FreeThinker

[1.7.3/1.6.1/1.5.1/1.4.5/1.3.1] KSP Interstellar Extended 1.22.8 Continued Development Thread

Recommended Posts

Huh. I always envisioned an extremely small nozzle with the reaction occurring at the exit. Minimize the surface area you are exposing to the atomic firestorm, or something of the sort. The design proposal makes it look even less feasible to me. Either way, thank you.

Also, god bless the people on Atomic Rockets for looking at such a deranged design and trying to make it workable:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

It seems that using persistent thrust uses the time warp multiple of the fuel consumption  but does not accurately increase the thrust output during time warp. This results in KSPIE engines performing rather poorly during time-warp when they should perform the same.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6zr50jea0s37jrg/KSP.log?dl=0 KSP LOG

Is there any fix for this? I do use Better Time Warp, but removed it to test if it did anything, and there was no change to the problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KSPIE Version 1.20.12 is now available for  KSP 1.3.1, KSP 1.4.5 and KSP 1.5.1

Released on 2018-11-18

  • Added Electric Power requirement to Plasma Nozzle
  • Added Isp throttle to Plasma Nozzle when connected to charge particle capable reactor
  • Added Pure Fusion rocket mode to Discovery Magnetic Confinement Fusion Engine
  • Added ability of Thermal Nozzle to use both Plasma and Thermal Power
  • Balance: Increased overheating effect to Open Cycle Gas Core
  • Balance: Increased Maximum Isp Open Cycle Gas Core Reactor to 7000s
  • Balance: reduced Buoyancy threshold on Open Cycle Gas Core Reactor by 50%
  • Balance: reduced maximum Power Positron antimatter
  • Balance: reduced wasteheat produced by Plasma nozzle
  • Fixed throttle acceleration effects on reactors
  • Fixed lack of gee-force effect on reactor during timewarp
  • Fixed instabilities of gee-force effect on reactors
  • Fixed instabilities of overheating on reactors
12 hours ago, TheRag said:

Hello,

It seems that using persistent thrust uses the time warp multiple of the fuel consumption  but does not accurately increase the thrust output during time warp. This results in KSPIE engines performing rather poorly during time-warp when they should perform the same.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6zr50jea0s37jrg/KSP.log?dl=0 KSP LOG

Is there any fix for this? I do use Better Time Warp, but removed it to test if it did anything, and there was no change to the problem

2

not sure what is going wrong but Better Time Warp should not affect it, are you using any other mods that create persistent thrust?

also could you please specify exactly what engine(s) and propellant(s) you used?

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 9:03 AM, kmMango said:

Huh. I always envisioned an extremely small nozzle with the reaction occurring at the exit. Minimize the surface area you are exposing to the atomic firestorm, or something of the sort. The design proposal makes it look even less feasible to me. Either way, thank you.

Also, god bless the people on Atomic Rockets for looking at such a deranged design and trying to make it workable:D

Well if you use a similar tactic as used with the open cycle gas core where you apply open cycle cooling at every square inch of the surface area, you effectively create a wall of cooled propellant that prevent it from melting. Although this will lower the overall isp, because it allows the core to be much hotter, it will prevent the whole thing from overheating, while generating very high isp. Please keep me updated of any progress.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

not sure what is going wrong but Better Time Warp should not affect it, are you using any other mods that create persistent thrust?

also could you please specify exactly what engine(s) and propellant(s) you used? 


I've been using the nuclear engines with stock liquid fuel. I have Photon Sailor installed, but other than that I have no other part mods. The bug seems to travel across all released versions of KSPIE for 1.5.1.

It affects from the 0.625m nuclear engine to the Timber-wind. Kerbal Engineer says I have around 6KM of DV, but under time warp in drops to few hundred meters due to the rate of fuel being consumed.  I haven't tried the other engine types yet.

I will continue my testing and see what exactly is affected.

Edited by TheRag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@FreeThinker

I think I found the problem. It's with the stock Liquid Fuel. All other fuels behave correctly under time-warp and I get the appropriate DV.

I used Liquid Fuel across the engine spectrum and it all shared a similar problem to the nuclear engines. However, swapping the fuel out to Hydrogen, Argon, or anything else stops the bug from happening.

