septemberWaves Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I think if credit is given for the source of inspiration it's probably fine. But in any case, as far as appearances go it's difficult to get an enormous amount of variety with launch vehicles anyway. Particularly at the stock scale, because there's not a whole lot of options with regards to fuel tank appearances. As for names, Raptor's naming schemes are well thought-out and make it very easy to understand the purpose of a spacecraft; I can see why people would use similar naming conventions and I've even begun to do so myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 19, 2017 Author Share Posted January 19, 2017 I would much rather inspire other players, than put limits on creation in KSP. If anything, it helps the community grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVA_Reentry Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Oh, I agree, of course, but blatant copies are irritating. And, in all honesty, I really like @chlbutterworth's ATV-- it fits in well with your lifters in terms of stats and style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chlbutterworth Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) On 18/01/2017 at 11:14 PM, EVA_Reentry said: seriously. "SM-Series"? C'mon, now... Also: https://kerbalx.com/chlbutterworth/CF-2A I hate that-even the naming system is the same! EDIT: Didn't you make this? https://kerbalx.com/chlbutterworth/Griffin-A0 (I wouldn't have posted the above f I had realized he/she had a forum account. Just making a few observations) Hey, I made everything from scratch. @Raptor9 does some really good work. The naming system is good and works. I wanted to find out how he made the graphics and I have done. On 19/01/2017 at 4:43 PM, EVA_Reentry said: Oh, I agree, of course, but blatant copies are irritating. And, in all honesty, I really like @chlbutterworth's ATV-- it fits in well with your lifters in terms of stats and style. Thanks, I really worked hard on that. I wanted to make a HTV using KIS, but the craft just got too long and I decided to split it into 2 different variants. On 18/01/2017 at 11:14 PM, EVA_Reentry said: EDIT: Didn't you make this? https://kerbalx.com/chlbutterworth/Griffin-A0 (I wouldn't have posted the above f I had realized he/she had a forum account. Just making a few observations) @Raptor9's 'Lightning' was inspired by the Vulcan ACES. So was mine, but I decided to make a more lifelike version including options for boosters and using a 2 engine layout for the main core booster. Everything I did was made from scratch, copying was not the intent. I like some of the ideas that @Raptor9had used such as being able to dock the stages together like the real-life ACES. If you look at the designs, my docking ports are located at the front of the stage where as the docking port's on the lightning are located on the aft section of his LITE upper Stage. Oh and @EVA_Reentry. Didn't you even tell me to 'Keep it up!' on KerbalX as well......... Edited January 24, 2017 by chlbutterworth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 @chlbutterworth, while we're on the topic of the ACES, Griffin, and Lightning, I just completed my first space station in Munar orbit...with components transported entirely from LKO by reused LITE upper stages and fuel refined from the Mun surface. I of course had refueled my LITE upper stages and 'Camel Hump' propellant depots in Munar orbit during early test missions and a few proof-of-concept logistics deliveries to my surface outpost, but I had never taken this concept to this scale in KSP before. Long version: I had two LITE upper stages in Munar orbit docked to my my orbital propellant depot after dropping off some surface-bound rovers to my HLV-5C cargo lander. After transporting fuel from the surface to the 'Camel Hump' with a pair of HLV-5B's, I topped off the LITE's and sent them back to an 80x80km Kerbin orbit. I would launch a couple station components on a cheap 'Thunder 1' rocket in the vicinity of one of the LITE upper stages in LKO, which would dock with it. The LITE stage would transport the components to low Munar orbit to be assembled, then rendezvous with the 'Camel Hump' to top off again before returning to LKO for more station pieces. So aside from the three 'Thunder 1' rockets I used and the price of the station modules themselves, everything was reused from in-space infrastructure reused from earlier missions and refueled from Munar propellant. In the above screenshot, I have the propulsion module of my HLV-5C docked (far right), waiting for any more surface cargo arrivals; one of the LITE upper stages (far left), and the PD-64 propellant depot (center, behind the truss) repositioned to the station to consolidate the fuel supplies. There are still plenty of empty "parking spots" for more LITE upper stages or HLV-5 landers, not to mention additional docking ports for crew modules or other ships. This is rapidly turning into my main shipping hub, if I can keep part counts low. I know some of you reading this are probably thinking "big deal Raptor, I've done this before...around Ike"; well