KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[Rushligh]

6 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Have you tried connecting it to a a thermal electric generator?

always.

also, using the antimater reactor (or whatever it's precise name is) achieves an UNUSUALLY high thrust, so high in fact, the TCA can't deal with it, even at 1.25m size.

it's strange because the previous 1.1.3 installment worked fine, and i haven't added any new mods since. i did notice you changed the name of the reactor though (it broke all of my ships) i guess ill just have to revert for now

[FreeThinker]

11 hours ago, WaYa said:

Radiators missing option to retract after extending (unless preset as a group) and the umbrella radiator causes the rocket to fall apart on the launchpad. (1.9.1 & 1.9.0)

How nice, a new curve ball. Somehow the stock radiator folling logic suddenly works differently. I noticed stock radiators models  don't have the problem. This is exactly the changes that I fear most: undocumented features that break mods

At least  in this instance we can partialy fix it by simply adding an undeploy button which does the same as the action group.

2 hours ago, Rushligh said:

always.

also, using the antimater reactor (or whatever it's precise name is) achieves an UNUSUALLY high thrust, so high in fact, the TCA can't deal with it, even at 1.25m size.

it's strange because the previous 1.1.3 installment worked fine, and i haven't added any new mods since. i did notice you changed the name of the reactor though (it broke all of my ships) i guess ill just have to revert for now

How does changing the Title of a part, break a save game? Perhaps you were using an template part (a part ment for tech tree only). You should be able to fix it, by opening your save game in an text editor and replace all occurances of the template part by a legal part

Edited June 29, 2016 by FreeThinker

[bartekkru99]

I've got an OMEGA fusion reactor with radiators and two generators hooked up to it: thermal and other for charged particles. Thermal one works just fine and produces megajoules, but the other one doesn't for some reason. Can anybody tell me what the problem is?

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, bartekkru99 said:

I've got an OMEGA fusion reactor with radiators and two generators hooked up to it: thermal and other for charged particles. Thermal one works just fine and produces megajoules, but the other one doesn't for some reason. Can anybody tell me what the problem is?

The OMEGA engine works by  Magnetized Target Fusion , which mean it a heat machine, it cannot use it's charge particles to power Direct Engergy Converters or Magnetic Nozzles. Use a Tokamak for This

Edited June 29, 2016 by FreeThinker

[bartekkru99]

3 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

The OMEGA engine works by  Magnetized Target Fusion , which mean it a heat machine, it cannot use it's charge particles to power Direct Engergy Converters or Magnetic Nozzles. Use a Tokamak for This

Wait, then why does it say that it has 0.2 charged particles ratio?

[FreeThinker]

12 hours ago, bartekkru99 said:

Wait, then why does it say that it has 0.2 charged particles ratio?

It means the fusion mode  produces 20% of its power by charged particles, but the reactor is only capable of absorbing the energy into heat. It is one of the limitations of this type of engine. On the plus side, this type of engine is a lot  more compact, and light weight and higher Q value than it Larger brother, that can divert charged particles to a directly energt converter  (Thanks to it very strong magnetic fields)

Edited June 30, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

Version 1.9.2 for Kerbal Space Program 1.1.3

Released on 2016-06-30

• Added Retract Button to some radiators that were unable to retract itself
• Added Universal Liquidficator (universal storage wegde)
• Added Universal Gasifier (universal storage wegde)
• Added Universal Pressurized Gas Tank (universal storage wegde)
• Fixed Universal Holding Tank ability to switch
• Reduced Mass Universal Pressurized Gas Tank to Carbon Fiber
• Fusion Reactors now use Hydrogen (gas) instead of LqdHydrogen as on resource

Edited June 30, 2016 by FreeThinker

[bartekkru99]

10 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

It means the fusion mode  produces 20% of its power by charged particles, but the reactor is only capable of absorbing the energy into heat. It is one of the limitations of this type of engine. On the plus side, this type of engine is a lot  more compact, and light weight and higher Q value than it Larger brother, that can divert charged particles to a directly energt converter  (Thanks to it very strong magnetic fields)

Ok, thanks then.

[raxo2222]

There is weird bug: nuclear reactor (molten salt on uranium burnup mode for extra long longevity) can't keep up with power demand of 1.25m omega fusion reactor, even if utilization is around 60%/70% (utilization increases, as radiators heat up).

This causes fusion reactor to flicker and engine loses thrust, as fusion reactor cant produce thermal energy steadily.

 

Also Current Lifetime still isn't fixed - it uses products instead of fuel to calculate current reactor lifetime.

