Jump to content

KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread


FreeThinker

Recommended Posts

I have an issue that I can't seem to figure out and apologize ahead of time if this has been discussed. For some reason my engines keep randomly exploding. It has happened with both the thermal nozzle and the closed gas nuclear engine "lightbulb" thing. At the time of the explosions the engines were no where near overheating (something like maybe 700 or so). Each time it happens it's usually during docking maneuvers or some such that requires a lot of throttling up and down. Is it happening because I'm using Hydrazine fuel (being toxic and reactive or some such) or is this some crazy bug or and I'm just bad at KSP LOL? Please help and thanks ahead of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering if I could get some help. Sorry if this has been discussed before. My engines keep randomly exploding. It has happened both with the thermal nozzle and the closed gas core engine as well. Neither engine was anywhere near overheating. It always seems to happen when I'm doing a lot of throttling up and down for like docking or something. Would the fact that I'm using Hydrazine matter with it being volatile and whatnot? I simply can't wrap my head around this. Thanks for any help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless I'm missing something (and I looked twice) the nuclear turbojet is totally unavailable as a stand-alone engine part, which means it is now paired permanently with a fission reactor, and can't provide significant electrical power. Is there a reason for this? Reading through Atomic Rockets, it seems pumping atmosphere through a closed-cycle fusion reactor should be totally feasible, for instance a tokamak reactor. And if the reactor happens to produce charged particles, there's no reason this couldn't or shouldn't be used for power generation.

Totally unrelated, are there any plans for radial power generators?

Thank you for all you do. This is basically the reason I still play Kerbal :) You should consider putting up a Patreon, or if you're passing through DC give me a shout and I'll buy you beer and pizza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have that problem sometimes.. it used to be a lot worse, Freethinker fixed it for the majority of cases. Use the alt-f12 cheat to ignore max temp when you're in a situation like that.

Sorry for the double post up there. Didn't realize it worked the first time. So it is in fact a heat thing causing the explosions even though they are only reading between 300k-700k? If that is the case, how would I know that the "situation" is going to happen to know that I need to use that cheat? Or is that a cheat that applies globally to everything? (Never used any cheats or debug stuff before) Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just stumbled across a way to refurbish fusion reactors that have high Neutron Embrittlement while browsing the Atomic Rockets site.

It does NOT involve removing the reactor from the ship, but it probably involves shutting it down.

Here's the link to the specific section I found

Neutron Embrittlement isn't caused by the neutrons sticking around. That's Neutron Activation

Instead, it's caused by the neutrons knocking atoms out of place in the atomic lattice structure of the metal parts of the reactor.

In metallurgical terms, the neutrons are hardening the metals, and too much hardening makes things brittle.

The opposite process to hardening is annealing.

Annealing involves heating up metal to several hundred degrees under its melting temperature, holding the temperature there for a while, and then slowly cooling it.

This means that the solution to neutron embrittlement is annealing.

The link I posted states that it would be possible to do this without taking the reactor apart. It doesn't matter where the reactor's metal parts are, so long as they get hot enough for long enough, and cool down slowly enough.

I could see early fusion reactors requiring that the reactor is shut down, and it takes a couple of hours, during which the process draws roughly 10% of it's running maintenance power from another power source. Less power available would take longer, but it would still (eventually) work to restore the reactor to full operational output.

A possibly simpler to implement method to do this would be to have an option on Aneutronic fusion modes to consume ~5% of the maintenance power in order to anneal the reactor while it's running that fusion mode.

This would take a longer time than the first method (assuming same input power requirements), but it could be done while the reactor is powered up.

The reasoning behind this is that the control systems are only allowing one metal part to be annealed at a time.

This would give the "dirty" fusion reactions a more well-defined niche in the end-game of KSPI-Extended, IMO.

