Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[MadJock]

@Raptor9  I was just getting back into KSP since the latest update and thought I'd try some of your Porpoise stuff A - D and was wondering if something had changed since you designed it and the update as I'm struggling to get the HLV-5A to the Mun. I've even watched your YouTube vid ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgcJmdpqD-A&t=1485s ) multiple times to see if I'm missing something but I don't think so. 

Any ideas or tips? 

 

Cheers.........MadJock

 

[Raptor9]

17 minutes ago, MadJock said:

 I'm struggling to get the HLV-5A to the Mun.

You'll have to be more specific.  Are you running out of fuel at a certain point, are you encountering control issues, missing action group functions, etc?

[MadJock]

Hi sorry for the vagueness. I'm running out of fuel. I did have to add a new protective shell as the old one showed just blue lines in the VAB where it should be. Could that be a cause for the initial fuel problems? Plus on a control point, I've found that after detaching the lifter near LKO the cupola module is unstable and struggles to remain balanced and settle when using SAS. Should the reaction wheel be brought online after decoupling the lifter stage?

 

Cheers...........MadJock

[Zero266]

wow... just wow, how do i learn to build like this?

 

[Jestersage]

12 hours ago, Zero266 said:

wow... just wow, how do i learn to build like this?

 

My builds are actually inspired by him. So  if you want to build like him, 3 things go into my method

1. Take inspiration from real-life craft and study. Research the history. Study how each thing function, and then find the analogue in KSP. There are many crafts that are not build in real life.
2. Study his craft, but do not copy his. Take each parts apart piece by piece. As time goes by, you will have an idea, and you can just build it on your own.
3. Find your schick. Otherwise why bother building your own?

For example, while I like his looks, I do not agree with his over usage of place-anywhere RCS or any other aesthetic oriented parts that increase part count, or his minimal use of Reaction wheel. So I branched out and find my schick on low part counts crafts.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Jestersage

[Raptor9]

12 hours ago, MadJock said:

I'm running out of fuel. I did have to add a new protective shell as the old one showed just blue lines in the VAB where it should be. Could that be a cause for the initial fuel problems? Plus on a control point, I've found that after detaching the lifter near LKO the cupola module is unstable and struggles to remain balanced and settle when using SAS. Should the reaction wheel be brought online after decoupling the lifter stage?

First of all, the KSP SAS functionality isn't the greatest, which is why I usually control attitude manually with SAS as an assist, rather than the sole provider of control inputs.  Having said that, you should have plenty of fuel to get the HLV-5A to a Munar orbit to top off on propellant prior to committing to a landing.  The reaction wheels are not needed at all for control.  Having said that, the vertical thrust engines are only used for final approach; most of the velocity is cancelled out via the primary RE-L10 Poodle engine.  If you are maxing out the throttle while using the 48-7S Spark engines to execute the landing, you're not doing it the way the lander was designed to be used and may encounter control issues.

It sounds like you either have mods altering the behavior of the craft, or you aren't quite performing the mission in line with the tutorial video as you originally stated.  That's all I can surmise from what info you have provided.

12 hours ago, Zero266 said:

wow... just wow, how do i learn to build like this?

Time and inspiration.  I've been playing KSP for quite a while, and inspiration is a valuable tool.  Like @Jestersage pointed out, developing your own build style that is driven by whatever inspires your creativity is the key in my opinion.  Without inspiration, there is no way I could have built the catalog to the size and detail it has become.

KSP is like a self-feeding educational tool.  You want to learn how to do something in KSP, you read about how to do it in real life, and that research inspires your builds in KSP, which inspires further reading, etc etc.  Don't fight it, release your inner nerd. 
____________________________________________

EDIT: It's too late for me to release the next batch, so that will be planned for tomorrow (if work doesn't interfere again).

Edited June 20, 2019 by Raptor9

[AlchemicRaven]

No rush, it's your hobby. But I expect a TKS!

