Raptor9 Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) On 1/15/2019 at 2:43 AM, Gapone said: some x-planes are very similiar to some not x-planes. What's the diffirence? The differences in the "production" models are explained on each respective graphic (ie WR-6, TR-9, T-11, T-14, WR-18U)._____________________________ Quick update. Testing on the surface base modules are now complete, work on graphics has started. In this initial set of revised base modules, there will be 12 subassemblies to choose from, with a 13th that will come pre-loaded on the LV-3C/D landers. There is some capability gap, mainly in the realm of rovers, that I will be working on after I get the current modules published. I also completed the landing trials of the LV-3C on Vall and Moho with the heaviest payload (4.85 tons) in the new module list, and it's doable. You just have to be smart about your approach and landing trajectory to manage the lower TWR and the additional gravity losses. However, still looking at an LV-3E variant down the road for future growth. Edited January 18, 2019 by Raptor9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Didn't your autonomous launcher's second stages (Thunder 3&4 series) used to have an antenna? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 2 hours ago, Jester Darrak said: Didn't your autonomous launcher's second stages (Thunder 3&4 series) used to have an antenna? No, I don't recall ever needing them on those since they never needed to go further than keo-stationary orbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Okay, then sending them to Minmus with Station Modules was a bad move on my side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jester Darrak said: Okay, then sending them to Minmus with Station Modules was a bad move on my side. Not necessarily. Sometimes I do what I call the "pitch-and-catch" method where I plot a course when within CommNet range, "pitch" the probe/satellite on it's way through space where there may be no comms link, but "catch" the craft when it nears it's destination that is within range of a local communications bridge. The downside is that if you muck up the transit trajectory, you're stuck with it unless you have a probe core that has the required SAS functionality to correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Dude, that truss inside your PD-32 is a little bit cheaty, won't you say so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jester Darrak said: Dude, that truss inside your PD-32 is a little bit cheaty, won't you say so? Meh....no. I mean, I could make a truss-type design with other parts, but it would just add to the part count unnecessarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 With two girder segments instead of one truss it should only have minimal Impact... xD Never mind, I'm just kidding. Although it's still interresting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 What is your recommended orbit altitude for the PD-64? The furthest I got it was 140km with only fumes left in the LITE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 19, 2019 Author Share Posted January 19, 2019 7 hours ago, Jester Darrak said: What is your recommended orbit altitude for the PD-64? There's not really a single target orbit you need to aim for, but rather one that supports your mission(s). If you are about to launch a rocket that can only get a heavy payload to a low (say 80km) orbit, but it needs to go further, then place your depot there. Top off the upper stage and continue on with the payload as necessaary. "Distributed launches" on two smaller rockets is a lot of times cheaper than a single big one. If you need a depot to support an ISRU site on the surface of the Mun, then you can use up however much propellant you need to in order to get it to low Munar orbit; since you will be filling it from Munar refined fuel anyway. If you need to stage the propellant depot somewhere and you need it arrive with as much fuel as possible, send it to an orbit that uses up 50% of your total onboard fuel, then send another depot to top it off again before continuing. You may want to retrieve the second (now empty) depot later somehow, but that's the concept of a depot-based architecture. It's preferable to leverage forward-staged ISRU sites, but if necessary you can stage fuel by directly sending fuel depots and tankers. The downside to the second method is it gets more and more logistically intensive the further you want to go. Tanker>refuels tanker>refuels depot, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 19, 2019 Author Share Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) I'm glad this is over. My surface base module revamp/expansion project is now complete. I don't think any previous project I've done went through so many iterations or testing/tweaking/retesting/retesting cycles. I think I've found a good balance between functionality, part count and aesthetics. In recent posts I've already talked about how the mechanics work regarding how to load modules on cargo landers and assemble them on the surface. I'll just show the higher res photos below. Spoiler After the base modules or the LV Lift Racks "hop" down to the surface from the cargo landers, two LR-3 'Mongoose' robotic assembly rovers retrieve the modules and place them as necessary. Prior planning will allow you to place the right modules in the right order. A small