So I guess Persistent Thrust isn't reading something correctly from regular liquid-fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheRag

KSPIE Version 1.20.13 is now available for  KSP 1.3.1, KSP 1.4.5 and KSP 1.5.1

Released on 2018-11-19

  • Balance: decreased acceleration Open Cycle Gas Core Reactor
  • Balance: decreased minimum throttle Open Cycle Gas Core Reactor
  • Fixed ability of LANTR engine to use LFO fuel modes
  • Fixed fuel consumption stock resources in thermal engine during timewarp
Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few questions/observations

1. The thermal turbojet attached to a molten salt reactor produces no thrust when stationary at sea level. Is this intended?

2. Reactor power output scaling with size seems...generous. Should power of a fusion reactor be tripling with size?

3. Thermal turbojets cannot use methane, hydrogen, liquid fuel, or other standard propellants. Only things like water and CO2. Since the above-listed fuels are commonly used in real proposals for such designs, shouldn't they be usable?

4. Have you considered finding a way to add support for the Kerbalism mod? Potential for great synergy in mechanics IMO.

 

I asked my friend about modeling the Salt Water Rocket. He is currently pretty busy and likely to remain so until the holidays. He said it may be a bit outside of his skill range but he will give it a shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a suggestion idk if it's been asked before but how would you feel about this: 

some sort of unobtanium fuel that can only be used in sandbox and have it check all the right boxes: crazy high ISP, low mass, High thrust, de-sooting, removes wasteheat, usable in fusion reactor for stupid amounts of energy with barely any wasteheat  etc etc. all  the good things.  I'm thinking about how in Karbonite, the Karborundum fuel is supposed to be prohibitively expensive and also crazy powerful. this would be taking that concept to a whole different level.

as it stands, KSPIE is IMO the best way to do scifi in ksp but I feel as though with  this one simple change it could allow for a more fantasy, space opera-like experience should the player decide to go that route. 

implementation-wise, it could be accessible as a contents upgrade for the cryo-tank which is barred behind an infeasibly huge amount of science in the tech tree (maybe say, a million science points). it could also be funny and have the tank change textures to one that has "I'm a cheater" written on the side instead of its contents' chemical name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jumberlack On the condition, Karbonite is installed,  I guess we indeed I can add it both as a propellant and fusion fuel and it would work. The trick would be to get the balance right because currently propellant and fuel selection are based on real data, Karborundum is based on pure fantasy. So exactly how much power does Karborundum produce compared to D-T fusion (1x, 2x, 3, 4, etc), what percentage would be charged particles, and at what power density,  and how much increase in isp and thrust would it generate when used as a propellant compared to hydrogen? Perhaps we can derive the performance of  Karborundum  based on the engines /reactors in Karbonite (Plus), to make the performance at least consistent

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kmMango said:

Just a few questions/observations

1. The thermal turbojet attached to a molten salt reactor produces no thrust when stationary at sea level. Is this intended?

2. Reactor power output scaling with size seems...generous. Should power of a fusion reactor be tripling with size?

3. Thermal turbojets cannot use methane, hydrogen, liquid fuel, or other standard propellants. Only things like water and CO2. Since the above-listed fuels are commonly used in real proposals for such designs, shouldn't they be usable?

4. Have you considered finding a way to add support for the Kerbalism mod? Potential for great synergy in mechanics IMO.

2

1 As long as has an open air intake or a neural or oxidising propellant tank are available on the vessel, the thermal turbojet should work.

2 Almost all reactors in KSPIE mass grow with exponent 2.5 while power scales with exponent 3, meaning it becomes relatively more power dense the larger you scale up.  However, this is counterbalanced by the fact that radiators surface area grows with exponent 2 while mass grows with 2.5, making them less effective the bigger they grow. Effectively this means the bigger you grow the lighter the reactor becomes but the more radiators you need.

3 Real proposals for heat exchanges can only contain anti reducing or anti-oxidising properties, not both. I think you are confused with Hybrid air/ hydrogen combustion engines, which function completely different. In here you simply replace the oxygen-containing air with a stream of pure oxygen.

4 Yes I did but the Kerbalism developer didn't want to cooperate. Perhaps now he does.

 

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kmMango said:

I asked my friend about modeling the Salt Water Rocket. He is currently pretty busy and likely to remain so until the holidays. He said it may be a bit outside of his skill range but he will give it a shot.

