Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Jester Darrak]

Windjammer question:

Is there a way around the manual fuel transitioning between the EV-2L(s) and the propellant kits? The heat shields are preventing direct fuel flow towards the poodles.

[Anth]

Love the video, good soundtrack and the dropping of the rover onto duna and then going back up...that was awesome @Raptor9

[Frank_G]

6 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

....The heat shields are preventing direct fuel flow towards the poodles.

Totally off topic, but i couldn´t stop laughing for minutes... such epic sentences are only possible here and they totally make sense. Thank you

[Raptor9]

6 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Is there a way around the manual fuel transitioning between the EV-2L(s) and the propellant kits?

Unfortunately, no.  Whenever I'm doing a long burn with the 'Windjammers' I have the EV-2L's fuel tank open and pinned, and systematically transfer propellant to it.

4 hours ago, Anth12 said:

Love the video, good soundtrack and the dropping of the rover onto duna and then going back up...that was awesome @Raptor9

Thanks.   Truth be told, making a new video is on my list of things to do.  That vid was made a few months before 1.4 dropped, and it makes me cringe seeing some of those older designs.  That skycrane for example looks night and day better.

34 minutes ago, Frank_G said:

6 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

....The heat shields are preventing direct fuel flow towards the poodles.

Totally off topic, but i couldn´t stop laughing for minutes... such epic sentences are only possible here and they totally make sense. Thank you

Well, it's just a matter of automatic vs manual crossfeed.  KSP allows a player to manually transfer fuel across it (provided you don't have it restricted in the settings), just doesn't do it automatically.

[Jester Darrak]

You should consider adding that information on the KerbalX site and/or M3V section in your opening post. People might get confused.

Because roughly 1,900m/s i dicated dV is nowhere near the actual dV.

[Raptor9]

5 minutes ago, Jester Darrak said:

Because roughly 1,900m/s i dicated dV is nowhere near the actual dV.

Well, to be fair, the stock dV functionality itself is also inaccurate under a number of conditions.  Engine plates from the DLC pack for example don't play nice with it.  The way my current EV-4's are built, I get 0 m/s dV with a fully-fueled NTR stage burning away.

Even so, the EV-4's have always suffered from this consideration during the initial burns away from Kerbin.  Having to drain the drop tanks to the in-line/NTR tanks so that they could be jettisoned away first to dump mass.

[AppleDavidJeans]

20 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

Well, to be fair, the stock dV functionality itself is also inaccurate under a number of conditions.  Engine plates from the DLC pack for example don't play nice with it.  The way my current EV-4's are built, I get 0 m/s dV with a fully-fueled NTR stage burning away.

Even so, the EV-4's have always suffered from this consideration during the initial burns away from Kerbin.  Having to drain the drop tanks to the in-line/NTR tanks so that they could be jettisoned away first to dump mass.

I'd like to point out that when KSP (and MechJeb, if applicable) fail to pick up on fuel for accurate delta-v calculations, one can refer to the Tsiolkovsky equation to calculate what the true delta-v capability would be.

It goes like this:

delta-v (in m/s) = (Isp in seconds) * (9.81 m/s^2) * ln(initial mass in kg / final mass in kg)  

Note: Both LF & O are 5 kg per unit, so for a fully-fueled spacecraft, final mass would be the initial mass (in kg) minus 5x the sum of LF and O capacity of the spacecraft. For nuclear-powered stages, LF is just counted (since nuclear engines don't need oxidizer and therefore oxidizer is just dead weight).

Using the formula, I calculated that the delta-V of a fully-fueled EV-6H Heavy Windjammer would be ~3,370 m/s. 

Edited March 22, 2019 by AppleDavidJeans

[Raptor9]

Single craft update today.  The 'Olympus 1' launcher (Saturn 1B analogue) has been sort of broken for quite some time and it was never a priority to fix it.  But, I believe I got it working better now than before.  I lightened up the first stage a little and replaced two of the LV-T30's with LV-T45's for some gimbal steering.  The rocket still needs the winglets for assistance in attitude control, but at least it has control now right off the pad.  The rocket still has poor TWR compared to most of my lifters, but it's still more than capable of putting an EV-2A in LKO; you just need to pay attention to your ascent profile more than other rocket configurations.
______________________________________________
In other news, I'm considering doing a revision of my SVR-20 'Ranger' (Shuttle analogue).  The main deficiency is the fact that I designed the darned thing as a "station builder", but with a payload "window" of 10 to 30 tons, with 20 being the ideal payload mass for balance.  In other words, due to the asymmetric nature of the shuttle design, anything less than 10 would suffer moderate to severe control problems during ascent.  Add to that it really didn't glide very well with very much payload in the bay on the way back down.  I took a closer look at all my SM station subassemblies.  The heaviest module was 5 tons, with the average being 3 to 4 tons.  Of course, there are some modules that you could bring several up on one launch, but rarely would you ever need more than 10 tons at one time.

