Nertea

[1.3.0] Kerbal Atomics: fancy nuclear engines! (June 19)

633 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Welcome to the forums! 

Thanks!  While on the subject of exotic, high-powered, NTRs, if it hasn't been brought up before, check out "Pulsed Nuclear Thermal Rocket" - not to be confused with Orion nuclear pulse propulsion - on Wikipedia.  It's a concept for a TRIGA-like reactor that can run higher propellant temps (and therefore higher exhaust velocity and ISP) without vaporizing itself in the process because the neutrons heat propellant directly.  It's also radiator intensive; you essentially have to flash cool it in between pulses.  Highly amenable to trading ISP and thrust, so it would fit perfectly with KA and NFP.  Unfortunately, it's a REALLY new concept and it's hard to find much material that isn't behind a subscription wall.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, KSPrynk said:

Thanks!  While on the subject of exotic, high-powered, NTRs, if it hasn't been brought up before, check out "Pulsed Nuclear Thermal Rocket" - not to be confused with Orion nuclear pulse propulsion - on Wikipedia.  It's a concept for a TRIGA-like reactor that can run higher propellant temps (and therefore higher exhaust velocity and ISP) without vaporizing itself in the process because the neutrons heat propellant directly.  It's also radiator intensive; you essentially have to flash cool it in between pulses.  Highly amenable to trading ISP and thrust, so it would fit perfectly with KA and NFP.  Unfortunately, it's a REALLY new concept and it's hard to find much material that isn't behind a subscription wall.

Oh wow that is pretty recent.

At first glace, I feel it shares similarities with the Zubrin nuclear salt water rocket, and fission fragment rocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, iSquared said:

The 5m Cryotanks volumes seem to be off, comparing the CFG files of the 5m long, med to that of the 3.75m long, (mass, amount of LqdHydrogen, cost) are exactly the same. 

hope this helps, awesome mod, thanks for all your work.

Good catch.  I added an Issue in GitHub.

Edited by KSPrynk
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ruiluth said:

I've noticed a small oversight, which is that the new 0.625m engine has the same thrust (and other engine stats) as the 1.25m trimodal one, 67 kN I think. Not that it isn't fabulously useful! :D

Yeah... mistake there.

3 hours ago, iSquared said:

The 5m Cryotanks volumes seem to be off, comparing the CFG files of the 5m long, med to that of the 3.75m long, (mass, amount of LqdHydrogen, cost) are exactly the same. 

hope this helps, awesome mod, thanks for all your work.

Hmm. They also lack descriptions!

2 hours ago, KSPrynk said:

 

Unfortunately, the mass of the Neptune got transcribed as well.  The stats make the Eel an unrealistically tiny (but not light), more expensive, and slightly more powerful, co-generation capable LV-N.  I was really looking forward to the lightweight NTR for smaller, unmanned craft and NASA "Peewee/SNRE"-based NTR Mars/Duna missions and would still like to see an engine with the stats noted in the post on 18 April.  If there's a demand signal for a co-generation capable, non-trimodal LV-N (I'm actually all for it), I'd recommend a dedicated 1.25m engine part for that purpose.  I put in an Issue on GitHub earlier.

The stats posted earlier are close to correct. The mass is indeed in error. 

2 hours ago, KSPrynk said:

Thanks!  While on the subject of exotic, high-powered, NTRs, if it hasn't been brought up before, check out "Pulsed Nuclear Thermal Rocket" - not to be confused with Orion nuclear pulse propulsion - on Wikipedia.  It's a concept for a TRIGA-like reactor that can run higher propellant temps (and therefore higher exhaust velocity and ISP) without vaporizing itself in the process because the neutrons heat propellant directly.  It's also radiator intensive; you essentially have to flash cool it in between pulses.  Highly amenable to trading ISP and thrust, so it would fit perfectly with KA and NFP.  Unfortunately, it's a REALLY new concept and it's hard to find much material that isn't behind a subscription wall.

I'm familiar with it. Unfortunately, I think I'm done with new KA content for the foreseeable future. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Yeah... mistake there.

I'm familiar with it. Unfortunately, I think I'm done with new KA content for the foreseeable future. 

What was supposed to be the thrust?

With everything you've added so far, I think that'll hold us over for a long time :D So many designs floating around in my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little confused, I'm using the NTRsUseLF patch and not using the ElectricalNTRs to keep things a little more simple.  I've run into the issue that I don't seem to see how much cooling each engine needs in the part description at the VAB/SPH.  I want to use the new Aerospikes on an SSTO but they just sorta overheat and explode not to far into he flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat important update with a lot of key fixes.

Kerbal Atomics 0.4.1

  • Fixed localization error on Scylla part switcher
  • Fixed incorrect mass, cost, thrust, specific impulse of Eel
  • Fixed missing shroud texture of Eel
  • CryoTanks 0.4.1
    • Fixed volumes and descriptions of 5m hydrogen tanks
    • Normalized specular exponents and normal map depths on all tanks
    • Fixed a mesh duplication issue on 3.75m tanks
    • Reduced instances of distorted tanget normal map seams on all tanks, where I couldn't fix it I've covered the worst instances with 'intentional' seams
    • Restructured UV of 5m tanks to reduce tangent seam frequency
       
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm not quite sure what Nert was going for balance-wise with the aerospikes ... but absolutely ridiculously awesome seems to be the order of the day.

tBbbxbV.png

About 40% payload fraction is pretty insane. Insanely cool. Really only about 37-38% payload fraction though if you take advantage of the core stage RTLS (50% total launch cost recovery by saving the engine).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now