[Dman Revolution]

On 6/19/2019 at 3:18 PM, Jestersage said:

 I do not agree with his over usage of place-anywhere RCS or any other aesthetic oriented parts that increase part count

so youre telling me that 100 extra parts for each srb and 1100 just for a launch pad is too many for a craft? lol

 

[Raptor9]

Aaaannnd, final batch of craft files are live, with one exception.  I forgot to finish the graphics for the robotic satellite-servicing spacecraft, so it didn't make the release.  I should be able to knock it out this weekend.  I've just been really busy at work.  Anyway, the first two craft files go hand in hand.  The OV-3L, which is my TKS/VA analog, and the OS-3RS which is my Almaz analog.  Before people get all up in arms over these two; yes, I know the VA capsule carried more than one cosmonaut.  Yes, I know there were designs for the Almaz to carry an onboard VA capsule, yes, yes yes, I've done my research. Just because something exists a certain way in real-life, does not mean that's how it needs to be in KSP.

     

OV-3L & OS-3RS AND THE SOVIET TKS & ALMAZ SPACE STATIONS

Spoiler

The TKS and the Almaz space stations were really fascinating topics to research. I won't rehash the Almaz articles on astronautix.com, but needless to say the real-life military functions weren't relevant within Kerbal Space Program in my opinion. To be honest, the intricacies between the Almaz and Salyut programs were what refined my original ideas for what missions the Ranger Corps would have outside the Kerbin atmosphere.

The OS-3RS (the RS standing for Rescue/Salvage) is essentially an on-call tow-truck/lifeboat in orbit. In the event one of your craft needs assistence, or a rescue contract pops up, the OS-3RS 'Lighthouse' comes into play. The OS-3RS is pre-launched in to low Kerbin orbit uncrewed, and when called upon, alters its orbit to rendezvous and if necessary grapple whatever wreckage is left of a stranded kerbalnaut. The OS-3RS comes with habitation facilities to house the kerbal until a rescue craft can be sent up and dock with it. Even though the OS-3RS has adequate dV to alter it's orbit, just one of these may not be adequate to cover any potential rescue contract that pops up. However if you deploy these in the same orbital planes as your own spacecraft, they can provide a good backup response to unforeseen gameplay, especially if playing with no reverts. It really comes down to how seriously to take rescue contracts or your own mission redundancies.

Like the TKS, the OV-3L is logistics vehicle designed to service the OS-3RS. The craft is optionally-crewed, usually launched remotely and docked to the OS-3RS. The stranded kerbalnaut can then transfer to the single crew capsule, and the service module of the 'Koch' refuels the OS-3RS for the next mission if needed. After which the VA-style crew capsule reenters the atmosphere. The service module is capable of independant operations like the real TKS, or if expended you can just ditch it in the upper atmosphere. The one major difference is the OV-3L crew capsule only seats a single kerbalnaut, whereas the Soviet VA capsule would seat several cosmonauts.

The wreckage can of course be released from the OS-3RS, or retained if you intend to recover it using a later mission.

     

OV-4MP AND THE ROSCOSMOS FEDERATSIYA SPACECRAFT

Spoiler

The 'Frontier Runner' is the Ranger Corps counterpart to the EV-2C 'Runabout' spacecraft. The two spacecraft have comperable capabilities, both in performance and equipment. However, I also wanted the OV-4MP to have distinct design lineage from the OV-2MP 'Drake'. As such, the OV-4MP is the Ranger Corps spacecraft for deep space operations, but can also be used locally with their existing stations if desired as a replacement or supplement to the OV-2MP spacecraft.

The 'Frontier Runner' also includes a pre-mounted aft docking port around the engines to dock a BOLT orbital tug if you are intending on sending the spacecraft to far off destinations. This is especially useful if you intend to pre-stage uncrewed OV-4MP's ahead of crewed expeditions.

OV-5DS AND THE SOVIET TMK/MAVR SPACECRAFT

Quick note that the OV-5DS requires both of the DLC's for usage.

