Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Jester Darrak]

Dang it, miscalculated the landing zone.

Thank goodness one of the engineers wanted to prank me with a rover mounted on top of the HLV-5B.

Joke's on you, made it!

Editors note: The base is somewhat laggy, probably because of partcount. I will split it up, making one research habitat and a mining and refuelling site, about 5km apart. On the pic there's 4 modules missing: 1x BM-BP, 1x BM-S, 1x BM-U and 1x BM-M have been added recently.

@Raptor9 please tell me you know what this looks like and what you should be doing next. Just for excrements'n giggles (didn't write it like that ^^), of course.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Jester Darrak
Cleared up things.

[Raptor9]

7 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

please tell me you know what this looks like and what you should be doing next.

Uhhhh, I'm afraid I'm missing the clue.  Launch the rest of the EV-6 I suppose?

[Jester Darrak]

The first hint was in the picture url. The second in this spoiler.

Spoiler

 

[Jestersage]

That is more Jett Quasar's forte...

[Jester Darrak]

I forgot to mention that the LR-2P+ makes a perfect HLV-5B/D tug. You can transfer some fuel from the lander to the rover to increase grip on the rover's wheels.

[Raptor9]

A blog-style post with an update and a question.  Work to update the Constellation program-inspired HLV-6 Duna landers is going quite well.  The HLV-6A was finished, but after I began working on the new HLV-6B I realized I needed to go back to the A-model and correct some things.  But all in all, they're shaping up.  Among the refinements is a revision of the SRTG rover, which is inspired by the NASA FSPS (Fission Surface Power System) rover as seen below in the first picture.  Along with a new designation, the legacy SRTG rover will receive an upgrade in capability and size, as well as being the basis of a new BM-series surface module.

One of the main issues with making KSP craft (like the SM- or BM-series modules) to be used across multiple planetary destinations is the vast differences in power requirements.  Near the inner planets solar energy is in an abundance so just a handful of solar panels is capable of generating plenty of power for whatever you need.  However, when you push out past Duna, solar panels become increasingly less effective, not to mention their obvious uselessness in shadow or hours of darkness.  This can become quite an issue, especially on the Mun or any other celestial body where the night can last for days or more.

An easy alternative is to use fuel cells, since a lot of spacecraft will most likely have an abundant supply of liquid fuel and oxidizer on board for propulsion, but the obvious limitation of that is the finite supply of propellant, and ISRU may not always be an option.  Additionally, depending on your location and power requirements, the power demand may outpace the ability to produce propellant via ISRU means.  Which is why I personally think fuel cell powered ISRU systems are silly.

That leaves nuclear power; or at least the next best thing in stock KSP (which is RTG clusters ). The first BM-series module I've designed for a follow-on release is a surface reactor, similar in concept to the Kilopower fission generators seen below in the second picture.  A surface base on Dres or any of the moons of Jool, let alone Eeloo, probably isn't going to get a sufficient source of power from solar panels, and fuel cells can burn through a lot of propellant supporting a large base.  So fission power is a capability gap I'm trying to fill in.  This brings me to my question.  I'm opening the door to suggestions on what surface base modules could be added in the future.  What modules have I not thought of, or what modules do I seem to be lacking?  I tried to design the BM modules to cover as many possible ways a player might want to use them, but I'm still limited by my own ideas and I might never conceptualize the same things that other players might.  Just keep in mind that any suggestions put forth here doesn't guarantee they'll be implemented.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Raptor9
grammer

[Jester Darrak]

Since part count is always a thing to consider I decided to split my bases into the following:

Refuelling and Mining

Research and Habitation

Landing and Mission Oversight (Ike will get one, the Gateway Station moves to Duna)

Thus the following suggestion is most likely more of an asthetic and niche nature but there are a few things I would like to see:

First would be a dedicated mining control facility. I usually don't take engineers on flights since their special ability is only useful when something went horribly wrong or slightly increase mining operations efficiency. So a BM for the wrench wielders in dedicated mining sites would be nice. Maybe incorporating a ore surface scanner and a small rover for transport would add to usability.

Second is some sort of control tower module where pilots take shifts on guiding incoming vessels. Or get a nice panoramic view when off duty.

Third is a dedicated rover recharging station like seen in The Martian. Solar panels on utility rovers are useful but it would add some more authenticity without adding too much micro management.

[AlchemicRaven]

Just had some ideas! Other than the upcoming rover, other vehicles might be useful, and most importantly, fun. Duna aircraft inspired by a mars aircraft? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_aircraft) Munar escape systems (MESS), inspired by Lunar escape systems (LESS). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_escape_systems) Launchpads, runways, helipads, etc.. Just some ideas for your consideration.

Speaking of ideas, I have some more unrelated to base modules: If possible, some sort of High Altitude Eve Operational Concept (HAEOC) inspired by HAVOC. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operational_Concept) Eve aircraft? Eve rover? Kerbol probe? Kerbin deep sea world firsts records, via submersibles? Vall lander? Resurrecting the older LV-4A? Early Career game sounding rockets? Just thoughts for consideration. 

[Jestersage]

Isn't the Lunar Escape System the inspiration for ER-V (both the mono prop version and the LFO version)?

[AlchemicRaven]

ER-V?

[Jestersage]

Yes, it was an early (1.0-1.3) design. A 2-person open flyer at the top of LV-1C/LV-2C habitation use lander. The 1.0-1.2 edition utilize monoprop engine, while 1.3 utilize LFO engine. For reason only known to him he decide to depreciate them.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Jestersage

[Raptor9]

3 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Since part count is always a thing to consider I decided to split my bases into the following: 
Refuelling and Mining
Research and Habitation
Landing -snip-

I do the same thing.  Like a triangle with 5km on each side.

3 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

a dedicated mining control facility -snip- Maybe incorporating a ore surface scanner and a small rover for transport would add to usability.

What I'll most likely do is take the new ER-4 'Mustang' (which is based on the SEV) and add a surface scanner; don't know why I didn't think of that before.  Fortunately, since the ER-4 has a hybrid power system (solar/fuel cell) like the ER-3, it already includes small docking ports on the side that allows it to pull up to the BM-LA and top off it's LF+O supply for it's fuel cells.  This means it can plug into the ISRU site's distribution network and add the engineer's efficiency boost.  Plus the ER-4 uses the new Mk2 lander can in rover variant, so the IVA looks like the engineer might be examining some rocks inside for ore concentration estimates. 

3 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

some sort of control tower module where pilots take shifts on guiding incoming vessels -snip-
a dedicated rover recharging station like seen in The Martian. Solar panels on utility rovers are useful but it would add some more authenticity without adding too much micro management.

I can get behind the control tower idea, like a surface base version of the SM-Probe Control Point module.  The recharging station...I'll have to roll around in my head a bit to see how that would look to fit in to the scheme of things.  It would have to be fairly unique and an attractive module to want to land, otherwise you could just plug the rovers into any free docking clamp on the base.

3 hours ago, AlchemicRaven said:

Duna aircraft inspired by a mars aircraft?

I've been trying to come up with a solution for air travel on Duna for a while.  I've actually looked at that same wikipedia page for ideas.  The limitations are the mass of KSP parts, and the fixed aspect ratio of lifting surfaces.  What makes aircraft in real-life feasible on Mars is the use of extremely lightweight plastics and composites and being able to shape airfoils so they are optimized for the ultra-low density Martian atmosphere.  But maybe down the road I can get something that can fly, be long-ranged enough to compete with a rover, and be able to be packaged on a rocket for transport off Kerbin.

This is why I no longer have the ER-V 'Fly-ER', which was based on the Lunar Escape System.  It didn't have the range or endurance necessary to out-perform surface rovers, and I learned to hate it like I did the SVR-23 spaceplanes. (ninja'ed by @Jestersage)

3 hours ago, AlchemicRaven said:

Launchpads, runways, helipads, etc

These are all ideas that would consume excessive amounts of part count cpu cycles, with very little benefit.  If you're into these things, you're gonna need mods.

3 hours ago, AlchemicRaven said:

some sort of High Altitude Eve Operational Concept (HAEOC) inspired by HAVOC.

Not possible currently in stock KSP.  Again, gonna require mods, although I agree that would be an extremely cool concept to have for Eve. 

3 hours ago, AlchemicRaven said:

Eve aircraft? Eve rover?

These are of course possible, but will be down the road as I continue to flesh out designs for exploring the Eve SOI.

3 hours ago, AlchemicRaven said:

Kerbol probe? Kerbin deep sea world firsts records, via submersibles? Vall lander? Resurrecting the older LV-4A? Early Career game sounding rockets?

