doing it the way you describe.  I'm doing it the inverse way at the moment; using rovers to attach to and drag the larger surface base modules behind it like a trailer.  I think the main obstacles to doing it like you say (without a longer engineering "thought ponderance") is that I always try to make my IVA's make sense.  The mobile lab piece needs to stand up, since that's the orientation of the inside compartments.  I like the look of the IVA's, and it would drive me nuts to have the IVA's laying on there side.  I really wish there was a second set of Hitchhiker and lab modules that had sideways IVA's to make surface bases more like real-life concepts.

The other personal obstacle is I hate long drives.  Not only for the boredom piece, but also because I'll inevitably get impatient, speed up, and wreck.  I know, F5 helps, but what can I say.  Which is why I design "flyers".  I have a prototype Duna flyer that looks like the Rutan Voyager, but it's still a long way from working the way I want.  I'm still a relative newbie when it comes to Duna surface ops.  But thanks for that idea, I might be able to incorporate some of that into my rover family. 

Speaking as someone that has worked a modular base concept a lot... yeah, I concur. I also dislike putting modules in an orientation where the IVA doesn't fit, which means pretty much everything goes vertical. But that doesn't mean that it has to look bad! On the contrary, lots of concept art out there with cylindrical modules upright. Makes for a more efficient use of pressurised space (and flat floors).

I guess you have already seen my stuff elsewhere (I've posted like, a lot of different versions over the years), but if I can recommend you just one thing, it's to go with the method of assembly that I learned from @Temstar a lot of moons ago: grab the modules by a docking port on the base. That way you have a common base that your construction rover crawls under, and dropping the landing gear on the base part makes the connection. With that as a standard, you can build your individual modules on top, on say, a common 2.5m base with the same clearance above the ground, and you can use the dcking port there to standardize the delivery method (in my case, the very awesome Orca, or a disposable reentry package for Eve). As a plus, with lots of construction rovers you can make your whole base a wheeled contraption, for relocation.

These days, I'm toying with the idea of using KIS to build stuff on-site, with cranes and the like, from small landers with modest payloads. But, you know, mods. I really really wish KIS/KAS became stock at some point, it adds a ton of gameplay.

(Edit: this is what I mean by awesome gameplay, imagine building bases that way!)

 

Rune. But dang if it ain't hard to come up with something better after refining my Base-In-A-Box for so long.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Rune

[Raptor9]

12 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

As for IVAs, I like them to make sense too but I usually have mods like Planetary Base Systems installed

I love that mod.  The IVA's are gorgeous and the base functionality and modularity possibilities are awesome.  But I resigned myself to ensure I can accomplish a task using only stock parts before I resort to mods.  Kind of a challenge for myself while also providing craft files for players uninterested or incapable of using mods.

12 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

how do you keep it pointed in the right direction? I think a nice way to have it always pointed up would be to control it from an upward-facing probe core and set that to hold a radial orientation, controlling the hover thrusters with the throttle and lateral propulsion using RCS. Although I imagine the controls for that sort of configuration could take a bit of getting used to.

I pretty much fly it like a helicopter (although a VTOL would probably be a better analogy).  Dip the nose down to gain the desired horizontal velocity and then keep the flight ball waterline on the horizon in level flight while controlling altitude with the throttle.  Since the vector of control is coincident with your direction of travel, it's a lot easier to maintain visibility of your flight path marker as well as fine tuning it's direction by banking left or right.  Turning at speed is a bit of a bear and eats up a lot of fuel; I normally make sure I get the target location off the nose before I gain too much speed.  Same thing when I'm maneuvering my HLV-5 'Porpoise' landers around the landing sites, just fly it like a VTOL. 

8 hours ago, Rune said:

I guess you have already seen my stuff elsewhere (I've posted like, a lot of different versions over the years), but if I can recommend you just one thing, it's to go with the method of assembly that I learned from @Temstar a lot of moons ago: grab the modules by a docking port on the base. That way you have a common base that your construction rover crawls under, and dropping the landing gear on the base part makes the connection.

Oh yeah, I've seen it, it partially influenced my original BM-series Mun surface modules.  Although each of those modules had self-driving capability.  My current method, while still differing from the one you utilize, is still based on the concept of using a rover to move one module at a time.  The difference being mine is more akin to this image:

8 hours ago, Rune said:

These days, I'm toying with the idea of using KIS to build stuff on-site, with cranes and the like, from small landers with modest payloads. But, you know, mods. I really really wish KIS/KAS became stock at some point, it adds a ton of gameplay.

I agree, it does add a lot of possibilities and depth to surface ops; beyond running a few experiments, grabbing a fistful of dirt and planting a flag.  Not to mention, it would make utilizing vertically-built landers to haul cargo more practical like in your screenshots and this version of the proposed Altair.

[TopHeavy11]

A bit of criticism (now with advice!): Your low orbit vessels such as the EV-1A/B have far too much ablator than their mission requires. For a low orbit re-entry on 100% stock heating, you only need 30-40 ablator. 60 is more akin to a Mun mission. Less ablator would mean that the crafts would be less top-heavy and easier to fly. Just my opinion, though.

[Raptor9]

1 minute ago, TopHeavy11 said:

A bit of criticism (now with advice!): Your low orbit vessels such as the EV-1A/B have far too much ablator than their mission requires. For a low orbit re-entry on 100% stock heating, you only need 30-40 ablator. 60 is more akin to a Mun mission. Less ablator would mean that the crafts would be less top-heavy and easier to fly. Just my opinion, though.

I purposely added a bit more ablator to these heat shields just in case someone decided to fling those craft into the atmosphere a little faster than what I planned for.  That and I prefer a little more margin of safety than riding along a limit.

Besides, reducing the ablator from 60 to 20 on the 1.25m heatshield is a difference in mass of 0.04 tons (and 20), which is an extremely little difference in the total mass of the craft (wet or dry).  What difficulty are you having with flying these rockets configurations?  These rockets are actually quite stable (CoM closer to the front of the rocket is better for stability anyways).  If you're having trouble keeping the nose up, you might be starting your gravity turn too early and/or pitching over to aggressively.

[Raptor9]

A screenshot from some surface concept testing with gravity "hacked" to match Duna surface gravity for the tests themselves.

In the image I was testing out the feasibility and part count impacts of making a surface outpost solar farm.  Each row of solar panels is composed of four modules, each placed using the new logistics rover in the image.  Also messing around with other small devices like a comms tower (also capable of being repositioned using the same rover), as well as some miscellaneous "implements" like the shovel on the front of the rover.  Some practical uses of such a device would be to more easily nudge small modules into position without actually attaching to them, or moving debris from a crashed lander out of the way.  You could also say it's for "scooping dirt or regolith around a mining site". 

Just a small sample of surface elements I'm testing out for various destinations.