Spoiler

This was probably the most vague concept I attempted to emulate. Again, not to re-state articles about the TMK concept, but it was a Soviet concept for manned flybys of Mars or Venus, possibly even dropping off probes or Mars landers. In the case of the OV-5DS 'Dromon', its the Ranger Corps interplanetary crew shuttle. It's primarily sent on it's trans-Duna or trans-Eve injection trajectory via a separate propulsion stage attached to its aft docking port. Once it enters the target SOI it uses its own onboard propulsion to capture into orbit and rendezvous with whatever assets are there. Depending on propellant usage and location, the 'Dromon' then either returns to Kerbin, or must refuel via ISRU assets prior to it's return journey.

     

'BOLT' ORBITAL TUG AND 'CROSSBOW' LAUNCHERS

Spoiler

The Jeb's Junkyard-manufactured BOLT is the Ranger Corps' counterpart to the Rockomax-manufactured LITE. It's used to move payloads around within the Kerbin SOI, or send them on interplanetary trajectories in the case of the OV-5DS. The BOLT is also "stackable", with an aft docking port shroud that can be jettisoned after orbital insertion, or retained for docking multiple BOLTs in tandem for multi-stage orbital burns for large payloads.

The BOLT orbital tug is distinctive in that it relies on monopropellant for RCS thrusters, whereas the LITE and NITE reusable upper stages were relied soley on LF+O for propulsion and maneuvering. However, like the LITE and NITE, the BOLT can be integrated into the CisMunar Propellant Econonmy very similarly to the LITE's. This particular craft file is purely derivative of my LITE concepts, in contrast to everything else that has influence from Russian spaceflight

The 'Crossbow' launchers themselves are analogous to both the Angara and Soyuz-5 rocket concepts by Roscosmos. Due to the early development stages of the rockets, their details are constantly evolving so the 'Crossbow' rockets may soon reflect an outdated version of the concepts. But aside from that, the 'Crossbow' rockets are designed to display an identifiable lineage from the earlier 'Kodiak' series rockets built by Reaction Systems Ltd., while improving on the modular approach.

With the exception of that one outstanding craft file, this wraps up my 'Ranger Corps' project for the time being.  However, like M3V or my other architectures, it doesn't necessarily mean it's finished.  This just gives me another avenue for craft file styles and techniques to branch out into.  This was probably one of my biggest projects to date, around the same size as M3V, but compressed into a singular week of craft file releases. Personally, I'm happy I was able bring the Soviet/Russian spaceflight heritage to my KSP save, since they accomplished some rather amazing feats in the 50's and 60's when aerospace technology seemed to be advancing at warp speed with the aids of slide-rules and chalkboards instead of advanced computing power.  I hope that in the near future we will be back in a worldwide golden age of spaceflight that rivals or surpasses those times.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Raptor9

[Jestersage]

Welcome to Mother Russia, Comrade! And as usual, they look beautiful. Thanks for keeping me on my toes!

It's interesting that while we both probably went to the same soruces (astronautix and russianspaceweb), we still come out with completely different crafts. The Angara clone is perfect example -- In your case, you decided to go with RK7 and the proper-portioned fuel tank, while I gone with a squat version simply to enable the usage of Bobcat (and stay with the URM concept)

And I guess strange minds think alike -- I actually had a version that have the same "stepped service module" for the Federasiya-clone, Until I look at it and say "Nah, it doesn't look right" and gone with the A215 version which no one except I like.

 

Sidenote: What mods do you use to enable easier testing with Interplanet stuff?

P.S. I am certain OKTO2 does not allow the craft act as a Single-Pilot Probe Control Point...