Edited June 30, 2016 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

57 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

There is weird bug: nuclear reactor (molten salt on uranium burnup mode for extra long longevity) can't keep up with power demand of 1.25m omega fusion reactor, even if utilization is around 60%/70% (utilization increases, as radiators heat up).

 

Also Current Lifetime still isn't fixed - it uses products instead of fuel to calculate current reactor lifetime.

Possible the amount of power requires durring a frame exceeds the molten salt  power produced durring a frame.  I suggest you add a Super Capacitator, it will act as a MW buffer.

Edit: Oh, I see now that your Fusion Reactor is only used for propulsion. I would advice to run in Normal Uranium Mode, as this produces the highest amount of power.

Alternative simply add a few radial/skin radiators, it will help reduce wasteheat and therefore improve the efficiency of the molten salt reactor, allowing it to produce enough power

Edit: Btw, why is you lithium resource so low? For optimal performance and lifetime of the engine (an limited embittlemed), you need sufficient amount of lithium, in order to convert the neutrons into thermal power. Otherwise the neutron just fly out and start making everything radioactive.

This is actualy one aspect not always understood by players , neutron rich fusion requires lithium besides the the fusion fuel to operate well. Lithium is like oil is for car engines, without it, the engine will destroy itself

 

Edited June 30, 2016 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

Why Universal Holding Tank doesn't have Lithium/Lithium6 tanks?

[FreeThinker]

3 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Why Universal Holding Tank doesn't have Lithium/Lithium6 tanks?

Good point I will add it.

On 29-6-2016 at 9:40 AM, Rushligh said:

always.

also, using the antimater reactor (or whatever it's precise name is) achieves an UNUSUALLY high thrust, so high in fact, the TCA can't deal with it, even at 1.25m size.

it's strange because the previous 1.1.3 installment worked fine, and i haven't added any new mods since. i did notice you changed the name of the reactor though (it broke all of my ships) i guess ill just have to revert for now

mmm, possibly there is a mismatch between KSPI power output with NFE power requirment result in insane performance. I will take a look

[raxo2222]

Looks like D-T reactor can feed itself with T, if it has Lithium!

My fusion plane can fly for 119 days until D runs out. T lasts for over 2 years without refueling Lithium, while molten salt lasts for 6 years!

Well with D-T I could leave Molten Salt in Uranium Burnup mode, and its fuel would last for 26 years.

I added trough MFT D and T resources into precoolers, also added this 2x Lithium fuel tank.

Also can be Lithium can be renamed into Lithium7, so we could know what isotope is?

 

Edited June 30, 2016 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, raxo2222 said:

Looks like D-T reactor can feed itself with T, if it has Lithium!

Yes, it actualy produces slightly more. This has been in KSPI as long as I can remember. Without it, you would not be able to run D-T fusion very long. Notice Fusion can use the cheaper Lithium7 (depleted lithium) which catches Fast neutron. Also notice it will deplete when reloading a vessel while beeing away,

Edited June 30, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

49 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Well with D-T I could leave Molten Salt in Uranium Burnup mode, and its fuel would last for 26 years.

 

How did you get this number?

49 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Also can be Lithium can be renamed into Lithium7, so we could know what isotope is?

 

I considered this, but I decided aginst it  because other mods also use this resource. It would unnesisary create another resource. For KSPI Lithium simply means Lithium-7, just as LqdHelium means Helium-4

Edited June 30, 2016 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

48 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

How did you get this number?

 

Alternative Resource Panel mod have Time Remaining mode - it shows how much time is left until resource depletes.

It was for Molten Salt running on Uranium Burnup mode.

Molten Salt could have less than 100% utilization though.

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Yes, it actualy produces slightly more. This has been in KSPI as long as I can remember. Without it, you would not be able to run D-T fusion very long. Notice Fusion can use the cheaper Lithium8 (depleted lithium) which catches Fast neutron. Also notice it will deplete when reloading a vessel while beeing away,

Lithium8? I thought there is only Lithium(7) and Lithium6 as of Lithium isotopes.

[FreeThinker]

3 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Lithium8? I thought there is only Lithium(7) and Lithium6 as of Lithium isotopes.

I used the wrong number, I mend Lithium7

[hirschhornsalz]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

can use the cheaper Lithium8 (depleted lithium) which catches Fast neutron.

Lithium-8 has a half life of 838 ms. Surely it can not be stored, maybe only produced and used in situ.

[raxo2222]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Yes, it actualy produces slightly more. This has been in KSPI as long as I can remember. Without it, you would not be able to run D-T fusion very long. Notice Fusion can use the cheaper Lithium8 (depleted lithium) which catches Fast neutron. Also notice it will deplete when reloading a vessel while beeing away,

Hmmh I play only Sandbox, and I started toying with fusion reactors just recently.

1 minute ago, FreeThinker said:

I used the wrong number, I mend Lithium7

oh

[raxo2222]

It seems like big orange reactor doesn't care, if lithium is here.

Also when reactor is very embrittlened, its core reactor falls to very low (<400 kelvins) temperatures - even to 5 kelvins at max embrittlement.

 

Edit: There is OMEGA reactor, it doesn't care about presence of Lithium too.

 

I used Procedual Parts and MFT to create fusion fuel tank - it has 2000 units of every isotope of H,He,Li and boron & hexaborane.

Edited June 30, 2016 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

55 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

It seems like big orange reactor doesn't care, if lithium is here.

Also when reactor is very embrittlened, its core reactor falls to very low temperatures - even to 5 kelvins at max embrittlement.

 

 

No effect? Noticed the amount of thermal power produced? It's 0 !! That means 80% of all all fusion power poors out of the core, this should dramaticly speed up embrittlement

Edited June 30, 2016 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

3 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

No effect? Noticed the amount of thermal power produced? It's 0 !! That means 80% all all fusion power poors out of the core, this should dramaticly speed up embrittlement

LOL didn't noticed, that no thermal energy is produced.

Also it falls when I reduce amount of Lithium in reactor with hyper edit.

At least I know from where thermal energy is coming in fusion reactors

It seems like Lithium flows between reactor core and thermal generator/engine transferring heat before it gets hit with neutrons and turns into Helium3.

Edit:

What transfers thermal energy in AIM/Antimatter/QSR reactors?

 

Edit:2:

Shouldn't hot radiators roast everything, that gets too close to them, while being hot?

Edit 3: Why molten salt has lithium6, while lithium7 is used in fusion reactor for tritium creation?

Edited June 30, 2016 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

4 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

Edit 3: Why molten salt has lithium6, while lithium7 is used in fusion reactor for tritium creation?

It's because of the type of Neutrons generated by the nuclear reaction and the different cross sections of Lithium ions. Fusion creates high energy (read Fast) neutrons, which are better absorbed by Lithium7 than Lithium6. Nuclear Fission creates Slow neutrons, which are better absorbed by Lithium 6.

D-T fusion create neutrons of  14.029 MeV which is best absorbed by Li7

Edited June 30, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

4 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

Shouldn't hot radiators roast everything, that gets too close to them, while being hot?

Yes it would.

In reality, you will not want to put too radiators facing each-other as it would be inefficient

Unfortunately it is kind of hard to implement a accurate simulation. For now the players has to role-play their own realism.

 

A possible solution I'm considering to implement would be to apply some inefficiency when more than 2 mirror radiator part are added.

For example:

- a radially attached radiator with 2 mirrored radiators would lose 25% efficiency due to self heating.  making  3 radiators have be only as effective as 2.25 radiators

- a radially attached radiator with 3 mirrored radiators  would lose 33% efficiency due to self heating.  making  4 radiators have be only as effective as 2.66 radiators  

-  a radially attached radiator with 5 mirrored radiators  would lose 50% efficiency due to self heating. making  6 radiators have be only as effective as 3 radiators  

-  a radially attached radiator with 7 mirrored radiators  would lose 60% efficiency due to self heating. making  8 radiators have be only as effective as 3.2 radiators   

 

Edited June 30, 2016 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

@FreeThinker why core temperature is unrealistically low (like below 300 kelvins), when reactor has very high damage from neutrons (like 50% and higher)?

Minimum core temperature should be tied to radiator temperature.

Even if reactor is new, but has low core temperature (below 3700 kelvins - max radiator temperature, that is possible for them), like certain fission/fusion reactors, it should heat up slowly, when radiator temperature have higher temperature than core temperature - heat would flow backward in generator.

So normally heat flow (->) is:

Reactor (core temp) 2500 k -> thermal generator -> radiator (for example 1000 k)

But if radiator temperature is too high (for example radiator area is tiny, because we care about charged particles only), then it would be:

Reactor (core temp) 2500 k <- thermal generator <- radiator (for example 3600 k)

And it would cause reactor core temp to slowly rise, which would be good for thermal engines, but it would cause certain reactors to shut down.

 

Edited June 30, 2016 by raxo2222