sometimes I get so caught up in designing or updating my craft I don't get a chance to try them in my career to this level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chlbutterworth Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 That's really cool. I've not put the concept to this scale before. I like the docking port arrangement, that's a much better way of docking service vessels rather than using a hub. Keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVA_Reentry Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 16 hours ago, chlbutterworth said: h and @EVA_Reentry. Didn't you even tell me to 'Keep it up!' on KerbalX as well......... Again, I was unaware that you had a forum account. I was simply telling Raptor9 about the popularity of his graphics and building style. As @eloquentJane put it, it's not easy to have clean, stock, and simple LVs without some repetition of a particular aesthetic. As to my comment about the Griffin/ACES, that was, in retrospect, rude and unnecessary, and I regret it. And I did encourage you on KerbalX, because the only reason I wrote what I wrote earlier is because I greatly enjoy Raptor9's aesthetic. I hope you can accept my apology. Additionally, I hope you can understand the lateness of this reply, because for the past two days I have been stuck in Montreal without internet. I just got home. Good luck with your developmental craft. Try making some payloads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chlbutterworth Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 8 hours ago, EVA_Reentry said: Good luck with your developmental craft. Try making some payloads! Thanks, I'm working on some satellite buses and some scientific probes and landers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I can fully understand someone copying/being inspired by Raptors craft display graphics, they are awesome! His launchers/some of the craft are a little over simplified for my tastes but the modularity and usability of all his craft is very cool indeed. He's one of a kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
septemberWaves Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Raptor makes some very nice stylistic choices. I have a couple of old upper stages (which are now technically obsolete because I now rarely play with a stock scale solar system) which were pretty directly influenced by Raptor's Titan 2P upper stage. The coloration is to fit my Raven series launch vehicles, but I think the influence is relatively obvious. It's a similar story with those RCS ports on cubic octagonal struts; I've started doing that a lot since looking through Raptor's various spacecraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 18 minutes ago, eloquentJane said: RCS ports on cubic octagonal struts I've been doing that for years now. Not to put him down but I haven't seen anything new in terms of asthetics in Raptor's builds lovely as they are. :-). I liked his version of my tiny hinges that just use the antenna though They save one or two parts in a falling ramp mechanism. For me his skill is in the usability and modularity of the craft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 29, 2017 Author Share Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) @Majorjim! & @eloquentJane, I appreciate the compliments. On 1/25/2017 at 8:56 PM, Majorjim! said: For me his skill is in the usability and modularity of the craft. That's what I strive for the most! While a lot of my craft have a very distinct and singular purpose in their design, later craft were designed to be as flexible and versatile as possible, even retroactively like some of the landers (being modified with a large docking port mounting plate so they can be mated to interplanetary transport stages right out of the box). If I can have a set up like my HLV-5 landers that can be used/reused an unlimited amount of times around the Mun, Ike, Dres, etc, than that's what I love about achieving those objectives. Speaking of the HLV-5's, they're all updated just now; as well as the 'Lightning' medium rocket and the PD-32/64 orbital propellant depots. They all received adjustments to their Vernor thruster powers and the HLV-5A & B had updated modules. The HLV-5A's crew module is now purely LF+O based, removing the need for monopropellant RCS reliance, and the HLV-5B's forward propellant hopper is changed slightly with an additional dorsal docking port and reduced solar panel footprint. I'm also working on a new version of the 'Titan' rocket, the 'Titan 4N'...and no, the "N" doesn't stand for nuclear ...more to come on this later. Edited January 29, 2017 by Raptor9 typos & grammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Six new craft available on KerbalX, which also marks my first establishment of publicly-available satellites and probes. Even though all of these can be used across the Kerbol system, the first three were designed for Kerbin SOI operations. Further, if you want to send the 'Prospector' or 'Surveyor' beyond the Kerbin SOI, you'll need to get a bigger rocket. The 'Pathfinder' is pre-mounted on the 'Titan 3P' rocket, which has been verified to reach a stable low Duna orbit. It "should" also be able to reach the Eve SOI, but this hasn't been tested and I am not sure of the final orbit that it can reach. A solution to this will be coming in the near future... These craft are available in the OP in the VAB drop down section, between the Robotics and Rocket Market sections. Look for Satellites & Probes. Edited July 30, 2017 by Raptor9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