• A Kerbol solar probe, maybe, but it would be low on the priority list.  Maybe a Saturday night when I'm drunk. 
• I've tried to make ships and submersibles, but I usually end up getting frustrated at the buoyancy model in KSP and want to throw stuff.
• There's already several craft capable of landing on Vall, like the LV-3A and C models (Vall is just outside the performance margins for the LV-3B).  In fact, that's the reason those landers,  although originally designed for the Mun, are mounted on the large docking plates; so they can be mated to interplanetary stages like the NITE and transported elsewhere.  Even the LV-7 is  suggested on it's graphic as being used for Vall landings if necessary.
• There have been so many iterations of the LV-4A, but none of them I would want to go back to.  I'm limited by what I can do with the stock parts in making it a better analogue to the Mars Excursion Module.  Simplicity and function ended up winning over real-life emulation.
• Don't really have much interest in doing these.  Not to mention that if you want to make early career mode sounding rockets, the stock KSP tech tree (which is silly) doesn't provide those small parts or the science instruments right off the bat like it does with the Mk1 pod and 1.25m rocket parts.  I don't design things around the tech tree anyway, but there's just not much to do in the way of 0.625m sized parts.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Raptor9

[Jestersage]

17 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Maybe a Saturday night when I'm drunk.

So what is your poison? (Teacher's and KVINT in my case... the latter may have spoke to me a bit more... and do not be surprise if I actually start to make something name "Koniaki" )

Edited February 5, 2019 by Jestersage

[Jester Darrak]

1 hour ago, Jestersage said:

So what is your poison? (Teacher's and KVINT in my case... the latter may have spoke to me a bit more... and do not be surprise if I actually start to make something name "Koniaki" )

Off topic: Hey @Raptor9, isn't it about time to sleek the opening post? When it comes to catalogue overview everythings fine, but the text parts are all over the place. Just sayin...

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

When it comes to catalogue overview everythings fine, but the text parts are all over the place.

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Jester Darrak]

Well, I'd put the FAQ section behind a prominent spoiler. People either look thoroughly for them or don't bother at all. And maybe conclude the videos and screenshots into a media section at the end.

[Raptor9]

3 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Well, I'd put the FAQ section behind a prominent spoiler. People either look thoroughly for them or don't bother at all. And maybe conclude the videos and screenshots into a media section at the end.

I see what you mean.  Yeah, I'll probably do something like this next craft update.

EDIT: @Jester Darrak, I've finished a new base module that should fit your "rover recharging station" idea.  I'm pretty sure you're gonna like it.  It came together quite nicely, and I can't wait to get some screenshots of it in action. 

What's nice is it will serve double duty as the lifting rack for a rover.  So after you pull the module from the subassembly list and place it on the cargo lander, you go back to the subassembly list, choose what rover you want, and attach it to the module.  I've successfully tested both the ER-3 'Mongoose' and the ER-4 'Mustang' with it.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Raptor9

[Jester Darrak]

Sooo... Pictures?

(Think I gave you enough time :P)

[Raptor9]

7 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Sooo... Pictures?

The BM-LS (Logistics Shelter).  As you can see, some small tweaks are still needed after the first delivery test to Duna.  The docking clamps are a little too low on each side, and some other bits here and there.  Even after repeated testing around the KSC with gravity hacked to match Duna's (or the Mun's), it's always interesting to see what issues pop up when you try to integrate and use a new base module for the first time with an full surface outpost at your actual destination.  It's not readily apparent from these images, but the ER-4 is currently docked to the shelter and can take on propellant for it's fuel cells.

I also want to point out that this module can operate completely on its own if need be.  It has a singular solar panel to keep it's batteries powered for it's artificial night lighting, and can store two Oscar-B's worth of LFO propellant in it's side-mounted tanks.  This means it can refuel an ER-3 twice, or refuel an ER-4 (seen parked inside) to half-capacity.  The ER-4 'Mustang', which will be available as both a subassembly as well as pre-mounted on the updated HLV-6A, has 4 Oscar-B's worth of LFO, giving it plenty of endurance during hours of darkness via it's two fuel cells.  Based on NASA's Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV), the ER-4 will also be featured in a variant for zero-G space exploration as part of my upcoming Gilly mission architecture.

On the topic of the HLV-6 update, the final testing has been completed and graphics are almost done.  I even managed to iron out a reliable Entry, Descent and Landing sequence for both landers to precisely touch down on a target, which is important given the architecture.  The HLV-6A needs a minimum ore concentration for it's ISRU process, and the HLV-6B needs to be able to land close enough to the HLV-6A to deliver the crew to the surface.  Like the LV-7, the HLV-6 KerbalX pages will come with a separate graphic instructing a player how to perform the EDL phase.

In the second picture, you can also see the side-mounted docking clamps on the ER-4 rover.  These allow the rover to be refueled via the high-mounted docking port on the BM-Logistics Adapters if necessary.  Also visible is the new MRPS (Mobile Reactor Power System) rover, which replaces the older and outdated SRTG on the HLV-6A.  I still need to finish the graphics on all the new EV-4 'Longship' modules, which go hand and hand with the new HLV-6 landers.

My main priority right now is to put the final touches on the EV-4's and HLV-6's and get those out the door before I return to the new Base Modules.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Raptor9

[AlchemicRaven]

About the zero-G variant, (please correct me if I'm wrong) but I thought that the real SEV might be able to detach from a wheeled chassis and mated to a flying platform, and vice versa. Would you do the same thing? Or just separate variants?

[Raptor9]

9 minutes ago, AlchemicRaven said:

About the zero-G variant, (please correct me if I'm wrong) but I thought that the real SEV might be able to detach from a wheeled chassis and mated to a flying platform, and vice versa. Would you do the same thing? Or just separate variants?

I've never heard that myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's true.  But in my mind, that's a waste of resources to accomplish in KSP.  For one, when I land a rover on a body, whether it be the Mun or Duna, I really can't see myself trying to get it back to orbit just so I can use it as a zero-g spacecraft.  Like the base modules, once it's there, it stays there.  If I need one for space exploration, I'll just send another variant "out there".  Plus, it allows me to optimize each variant for their specific function while keeping part count lower.  I don't want to have a rover variant driving around that has RCS thrusters protruding everywhere.

The NASA SEV is probably designed that way for ease of manufacturing process and modular construction.  I doubt it makes any more sense in real life to retrieve an SEV from the surface of the moon to serve as a spacecraft elsewhere.

[Jestersage]

10 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

I've never heard that myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's true.  But in my mind, that's a waste of resources to accomplish in KSP.  For one, when I land a rover on a body, whether it be the Mun or Duna, I really can't see myself trying to get it back to orbit just so I can use it as a zero-g spacecraft.  Like the base modules, once it's there, it stays there.  If I need one for space exploration, I'll just send another variant "out there".  Plus, it allows me to optimize each variant for their specific function while keeping part count lower.  I don't want to have a rover variant driving around that has RCS thrusters protruding everywhere.

The NASA SEV is probably designed that way for ease of manufacturing process and modular construction.  I doubt it makes any more sense in real life to retrieve an SEV from the surface of the moon to serve as a spacecraft elsewhere.

Based on what I know, the SEV and even one of the Altair concept is to have a base pressurized module that can be transfered between different modules for maximum reusability. This is especially true for the Lunar rover variant, where the presurized module is mounted with ATHLETE legs, and can detach from the decent/ascent module and be used as a rover to shuttle between the lander and base (should the lander be landed far away), and then back onto the ascent module for take off.

It actually make sense -- like space shuttle maximize reusability. Or how in KSP many made the rover-lander combo.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Jestersage

[AlchemicRaven]

10 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

The NASA SEV is probably designed that way for ease of manufacturing process and modular construction.  I doubt it makes any more sense in real life to retrieve an SEV from the surface of the moon to serve as a spacecraft elsewhere.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Probably identical prior to attaching to a chassis or flying platform during the manufacturing process, not after.

[Jester Darrak]

What is that part at the front section of the HLV-6A that has the radiator panels and small fins attached to it? It looks strange and won't let my mind rest until I know. It looks like a 3.75m diameter part, but just a section of it. Tell me now, pleaaaaase!

Edited February 13, 2019 by Jester Darrak
Because reasons

[Raptor9]

6 minutes ago, Jester Darrak said:

What is that part at the front section of the HLV-6A that has the radiator panels and small fins attached to it? 

Are you referring to the frame? The HLV-6 frames are just a collection of I-beams and structural panels.  Nothing special.  Is that what you were referring to?