Edited June 21, 2019 by Jestersage

[AlchemicRaven]

I noticed that the OM and SM subassemblies use different incompatible docking ports (I like that attention to real-life docking ports). I took a closer look at the fourth picture for your OR-2L 'Knarr' which had 'Pioneer Station' on it. I can't quite tell what you did to connect the Russian and US Orbital Segments. I would imagine you would use a Clamp-O-Tron to Jr. docking port, like the PMA on the ISS. Same would go for other docking port adapters like the docking module used on the ASTP or the Mir Docking Module for Space Shuttles. The 'Pioneer Station' example image is not updated (which is fully understandable) so I can't quite tell what to use. The only adapter that might be used is the OM-DA, but I don't think you used that. Also, are you using the OM-LB, LT, and/or LM, for Pirs, Poisk, Rassvet, and/or the UDM? As always this is not a complaint, just a comment. I am incredibly grateful for all of your crafts, honestly the best stock KSP craft analogues ever!

[TronDemon]

Love your work, I'm enjoying learning how to fly utilizing your designs. I'm currenty working on the X-6 aircraft. I can't seem to get the middle two landing gear to come back down if I retract gear for flight. Should I just be leaving them down the whole time? I would move them down out of the aircraft in the hangar but can't figure out how to keep them level with the others.

[AlchemicRaven]

@TronDemonThat's strange, they go down for me, do you have any mods that might interfere with the landing gear?

[TronDemon]

13 minutes ago, AlchemicRaven said:

@TronDemonThat's strange, they go down for me, do you have any mods that might interfere with the landing gear?

If I put them up and down immediately after take off they seem to work, if I have them there for a bit I get an error that they can't be deployed while stowed. I tried to get as low and slow as I could to make sure the game wasn't preventing those two for some reason due to my height / airspeed, but no luck. I don't think I have any mods that would mess with the gear, and it's only those two in the middle of the craft. The outer ones extend and retract fine no matter what I'm doing.

[AlchemicRaven]

@TronDemonHuh, I don't know how to help, Raptor9 might be able to help some time. I've been flying for 20min and still don't have this issue.

[TronDemon]

Just now, AlchemicRaven said:

@TronDemonHuh, I don't know how to help, Raptor9 might be able to help some time. I've been flying for 20min and still don't have this issue.

Thanks for trying, I guess it could be just me. I pretty much suck at flying so maybe I'm taking off too rough and damaging them somehow. I can usually get up and fly around OK, it's landing back on that runway that's kicking my butt. With the gear behaving like it is, I'm just bailing the pilot out to parachute down to complete my contracts.

[Raptor9]

16 hours ago, Jestersage said:

 I am certain OKTO2 does not allow the craft act as a Single-Pilot Probe Control Point...

The OKTO2 doesn't in itself, but certain crew pods (Mk1-3 Capsule, Mk2 Lander Can, and the MEM from the Making History DLC) have a "Probe Control Point" installed in the part already.  The OKTO2 just takes over spacecraft control duties, allowing a single pilot onboard to remotely control probes via the PCP.

16 hours ago, Jestersage said:

The Angara clone is perfect example -- In your case, you decided to go with RK7 and the proper-portioned fuel tank

Well the 'Crossbow' rockets were influenced by both Angara images as well as the Soyuz-5 concepts, which included multi-chamber RD-series engines.

16 hours ago, Jestersage said:

What mods do you use to enable easier testing with Interplanet stuff?

None actually.  I just use the Alt-F12 menu to cheat my way to orbits.  If I need to land stuff, I just just do a normal EDL.  This normally isn't much work, but sometimes atmo EDL's can get repetitive during testing.

6 hours ago, AlchemicRaven said:

I noticed that the OM and SM subassemblies use different incompatible docking ports (I like that attention to real-life docking ports). I took a closer look at the fourth picture for your OR-2L 'Knarr' which had 'Pioneer Station' on it. I can't quite tell what you did to connect the Russian and US Orbital Segments.

I simply removed the aft docking port from the SM-N1, mounted an FL-A10 adapter in it's place, and then a small docking clamp to that.