Munar outpost, with a single habitation module and research lab. The sciences module on the far left contains every experiment funds can buy, along with a small dedicated high-gain antenna in case you wish to deploy these modules as standalone, robotic science stations in neighboring biomes. The node module to the right of the processing lab doubles as a fuel storage module for fuel cells. The utilities module on the far right provides robust data transmission and CommNet relay, as well as two fuel cell arrays for powering the base through the night. Additional fuel for powering the fuel cells can be stored throughout the base in each module. As you expand your base with each module, you gain additional solar power and fuel cell propellant storage. As you can see, adding the BM-LD "fuel lines" is quite easy, giving a stock base that KAS feel. Each BM-LD is precisely measured to not only fit on the cargo landers, but an LR-3 rover can safely drive between the two ground pads without incurring the gear bounce that is normally associated with driving a rover across landed parts. The BM-LA adapters have three "low mount" docking clamps and one "high mount". When used with LV-3C landers, you can use them as ad-hoc propellant storage facilities with the adapter's high mount. Or you can use the adapter as a hub for BM-LD's. Or integrate additional propellant storage into a single IV-1 ISRU rig. With a BM-L(MP) monoprop storage tank added to this setup, this site has enough to top off a completely empty LV-7A 'Griffin'. A similar Duna base to the Mun base above, but larger with expanded habitation facilities. The larger you make the base, the more detailed of a pre-construction site survey you will want to conduct, to find a large area that is as flat as possible. And the LV-3C and LV-3D cargo landers below: Spoiler I would like to note that as mentioned above, while the surface modules themselves are complete (until I think of more I need ), I still need to make some better rovers to go along with the infrastructure. But in the meantime, I'm going to swing back to the LV-3A and LV-3B and see if I can iron out some deficiencies. Edited February 26, 2019 by Raptor9 Repaired image url Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) Oh my goodness gracious, now THAT is some awesome stuff! And just at the right time. After putting my PD-64 finally into orbit I checked if there was a transfer window open to either Duna or Eve and guess what, I had 5 days left until Duna travels were at ~1,000 m/s dV. I immediatelly put an already assembled Gateway Station for Ike on a Titan 3N (just a 4N with SRB swapped) and sent it off to Duna. Next was a Prospector Satellite followed by a DunaLink. Now I am running out of money to kerb (as in: to man stations) the whole operation and flying tourists to scratch together as much money as possible. And now YOU are coming around the corner with even more expensive toys I cannot afford right now. xD Edited January 19, 2019 by Jester Darrak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) Since sending one or two missions to Duna every transfer window would take too Long I decided to cut the whole 'explore it step by step' thing and wanted to shove as much material to Duna as possible during the recent transfer window. Right now there's a whole space station (Gateway), an IV-2C ISRU rig, a Prospector, a DunaLink and a self-created lander for bodies without atmosphere between 155 and 165 days out. I wanted to set a refuelling and staging outpost on Ike before I tackle Duna and it's quirks (atmosphere, sigh). During the next window I will send the first crew and additional hardware to extend exploration options. Now, is it better to use areo-braking (prograde/retrograde?) or a retrograde gravity assist to get to Ike? What's more efficient and what's safer? Oh, and btw: the new Spark seems to be one of your favourite because most versatile engine now. It made the radial version absolutely obsolete, right? Edited January 21, 2019 by Jester Darrak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 11 hours ago, Jester Darrak said: Now, is it better to use areo-braking (prograde/retrograde?) or a retrograde gravity assist to get to Ike? What's more efficient and what's safer? I normally just try to propulsively capture into Duna orbit straightaway. It's low enough gravity that it doesn't require that much dV to go straight in, and shouldn't really matter whether it's prograde or retrograde that much. For the most part, the Kerbol star system isn't big enough that retro/prograde orbits make that much of a difference outside a few difficult bodies like Eve or Tylo. I'm not a fan of aerobraking, since I'd rather just carry a little bit more fuel than deal with carrying along extra hardware for hypersonic aerobraking protection. Aerobraking will always be more efficient since you aren't expending any fuel, but gravity assists will be safer. Unless you are playing with life support and if you botch the gravity brake you get flung into deep space without enough consumables to survive. It all comes down to preference and skill I suppose. Whatever you're better at, go for it. 11 hours ago, Jester Darrak said: the new Spark seems to be one of your favourite because most versatile engine now. It made the radial version absolutely obsolete, right? Almost. The Spark is superior in thrust and Isp in both atmo and vacuum, but the 24-77 