Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'power'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
  • 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
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground 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 20 results

  1. So I'm using several mods in my game including MKS from USI, however I can't seem to be able to transfer enriched uranium between storage with docked vessels or even within the same vessel. I've seen a few posts about using 'maintenance' function to transfer it but I haven't been able to get this to work. I'm probably missing something really simple! Thanks!
  2. The quest for fusion power has been a long one. Sadly it seems that fusion is doomed to be decades away for quite some time. However, fission reactors are a well understood technology. Indeed, fission reactions are much easier to initiate than fusion reactions - fission requires interactions between heavy nuclei and neutrons whereas fusion requires light nuclei to overcome the electrostatic barrier between them. So fission is easier to initiate. However current conventional fission reactors - while efficient and better suited for baseload power than other low emission concepts - are quite expensive. They also produce waste and don't burn much of their fuel sources. Not to mention they require processed fuel that requires larger concentrations of U-235 than natural uranium. So I started thinking. What if we took Inertial Confinement Fusion drivers and used fission fuels instead? Assuming we also used a suitable neutron source, it's likely possible to use natural uranium or even natural thorium by employing fast neutrons. This could lead to more economical fuels than conventional fission reactors. It should be possible to get fairly large burnup rates for the fuel as well, so less waste could be produced per unit of energy than conventional nuclear reactors and less fuel would be required. Such reactors would also be safer than conventional nuclear reactors - meltdowns are completely impossible since a very small amount of fuel is reacting at any instant and the reactions only occur if the driver is operating. It could also be possible to have higher power densities than conventional reactors, so smaller facilities would be required and less shielding mass would be needed. Of course this depends on the size of the facility for the driver but the actual reactor itself could be much smaller. Such reactors could also be more thermodynamically efficient by combining conventional heat engine technology with MHD technology. And compared to fusion inertial confinement fission seems to be more achievable. So it could be more economical, safer, more efficient, lower waste production, and smaller than conventional reactors for a given power output. And compared to fusion such reactors could be possible much earlier. And it could lead to the development of more efficient drivers that could make inertial confinement fusion more practical. Or hybrid systems that use fission to initiate a fusion reaction could be possible. Now for some applications. The first one is obvious - baseload electricity. If such technology is more economical than current reactors it could be competitive with other energy sources as well. If developed as a small modular reactor it could be deployed quite rapidly. The second one may be less obvious but still important, though less likely: propulsion for cargo and container ships. Ocean shipping is responsible for quite a large percentage of pollutants and a decent percentage of GHG emissions, and those emissions are expected to grow substantially over time. And of course the one we're all probably more interested in: space propulsion. This can be done using nuclear pulse propulsion or nuclear electric propulsion. If the power density can be made high enough then nuclear-electric systems may be capable of interplanetary missions with reasonable mass ratios. And of course nuclear pulse propulsion could do the same. Such a system would probably be similar to Mini-Mag Orion but without the Z-Pinch system and without the need for other components that limit the performance of the Mini-Mag Orion system (such as the conductive elements needed for the Z-Pinch). So fast transfers to the outer planets would be possible with manned missions. I can't find much literature on this concept - mostly because the words "inertial confinement" are associated with fusion. But it could work with fission. And it seems that it could have some serious advantages over conventional nuclear reactors. Thoughts?
  3. Has anyone had the idea to to try and find a way to use these deployable panels as a method of providing power to bases on the the surface of say like duna. If there is a mod to do this please direct me to it. Maybe i am overthinking it and if not could someone try to do this i would absolutely get that mod. Or if lots of people want this i might make a poll. ----------------------->
  4. I have a launch window for Eeloo coming up in 39 in game days, so I'm preparing three relay satellites for launch to the frozen dwarf. These sats all have 36 Nuks and 7000 battery storage, but I still feel compelled to outfit them with 5 or 6 gigantor solar arrays. Satellite just don't look/feel right without them. Does anyone else include useless solar panels on extreme deep space craft?
  5. Typically, as the thrust produced depends on the propeller used and the airspeed, propeller engine performance IRL is measured in horsepower or kilowatts. As stock propellers require a constant amount of electricity to run, we can find their in-game power consumption in units per second easily—in fact, by just looking at the Resource bars. However, there are 2 potential ways to convert this into real units: A solar panel of a certain area pointed ideally at Kerbol from Kerbin will produce a certain amount of charge per second. An in-game power-per-unit-area figure can be calculated from that. Compare that with Earth's 1361 W/m3 ideal power-per-unit-area figure. This will of course depend on the efficiency of the solar panels used, but assumptions can be made. More reliably, the Realism Overhaul mod suite has a conversion factor from units of electric charge to Watts in case a part specifies its power consumption that way. So, it should be possible to measure the power output of stock propeller engine. It should also be possible, though difficult, to measure the mechanical efficiency of the engine by taking into account the rotary's* moment of inertia, angular acceleration, and cruise angular velocity. Has anyone ever thought of this before? Regardless, if you have made a stock propeller aircraft, please post the power output of the planes and engines you've made, as well as preferably their masses. Posting mechanical efficiency would be really awesome. *Most KSP stock props are technically rotary engines.
