Kommitz

[20/11/2014][0.25] FTmN Atomic Rockets

465 posts in this topic

New release! Main differences to the old parts:

  • Refreshed art assets; engines look more consistent with each other and no longer use normal maps. This was a choice made with regards to the constant memory limitations of the game and while good normal maps can look great in KSP, they're not essential to the appearance of most parts. I opted to keep things more flat & simple.
  • Textures are now saved as MBM to avoid PNG and TGA bugs.

  • Supports Community Tech Tree

  • Re-balanced stats. No longer modeled after the stock LV-N, I've bumped up the TWR of all engines while knocking the Isp down more modest ranges. Designed to be more in line with hydrocarbon based NTRs.
  • I decided against a single-propellant option due to the lack of configuration for stock tanks currently.

jj2fv0F.jpg

17Yq7GZ.png

Changelog

  • 20/11/2014: Re-balanced costs of all engines, re-balanced Isp of all engines, added support for Community Tech tree, added new engine BL-40-N

Upcoming Features:

  • Advanced engines pack
  • Optional Firespitter (mesh switcher) integration
  • Additional configurations for different propellants (Liquid Hydrogen etc.)

  • Further down the line (hopefully), modular engine addons

  • Final texture fix for old engines

Old Version (No longer updated.)

[Assets copyright of Kommitz, all rights reserved.]

Edited by Kommitz
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good models, though the idea of spherical solid core nuclear thermal rocket erks me. Do you mind if i use the models for making open cycle gas core ntrs that i think the models would be much better suited for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind if you edit the .cfgs for yourself.

I'd originally thought about doing gas core rockets but...they're a bit out of scope of the game at the moment. As far as I know you'd have something with huge Isp, good thrust and not much worse thrust to weight than typical solid core rocket?

Edited by Kommitz
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, a wider variety of nuclear engines! I've been waiting ages for this...nice work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very Nice! I love the Retro-Future look of the engines too! If only we had some cool spherical fuel tanks to go with them... :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy cheese, this is amazing. Also, on the spaceport overview picture, what does it mean by the FTmN 240's radioactivity being "probably dangerous"? Should I be concerned as a rocket building company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't use it in atmo. Don't aim exhaust at stations and other ships. Remember this, and you are good to go. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holy cheese, this is amazing. Also, on the spaceport overview picture, what does it mean by the FTmN 240's radioactivity being "probably dangerous"? Should I be concerned as a rocket building company?

Oh, no more concerned than you should be sending kerbals into space with no life support systems, water or food :wink:

Anyway, here's a single upload of an engine I started a while back which I am currently waiting for the Spaceport elves to process. It does exactly what it looks like it should do.

DoubleNERVA (click to view in 3D)

thumbnail_448.png?v=1367096049

Admittedly I could add more definition to the textures, but texturing with a mouse does my head in and I don't have many brushes installed in gimp to ease the process so eh.

Also learnt a lot about normal mapping and baking textures the past week or so so I might go and re-map the whole fatman set...eventually. They look good enough for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good! I love that you've got a neutron isolation shield between the two like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking good! I love that you've got a neutron isolation shield between the two like that.

Well it seemed to fit the black band thing nicely and looked good. I'd love to say it was for scientific accuracy, but...nah.

Very Nice! I love the Retro-Future look of the engines too! If only we had some cool spherical fuel tanks to go with them... :cool:

I'm working on things!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm working on things!" I love these engines and hesitate to also ask, but more retro-future stuff especially some round tanks to go with these engines would be wonderful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or anything else you come up with that would be good on deep-space ships. ;)

Edited by WhatsThisButtonDo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does these have decoupler shrouds? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does these have decoupler shrouds? :)

Yep, they're in the screenshot with the checker patterns in the first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like these much better than the stock/KSPX nukes, which makes me sad since, as you said, they're not actually supposed to be round, and the KSPX ones actually look like the stock nukes. Which made me try to think of an excuse to try to use these models for something else. Best I could come up with is giant, high-powered and efficient monopropellant engines. I'm not exactly sure how useful or realistic that would be, but... there it is. I THINK I might know how to do that much. It should be a fairly simple change, I think. I'll have to compare to some RCS thrusters to figure out how exactly to make the change. But not tonight. I am tired, and my tooth hurts. Anyway, thought I'd let you know what I'm planning on doing to your poor defenseless parts (For myself).

Edit: Gave it more thought and I'm not sure what I want to do. I want to do SOMETHING, so I don't have part overlap (and still get to keep your beautiful engines), but I dunno. MP engine would be... not that great. Maybe a LF/Electric engine as sort of a mid-way point between ion and nukes, and call it fusion? I dunno. Need to think about it some more.