OK, then I'm starting preparations to to implement the NSWR, I will use an existing model as a stand in until a more  suitable model comes available

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2018 at 5:25 AM, FreeThinker said:

@Jumberlack On the condition, Karbonite is installed,  I guess we indeed I can add it both as a propellant and fusion fuel and it would work. The trick would be to get the balance right because currently propellant and fuel selection are based on real data, Karborundum is based on pure fantasy. So exactly how much power does Karborundum produce compared to D-T fusion (1x, 2x, 3, 4, etc), what percentage would be charged particles, and at what power density,  and how much increase in isp and thrust would it generate when used as a propellant compared to hydrogen? Perhaps we can derive the performance of  Karborundum  based on the engines /reactors in Karbonite (Plus), to make the performance at least consistent

After the semester ends and I have some time to play around with my desktop (which can run my modded KSP instance), I'll think about the  performance specifics of using Karborundum in KSPIE.  I will indeed look at the performance of torch drives and do the math on how much more energy it provides to the propellant (I think It's water?) given the input EC.  It might also be a good idea to get a nod from @RoverDude, but I'm not an expert in the niceties and politics of modding cross compatibility. 

However, the main thing I wanted to hit on was that while it is an expensive resource, Karborundum itself is not prohibitively expensive for mid-game career players, nor is it (in my rough mental estimation)  power dense enough to provide the fantastic levels of performance I was envisioning when I wrote my earlier post.  That could be addressed by either changing up its ifs cargo tank density and reactor utilization rates,  but that would just land us with very heavy Karborundum tanks. What about some sort of concentrated or distilled version of the resource that isn't super bulky but its potency and cost are increased drastically?

On an entirely separate note, do you know if anyone has made or even started some sort of KSPIE simulation spreadsheet? I'm just hoping for a place to start at, but if need be, I'll make one from scratch.  A lot of the info on the front page of the support thread is outdated or incomplete and I want to be able to run the numbers on theoretical propulsion schemes without having to load up ksp and actually make the ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mod somehow break the stock Ion engines? Suddenly I see that these are no longer producing any thrust on small probes.
Also it seems that the ion engines now need "megajoules" to work. Obviously the tiny probe cannot produce any megajoules, so I am guessing
maybe this is the reason that the "Dawn" engines no longer function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I read the post a bit and discovered that the stock Ion engine gets overwritten by this mod.

The thing is, that this seems to pretty much turn the Ion Engine completely useless.
I have 60kW of power supply on a very small probe, basically just small reactor, control module, 1 tank of xenon gas and Dawn Engine.
It seems that the engine draws 520W of power, so not all that much.

At maximum thrust, I get 0.000022 kN of thrust ??! 
That is basically 1/50th of a Newton. I mean OK, maybe there are some upgrades that increase this etc... , but
it seems that I am doing something wrong. I mean even real-life ion thrusters get around 0.5 Newtons of thrust

Anyway when looking at the ion engine screen, I get a message : Max Thrust in Space : 0.002742Kn, so basically 2.7 Newtons, which is
not all that much but it would at least be noticeable... Does anybody know why the ion engine behaves like this? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Version 1.20.14 is now available for KSP 1.3.1, KSP 1.4.5 and KSP 1.5.1

Released on 2018-12-02

  • Added Nuclear Salt Water Rocket Engine
  • Added alternative model for Open Cycle Gas Core Engine
  • Added Nuclear Exhaust prevention to Nuclear Salt Water Engine and Open Cycle Gas Core Engine
  • Balance: reduced unlocking tech Open Cycle Gas Core Engine
  • Balance: reduced radiator surface bonus
  • Balance: reduced power consumption Plasma Engine when connected with Positron Antimatter Reactor
  • Balance: reduced power output of fusion reactors
  • Balance: increased isp for Magnetic Inertial Fusion (MIF) Engine
  • Fixed thrust instability caused gee-force and overheating on Open Cycle Gas Core Reactor
  • Fixed dynamic pressure resistance deployable radiators
  • Fixed Plasma Engine power shortage behavior
Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joonatanr said:

Ok, so I read the post a bit and discovered that the stock Ion engine gets overwritten by this mod.

The thing is, that this seems to pretty much turn the Ion Engine completely useless.
I have 60kW of power supply on a very small probe, basically just small reactor, control module, 1 tank of xenon gas and Dawn Engine.
It seems that the engine draws 520W of power, so not all that much.