  6. Hi. I install KSP realism overhaul and game is fantastic with this mod.But i have very big problem.I install the mod Near Future Propulsion and i have problem with engine Vasimr.When i launch in orbit rocket and start engine have to low power.In Build place show me the same thinks.I try to modify engine from GameData/NearFuturePropulsion/Parts/Engines but nothing happen. Thanks
  7. Hi, this is my first post here, so please tell me kindly, if I should do anything in any other way. I would like to post a suggestion: prevent draining of probe's core (okto, hecs) battery by any other module. Situation: some other module is draining all the juice but I cannot switch it off, because okto/heces does not have enough power to do so. No power for core to disable what is disabling it. Dead core, even with solar panels and sun shine, that just happen to not provide enough charge for whatever is draining the power. Alternative: enable switching off anything even if the core does not have power (including hibernation). Alternative 2: Is there a mod capable of doing so? Thx. P.S.: I am a programmer and could possibly create such mod, but I am afraind that the rules do not permit this, because I am not allowed to use ILSpy to examine those DLL's in KSP_Data/KSP_x64_Data althogh they are clearly marked as DATA and should therefore not be considered SOFTWARE to apply the ridiculous EULA, but I saw a post about "Legal Boundary", which I do not want to cross.
  8. First off a software program as such to have multiple input capabilities to simulate events that may take place by all known physics and other natural calculations should be developed. With this in mind I am sure we can measure a close approximation of the Yellowstone Caldera, as to calculate an area of appropriate size to release pressure. With this information calculate a sizable underground hole to create. In this hole create a lining of some type to keep the lava there. Also a tunnel system would lead to the ocean with the same lining. This would have the intention of giving the lava a place to release a great deal of pressure and the flow to a point to reach the tunnel to slowly cool into the ocean. Also if deemed a worthwhile prevention in the event of failure and catastrophic explosion, maybe a tremdous dome of reinforced metal could be put over the area and greatly weighted down with huge metal structures that would be anchored in the ground quite a ways with concrete. Maybe something in this plan will have value to help construct a resolution. Thanks for reading
  9. I am wondering if there's a way to make solar panels deploy automatically (or retract automatically) when my current electric charge storage reaches a certain point. I've not found any mods that can do this nor any in game way but if someone can point me in the correct direction etc then i would be very much grateful.
  10. Hello I can't finish my Mission. It tells me: launch a new unmanned satellite that has an Antenna and can generate Power... I did this many many times before. but since I got some new version here, what happens?: The funny thing is that it was checked just before I had launched. and now I'm in Orbit and it's unchecked... This is the second time I'm bringing this sattelite up there. Apparently I don't know how to launch an unmanned satellite that can generate power anymore...I was actually done with this? what is going on
  11. Your mission, should you choose to accept it: Take an asteroid and put it on a collision course with Kerbin, then send up another space ship to redirect it. I'm kidding. All you have to do is just put a small, energy efficient satellite into orbit. RULES: You can use mods. You can use any way of transportation you want (SSTO, Rocket, HyperEdit, F12, etc.) You CANNOT be void of any source of power. It MUST have a power source of some kind. For extra humour, use the nuclear engines on your rocket. You're reducing energy but causing a slight fallout. For proof, you must take a picture/video. Not that typed confirmations are wrong, it's just that I'd like to know if you legitimately did it or not. Your satellite must be small. That's the only limit. Rocket size, plane size, orbit size, those don't matter. The satellite size does. Can't wait to see what y'all did! Most importantly, have fun! (...but if you do the asteroid one, let me know.)
  12. hey I'm pretty new to KSP but watched a lot of Scott Manley's uploads and managed to get a satellite into orbit. It has 5 solar panels and 4 batteries which was working fine as I transmitted science back home but after the first I think 1 or 2 transmissions it ran out of power and I figured "ok, the panels need a minute to recharge" but they aren't. Is there a certain place on the craft I need to place them or do they maybe require more time to recharge? (OX-STAT Photovoltaic Panels) thanks a lot for anyone who takes time to help me out:)
  13. Where can I look up the power demand of all antennas with the new ComNet feature? There is a power demand stat in the context menu of each antenna. But this seems to be the demand for transmitting science. (At least I hope's pretty high) But I search for the power demand for normal remote control communication withing the ComNet I create with my satellites. This should be a separate stat that's applied whenever an antenna is deployed/active, but without transmitting science. I need this to plan my battery capacity for the different satellites.