For a comparison, a 'Thunder 4 Heavy' can launch 45 tons to orbit easier and for the same price as the expendable portions of the SVR-20 launch stack; but again, rarely would you ever need that much mass to LKO in such a small fairing.  So I figure let the 'Thunder 4 Heavy' and 'Titan' rockets do the heavy-lifting so to speak, and re-optimize the SVR-20 for what it's really supposed to be doing: building stations in low Kerbin orbit.  This will require a rework of the entire stack to ensure proper CoM/CoT balance within acceptable margins throughout all phases of ascent, not to mention making some tweaks to the airframe itself.  Even the OMS alignment will require adjustment.

So, since I'll be making a huge invasive revision into the design (which will take some time), I'm going to set some additional goals for myself while I'm at it.  When you tear apart a shuttle design, the last thing you want to do is do it again any time soon.
1) Primary Goal: Reduce payload window for ascent down to 0-10 tons, possibly 0-15 tons if I can manage acceptable control margins.
2) Primary Goal: Increase stability and control for less player workload maintaining ascent path, or making launch path adjustments mid-ascent for inclination trimming.
3) Secondary Goal: Reduce on-orbit part count.  Currently stands at 99 (and that's just the orbiter itself), would like to drive it down as much as possible to delay the "yellow clock".
4) Secondary Goal: Reduce overall launch costs if possible.
5) Tertiary Goal: Adjust glide performance to permit returning payloads from orbit with better control during final approach and landing.

No timeline on any of this, this will be my spare time project when I'm not playing KSP career; and I'm not exactly in a huge rush to crack the hood open on the SVR-20 anyway. 

[Jestersage]

Interesting take on your shuttle design. I basically just give up on doing the STS as a we received at the end (despite my Orbiter Space Station), but instead I ended up looking at the earlier proposals, where there is only two stages: the flyback booster/disposable fuel tank, and the shuttle itself which only have a CRG-50 (CRG-75 for the KLAW -- still testing).

I think the issue at hand is the real world figure vs KSP figure. While in KSP we lump them all into LKO, if you look at Wikipedia, ISS is on a higher orbit than stated, resulting in LEO delivery of 27t, but only 16t for ISS (which is what you have for current design). As for the components, each components for shuttle launch averaged at 16t -- But as you stated, your heaviest module is 5T at most. Still, 5T to 100k, to 150k, and to 250k require different delta-V, and that's just for first launch. Throw in rendezvous maneuver, and you may actually need all those delta-V...  (my design tend to have excessive delta-V just to compensate for that fact.)

Of course, the main reason why most people aim for 34t is more or less the use of Orange Tank for testing. That, and the nuclear shuttle (of original STS, aka your EV-3) was suppose to be launched on the space shuttle.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Jestersage

[Jester Darrak]

Would it be too much of an impact on performance if you use 4 Swivels and Reliants each? Just asking because the S-IB had 4 of the outboard engines mounted on gimbals.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Jester Darrak

[Raptor9]

6 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Would it be too much of an impact on performance if you use 4 Swivels and Reliants each? Just asking because the S-IB had 4 of the outboard engines mounted on gimbals.

Yes.  It already has low TWR and you think more thrust should be taken away? If you want to hover over the launchpad, then sure.   Real-world comparison takes a backseat if the craft can't function.  To emphasize the only reason I was even able to replace two of the Reliants as it is:

13 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

I lightened up the first stage a little and replaced two of the LV-T30's with LV-T45's for some gimbal steering.

But when it comes down to it, if you are curious about how modifications will affect the design, I would encourage you to simply try it out yourself.  You'll probably get your answer quicker and with more clarification seeing it with your own eyes. 

[Jestersage]

21 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Yes.  It already has low TWR and you think more thrust should be taken away?

Hmm... will have to double check my Butalae Octa (been staying away from the USA crafts since yours are typically better). Granted, I did ended up say "screw this" on the Skiff and just go with Skipper on second stage... and my 1st stage consist of shorter tanks, compared to you which use longer tanks...

 

EDIt: checked. You actually have better performance in TWR.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Jestersage

[Raptor9]

Still dabbling back and forth between build projects in Sandbox and my Career missions.  One thing that has been on the back-burner for a while, like over a year, was a better way to explore Kerbin instead of suborbital rocket hops or ultra-long-range airplanes.  And by "better" I also mean "more fun".   The idea was originally outlined HERE (my God, October 2017?! ), but I've since determined that some elements of the concept aren't quite feasible, especially the large aircraft shelters.  I wonder if I was drunk when I typed that.

Setting up refueling sites across Kerbin is still a goal, but with a bit more of a modest and practical set of parameters.  In some situations, you may need to access locations a certain distance away from the staging areas.  It's possible that a river may present a boundary, such as on the continent north of the Dessert airfield; or conversely a river may be the only route to your destination due to restrictive terrain.  Exploring Kerbin will still be predominantly by air, but since there are some really hard to reach places on the ground, overland travel or sea travel may become necessary.  Keep in mind this is just an example of something that I'm fiddling with.  No clue if this will turn out to be practical or not.  But it's such a departure from anything I've built before I wanted to post a screenshot because I'm really happy with how it turned out. 

[Jestersage]

Question: Would you consider the Lockheed Martin Lunar Landers (both the reusable version from Oct 2018 and the recent Apr 2019 2-stage) have too much overlaps with your existing landers?

[Raptor9]

On 4/14/2019 at 9:55 PM, Jestersage said:

Question: Would you consider the Lockheed Martin Lunar Landers (both the reusable version from Oct 2018 and the recent Apr 2019 2-stage) have too much overlaps with your existing landers?

If you're asking if I plan on building either of them, the answer would be no.  I already have several Mun-capable landers, both single- and two-stage, from 2x Kerbal to 5x Kerbal capacity.  I briefly looked at a scaled-down, fuselage-stripped version of my LV-7A as a larger single-stage lander that would give a larger propellant margin compared to the LV-2C, but in the end I determined that the LV-3A and HLV-5A already fulfill that requirement since their two-stage modes aren't always necessary for the Mun.

[Jestersage]

21 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

If you're asking if I plan on building either of them, the answer would be no.  I already have several Mun-capable landers, both single- and two-stage, from 2x Kerbal to 5x Kerbal capacity.  I briefly looked at a scaled-down, fuselage-stripped version of my LV-7A as a larger single-stage lander that would give a larger propellant margin compared to the LV-2C, but in the end I determined that the LV-3A and HLV-5A already fulfill that requirement since their two-stage modes aren't always necessary for the Mun.

I see. Even on my end, I was also trying to see whether I can justify building either of the Lockheed Landers, and the only reason I would do so is due to

• looks (my first Altair clone's Ascent stage is ugly due to use the MEM module with a Crew cab on top),
• crew capacity (more is better for me, but 6 vs 7 does not matter much, seeing the largest capsules I have is 6 crew),
• Fairing restrain (the 2.5m fairing get a bit bulky around Altairs, and if their plan is to launch on Delta/Falcon, it make sense to slim down the landers)
• multi-site hopper without station transfer (which my understanding is not what planned for the 2-stage version)

Edited April 17, 2019 by Jestersage

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, Jestersage said:

whether I can justify building either of the Lockheed Landers

Yeah; I always believe that the primary reason to build anything that specific in KSP is whether it provides you the inspiration to do it.  Whenever I build things out of more necessity than inspiration it usually turns out like crap. And thus far I haven't been inspired by Lockheed's lunar landers like I was with their MADV.

However, I have wanted for some time to build a "vertical"-style crew lander that is dual-use for Vall and Tylo. The idea is a relatively large lander that is single stage, with the dV to make a round-trip to the surface of Vall and back to orbit without refueling. For Tylo, it would have enough dV to land on Tylo, after which it would be refueled on the surface prior to ascent.  If it ends up looking like the single-stage Lockheed lander from last year, so be it.

[FleshJeb]

On 4/6/2019 at 5:46 PM, Raptor9 said:

No clue if this will turn out to be practical or not.  But it's such a departure from anything I've built before I wanted to post a screenshot because I'm really happy with how it turned out. 

It's GORGEOUS--I wish Photobucket would let me zoom in more.

I have concerns about the practicality:

• Hydrodynamic drag is three orders of magnitude less forgiving than aerodynamic drag. Little changes can make a huge difference in speed and range. I'm pretty sold on hydrofoils for longer range water work. I'm guessing the top speed of yours is in the low 20s or below?
• Cargo vessels in KSP need to be able to take a lot of abuse. Those ore tanks are going to get destroyed without very gentle handling.

Below is a craft I'm working on for @Hotel26.

It will carry 20 tons of cargo at a minimum of 40m/s for at least 300 km. Without cargo and nearly dry on fuel, I've gotten it up to 196m/s before it involuntarily departed the water. I've transitioned from the beach to the water at 50m/s with no damage.

