Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'fusion'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL





Found 11 results

  1. So I've been fiddling with this design for a while, mostly because @FreeThinker requested a new Bussard Fusion torch-drive for KSPI. Well, now Everyone gets a whole massive ship. lol It's very WIP. I've changed some details from the original concept blueprint for practicality sake. Primary changes include radiators at the front and back, a pair of docking ports, and a 'command tower' at the bottom. I haven't quite figured out the scale yet but, it's probably gonna easily be 900m. I'd like any input or opinions.
  2. Hello! I'm working with @FreeThinker of the Interstellar Extended mod to try and get his antimatter engine spacecrafts to be more accurate. Primarily, we want to make sure we have the correct exhaust ISP and reactor output for an antimatter reactor. We're looking at beam-core specifically, but while we are at it, looking ant anti-matter catalyzed fusion or being open to even more efficient alternatives would be great. Here is the mod forum link (you can find the mod itself on CKAN) Now, there are a few designs out there in existence which we can reference as-is. However, many of these have specific mission parameters in place at the get go. They also include a surplus of mass for use as shielding against gamma rays generated from the use of the antimatter. That goes way beyond what is necessary in Kerbal, modelling shielding from gamma rays would be a a lot of work. Also, depending on the configuration of the reactor, that shielding might already be in place. Different Physics than Tsiolkovsky The first and most important thing to realize is that the traditional rocket equation no longer holds. Some of your mass wet mass is literally annihilated and converted into energy. This means that you can reach substantially higher delta-V than simply calculated from your Isp. You can read more detail from this source, but here are the basic eqs. The problem for KSP is that once you take the derivative of this to model the fuel loss, you can't solve it symbolically for the total Isp. Ship Designs There are a few different designs out there, some in the VERY early stages of NASA Tech Readiness Level, others are far ahead in fiction alone. Here's a list from Orion's Arm which I summarize below as well, and add ACF. Antimatter Catalyzed Fusion Uses antimatter reaction to trigger D-D or D-T fusion ICAN-II: A study by Penn State Picture by my friend Seth Pulsed Explosions AIMStar Solid Core - (ISP = 1000 s) high energy conversion efficiency, but very high thrust and low ISP - little thermal decay Gas Core (ISP = 2000 s) Plasma Core (ISP = 10^5 s) Beam Core (ISP = 10^7 s) Project Valkerie Project Frisbee Gamma Ray Photon Rocket Right now the mod is focused on Beam Core, Gamma Ray photon rockets are well beyond the scope of any serious study right now. Here's two charts which show the propellent/dry mass and antimatter/dry mass ratios. Beam Core is the best, hands down. For every 1 mT of dry mass, to reach 33% light-speed, you'd only need roughly 2 mT of fuel, or 4 mT for acceleration and decelleration. For Anti-Matter, for 1000 kg dry mass reaching 33%, you'd roughly hit parity. You'd want an amount of antimatter nearly equal to your dry mass. Or twice that if you need to decelerate too. Or seen this way at just direct mass 10^6 g is 1 mT Antimatter Storage Density and Energy Requirements So first, we should look at mechanisms for storing antimatter - it needs to be tight. Generating antimatter is important as well, but the mods that @FreeThinker has does a great job at that. We actually do have antimatter stuck in the Van Allen Belt, and so does Jupiter. It can be harvested. And it's already used, it occurs naturally in lightnight strikes, and PET Scans used in hospitals are actually generating positrons from isotope decay to track gamma rays being generated inside your body. Insane right? Antimatter is NOT for energy production, it's for energy transport. It is the most efficient fuel known to physics. Antimatter can be stored in a number of ways, but here are the most prominent. Antimatter can be an anti-proton, a positron, or anti-hydrogen. Conceivably you could have heavier anti-particles, or exotic anti-particles, but those are for another time. Some of those particles though, pions, are created and destroyed during the annhilation process of larger particles. Positrons might end up being easier to store, but they have much less mass-energy than an anti-proton. Positrons are 0.5 MeV, Anti-Protons are 938 MeV. Ultimately, a LOT of your dry mass will end up being just the components necessary to house the stored anti-matter. Penning Traps - generally pretty large and energy demanding, but can hold large amounts of either anti-protons or positrons. These get a lot better with superconductors. These could potentially scale up into larger electromagnetic holding cells - but it's still pretty risky to keep it all in one place. Micro-Trap Arrays (source)- "Atom chips are now being proposed for trapping antiprotons, positrons and antihydrogen." - Source Intended for positrons at the moment, but microtrap arrays are also used in Quantum Computing and a lot of solid matter physics experiments. You can trap heavy ions in these things, it happens all the time, and these microarrays are far safer. If one fails, you might have an explosion, but not necessarily a chain reaction. A microtrap array would probably be much heavier than a large penning trap, but it could still remain relatively small since you can arrange the traps in 3 dimmensions. It's hard to get a good estimate on possibly storage limits, because most of the time these traps are used in QC where you are trying to have only one atom per trap, not several. But - if you include "cooling lasers" to the mix, it might be possible to scale things up pretty large. There are no listed numbers available for max storage capacity for Microtraps in a serious large scale use - however - "It was computationally shown that each microtrap with 50 µm radius stored positrons with a density (1.6 × 10^11 cm−3 ) even higher than that in conventional Penning-Malmberg traps (≈ 10^11 cm−3 ) while the confinement voltage was only 10 V" Source Since microtraps are basically tiny coils on a wafer, once can see how these could easily scale up. Taking the mass of a positron at 9.1e-31 kg, and the number of positrons at 10V, which is 10^8, you get 1.45e-20 kg/trap. Each trap takes up 50 micron radius, which gets you to a number of 1.47e-9 kg per square meter. So the surface area required to reach 1mT of antimatter is... 6.76e11 m^2 So that's still a lot, and mostly because positrons are so tiny, but you could fold a lot of surface area into a tiny volume if you wanted to. If you stacked all of those traps linearly, you would be 41,000 km long, but only 50 nm wide. Now... I think I did my math right, but I wouldn't mind being checked. You could possibly fold that 41,000 km into thin sheets that were 100m x 100m - assuming that EVERY microtrap has a spacing of 50 nm, I calculated that you could fit the entire aparatus into a box which is 100m x 100m x 164m, or roughly a box that is 117m^3 - again, that's for 1 mT of Antimatter Bump that up to 120m^3 for posterity, and you get a figure that says you have 5.7e-4 kg/m^3 of antimatter, or 0.57 g/m^3 Now, let's say that you bump up the potential from that 5-10 V to something more like 100 V, you now would have 12 KG/m^3, because storage scales logarthimically AND folded arrays scale cubic. You also could possibly shrink the trap size but retain a similar positron count. Realistically, you probably will want more space between the cells - but you'll run things at a somewhat higher voltage because otherwise you can't store enough. The "dry weight" here would probably be comparable to an average data center, but I'll have to calc that out when I have more time. Buckyball, CNT, Physical Binding- more coming soon. Neutral Molecular Binding - look up positron dynamics, this is a very promising technique too, definately a hell of lot easier to create en-masse than a 3D circuit of microtraps that is ~100m in diameter. Here is the chart @FreeThinker put together for his storage estimates on his antimatter tanks. - I will review tomorrow - but I think splitting tank types might be a good idea, since tech level will determine storage capacity. Diameter 0.625m 1.25 m 2.5 m 5.0 m 10 m 20 m Antimatter (mg) 1695 13192,25 105538 844304 6754432 54035456 432283648 Antimatter (kg) 0,013 0,1 0,84 6,75 54 432 Tank Mass (kg) 25 50 100 200 400 800 1600 Tank Mass (ton) 0,025 0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,8 1,6 Antimatter Beam Core Reactor Energy More to come on this soon - will try to derive from the charts above. Help appreciated. Magnetic Nozzle Exhaust Velocities I will expand on this soon. Basically though, it's variable based on what reactor you use, but enough sources out there claim an upper limit of about 10,000,000 ISP, while some only predict 100,000. ISP, Exhause Velocity and Delta V are again related, but not via the traditional ratios of the rocket equations. See above. ALRIGHT - this is my first draft - I'll update this first post with relevant information as we revise things. Also - I'll probably post another thread for the MagScoop Sail too - since that can handle the bulk of deceleration (interstellar 'wind' drag) andthus cut your fuel needs down by nearly half.
  3. UbuntuLinuxKing

    Kerman Drive Technologies [v1.3]

    Kerman Drive Technologies proudly presents... version 1.3 of the Kerman Drive Technologies mod! CHANGELOG -Basic Drives and Limited Drives have been removed. -Kerman Drives now have two modes, LowG and HighG. LowG has a maximum thrust of 5000kn, and HighG has a maximum thrust of 20000kn. ISP has also been increased to 500000 for both modes. README Kerman Drive Technologies v1.3 By Wheatley13/UbuntuLinuxKing Reactor models from KSP Interstellar, liscensed under the KSP Interstellar Liscense Drive models from the Space Opera mod, licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 Fuel Processor and Fuel Tank models + CFGS by Squad RCS jet models from KSP Interstellar as well Kerman Drive Technologies flag/logo made on the Epstein Drive Technologies logo from The Expanse This mod is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but to be honest I don't really care what you do so long as you give me credit PARTS INCLUDED Kerman Drives (All form factors, two modes) Fuel Processor (All form factors) Fusion Fuel Tank (All form factors) Kerman RCS Jets (Radial, high efficiency/thrust) Reactor (All form factors) ALL PARTS USE FUSION FUEL - TANK INCLUDED Kerman Drives are high thrust and VERY high efficiency. (Basically for flying in a straight line really, REALLY fast) Fusion Reactors make lots of power with a little bit of FusionFuel. The fuel processor creates FusionFuel from ore DOWNLOAD Click here
  4. Sorry if this is the wrong subforum. I'm trying to build a fusion-engine-powered ship with Interstellar tech, and I'm running into something that I think is weird, but maybe somebody has some tips? Or maybe it's supposed to work this way and I'm needing to design around it better. I have the ship in the screenshot below. The problem is when I throttle up the engine. The reactor and generators will gradually come up to the power level needed to run the engine at the selected speed, but this dips into my MJ reserves. Now that would be fine, except when the reactor/generators catch up, they only reach equilibrium, and don't actually produce any power to replenish my batteries. Same problem with the radiators, but in reverse - my WasteHeat will rise until the rads panels catch up and begin dissipating the heat, but they never work hard enough to bring my WasteHeat back down (which means my part temperatures go up, which means my generator efficiency drops, which means the MJ drain is bigger the next time I tap "Shift" to bring the throttle up a little bit more.) I was able to get this design up to maximum throttle by opening the throttle in very slow increments, but that's kind of annoying. How do I tell my generators and radiators to actually do their jobs (replenish my MJ reserves and cool the ship)? Or am I somehow using the wrong combination of parts? I have KAS, KIS, TweakUI (hence the giant radiators), Procedural parts, and a couple other mods installed. Is it possible one of them is conflicting with Interstellar somehow? Thanks in advance.
  5. UbuntuLinuxKing