6 hours ago, AlchemicRaven said:

Also, are you using the OM-LB, LT, and/or LM, for Pirs, Poisk, Rassvet, and/or the UDM?

Yep.   Yeah, I need to update that graphic for sure.

4 hours ago, TronDemon said:

I'm currenty working on the X-6 aircraft. I can't seem to get the middle two landing gear to come back down if I retract gear for flight.

If I remember correctly, a previous poster in this thread had the same issue that was caused by a mod.  I believe it was FAR causing it.  Thanks for the troubleshooting help @AlchemicRaven.
_____________________________________________________________

That last outstanding craft is now on KerbalX. The robotic satellite/probe servicing craft, the OR-TSL 'Dhow'.  It's a really straightforward probe, with a forward docking port and a large reserve of propellant (for it's size) to dock to other craft.  It also has an aft docking port between the engines to allow large spacecraft to carry elsewhere if need be.  It's modeled after Lockheed's "Jupiter" orbital tug and satellite servicing spacecraft.

[AlchemicRaven]

5 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

I simply removed the aft docking port from the SM-N1, mounted an FL-A10 adapter in it's place, and then a small docking clamp to that.

Thanks!

[TronDemon]

@Raptor9 thanks! You were right on the money with FAR. I never would have thought that would be the culprit. I removed it and I'm back to happily learning how to fly with your designs. Again, awesome stuff, thank you so much for what you do!

[Jestersage]

@Raptor9, when you design a craft, do you factor into the price in comparison to other crafts that may overlap (specifically among the launchers)?

[Raptor9]

21 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

when you design a craft, do you factor into the price in comparison to other crafts that may overlap (specifically among the launchers)?

I used to really pinch pennies when it came to craft design, especially expendable rocket lifters. But nowadays I tend to spend more time just simply avoiding certain high-fund items if they aren't necessary, like expensive probe cores or ion engine tech. The Vernor thrusters used to be one of those things I hated throwing away on boosters since they were so darned expensive, but they've since been cut to 150 per unit, so "meh".

The main thing that allowed me to relax my focus on launch funds and expendable rocket lifters ( the 'Thunder 3' and 'Crossbow' launchers are still fairly cheap for their capabilities) is implementing measures to ensure more and more reusability for anything that leaves the atmosphere, as well as my CisMunar Propellant Economy which goes hand in hand with that strategy. In-space reusability/refueling is THE most important aspect in my opinion that reduces required funding levels for any major missions.  Reducing how many rocket launches you perform in the long run will do more to reduce the space program operating costs than squeezing a rocket lifter with minimal cost-saving measures.

[Jestersage]

BTW, I noticed that you mentioned your Proton is not powerful enough. In your experimental craft, what did you use for the first stage? (The only thing I can guess is that it is NOT the Vector simply due to the OP-ness and cost)

[Raptor9]

11 hours ago, Jestersage said:

I noticed that you mentioned your Proton is not powerful enough. In your experimental craft, what did you use for the first stage?

6x LV-T30 Reliants and a single LV-T45 Swivel in the center for control.  Not exactly accurate to the actual Proton, but then again, I didn't need it anyway.

[Neil Kerman]

I’d love to write a story or series of stories using the Ranger Corps concept and the Kerbalverse @Raptor9 has put together, maybe something like an extended version of The Right Stuff. I really love these craft and the whole universe around them!

Edited July 3, 2019 by Neil Kerman
Forgot @

[Jestersage]

18 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

6x LV-T30 Reliants and a single LV-T45 Swivel in the center for control.  Not exactly accurate to the actual Proton, but then again, I didn't need it anyway.

Just comparing notes. So unless they rebalance it so an uberpowered thuster comes out, 6x Kodiak or Skiff is pretty much the best option without going too costly.

EDIT: I actually ran an experiment with your OV-4 with its Crowssbow-U stage. When out of CommNet Range, it needs 2 pilot to control the URM-2

Edited July 3, 2019 by Jestersage
thurster/engine, not rocket...