Spoiler

Slightly older version showing the loading procedure (Also, I dig the 50s convertible aesthetic):

Spoiler

 

[Emperor of Ilve]

Do you have plans to bring in things like Dragon, Falcon 9/Heavy, Starship/Superheavy, New Glenn, Electron, etc style things or are you going to just recreate the famous rockets of old, ULA rockets, and SLS

[Raptor9]

8 hours ago, Emperor of Ilve said:

Do you have plans to bring in things like Dragon, Falcon 9/Heavy, Starship/Superheavy, New Glenn, Electron, etc

Nope.  While the spacecraft and rockets that you listed are certainly significant and interesting in their own right, within my KSP play style they would simply duplicate capability that I possess with existing rocket lifters.  I've made prototypes of Falcon 9 and New Glenn analogue rockets before, and they only ended up saving me a few thousand funds per launch compared to relatively inexpensive and expendable rockets (using the stock career settings).  Adding on to that the additional time it takes to recover the rocket every...single...launch...and my motivation to launch anything is quickly overcome by the tediousness of it all.  I would rather spend my KSP time exploring deep space or other planetary bodies.  I've been playing KSP since early alpha days, so I've probably conducted thousands of rocket launches to Kerbin orbit.  I don't need any more time spent on that element of this game. 

[Emperor of Ilve]

4 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Nope.  While the spacecraft and rockets that you listed are certainly significant and interesting in their own right, within my KSP play style they would simply duplicate capability that I possess with existing rocket lifters.  I've made prototypes of Falcon 9 and New Glenn analogue rockets before, and they only ended up saving me a few thousand funds per launch compared to relatively inexpensive and expendable rockets (using the stock career settings).  Adding on to that the additional time it takes to recover the rocket every...single...launch...and my motivation to launch anything is quickly overcome by the tediousness of it all.  I would rather spend my KSP time exploring deep space or other planetary bodies.  I've been playing KSP since early alpha days, so I've probably conducted thousands of rocket launches to Kerbin orbit.  I don't need any more time spent on that element of this game. 

Understandable. Have a nice day.

[Jestersage]

6 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Adding on to that the additional time it takes to recover the rocket every...single...launch...and my motivation to launch anything is quickly overcome by the tediousness of it all.  I would rather spend my KSP time exploring deep space or other planetary bodies.

On a sidenote, have you tried using StageRecovery, and would you consider it a cheat for you?

Edited April 21, 2019 by Jestersage

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, Jestersage said:

On a sidenote, have you tried using StageRecovery, and would you consider it a cheat for you?

I played around with it in it's early days, but it never had a significant impact on my gameplay either way.  I don't consider it a cheat; I consider it an extension of the stock gameplay mechanic for vessel recovery.  Click the magic green button at the top of your screen when landed on Kerbin and your Kerbals and capsule are essentially picked up by recovery assets and transported back to the KSC.  For a reduction in refunds of course to cover the implied resource impact of such an employment of recovery assets.  Not to mention the Recovery Transponder strategy in the admin building.  To me Stage Recovery is no different than these other "implied space program operations" that run in the background to support the main form of gameplay.

[Emperor of Ilve]

2 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

I played around with it in it's early days, but it never had a significant impact on my gameplay either way.  I don't consider it a cheat; I consider it an extension of the stock gameplay mechanic for vessel recovery.  Click the magic green button at the top of your screen when landed on Kerbin and your Kerbals and capsule are essentially picked up by recovery assets and transported back to the KSC.  For a reduction in refunds of course to cover the implied resource impact of such an employment of recovery assets.  Not to mention the Recovery Transponder strategy in the admin building.  To me Stage Recovery is no different than these other "implied space program operations" that run in the background to support the main form of gameplay.

I use a combination of Stage recovery and FMRS. I like both and recommend both

[Raptor9]

After a lot of tediousness, 80% of the catalog has been updated to 1.7.0, mainly to address the changes to the RCS and Vernor thruster model revisions.  Thankfully (and I do mean thankfully), the singular Linear RCS port was a straight drop-in replacement...the idea of having to replace all of those throughout my catalog makes me shutter.  The rest will come eventually as I am sort of on a KSP break again.

The main reason I decided to update what I have was after discovering a couple designs that were defective.  The 'Scout-Outrider' probe's staging was messed up, the EV-3 NTR stages' RCS axis assignments were seriously borked (not sure how that happened), and the behavior of my EV-2 LES shrouds changed in 1.7.  This amounted to quite a few designs that needed to be updated, so I just bit the bullet and did a bunch more while I had KSP booted up.

The last thing I wanted to mention is that if any of my graphics display a legacy part on them that has since received a revision, the graphic just hasn't been updated.  The version number of the craft on KerbalX should indicate what parts it has.  If a craft has 1.7.0 as its version number, it has received any applicable part updates up to that version, despite what the graphics may display.  You will find a lot of legacy parts on my graphics since I am not gonna redo every graphic every three months to keep them up-to-date with simple part revisions.  One such example is my EV-1A 'Skiff' on the 'Arrow 3' launcher.  The upper stage still has the legacy, gold-foil-wrapped LV-909 Terrier engine on it; however it does in fact have the new LV-909 model on the craft.