As it is, I find myself only ever using D-Li6 fusion, unless I need something that can provide thermal output, in which case I use Antimatter instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless I'm missing something (and I looked twice) the nuclear turbojet is totally unavailable as a stand-alone engine part, which means it is now paired permanently with a fission reactor, and can't provide significant electrical power. Is there a reason for this? Reading through Atomic Rockets, it seems pumping atmosphere through a closed-cycle fusion reactor should be totally feasible, for instance a tokamak reactor. And if the reactor happens to produce charged particles, there's no reason this couldn't or shouldn't be used for power generation.

In KSPI there are 2 ways to achieve thermal atmospheric propulsion; with the Direct Air Cycle Ramjet (Atomic Turbojet with build in reactor) or with the Indirect Air Cycle Ramjet (the stand alone Thermal Turbojet which can be attached to directly or indirectly with any standalone reactor). The Indirect Air Cycle Ramjet is available a bit latter as the Direct Air Cycle Ramjet which is a more "primitive" engine. Initially, the Direct Air Cycle Ramjet delivers superior power but after the development of Pebble Bed, Indirect Air Cycle Ramjet become better.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry for the double post up there. Didn't realize it worked the first time. So it is in fact a heat thing causing the explosions even though they are only reading between 300k-700k? If that is the case, how would I know that the "situation" is going to happen to know that I need to use that cheat? Or is that a cheat that applies globally to everything? (Never used any cheats or debug stuff before) Thanks.

Well, it might have nothing to do with the temperature but everything with the situation. You used the nuclear engine low throtle. At low throtle , heat production is at it's highest. There used top be a bug that could cause the engine to explode at very low throtle. I though I fixed it but it might have returned. or still not fully fixed.

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

will there be a replacement from waste heat to stock-like heat?

I wanted to play interstellar but I found it odd that there are two heating models since 1.0, so I played near future instead.

But eventually I want to try interstellar

Wasteheat and Stock system heat are complementary systems. Look at Wasteheat as a high tech, high power, high efficiency waste heat transportation mechanism. It allows you to transfer very high amount of wasteheat which the stock heat model simply cannot handle without blowing up. Ksp heat is more like a low tech, low efficency, low temperature waste heat transportation system heat. It's only suitable to simulate solar wasteheat, cooling wasteheat, low power wasteheat and reentry heat, not to transport the gigajoules of waste heat from powerfull nuclear, fusion and antimatter reactors!

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opposite process to hardening is annealing.

Annealing involves heating up metal to several hundred degrees under its melting temperature, holding the temperature there for a while, and then slowly cooling it.

This means that the solution to neutron embrittlement is annealing.

The link I posted states that it would be possible to do this without taking the reactor apart. It doesn't matter where the reactor's metal parts are, so long as they get hot enough for long enough, and cool down slowly enough.

I could see early fusion reactors requiring that the reactor is shut down, and it takes a couple of hours, during which the process draws roughly 10% of it's running maintenance power from another power source. Less power available would take longer, but it would still (eventually) work to restore the reactor to full operational output.

That sounds a bit too easy. Somehow I think you need to heat up the entire reactor to near overheating destruction. Only thing, I can think of is run at full power and disable enough waste heat capacity to make it overheat near critiical (with safety disabled) for a few minutes without blowing up. It will be quite tricky to achieve but possible.

I think we might partly use the stock system heating meganism as well, where the reactor internal heat will be synchronised with the external heat. This will make the reactor look physicly very hot.

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it might have nothing to do with the temperature but everything with the situation. You used the nuclear engine low throtle. At low throtle , heat production is at it's highest. There used top be a bug that could cause the engine to explode at very low throtle. I though I fixed it but it might have returned. or still not fully fixed.

I can confirm it was a heat thing even though it wasn't. I had the cheat enabled to ignore max temp and was setting up an orbit around the Mun. The engine (Closed Cycle Gas Core w/ Hydrazine) instantly went from 300k to like 3500k and would have exploded if i had not had that cheat enabled. It cooled down very very quickly and I could proceed with my maneuver. That is just crazy. Is this still a bug or is this by design and I need a better understanding of those types of engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my knowledge, I have not changed the cost of the molten salt reactor.