septemberWaves Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 The new probes look great! I particularly like how you attached the science package and RTG on the Pathfinder probe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redmonddkgamer Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I really like your JAXA stuff, you should do more. I think an H-IIA to go with the AKOS would be great. Maybe you could also make a Tiangong replica. Oh! How about a Hayabusa while you're at it. I have the Lego Ideas/Cuusoo set for it, and it's really cool. 3 minutes ago, redmonddkgamer said: I really like your JAXA stuff, you should do more. I think an H-IIA to go with the AKOS would be great. Maybe you could also make a Tiangong replica. Oh! How about a Hayabusa while you're at it. I have the Lego Ideas/Cuusoo set for it, and it's really cool. I was also looking at the example orbits for the Kerbin orbiter satellites, can we get some numbers? Such as optimal positions for a satellite constellation using these, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beetlecat Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 On 1/19/2017 at 8:43 AM, EVA_Reentry said: Oh, I agree, of course, but blatant copies are irritating. And, in all honesty, I really like @chlbutterworth's ATV-- it fits in well with your lifters in terms of stats and style. Is the ATV on KerbalX? it's not showing up in the listings. Would love the check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVA_Reentry Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 https://kerbalx.com/chlbutterworth/CTV-B-200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beetlecat Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 minute ago, EVA_Reentry said: https://kerbalx.com/chlbutterworth/CTV-B-200 Oh! C TV... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVA_Reentry Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I know ir as the atv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jestersage Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) Hey Raptor9, is there a reason that the Boeing Habitat Lander/LV-3E resembles Mars Direct's Habitat lander? I was debating whether I should just convert your LV-3E into a Mars Direct Lander. Edited February 2, 2017 by Jestersage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, redmonddkgamer said: I really like your JAXA stuff, you should do more. I think an H-IIA to go with the AKOS would be great. Maybe you could also make a Tiangong replica. Oh! How about a Hayabusa while you're at it. I have the Lego Ideas/Cuusoo set for it, and it's really cool. The H-IIA would probably end up looking very similar to my 'Thunder' family of rockets, themselves based on the ULA Delta family; so it wouldn't really be necessary to have two virtually identical rockets in my craft list. And I really don't make "true replicas". More station modules aren't really on my priority list right now, so I wouldn't count on Tiangong-inspired modules any time soon, but I might get into it in the future. As for the Hayabusa, the function of that craft really isn't useful in KSP since the only "parts" that could retrieve an asteroid sample are EVA'ed Kerbals themselves. 17 hours ago, redmonddkgamer said: I was also looking at the example orbits for the Kerbin orbiter satellites, can we get some numbers? Such as optimal positions for a satellite constellation using these, etc. The optimal orbit for the AKOS (or any probe core) is really based on what you want to look at and how close you want to see it. I myself have three AKOS in staggered orbits around Kerbin like in the graph, at relatively low altitude (about 110km IIRC). 105km is the absolute lowest I permit myself to place any satellites since my ISS-inspired 'Pioneer Station' is at 100km, and I use 70-90km region for my "on-ramp/off-ramp" region. A lot of traffic going up from the surface or coming down in the 70-90km region. The inclination of your orbits will be driven on what latitudes you want to look at, and how often. The altitude of where you place your satellites will be driven by several factors: how close do you want to view what's in your KerbNet window and the FOV (zoom capabilities) of your probe core. As for the NavComm satellites, I recommend no further than a few hundred kilometers due to the signal strength of their HG-5 antennas. I have mine at 300km orbits (32 NavComm's total ). 300km is well within the range of the HG-5 to go straight down, but you also need to account for the slant distance of the other satellites in the constellation, or objects on the surface near the LOS horizon, which may be several times further than the orbit altitude value itself. The KeoSat's are easy, and the orbit value is stated in the graphic. 6 hours ago, Jestersage said: Hey Raptor9, is there a reason that the Boeing Habitat Lander/LV-3E resembles Mars Direct's Habitat lander? Not really, it was simply based on following image of Boeing's lander, or in this video. Edited February 2, 2017 by Raptor9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redmonddkgamer Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 2 hours ago, Raptor9 said: The H-IIA would probably end up looking very similar to my 'Thunder' family of rockets, themselves based on the ULA Delta family; so it wouldn't really be necessary to have two virtually identical rockets in my craft list. And I really don't make "true replicas". More station modules aren't really on my priority list right now, so I wouldn't count on Tiangong-inspired modules any time soon, but I might get into it in the future. As for the Hayabusa, the function of that craft really isn't useful in KSP since the only "parts" that could retrieve an asteroid sample are EVA'ed Kerbals themselves. The optimal orbit for the AKOS (or any probe core) is really based on what you want to look at and how close you want to see it. I myself have three AKOS in staggered orbits around Kerbin like in the graph, at relatively low altitude (about 110km IIRC). 105km is the absolute lowest I permit myself to place any satellites since my ISS-inspired 'Pioneer Station' is at 100km, and I use 70-90km region for my "on-ramp/off-ramp" region. A lot of traffic going up from the surface or coming down in the 70-90km region. The inclination of your orbits will be driven on what latitudes you want to look at, and how often. The altitude of where you place your satellites will be driven by several factors: how close do you want to view what's in your KerbNet window and the FOV (zoom capabilities) of your probe core. As for the NavComm satellites, I recommend no further than a few hundred kilometers due to the signal strength of their HG-5 antennas. I have mine at 300km orbits (32 NavComm's total ). 300km is well within the range of the HG-5 to go straight down, but you also need to account for the slant distance of the other satellites in the constellation, or objects on the surface near the LOS horizon, which may be several times further than the orbit altitude value itself. The KeoSat's are easy, and the orbit value is stated in the graphic. Not really, it was simply based on following image of Boeing's lander, or in this video. Thanks! I was looking at some of the stations in the catalog. For an example, the Wernher Station and the Gateway Station. They are both really cool ideas, but would it be easier to use a lighter launcher to assemble in LKO and use a PD-64/32 to propel it to LMO or use a heavier launcher to assemble directly in Munar or Minmus orbit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 hour ago, redmonddkgamer said: would it be easier to use a lighter launcher to assemble in LKO and use a PD-64/32 to propel it to LMO or use a heavier launcher to assemble directly in Munar or Minmus orbit? There in lies the conundrum of KSP. I think it comes down to what your highest concern is. How much it will cost, and/or how easy will it be on you, the player. A handful of small, inexpensive rockets may be about the same price as a larger rocket, or maybe not. If you only want to deal with a single Mun transfer, then sending them all at once may offset the cost concerns you may have. If you already have a self-sustaining propellant economy set up with HLV-5B's, LITE reusable upper stages, and propellant depots...you may only have to spend money on a few cheap/throw-away 'Thunder 1' rockets to insert the payloads in to LKO. Which reminds me, I really should generate a graphic to demonstrate how to set up such a system with the applicable craft. I'll get to work on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redmonddkgamer Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, Raptor9 said: There in lies the conundrum of KSP. I think it comes down to what your highest concern is. How much it will cost, and/or how easy will it be on you, the player. A handful of small, inexpensive rockets may be about the same price as a larger rocket, or maybe not. If you only want to deal with a single Mun transfer, then sending them all at once may offset the cost concerns you may have. If you already have a self-sustaining propellant economy set up with HLV-5B's, LITE reusable upper stages, and propellant depots...you may only have to spend money on a few cheap/throw-away 'Thunder 1' rockets to insert the payloads in to LKO. Which reminds me, I really should generate a graphic to demonstrate how to set up such a system with the applicable craft. I'll get to work on that. I'm a lazy player dicking around in sandbox. I don't care about cost, just convenience and time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 hour ago, redmonddkgamer said: I'm a lazy player dicking around in sandbox. I don't care about cost, just convenience and time. In that case, throw as many modules as you can on a 'Titan' rocket and SPACE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts