[Most 1.12.x] Near Future Technologies (August 26)

[OldMold]

Awesome! You rock Nertea! Thanks for so much fun over the years - your mods are definitely my "must haves" for all KSP games. Do you have any plans for the station parts pack? 

[smotheredrun]

Fantastic!  So far what you've posted looks great (and reads well)!!  Thank you!

[Nertea]

14 hours ago, OldMold said:

Awesome! You rock Nertea! Thanks for so much fun over the years - your mods are definitely my "must haves" for all KSP games. Do you have any plans for the station parts pack? 

I have plans but it's really low on the interest list. The plans are more or less outlined in the git new parts list. 

[PocketBrotector]

On 3/9/2017 at 2:01 PM, Nertea said:

I'm probably going to knock them down to the low 300s in the balancing update to be honest. 

 

On 3/30/2017 at 8:49 PM, Nertea said:

In addition, I'm looking at the balance of all of the parts, for example, Isp has gone down a bit on the orbital monoprop engines.

The old LFO orbital engines were replaced in part because they were too good at everything. If the Isp on the new monoprop engines drops, are we at risk of balance swing too far in the opposite direction - that is, they won't be good enough to compete in their intended role? 

My impression is that monopropellants are used for real-world orbital engines because the low-ish specific impulse is outweighed by other engineering advantages (e.g. hypergolic; storability) that aren't modeled in KSP. So if a Near Future Spacecraft engine has appreciably lower Isp than a stock Terrier or Poodle, the player might not have a compelling reason to use it. (Except, of course, because they look much cooler...)

Edited April 1, 2017 by PocketBrotector

[Wyzard]

1 hour ago, PocketBrotector said:

My impression is that monopropellants are used for real-world orbital engines because the low-ish specific impulse is outweighed by other engineering advantages (e.g. hypergolic; storability) that aren't modeled in KSP. So if a Near Future Spacecraft engine has appreciably lower Isp than a stock Terrier or Poodle, the player might not have a compelling reason to use it. (Except, of course, because they look much cooler...)

They still have the advantage that you're using the same fuel for main engines and RCS, so you're not wasting mass by bringing too much of one or the other.  It can be difficult to estimate how much monopropellant you'll need for things like docking — especially if you're doing it multiple times — so you typically want to bring some extra as a safety margin, and that extra ends up being "dead weight" if your main engines can't use it.

[Nertea]

Indeed, we're not talking a huge nerf here, just 10-20s I think.

[Ronin1114]

Hello everyone, who knows how to return  LV-T95, LV-T95x8, LVT18 engines  in  VAB/SPH for Near Future Spacecraft mod version 0.6.0 or higher???

I very love these engines :-)

[mikegarrison]

43 minutes ago, Ronin1114 said:

Hello everyone, who knows how to return  LV-T95, LV-T95x8, LVT18 engines  in  VAB/SPH for Near Future Spacecraft mod version 0.6.0 or higher???

I very love these engines :-)

Yes, I loved those engines too. Probably for the same reasons that Nertea thought they were over-powered.

I do wish KSP had a better structure for the advancement of technology. IRL, new technology actually is "overpowered" compared to old technology. (Nobody uses carburetors on their automobile engines anymore unless they are deliberately going for nostalgia.) But with KSP advancing "technology" tends to mean you can build bigger rockets, not necessarily better ones.

What is the purpose of the warp-shutdown feature?

[Streetwind]

2 hours ago, Ronin1114 said:

Hello everyone, who knows how to return  LV-T95, LV-T95x8, LVT18 engines  in  VAB/SPH for Near Future Spacecraft mod version 0.6.0 or higher???

I very love these engines :-)

Welcome to the forums   You can find the config files of the old engines still shipped with the mod. Change the TechRequired to an actual tech node, and change category to "engines", and you can use them again.

 

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

What is the purpose of the warp-shutdown feature?

Multiple people complained that it was too much work to manually drag the power setting slider to zero before entering timewarp, so now that feature automatically shuts down a reactor when entering high timewarp.

[Nertea]

This is a very important point.

The old LV-T95, LV-T95x8, LVT18 engines will be removed from the download in the next update.

