Shrike99

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Shrike99

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. Changing the config file did indeed fix it, though the displayed electric charge requirements in the VAB are way too high. It works fine in practice though
  2. All three VASIMR type engines are exhibiting this behavior. Yes, this was all in orbit, not on the ground. The pulsed inductive engines are fine(Unsurprising given that they use different code, but just thought i'd mention it)
  3. I can confirm, it's doing the same for me. But even worse, it's specific impulse is also off by a factor of ten. An engine that should have a specific impulse of 8,500s and use 2000 electricharge with argon at max effciency instead has 85,000s and uses 200 electric charge. So it's 100 times better than it should be, approaching torchship levels of performance.| Like i built a ship with 564,071ms^-2 of delta v, and an initial acceleration of 8.5ms^-2 at max efficiency, or 232,265 ms^-2 and 27ms^-2 at minimum efficiency. A drop-tank ship with over 1 million meters per second of delta v and an acceleration of over 5m/s is easily possible.
  4. What in the name of the kraken does it take to keep the NUK-3 reactor cool? Is it even possible with stock radiators? I tried 8 of the largest stock radiators, and that only achieved about 81% thermal efficiency with a temperature of 1422K And shouldn't it be producing around 240 ec/second at this efficiency? Currently it is producing about 11 ec/second, which i can get from 14 RTG's, at about a third of the mass.
  5. What version of ksp and module manager are you using? I've tried fresh installs of both 1.2 and 1.2.1 with module manager 2.7.3, and it crashes whenever i click "jump back to separation" Same issue as a few others by the sounds of it.
  6. You cannot manually increase the reactor's power, you have to have something "demand" it. The simplest example for using TEG's would be the emdrive, since you don't need to worry about propellant. Or add a magneto plasma dynamic thruster and some hydrogen tanks. Try adding one of those, then testing it in space. It should accelerate, raising the AP very slowly. The reactor should also use a lot more than 6% power. If you don't have an engine actively demanding power, it should only be generating enough power to keep electriccharge full, which should be easily covered by the reactors idle power. To do a simpler test by the way, remove the TEG, and just stick a thermal nozzle straight onto the reactor. I do have some questions of my own however: How exactly do i use the "persistent rotation" mod to achieve timewarp propulsion with low thrust systems? Nothing on the mods thread suggests it can be used this way, and i can't find any other information about it. The other question is about the disparity between the thermal mechanics helper and what actually happens in practice. For a start, it lists 30% as the reactors idle power, as does the wiki, but the ingame reactor control window displays 6% Also, it seems to use radiator heat dispersion values for the fully upgraded parts, regardless of the actual current tech level. According to the helper, 12 mk2 double edge radiators can keep a pebble bed reactor at 2500k at 30% power. In practice, they are unable to keep a reactor running at 6% power producing 150MW cooled to 2500k. Should i just be ignoring it completely?
  7. I am loving the new interior view in 1.1, however i noticed while looking at the mk 1 inline cockpit that the only cutaway was the window, creating the appearance of the window showing the interior. It looks very cool, so i would like to propose that an option be added that only activates interior view through windows, and possibly adds a tint so that they don't seem perfectly see-through (for example the mk1 inline looks nice from the side and front, but not so much from the top) Opinions? Cupola module for example: http://imgur.com/QFwPoMn Oh and also we really need a stock mk2 nosecone, just saying.
  8. I for one would love a career mode option as suggested by WolfAngriff But i have to say this is fantastic as it is!
  9. Yes i know there are other threads on this, however they all seem to be dead. For the record, i had this issue back in 0.90, but it was mod-related, while this is a relatively clean install. The only mod i used was FMRS, but the plugin was deactivated for the entire session where the issue occurred, so i doubt it was the cause. The save was made only a few days ago, and nothing i can think of has changed that might have caused this. Basically what it says on the tin. I started 4(3 sets of 2, and 1 set of four) tourist contracts for visits to LKO, and launched several two-kerbal ships, however after landing them all, and heading to the tracking station to recover, i noticed that the contracts had disappeared. The contracts where definitely there when i started. I loaded the quick-save i made before de-orbiting any of the capsules, but the problem was still present. I looked at the save file using a text editor, and all of the contracts are still present, but do not appear in-game. This gives me some hope that i can salvage this situation. Any help would be greatly appreciated, as i sunk a lot of funds into these missions hoping for a big payout My persistent file, with ships still in orbit, and contracts that exist but do not appear: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jalgsyfdhimsf12/persistent.sfs?dl=0 Log file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fnnv5tkfjb1uvdl/KSP.log?dl=0
  10. Just like to add that SpaceX uses Pneumatic separation, rather than Pyrotechnics. This is a different, interesting approach, that is focused on re-usability, but more complicated and heavy iirc.
  11. Just found a potential bug, want to see if other can confirm. The Medusa still produces thrust when it has used up its magazine capacity. Possibly applies to the Orion too, haven't checked.