The biggest cost of molten salt reactor is not the reactor itself, but the uranium fuel. Look at the bright sight, it gives you some incentive to return the reactor to Kerbin for a refund or use it for multiple mission instead of ditching it into space after usage.

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest update seems to have broken behavior of the Nuclear Thermal Rocket and Hybrid Thermal Rocket when using Liquid Fuel/Oxidizer. Both generate very tiny thrust now when using that fuel mode. Soot accumulation still occurs, but fuel flow and thrust are very low. Running liquid Fuel alone works normally.

I'm also seeing very low efficiencies on the two generators. Even upgraded I see ~23% for the thermal generator and ~30% for the charged particle generator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In KSPI there are 2 ways to achieve thermal atmospheric propulsion; with the Direct Air Cycle Ramjet (Atomic Turbojet with build in reactor) or with the Indirect Air Cycle Ramjet (the stand alone Thermal Turbojet which can be attached to directly or indirectly with any standalone reactor). The Indirect Air Cycle Ramjet is available a bit latter as the Direct Air Cycle Ramjet which is a more "primitive" engine. Initially, the Direct Air Cycle Ramjet delivers superior power but after the development of Pebble Bed, Indirect Air Cycle Ramjet become better.

You're right, it's there... and also the donations button. Some days I can't find anything; consider both issues resolved. I really love the recent update. I've been diving in deep into Atomic Rockets for another project, and seeing you bring the math to life is brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, it's there... and also the donations button. Some days I can't find anything; consider both issues resolved. I really love the recent update. I've been diving in deep into Atomic Rockets for another project, and seeing you bring the math to life is brilliant.

Well in that case, your in for a treat, I have a lot of nuclear innovations planned :cool:

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi I have identified a few minor issues:

Firstly the nosecone tank is behaving weirdly. . . . it seems to get fixated on containing a particular resource and switches back to it even if you change it to something else.

It's even done it post launch when the tanks was actually full! I swapped water for some hydrogen!

The image below might shed some light, the right click for the nosecone tank looks different to the regular one beneath it, it seems to think it contains two things.

http://i.imgur.com/kuxhJZB.png

Secondly I lost the ISRU menu, tis blank! Ship contains multiple ISRU modules, issue applied to all of them.

No a big issue, it came back after I restarted the game (although switching scene might also have fixed it, didn't check) and I'm not sure what caused it. . . . this was a ship that was docking and undocking a lot to ships that also contained multiple ISRU modules (new MkIII refinery, taking the resources of the old ones before I de-orbit them) so it might be something to do with that?

As a side note the menus system doesn't seem to like multiple ISRU units, you can only have one units menu open at a time . . . . try and open more and they kind stack up but won't open until you close the current one.

http://i.imgur.com/78NFut7.png

Edit: Should note that I haven't applied the latest update yet.

Weird, today I tried to reproduce the problem but with me it seems to work as normally. Could you please create a step by step description on how to reproduce the problem with the ISRU Refinery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Version 1.5.3 for Kerbal Space Program 1.0.4

Released on 2015-09-19

  • Added NERVA engine which get unlocked early with Nuclear Propulsion and can upgrade to LATERN engine with improved Nuclear Propulsion
  • The available propellants now depend on the unlocked propulsion technology. LqdHydrogen is always available, Improved Nuclear propulsion unlocks Hydrolox and none performance propellants. Efficient nuclear propulsion unlockes the Performance propellants.*Ammonia, Hydrazine and Methane)
  • LFO fuels (like Hydrolox) can only be used with LATERN (upgraded NERVA) and Upgraded Thermal Nozzle
  • Proportionally doubled Mass and Power of Nuclear LightBulb
  • Fixed an overheating issue with thermal propulsion at low thrust level
  • Fixed Heat heatThrottling on PebbleBed reactor
  • Removed Thrust bonus Thermal Nozzle (was +25%)
  • Increased T/W ratio Pebble Bed to 30
  • Increased max Resisto Jet RCS Isp to 1000s

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Figured out the weirdness with the nosecone tank.