Edited by loppnessmonsta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, it took me forever to realize that the checkered cylinders are actually fairings for the rocket engines. I thought they where fuel tanks.

Also, I love the round shape of the engine, even if they aren't scientifically accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Scientific accuracy... the ideal shape for a Nuclear Reactor vessel (the container that actually holds the reacting nuclear materials) is spherical, both for holding higher pressures, and even heat radiation for cooling. The NTR's the one in the game is modeled on, were built on the standard solid core reactor design favored by the US, and first developed for US Navy Submarines, that's why they were cylindrically shaped. Add to that, they were all designed the the 50'-70's, with practically no work done since then other than theoretical studies. If one were designed today, the odds are it's Reactor vessel at least, and fuel tanks would be spherical, for the reason I stated above. It's the best shape for any container that has to endure high pressures and temperatures for extended periods. Check out the wiki on NTR's it's pretty good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Thermal_Rocket

Ok, got the science bug out of my system now... :cool: I just think these are some cool looking parts. Plus the different sizes are useful. Can't wait to see what other stuff you come up with Kommit :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About Scientific accuracy... the ideal shape for a Nuclear Reactor vessel (the container that actually holds the reacting nuclear materials) is spherical, both for holding higher pressures, and even heat radiation for cooling. The NTR's the one in the game is modeled on, were built on the standard solid core reactor design favored by the US, and first developed for US Navy Submarines, that's why they were cylindrically shaped. Add to that, they were all designed the the 50'-70's, with practically no work done since then other than theoretical studies. If one were designed today, the odds are it's Reactor vessel at least, and fuel tanks would be spherical, for the reason I stated above.

That depends. Some NTR design have to be cylindrical by design. Pebble Bed rectors and liquid annular reactors have to be cylindrical because they incorporate one or more rotating drums.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id--Nuclear_Thermal--Solid_Core--Pebble_Bed

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id--Nuclear_Thermal--Liquid_Core--LARS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Nyrath you have me there... You probably know more space science than I do, I come from the military side of things. The point I was making is that there are only certain instances were the "shape" of the reactor is important, as in the Pebble bed Reactor you mentioned, and even then; the shape has more to do with the limitations of the technology involved rather than any aesthetic choices by the designers.

Even in cases where the Reactor itself has to be cylindrical, (or the Pebble Bed for instance) I still think that when looking at a real working engine from the outside, you'd only see the Spherical pressure vessel, which holds the Reactor (what ever shape it is) and it's attendant cooling systems, and exhaust nozzle. While the machinery inside the Sphere would differ depending on the Reactor type used, the outside appearance (which is all KSP models anyway) would still be spherical (or any shape really). Unless you want to mount your Reactor inside your spacecraft, which has it's own advantages and problems. Or am I completely wrong? (it could happen, I'm not perfect... yet :cool: )

Always love a good science discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good so far! Since K&W has gone silent :( I've been grateful for whatever slick-looking engine packs I can find, and this definitely counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in cases where the Reactor itself has to be cylindrical, (or the Pebble Bed for instance) I still think that when looking at a real working engine from the outside, you'd only see the Spherical pressure vessel, which holds the Reactor (what ever shape it is) and it's attendant cooling systems, and exhaust nozzle. While the machinery inside the Sphere would differ depending on the Reactor type used, the outside appearance (which is all KSP models anyway) would still be spherical (or any shape really).

This is what I was thinking when i designed the things (even my pseudo-scientific diagram shows as much) but really I doubt a sphere is the most efficient shape for the pressure vessels on these when a cylinder is proven to be adequate.

Also a small update, finally hacked spaceport to upload my double LV-N model (by uploading it as a private add-on then making it public).

Double NERVA

Oddly the URL suggests that the site was aware I'd tried uploading it twice already but it wasn't anywhere to be found before now.

(EDIT: Also I'm meaning to update my FATMAN rockets as I just realised the green channel must have been inverted on some of the normalmaps.)

Edited by Kommitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The double NERVA is cool. The only thing it's missing, I think, is the radiation warning symbol (unless I overlooked it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the stock-like look of the double NERVA. Great Job!:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are all incredible- I'm using KW in place of stock and the NERVA's fit the tanks very well. Beautiful job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may recomend a suggestion for your next brilliant engine design, how about the nuclear lightbulb engine? It is a clean nuclear engine, with 3000 ISP at sea level and around 4000 or so in vacuum.

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