  14. Hi there, One thing I noticed when building larger stations is that solar panels, especially those found on space stations are hugely overpowered, generating way more power than is being consumed by the ship / space station / whatever. I suggest doing a general rebalance of the whole electrical system. IIRC real-life space solar panels produce power in the kilowatt range. The ISS needs those huge panels to keep all their systems, labs etc. working. KSP crewed and uncrewed parts should be assigned a general baseload electrical consumption according to their function, e.g. an MPL consumes more power than say a small probe core. But still a probe core should still require even for the base load a reasonable amount of solar or other power to keep working. Now for manouvers, for executing science experiments etc., a peak load comes into effect, which could be covered either by sufficient power production or ample supply of batteries. If I have a space station or a space ship with crew on board, power consumption should also be a function of the amount of crew on board. Like when no crew is present, the base load applies, the more crew you have, the more power is being consumed for heating, cooling, pumping supplies around, ventilation etc. I know that this system exists in general, for instance mining takes power or running certain experiements, but in the above mentioned base load scenario, space craft are IMHO way too "energy efficient"...
  15. I put down a robotic miner onto Pol. I hit one of the high areas show by the orbital survey scanner. I put down my drills, and they pull in a bit less than .002 (whatever units). A bit less than on Minmus but OK. But I'm so far out, I figured I would use fuel cells, since they seem to work OK as supplements to solar closer in. But Drills + ISRU conversion is a net loss. It takes more fuel to power them than they produce. Am I just screwed? What do people use for power in such a situation? Just accept that you will need a bunch of heavy nuclear units?
  16. Hello. So I've run into some issues with battery power during the latest build. I'll build a ship with a manned space pod, and I'll attach batteries to the fuel tanks to give it more power. But it seems that when it comes to prioritizing power usage, my ship prefers to draw power from the command module first, then the batteries themselves. When I separate my command pod from my fuel tanks preparing for reeentry, I find that I have no power left in my command modules. As a result, I cannot orient my ship so that the heat shield is pointing in the retrograde position, and my ship burns up in the atmosphere. Is this a bug, or am I doing somehting wrong?
  17. With a Jool transfer window coming up in a few days I've decided that it's time for me to send a mission to Jool. Actually six missions, one for Jool and one for each of its moons. Additionally, R&D has determined that it would be really great to get surface and ocean samples, so they've requested two Laythe landers as well. The ocean probe is pretty simple, but I've decided that I want a rover for the land. The problem I'm running into is that I don't have large solar panels unlocked yet, nor RTGs or fuel cells. So my question is, are solar panels feasible sources of power all the way out at Jool with the nerfed solar panel curve? Or should I hold off on the rover until I can find a better source of power?
  18. This isn't a typical "why did my ship run out of power?" question. I know why it ran out of power, but I'm wondering about recovery from this situation..... The problem is, I have, at times, on my craft greater consumption than I do production. Which is fine until it hits 0. My question is, when this happens why can't I turn off the power-consuming components to breathe new life into the craft? You can't do ANYTHING to the craft, really, which might make sense if there was no power production, but I'm a bit baffled at the inability to turn off consumption in the zero-power state. Is this a conscious design condition? Yes, I can stick extra batteries on there and halt their usage, then re-enable them if I run out, but this is problematic in this scenario because I'm using the standalone Alcubierre drive mod, and that draws 10,000 Ec/sec. My production is a little over 2,000 Ec/sec. I can also carry capacitors, but when in the zero-power state, I can't even discharge those. I don't think this is mod-related, as it seems to be a general feature of the game that nothing can happen in the zero-power state. Correct me if I'm off base here. Cheers, -BS
  19. Using Americium RTGs for a reusable Manned Lunar Lander- could it work? On the surface, this seems very reasonable- the lifetime of a Manned Lunar Lander could easily be extended far into the Lunar Night, beyond the 14 day maximum mission length a current lander would allow for (w/o something like fuel cells or large batteries to store electrical power- though extra supplies would obviously be necessary). It would also heat up the lander, reducing electrical usage, and makes batteries unnecessary (which would reduce the mass.) The increased mission duration also means that NASA could squeeze more science out without more SLS launches (which cost at least $500 Million apiece) including during the night (maybe some sort of Lunar night-specific experiments?) Amercium RTG use could also be extended to a lunar pressurized rover, increasing distance one can cover in a single mission dramatically-now limited only by consumables and CO2 scrubbers, not power) However, RTGs would require larger radiators and radiation shielding- also, Amercium RTGs (which have a lower power density, but use much more common material than Plutonium ones) will likely take another decade to develop (which ESA is doing), meaning the first lunar landers will have to use more conventional power sources. However, since Amercium 241 has a longer half-life (432 y), it will take much longer for the heat energy to decline, so long that the RTGs will likely never have to be replaced- it would be replaced with the aging lander itself. Though more common, Amercium RTGs still have a limit to how much you can make- limited by the production of the Amercium Feedstock (a limit I have no idea is :p) Additionally, Amercium RTGs would have a much lower power density of 2W/Kg, compared to Solar at 10W/kg. On the other hand, the increased capability of the lander and not having to carry O2 and H2 (if using fuel cells) may offset it. So, is an Amercium RTG-powered Manned Lunar Lander a Good Idea? Or should it go in the dump bin next to RTG-powered Space Stations? (Yes, those things were proposed in the 60s-70s.)