It's a config file error, the resource and IFS nodes are duplicated identically in the part config.

Here's the exact location of the bug:

In file WarpPlugin/Parts/FuelTank/InterstellarFuelTank/InterstellarFuelTank-NoseCone.cfg


RESOURCE
{
name = LqdHydrogen
amount = 12000
maxAmount = 12000
}

MODULE
{
name = InterstellarFuelSwitch
resourceGui = Liquid Hydrogen;Liquid Helium;Liquid Oxygen;Liquid Methane;Liquid Ammonia;Hydrazine;Liquid Nitrogen;Liquid CarbonDioxide;Liquid CarbonMonoxide;Water
resourceNames = LqdHydrogen;LqdHelium;LqdOxygen;LqdMethane;LqdAmmonia;Hydrazine;LqdNitrogen;LqdCO2;LqdCO;Water
resourceAmounts = 12000;12000;12000;12000;12000;12000;12000;12000;12000;12000
basePartMass = 0.1875
tankMass = 0;0.1875;1.3125;1.3125;1.3125;1.3125;1.3125;1.3125;1.3125;1.3125
volumeMultiplier = 1
massMultiplier = 1
displayCurrentTankCost = false
hasGUI = true
availableInFlight = true
availableInEditor = true
showInfo = true
}

//This is currently causing exceptions in the VAB
//MODULE
//{
// name = ModuleCrossFeed
//}

RESOURCE
{
name = LqdHydrogen
amount = 12000
maxAmount = 12000
}

MODULE
{
name = InterstellarFuelSwitch
resourceGui = Liquid Hydrogen;Liquid Helium;Liquid Oxygen;Liquid Methane;Liquid Ammonia;Hydrazine;Liquid Nitrogen;Liquid CarbonDioxide;Liquid CarbonMonoxide;Water
resourceNames = LqdHydrogen;LqdHelium;LqdOxygen;LqdMethane;LqdAmmonia;Hydrazine;LqdNitrogen;LqdCO2;LqdCO;Water
resourceAmounts = 12000;12000;12000;12000;12000;12000;12000;12000;12000;12000
basePartMass = 0.1875
tankMass = 0;0.1875;1.3125;1.3125;1.3125;1.3125;1.3125;1.3125;1.3125;1.3125
volumeMultiplier = 1
massMultiplier = 1
displayCurrentTankCost = false
hasGUI = true
availableInFlight = true
availableInEditor = true
showInfo = true
}

In the config file fragment shown, the RESOURCE and InterstellarFuelSwitch config nodes before "//This is currently causing exceptions in the VAB" are an exact duplicate of the section below that commented out module.

Already fixed on my end, just remove or comment out one of those sets of duplicated code.

Edited by SciMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks, I will include the fix in the next patch

- - - Updated - - -

Version 1.5.4 for Kerbal Space Program 1.0.4

Released on 2015-09-19

  • Fixed instability with Nuclear Turbojet in higher atmosphere causing engines to be ripped of
  • Fixed Duplicated IFS definition in nosecone tank causing weird behavior when switching tanks

- - - Updated - - -

Something broken with nuclear ramjet.

Every time when i tried launch aircraft with this thing i get this (black screen and space in KSC even after reloading saved game):

https://youtu.be/GHKaiPqghlk

v.5.2.3 and clear 1.0.4 with FAR and void

The bug appears to be present from the moment I introduced the Nuclear Turbojet. FAR somehow goes crazy when analyzing the engine


NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
FerramAerospaceResearch.FARGUI.FARFlightGUI.PhysicsCalcs.CalculateEngineAndIntakeBasedParameters (Double vesselSpeed)
FerramAerospaceResearch.FARGUI.FARFlightGUI.PhysicsCalcs.UpdatePhysicsParameters ()
FerramAerospaceResearch.FARGUI.FARFlightGUI.FlightGUI.FixedUpdate ()

Edit: The bug does no appear when I remove the build in air intake. Seems like FAR does not like it when an engine and intake are on the same part

Edited by FreeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...