They were only left present in the first place to not break ships... which I kinda screwed up because I made a mistake. That was a month or two ago now... There is already a patch in the Extras that lets you turn these back to LFO engines if that's what you want out of them. I will ensure said patch preserves the Isps ahead of the coming change.

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, Streetwind said:

Multiple people complained that it was too much work to manually drag the power setting slider to zero before entering timewarp, so now that feature automatically shuts down a reactor when entering high timewarp.

Hmm. Usually I only turn the reactors up for a thrust event, then I turn them back down to a minimal percentage. But I don't turn them off. Often they are the only source of electrical power on my ship. (And yes, unless playing with life support, you don't actually need electrical power. But at low power settings the fuel lasts forever, so I figure, "why not do at least a little role-playing?")

[Ronin1114]

2 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Welcome to the forums   You can find the config files of the old engines still shipped with the mod. Change the TechRequired to an actual tech node, and change category to "engines", and you can use them again.

 

Multiple people complained that it was too much work to manually drag the power setting slider to zero before entering timewarp, so now that feature automatically shuts down a reactor when entering high timewarp.

Many thanks for your answer, this helped me a lot!

[Starfire70]

<hasn't updated Kerbal Atomics in a while, updates it, turns up thrust on Liberator to full> Hey, I'm not getting any thrust. Let's see...oh, OH! This has an actual reactor now! Cool! Okay, turn on the reactor...thrust...alright...okay, that's it, thrust to zero...OMG I damaged the reactor!...note to self: reactor off FIRST, then zero thrust...my guess without reading the fine print is that the Hydrogen is drawing heat away from the reactor as exhaust and when you turn that off before shutting down the reactor, the reactor goes critical of course.

Love your mods, Nertea! :)

[JadeOfMaar]

Hey @Nertea @Streetwind. I've been thinking you two might like this. In Galileo's Planet Pack there's a land-able body with an immense abundance of Hydrogen gas, and a body with Methane lakes and atmosphere. Motivated by Eddie's desire to create a cryo-fueled empire I went and made a mining system for use with Cryo Engines and Kerbal Atomics. Not only will this surely make these engine packs even more fun but will make planets/moons like mine/Galileo's more useful and more appealing for dropping mining outposts at.

1 hour ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@eddiew Almost there with that Hydrogen/Methane to LH2 system. For some reason the M-2 device is producing "MethaneGas" which is invalid and unwanted.

I've added Hydrogen and Methane support to NFP's scanner and converter, and to the stock Precooler and Engine Nacelle parts (removing their LF tanks), and to the stock ISRU. I could have simplified it but you stated that you don't like your converter to be cheaty and portable, so I left the production chain long and reasonably challenging like this:

1. Gas form input (precooler and cryo separator);
2. Pressurized tank (behind intake parts). One is required each for Methane and Hydrogen in gas form. There's a smaller radial tank for this too;
3. Fission of Methane into Hydrogen gas and Compression of Hydrogen into LqdHydrogen (convert-o-tron);
4. LqdHydogen fuel (cryogenic tank in front of convert-o-tron)

The only thing for you to do once I give you this cfg is to scale the convert-o-tron's values to fit your size (5m). I will also share this in the NFT thread to see if Nertea would like this. 

Kerbal Atomics engines as well as Cryo Engines use LH2 so I think there's more win to be had.  

Oddly, the M-2 Cryogenic Separator produces invalid "MethaneGas" when it's supposed to make Methane. I'll figure it out if it's a typo on my side. Otherwise I think there's a hardcode thing going on.

Spoiler

//Add H2, H2-based gases to M-2 Cryogenic Gas Separator
@PART[cryoseperator-25]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleResourceHarvester
		HarvesterType = 2
		Efficiency = 0.95
		ResourceName = Hydrogen
		ConverterName = Hydrogen Seperator
		StartActionName = Activate Hydrogen Loop
		StopActionName = Shutdown Hydrogen Loop
		ToggleActionName = Toggle Hydrogen Loop
		INPUT_RESOURCE
		{
			ResourceName = ElectricCharge
			Ratio = 25
		}
		HarvestThreshold = 0.0
	}
	
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleResourceHarvester
		HarvesterType = 2
		Efficiency = 0.4
		ResourceName = MethaneGas
		ConverterName = Methane Seperator
		StartActionName = Activate Methane Loop
		StopActionName = Shutdown Methane Loop
		ToggleActionName = Toggle Methane Loop
		INPUT_RESOURCE
		{
			ResourceName = ElectricCharge
			Ratio = 25
		}
		HarvestThreshold = 0.0
	}
}

 

 

Edited April 2, 2017 by JadeOfMaar

[rasta013]

2 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

ResourceName = MethaneGas

Uhm...doesn't this define the output?  Seeing as there is no Output_Resource defined below it...?

Edited April 2, 2017 by rasta013

[JadeOfMaar]

2 minutes ago, rasta013 said:

Uhm...doesn't this define the output?  Seeing as there is no Output_Resource defined below it...?

That's the typo. Thanks for spotting it.  

[CosmicGoupil]

Hey very nice new models there ! Unfortunatly I met heat dissipation issues since last update. I can't cool my reactor enough whatever number of radiators I'm running. I'm using a FLAT reactor. Radiators woks fine in atmosphere but seams to be totally ineficient in space.

[toric5]

Nereta, will you be bringing back the clustered ion engines, or are they only included in the DL for backwards compatibility?

[Streetwind]

@toric5 They are deprecated and I would be surprised if they were even shipped in the coming release. I'm not even making stats for them this round...

[Technical Ben]

I'm getting the small Vasmirs working, but zero thrust from the larger ones... I'll try reinstalling my mods/NF propulsion + electric + fuels (this might be where I'm going wrong)?

But I'm confused as the small ones do work, so am I doing something wrong with the other particular parts?

(I'm able to cool my rads with active radiators, if that helps the above posters)

 

PS, just found out Argon is not working for me on the larger VASMIRs but Xeon is (if Mechjeb readout is anything to go by). So I'll use that as a self fix for now.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Technical Ben

[toric5]

53 minutes ago, Technical Ben said:

I'm getting the small Vasmirs working, but zero thrust from the larger ones... I'll try reinstalling my mods/NF propulsion + electric + fuels (this might be where I'm going wrong)?

But I'm confused as the small ones do work, so am I doing something wrong with the other particular parts?

(I'm able to cool my rads with active radiators, if that helps the above posters)

 

PS, just found out Argon is not working for me on the larger VASMIRs but Xeon is (if Mechjeb readout is anything to go by). So I'll use that as a self fix for now.

it was reported on github and has been fixed in the latest version. (was just a typo.)

[Technical Ben]

Ok, I did both (download it again, and swap to Xenon). So I'll try swapping back and forth (I forget which gas would be best for my mission/transport profile right now, but will have a look). Thanks!

[Nertea]

23 hours ago, Technical Ben said:

Ok, I did both (download it again, and swap to Xenon). So I'll try swapping back and forth (I forget which gas would be best for my mission/transport profile right now, but will have a look). Thanks!

https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/NearFuturePropulsion/issues/62

This is the current remaining problem. All the other ones work as far as I know.

[Technical Ben]

Thanks! I have manually changed that. I was assuming it was a typo somewhere but was too tired to compare between cfg files... and not clever enough to sit there and actually spellcheck/proof the files.

[PocketBrotector]

Would there be any interest in creating a fuel cell that runs on LqdHydrogen+Oxidizer? This could be a Near Future Electrical (or Spacecraft) feature that relies on CryoTanks, in the same way that the LH2 RCS is implemented in Near Future Propulsion. (Though I am not sure if it should run on the CryoEngines mass ratio of 4.7:1 or the real-world mass ratio of 7.94:1.)

In conjunction with the LH2/Ox RCS that I saw proposed on GitHub, and the existing LH2 Cutlass option from Mk4, this would bring LqdHydrogen into full feature parity with stock LiquidFuel. (Imagine the PR benefits of a space program with neither fossil fuels nor toxic monopropellant! Just ignore all of that enriched uranium we keep strapping to our rockets...)

Edited April 4, 2017 by PocketBrotector
mass ratio note