Twitch can be radial-mounted and has a gimbal limit of 8 deg, whereas the Spark only has 3 deg. I won't hold it against the Twitch that it only has one variant since it hasn't received the same overhaul treatment as the Spark (yet?). The Twitch works wonderfully for my Duna landers like the LV-2D/E, LV-4B, and the IV-1D ISRU rig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jestersage Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 9 hours ago, Raptor9 said: Almost. The Spark is superior in thrust and Isp in both atmo and vacuum, but the 24-77 Twitch can be radial-mounted and has a gimbal limit of 8 deg, whereas the Spark only has 3 deg. I won't hold it against the Twitch that it only has one variant since it hasn't received the same overhaul treatment as the Spark (yet?). The Twitch works wonderfully for my Duna landers like the LV-2D/E, LV-4B, and the IV-1D ISRU rig. Until they nerfed it in 1.6, my favorite is Cub, which is a good clone to SuperDraco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiriusRocketry Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 @Raptor9 I am surprised you haven't posted the first Kerbin orbiter probe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 23, 2019 Author Share Posted January 23, 2019 12 minutes ago, SiriusRocketry said: the first Kerbin orbiter probe I'm afraid I don't know what you are referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Typo? Kerbol Orbiter? But sadly Kerbol has no real science gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiriusRocketry Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 First Kerbin orbiter probe, like Sputnik and Explorer I. Sorry for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 23, 2019 Author Share Posted January 23, 2019 Another small update today, this one focused on my EV-6 'Windjammer' and Advance Equipment Kits in my M3V section. I was never really satisfied with how the M3V-H and M3V-PL modules turned out. But it was the best I could do given my building skills at the time. Now that I've discovered other ways of making the modules closer to the way I envisioned them (without resorting to a ridiculously high part count), it was good timing for getting them up to 1.6 currency. Along with the new shape (which more closely resembles the Mars Base Camp concepts that were its inspiration), the modules also provide additional features such as better communications, surface biome/terrain scanning via KerbNet, and several small docking clamps for attaching probes or science equipment racks as necessary. The modules did increase in part count by 7 to 9 parts each, but this increase was thankfully offset by the part count reduction in the EV-2L crew vehicles which are meant to be integrated as part of the overall spacecraft. I also decided to add some black stripe accents to the modules, which break up the monolithic white, and also serve to match the accents on the EV-2L and LV-7A in the screenshot below. Additionally, it would make sense that certain areas like around the docking ports you might want to reduce glare if you were visually docking a craft manually, or the borders around the recessed observation windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
septemberWaves Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 You have excellent-looking spacecraft as always. I like that you take inspiration from real concepts while always giving each spacecraft your own unique touch so that they're not simply replicas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gapone Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Again me: The m3vs still have the old adtp23 adapter. It will be better to upload craft without launchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Man, getting that FireSky into Moho orbit was tough as nails. The Isp is great, but trust is almost absent. I had to take an initial periapsis of 150km and a 1h burn, starting 45m before Pe to get the capture. If you play with Ion propulsion you can start the burn and then go buy groceries. But in the end it was worth it, got my first ever outer body mission done that was not in the SOI of Kerbin. I just hope that the upcoming Duna/Ike adventure pays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 23, 2019 Author Share Posted January 23, 2019 5 hours ago, Gapone said: The m3vs still have the old adtp23 adapter. No, they don't. None of them do. 5 hours ago, Gapone said: It will be better to upload craft without launchers. No, it's not. It takes 2 seconds to remove a launcher. I don't just upload craft with launchers, that's exactly how I keep them saved in my VAB. I load and go. 27 minutes ago, Jester Darrak said: If you play with Ion propulsion you can start the burn and then go buy groceries. That's what I like about the trade-offs in KSP. "Look at all this Isp I get from ions, and it thrusts like paint dries" 6 hours ago, septemberWaves said: You have excellent-looking spacecraft as always. I like that you take inspiration from real concepts while always giving each spacecraft your own unique touch so that they're not simply replicas. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gapone Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 7 hours ago, Raptor9 said: It takes 2 seconds to remove a launcher. No, the root part is on the launcher on all the m3vs and some probes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts