• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Excellent

About BlackMoons

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer
  1. Deorbiting a very old station, I accidentally switched to water as propellant. When the water ran out, my kerbal instantly died of dehydration. What a wuss! Please fix weak kerbals.
  2. having issues when using cone parts, often when saving and reloading a ship in the VAB there is a 1 or 2 meter gap formed between a part and the part further away from the root node. If I save and load again, the gap gets bigger. If I launch from the vab, or click the launch pad and pick my ship, it looks OK if I saved it without a gap, but if I load it in the VAB the gap reoccurs.
  3. I think the thrust multipler for methane (in thermal/plasma nozzles) must be a bug, since its the same as methalox (2.152) Kerosene is also surprisingly high at 1.906
  4. The water/HTP interstellar tank setting only holds water. I think it might be a conflict with the TAC life support patch that turns liquid water to water.
  5. I think you can use one of the IRSU functions to reprocess nuclear fuel? Science lab also has it once you upgrade it. Oh, and as I said, just turn off all the generators on your solid cores and they won't build up any waste during timewarp since they will be at 0% idle. Trying some more tests, 7.5m reactor MFC mk2 and 5m plasma nozzle (without upgrade) with methane fuel MJ KN of thrust 1 20 2 55 3 120 4 220 5 330 6 470 7 650 8 845 9 1100 10 1300 11 1600 12 1800 Seems very log, and seems like the bigger your reactor the less thrust you get per MJ at lower powers. This also means fusion maintenance power is kinda critical, you don't want it be drawing it off your reactor since that last GW nets you a fair amount more thrust. PS top thrust with liquid fuel was 970KN. Also just tested a thermal launch nozzle on the same reactor: 2100KN of thrust at 2280ISP from methane (Vs the 2800 ISP of the plasma nozzle) 2500KN from liquidfuel+oxidiser at 1200ISP. Hell I can get 2300KN and 14000ISP from water with this reactor Thermal launch nozzle the same thrust/power curve too oddly. I wonder if maybe thats why its so crazy powerful with thermal receivers, since they have a 'max power' but that is not actually used? So it looks like the thermal launch nozzle is still very competitive with the (unupgraded) plasma nozzle. lower ISP and higher thrust but can use oxidiser and the oxy-fuels are an attractive mode.
  6. Minor Bug: the Stellarator fusion reactors description is cut off at "which is havier but" as there is a new line in the description in the config file. Also should be 'heavier'.
  7. Cool, the plasma nozzle increases in max thrust for a given amount of input power with size (by about 20% per size), and still uses 'thermal power' from an engine. This is much more how id like the thermal nozzles to act. More nozzle weight/size should make them more efficient or able to handle more power.. something that makes bigger=better till the weight and cost is too much. Im not entirely thrilled at the idea of having to match them with reactor size since 5m+ nozzles are insanely heavy/expensive. Sadly mated with 4.5GW Mk2 MFC spherical reactor only resulted in 400~600KN but at a blistering 2800ISP with methane, And more like 200~300KN if you didn't have enough other power sources for fusion maintenance. (Seems that output thrust is nonlinear with throttle?) Also, Instantly exploded at insane temp when accidentally used in atmosphere.. don't do that. Good to know something has an explosion failure mode though! I like the odd thing that just blows up when you do something really stupid. Hmm, very nonlinear. 1MJ = 60KN, 2MJ = 229KN, 3MJ = 500KN, 3.5MJ = 670KN with 5m nozzle and 5m MK2 MFC. Must.. get.. MORE POWER. Also seems like charged particle generators don't actually have to be directly attached to a powerplant to work properly. You can connect them to a thermal generator too. ie, you can have: Nozzle<-Reactor->ThermalGenerator->ChargedParticle Generator and they all work!
  8. Yea, but now the author can confirm it with a min parts vehicle. Just put a tiny tank of hydrogen on top of that (or a huge one to keep it from lifting off) and see what happens when you slowly raise the throttle with all 4 engine windows open. These are also all fresh engines with no fuel buildup/loss. Might be in addition to another bug your suffering from (unequal depleted fuel buildup)
  9. Uh, SUPER strange, I tried my test rig with some hydrogen above it and throttled the engines up. Each Solid Core Nuclear Engine throttles up one at a time..! Ie, 12% throttle with 4 reactors = 1 reactor at 50%, rest at 1.04% 50% throttle = 2 reactors at 100%, 2 at 1.04% 88% throttle = 3 reactors at 100% 1 at 50% Really not what I expected at all! Basically impossable to fly at anything but 0% or 100% throttle. Worse yet, they throttle up and down in sequence too when you change the throttle from 0% to 100% instantly.
  10. Ah true. Oddly enough changing the power priorities and even putting another molten salt reactor with a priority 1 electric generator on it does not stop the idle throttle usage for solid cores either.
  11. Hu, Bug confirmed, Multiple solid Core nuclear engines on a ship do not load share properly: Note 3 reactors at 1.04% and one at 1.19% Turning that 1.19% reactor off causes one other reactor to increase in output slightly. Seems to me they should either load share equally, or only 1 should be idling at all. Still, turning off all the generators in your solid core engines will fix it, because then they idle at 0% as expected.
  12. So if I have this right, Proton-Nitrogen-15 takes 145e-12kg per MW and Deuterium-lithium6 is as little as 1.8e-12kg per MW?
  13. Ah, So is total fuel consumption for a mode FuelPerMW / Power Rate?
  14. Yes. Most of them will shut off after the 1st one fulfills any 'need'. Turn all the generators off and they will go to inf life when idle.
  15. Very cool. I like how the reactors act differently and have different fuel modes. Gives them personality and distinct purpose, not just 'You unlocked B and will now be using B exclusively as A is obsolete' I even still put small molten salt reactors on many of my ships because a tiny one is light, will power everything I could ever want for 20 years on uranium burnup mode at 6% idle power, and will jumpstart fusion powerplants no problem. Ok but seriously try clicking 'disable generator' on all your nuclear engines. Just because you have other things running does not mean your nuclear engine does not see a reason to be active at all. Just checked and solid core has a 1 year 80 day lifespan with its internal generator active (1% idle power even with no real need for EC/MJ)