Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[septemberWaves]

These vehicles and base modules are looking pretty great.

[Raptor9]

13 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

These vehicles and base modules are looking pretty great.

Thanks, I'd be further along if real-life stuff hadn't kept me so busy for the past couple weeks.  I've hardly had time to touch KSP recently.

14 hours ago, Jestersage said:

Very well. I was trying to figure out how would you make the BFR, since I feel that you focus on NASA missions.

I've tried making reusable rockets in all diameters, and even explored the possibility of making a SpaceX mars transport ever since it was first shown last year.  However, I never could get a reusable rocket design working well enough to be able to use them in my career save.  I know a lot of people have, especially several of the most prominent KSP Twitch streamers, but I just couldn't get it working well enough through my own build style.

Regarding the BFR specifically, I never really had that much motivation to build one because I don't have the need to land very many Kerbals to any given surface since I don't make massive bases.  Lockheed Martin's reusable Mars lander is about as big as I'll get.  And forgive me for saying so, but I have my doubts about the current BFR plan to use it for as many applications around the Earth/Moon region as Elon Musk proposed.  First of all, the whole idea of suborbital rocket flights between countries seems like a legal fiasco; and secondly, I believe there is a reasonable chance the current BFR plans go down the same path as the Space Shuttle.

As many know, the Space Shuttle was supposed to be very cheap and have a quick turnaround when it was under design, just like BFR.  However it ended up being way more complex, extremely expensive to operate, and required much more refurbishment between flights than anyone ever thought.  I foresee a lot of the same hindrances to BFR.  Having said that, I will admit the following points of comparison between Shuttle and BFR.
1) As a species, we've collectively learned a lot more about access to space and aerospace engineering in the decades since Shuttle was designed.
2) SpaceX's logistics and manufacturing processes are much more efficient than NASA's ever was or is to this day.
3) There is something to be said when private and commercial industry drives cost-conscious development and creation compared to vast government bureaucracies. 

While I have my personal opinions and doubts, I'm definitely cheering SpaceX on, as I am with Blue Origin, ULA, Sierra Nevada, and all these other private/commercial companies that are pushing into space with all their various ideas.  I believe we're witnessing the start of a golden age of spaceflight and exploration, so I really hope I'm proven wrong.  Applying that to my KSP, I try to make my lifters as simple and cheap as possible, while focusing my efforts on making everything else that's sent into orbit as efficient, reusable, and versatile as possible.

Rant complete.  EDIT: after joining the forums in May 2013, I've finally accumulated 1000 posts.  (throws small handful of confetti into the air anticlimactically)

Edited October 7, 2017 by Raptor9

[Frank_G]

On 29.9.2017 at 2:45 PM, Majorjim! said:

It's great to see folks making these complex proper mission craft. So few do these days due the complexity and skill needed to make them. Keep up the great work mate!

Do not tempt me... i am playing Elite Dangerous at the moment :D...

On 17.9.2017 at 4:35 AM, Raptor9 said:

I think I have the orbital ................... mounted on the front, and a remote sensor mast for tele-operations.

Still working to perfect the lander and associated cargo off-loading method, but it's looking promising.  I also want to point out that this was all done in stock without mods like KIS/KAS (as amazing as those two are ).

This looks really great. I especially like, how you designed the connection trusses, made from fuel lines only. Have you used an offset tool to create them or are the build on the fly using KAS or so? Regardless, its incredible work. Keep it goin´.

[septemberWaves]

11 hours ago, Frank_G said:

Have you used an offset tool to create them or are the build on the fly using KAS or so?

Given that Raptor9 said the base wasn't assembled using KAS, I'd assume the former. Also I don't actually think you can do unlimited offset with KAS anyway.

[Jhorriga]

The mole is nalear impossible to land. Add RCS on the skycrane. When I deattach the rover, I can brake but I can't move. Any help?

[Raptor9]

On 10/9/2017 at 8:19 AM, Jhorriga said:

The mole is nalear impossible to land. Add RCS on the skycrane. When I deattach the rover, I can brake but I can't move. Any help?

Sounds like you're not utilizing the "Control From Here" commands.  After dropping off the rover, right-click on the QBE core on the rover itself and click Control From Here.  This will reorient the Navball to the proper control axis to drive, instead of being focused on the sky. 

Not sure why the Skycrane is so hard to control for you, it's actually rather easy (assuming you're not trying to perform acrobatics).  Ensure the reaction wheel is turned on, which is more than enough; RCS isn't needed.  I've done plenty of tests in Sandbox as well as utilizing this craft in my career.  I wouldn't put something on KerbalX if it wasn't thoroughly tested and used already by myself.

[Jhorriga]

Alright. All I had to do was disable comm link in settings.

[Raptor9]

The past couple weeks I've been extremely busy with real-life stuff, but I've managed to sneak a few new craft out the door onto KerbalX, as well as some updated craft files.  The list of existing, updated craft are as follows (so far):

- 'Javelin' light launcher family
- 'Thunder' medium launcher family (to include the republished 'Thunder 4' series), and the 'Lightning' medium launcher
- 'Titan' heavy launcher family 
- All CisMunar Economy-related craft files to include the HLV-5 lander family, HLV-5C cargo rack launcher, and PD-32/64 orbital propellant depots
- IV-1 'Meerkat' ISRU rig family (IV-1C is redesignated as IV-1D)
- EV-1A and EV-1B (Javelin 3 launcher)

New craft available are listed below:
- IV-1C 'Meerkat' variant optimized for Minmus ISRU operations (hence why the existing IV-1C for Duna was re-named IV-1D)
- HLV-5D 'Porpoise' monopropellant transport variant
- EV-2L 'Runabout' crew vehicle, which adds a more versatile crew transport for the CisMunar Economy
- SLV-M 'Tender' service/lander vehicle, which adds a dedicated monopropellant transport for the CisMunar Economy
- EV-5 'Drifter' Block 2; and associated component lifters, the first craft specifically designed for Eve missions.

I'd also like to clarify that the EV-2L and SLV-M are the second and third M3V-rated craft to be published.  Technically the 'Titan 4N' was the first, although the M3V project didn't exist in it's current form back in February.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Raptor9

[Majorjim!]

I fear there will be fewer and fewer people with the skill and patients to make craft like this. As most people these days seem to be making Kerbin based craft that are relitively easy to make and a breeze to test. I've learnt that the hardest thing in craft design is the bloody testing and testing more than one interplanetary craft, especially those meant to work together is hard in the extreme.

 That's the only reason I have not released my magnum opus, my constellation craft rebuild.. The testing takes such a long time that the game gets updated before I can release and things change or get broken by the updates. It's maddening and the reason I have not played KSP in months. When the updates stop breaking mods and the craft I will glady play again. Anyway, I don't want to tarnish your thread with a rant.. Keep up the masterful work mate, you are one of the few with the ability to make these crafts. Kudos!

 

[Raptor9]

15 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

As most people these days seem to be making Kerbin based craft that are relatively easy to make and a breeze to test.

Oh I'm not any better.  If you were to scroll through my craft listing, the vast majority of my craft are either designed to be operated in the Kerbin SOI, or are just a bunch of station subassemblies (nothing fancy there).  It is a lot harder to finish a project when it consists of a number of craft that are all part of an interplanetary expedition.  You make a change to one piece, and depending on what that change is, it could impact all the rest.

I remember when I would consider a bunch of single-purpose modules designed to work together a big project.  With M3V however, it's kind of like a "Voltron" concept or the Power Ranger "Zords".  Each craft can operate independently, but can be pieced together in various combinations to form something else.  The EV-2L configuration is an EV-2 'Runabout' capsule docked to the front of a LITE reusable upper stage.  Each half can operate independently, however, and can be reconfigured on the fly.  Dock the EV-2 capsule to an SLV-M and it is now a crewed lander for low-grav moons like Minmus.

It's definitely gotten me to think outside the box.  I force myself to look a craft and say "now how can I turn this orbital vehicle into a lander?", or "how can this interplanetary ship be turned into a surface base?".  Some of these things I would have never even considered a few months ago.

[NSEP]

These spacecraft look delicious! Nice work man, they look amazing!

[septemberWaves]

I'm not sure if it's new or if I just haven't noticed it before but I really like how the mainsail looks clipped into that adapter part.

[Raptor9]

5 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

I'm not sure if it's new or if I just haven't noticed it before but I really like how the mainsail looks clipped into that adapter part.

It's something I've done to my 'Javelin', 'Thunder' and 'Lightning' rockets this summer: added a structural "boat-tail" piece using the respective manufacturers' parts.  The technique of using the Rockomax Brand Adapter on a Mainsail isn't new, I've seen them used before when people have made Delta IV Heavy replicas.  I just saw it as unnecessary at the time.  However, when I was trying to revamp the 'Thunder' family to be closer to the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, I looked at the cost and delta-V impacts to adding them.  The costs aren't bad (500 for the Rockomax adapter and 150 for the Jeb's Junkyard adapter), and the delta-V impacts were anywhere between 15 and 25 m/s if I remember correctly.  Pretty much negligible in my opinion.

[asparagus stagings is ugly]

Is there a download link for the X-19 vtol plane?

[Raptor9]

On 10/14/2017 at 2:24 PM, asparagus stagings is ugly said:

Is there a download link for the X-19 vtol plane?

Hi @asparagus stagings is ugly, welcome to the forums.  I'm assuming you're referring to the one on the first page of the thread? I'm afraid not.  That was from years ago when the J-33 engines were a lot more powerful, and the craft itself used previous iterations of Infernal Robotics and Nertea's Mk IV Spaceplane Parts.  Both of those mods are still around, but are different than the version displayed in the screenshot.
____________________________________

EDIT: I've taken advantage of the new "Control From Here" action group command to allow players to more easily control the ER-4 'Mole' Duna exploration rover throughout it's mission.  There will be three commands occupying action groups [8], [9], and [0].  [8] will give the player proper control during launch & orbital maneuvers, [9] will give the player proper control for the Skycrane, and [0] will ensure proper orientation for rover control on the surface.  Additionally, I've mapped the rover brakes to action group [6] so that when the player releases the ER-4 rover from the Skycrane, the brakes will toggle to prevent any initial surface movement.

I'll be adding a similar action group set-up for the HLV-6A 'Warthog' Duna lander to ensure proper control axes throughout it's mission profile as well.

Also on the items accomplished for today, is most craft and subassemblies updated to 1.3.1 (3 remain as I tweak/revise them), and a new scanning probe available, pictured below.  I've ran multiple test flights, each was able to insert the 'Watchtower' into a near-Eve solar orbit utilizing only the rocket and payload stage.  That leaves plenty of delta-V available for orbital adjustments if necessary using the ion engine.

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Raptor9

[Beetlecat]

As always, your craft are astoundingly well thought-out, designed, and built. They're a joy to drop into the stock folder and take for a test drive! I seriously want an extra day in the week so I can fire up a new career just using your rockets and craft (prototypes to production, etc.).

---

I may have been using an older version of one of your rocket stacks (and may have mentioned this before), but using Ven's Stock Revamp caused the game to shake apart the lander as soon as I separated it from the transfer stage. I think it was the Grasshopper lander in the [EV-2C 'Runabout'-Titan 3P (LV-2A)]. I'll try loading one on its own to see if the Ven's components just don't like being clipped together as tightly.

Or--your stuff may just not be compatible with things that alter stock parts. Which makes total sense.

[septemberWaves]

37 minutes ago, Beetlecat said:

using Ven's Stock Revamp

This is the problem. Ven's Stock Revamp doesn't just change textures, it also changes the models of some parts. Probably what is happening is that the fully-functional stock craft file is being loaded with engines that are expected to be in a certain place, but VSR changes the position and shape of those parts to make them no longer what the stock craft file is expecting, hence causing issues.

[Raptor9]

@eloquentJane ninja'ed me.  I just did a test run to LKO to include several undocking/redocking maneuvers from the EV-2C just to make sure.

Otherwise, @Beetlecat, I'm glad your enjoying the craft file use. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Raptor9

[Beetlecat]

8 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

@eloquentJane ninja'ed me.  I just did a test run to LKO to include several undocking/redocking maneuvers from the EV-2C just to make sure.

Otherwise, @Beetlecat, I'm glad your enjoying the craft file use. 

Thanks for doing the quick craft check -- that stack in particular *hasn't* been updated as recently as the rest, but obviously still works like a charm. I'll see if there's some means of re-baking craft constructed with heavy clipping so that it doesn't blow up. Maybe something like KJR, or a temporary alt-f12 hack...

[Beetlecat]

And, as a mini reply to my own question -- Installing Kerbal Join Reinforcement cured the death wobble/explosion on the lander. Pure Krakensbane, that stuff is for anyone else keen on using Ven's Stock Revamp or any similar vanilla part tweaks.

[Raptor9]

@Beetlecat, glad you got it sorted . 
______________________________

I guess I'll take this opportunity to give an update on designs.  The most recent thing to bring up would be all craft files and subassemblies in the catalog, save two, are updated to 1.3.1.There have been some craft that haven't changed at all like the SPH craft, some that have changed minimally like the EV-4 or Rocket Market, and others that have been heavily revised like the LV-4A or ATSV.  One of the final two craft that were updated to 1.3.1 along with some revisions yesterday were the SM-H1 and SM-PL+H station module subassemblies.

Unlike the other station modules that share the same graphic as the SM-H1 and SM-PL+H, these two were not capable of performing their own rendezvous and docking maneuvers.  I decided to change that.  The SM-H1, modeled after the Kvant-1 module from the Mir space station, was a fairly simple upgrade in that I simply added a QBE probe core, a spare battery, and monoprop thrusters.  The SM-PL+H however, was almost completely redesigned to reflect the most current diagrams for the NEM Science and Power Module for Russia's proposed OPSEK space station.  Along with the probe core guidance, a full RCS and propulsion system was added, power and propellant storage, and a dedicated communications system.  Since this new version provided pretty much everything that a lab module, habitation module, and a utilities module provided, it was re-designated SM-PLHU.  Truthfully, this one module could act as a small space station by itself, albeit one limited to a single docking port.  But as a single module station, you only really need one.

Next on my list, before I pivot back to M3V, is reviewing my Satellites & Probes Market.  Some of these were built shortly after CommNet was added to KSP, and I really didn't have a complete grasp on the game mechanics of the comms system.  As such, I'll be looking for capability gaps where new satellites can be added and existing satellites revised as needed.

[Raptor9]

For anyone that saw the Lockheed Martin presentation at the 68th International Aeronautical Conference a couple weeks ago, not only did they go into further details about their Mars Base Camp concept, but they also provided specifics about their reusable SSTO lander, beyond concept images.  The idea would be to use this craft to make several trips to the surface, refueling the lander at the orbiting laboratory between sorties. (They start talking about the lander at 35:00)

I've been trying to create such a vehicle myself since I saw the initial images, but the nature of the entry into the thin atmosphere of Duna makes aerodynamic braking difficult with such an airframe layout in KSP, plus trying to recreate the general layout of the craft with what is available in the stock part selection.  In the graphic below, and during the presentation, they referenced that a lot of the ships systems would be derived from Orion, and the airframe materials and design would also be influenced by their experience with the SR-71.  So instead of trying to make a lander look like their concept and then try to get it to work, I decided to flip the process around and do the opposite.  I took my EV-2L 'Runabout', gutted some of the existing components I wouldn't need, added certain components like different engines, landing gear, a dedicated service bay to shroud utilities; and then added aerodynamic surfaces and such.  The result not only looks better, but also actually works.

I already completed a test deorbit, landing, and relaunch back to Duna orbit, with fuel to spare.  During entry into the upper atmosphere, I kept the nose around 70-80 deg angle-of-attack, using as much surface area as I could to aerobrake.  As I got into the lower atmosphere and the RCS thrusters couldn't keep the nose up, I lowered the AoA to around 15-25 degs.  This caused the trajectory to flatten out so I could sort of glide/coast the rest of the way to the targeted landing site, further bleeding off airspeed to about 250m/s and around 3000m AGL before flipping the nose around to propulsively retrofire to the final vertical touchdown.  Don't have the exact numbers for the airspeed and altitude that I began to initiate the flip, there was a rapid series of action groups and control/throttle inputs to re-orient the lander without losing control. 

But if aerodynamic drag is used to bleed off a lot of the velocity to a slow enough speed that you can flip around, then there is plenty of delta-V remaining to ascend back to a higher orbit than my existing Duna ascent vehicles.  Plus, like the Lockheed concept, you could also use this lander's delta-V reserves for other places like the Mun, Ike, or Dres.  Despite being more limited in versatility than the EV-2L or the SLV-M, this lander should compliment the slowly-expanding M3V architecture quite nicely. 
______________________________

EDIT: This is pretty much what the trajectory looks like if referenced from the "Atmo" indicator gauge in the KSP UI.  What's nice about the intermediate phase using aerodynamic braking/gliding, you can tweak the trajectory toward the landing zone just like a shuttle by adjusting the pitch attitude and Angle-of-Attack to play with lift and drag.  FULL DISCLOSURE: There is a single "Wing Connector Type A" part clipped into the center of the craft to compensate for the lack of proper lifting body attributes.  The Lockheed lander's lifting body shape is so unique that there really isn't anyway to recreate it unless you make the lander really big, and I didn't want to have a high part count analogue pieced together like a wing component mosaic.  While it goes against my building style, I think it's an acceptable compromise to imitate the functionality and entry sequence of the real-life concept.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Raptor9

[Kartaugh]

I would love to use your craft, but almost all of them are incompatible with 1.3.0.

 

3 or 4 of your launchers work, but the rest all get auto-deleted when trying to open the craft directory in the VAB or SPH.

[Raptor9]

@Kartaugh, welcome to the forums. 

If you open the craft file in Notepad and edit the version number from 1.3.1 to 1.3.0, they should work just fine.  However, there is one significant caveat: any craft that was affected by 1.3.0 bugs will still be bugged. The most significant of which is any struts or fuel lines enclosed by fairings will result in explosions or disassemblies on the launch pad.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Raptor9
Grammer

[Majorjim!]

On 10/23/2017 at 8:24 AM, Raptor9 said:

the nature of the entry into the thin atmosphere of Duna makes aerodynamic braking difficult with such an airframe layout in KSP,

This could easily be achieved by using radiator panels as body panels. They cause a lot of drag. Remember our discssions on constellation lander fairings?

 I don't forsee any issue landing like that.