    KSP Fusion Tech v1.1

    This is the 1.1 Release of my Fusion Tech mod, which now includes three types of fusion drives, reactors, a retractable 10m heat shield, a high-power RCS block, and balanced some numbers. --NOTICE: NEW VERSION WITH PRETTY MODELS N STUFF WILL PROBABLY LAUNCH BY THE WEEKEND-- Changelog: Reduced thrust of both 3.75m Drives to 50,000 KN. Reduced thrust of both 0.625m to 10,000 KN. Removed gimballing on all drives - ship will flail erratically at high throttle due to the game trying to compensate for thrusts it wasn't really designed for by gimballing the drive. Added Infinity Heat Shield. Added "Spike" Kerman Drive designed for landing. Added Kerman RCS Drive for high-power maneuvering (WARNING - NOT TESTED WITH DOCKING) Enjoy! PARTS INCLUDED 0.625m Kerman I-Drive (100,000 ISP, 10,000kn) 1.25m Kerman Drive (100,000 ISP, 25,000kn) 1.25 Spike Kerman Drive (Varied ISP, 2000kn) 2.50m Kerman Drive (100,000 ISP, 50,000kn) 3.75m Kerman Drive (100,000 ISP, 50,000kn) 0.625m Basic I-Drive (500 ISP, 10,000kn) 1.25m Basic Drive (1,000 ISP, 25,000kn) 2.50m Basic Drive (1,500 ISP, 50,000kn) 3.75m Basic Drive (1,500 ISP, 50,000kn) Fusion Reactors (0.625m, 1.25m, 2.5m) Reusable 10m Inflatable "Infinity Shield" Heat Shield High thrust & efficiency 4-way RCS block ALL PARTS USE REGULAR LIQUID FUEL - NO SPECIAL TANKS NEEDED Kerman Drives are high thrust and VERY high efficiency. (Basically for flying in a straight line really, REALLY fast) Basic Drives have the same thrust as there same-sized counterpart, but they are very inefficient. (Good for missions with lots of actual orbit maneuvers) Fusion Reactors make lots of power with a little bit of LiquidFuel. All rights reserved. DOWNLOAD
  6. UbuntuLinuxKing

    Fusion Tech Mod v1.0 [1.3]

    Hi, This is the 1.0 release of my KSP Fusion Tech mod! Parts included: Two types of fusion drive: Kerman Drive (High thrust, High ISP) Basic Drive (High thrust, Low ISP) Both use standard Liquid Fuel Fusion Reactors, they make power from Liquid Fuel. Simple. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THINGS TO NOTE: The models and CFG files were made by and are the property of SQUAD. I simply modified them, mainly because A) I can't model and B) I'm too lazy to make a config from scratch. DOWNLOAD HERE. ENJOY! This is a ship with 8 2.5m Kerman Drives after 2 minutes of burning immediately after being HyperEdited into a 100KM orbit.
  7. Hello everyone, my name is Brandon and I am a pathetic loser that can't make any of the reactor-powered nuclear engines work. Vista, Tokamak, VASMIR, Plasma, Warp Drive. I have the latest versions of KSP and KSPI-E. The problem I am having is that both the Pebble Bed and Dusty Plasma both show outputs of several MW not GW, and I can't get a fusion reactor to actually start even after experimenting for several hours. I won't even mention antimatter... Look, I fully expect to be torn a new one for my ineptitude. My experience with internet forums is not a good one. But with any luck there will be enough kind souls that will help me figure this out.
  8. I'm trying to put together my first fusion-powered ship, and I just can't get the darned thing to work. Does anyone have any tips on how to make these things work? Perhaps some sort of checklist or diagram?
  10. If a star somehow survived the iron fusion stage, than what would happen next? What stage would kill the star? Would anti-matter form in its core? What would a cutaway model look like? How much radiation would it emit? (you get the point, just whats the answer to ALL the questions that come with overcoming iron in a star be?) My theory about what the death of such a star be, would be when it fused so many atoms together, that the density of the atoms is that of a black hole, obveusly then eating itself.