At maximum thrust, I get 0.000022 kN of thrust ??! 
That is basically 1/50th of a Newton. I mean OK, maybe there are some upgrades that increase this etc... , but
it seems that I am doing something wrong. I mean even real-life ion thrusters get around 0.5 Newtons of thrust

Anyway when looking at the ion engine screen, I get a message : Max Thrust in Space : 0.002742Kn, so basically 2.7 Newtons, which is
not all that much but it would at least be noticeable... Does anybody know why the ion engine behaves like this?

The 2.7 Newton is the amount of power you would expect. The reason why you don't produce it is because there is insufficient power, or KSPIE think it is. So the question becomes, why doesn't it register the available power. Exactly what power sources do you have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my current probe I am using the  MX-0 'KerboPower' reactor from near future technologies. Maybe a compatibility issue there?
Anyway when I open the interstellar control panel, then I see that there should be plenty of power - somewhere around 60KW.

Total usage of power scales up when I increase thrust, so power utilisation is between 0-400W.
I will make a screenshot once I get home later and figure out how to upload this to the forum.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joonatanr said:

In my current probe I am using the  MX-0 'KerboPower' reactor from near future technologies. Maybe a compatibility issue there?
Anyway when I open the interstellar control panel, then I see that there should be plenty of power - somewhere around 60KW.

Total usage of power scales up when I increase thrust, so power utilisation is between 0-400W.
I will make a screenshot once I get home later and figure out how to upload this to the forum.
 

It indeed seems there is a compatibility issue here. KSPIE should detect the reactor but it clearly doesn't. I will have to fix that. In he meantime I would recommend using another reactor, preferably one of KSPIE, which are guaranteed to work.

@kmMango Notice that with the last release, I have added the NSWR engine using an existing model (which will be replaced once a better model comes available). the Nuclear Salt Water Rocket Engine is very powerful, has a T/W ratio of 20 but is balanced by the fact that it cannot be used in the Homeworld atmosphere, has expansive fuel, uses heavy storage tanks (IFS Nuclear fuel storage tanks) and you have to thrust perpendicular to the radial vector connecting the spacecraft in LEO to the homeworld centre. I'm thinking of increasing the minimum homeworld operation hight to High space. Please let me know what you think of it

 

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

It indeed seems there is a compatibility issue here. KSPIE should detect the reactor but it clearly doesn't. I will have to fix that. In he meantime I would recommend using another reactor, preferably one of KSPIE, which are guaranteed to work.

@kmMango Notice that with the last release, I have added the NSWR engine using an existing model (which will be replaced once a better model comes available). the Nuclear Salt Water Rocket Engine is very powerful, has a T/W ratio of 20 but is balanced by the fact that it cannot be used in the Homeworld atmosphere, has expansive fuel, uses heavy storage tanks (IFS Nuclear fuel storage tanks) and you have to thrust perpendicular to the radial vector connecting the spacecraft in LEO to the homeworld centre. I'm thinking of increasing the minimum homeworld operation hight to High space. Please let me know what you think of it

 

Hmm.. nope, same behaviour with KSPIE reactors... Tried a molten salt and thermal generator combination (obviously massive overkill, but just for testing).
Looks like ion engine still only draws 520W, a whopping 0,15% of the available power.

Posted some screens here of 2 situations, 1 in space with the original NEAR MX0 reactor and the other one on the ground with KSPIE reactors.

https://github.com/Joonatanr/Screenshots

I have only gotten started with KSPIE lately, so no idea how other electrical engines might behave.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, the salt water rocket is wonderful! I think the model fits the proposed design very well, and the replacement Gas Core engine looks better IMO.

 

Two minor critiques. It feels like the plasma jet reactor is rather useless because the moment it gets even slightly hot the MHD generator loses all efficiency and you wind up with less power output than a tokamak that ostensibly produces half as much power. Also, what is the advantage of the Wakefield Engine? It just seems like a really expensive MPD thruster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joonatanr said:

Hmm.. nope, same behaviour with KSPIE reactors... Tried a molten salt and thermal generator combination (obviously massive overkill, but just for testing).
Looks like ion engine still only draws 520W, a whopping 0,15% of the available power.

Posted some screens here of 2 situations, 1 in space with the original NEAR MX0 reactor and the other one on the ground with KSPIE reactors.

https://github.com/Joonatanr/Screenshots

I have only gotten started with KSPIE lately, so no idea how other electrical engines might behave.

 

 

Weird, with minimum tech itis supposed to look something like this

Gg2whYg.jpg

Could you try to replicate above image?

 

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kmMango said:

Two minor critiques. It feels like the plasma jet reactor is rather useless because the moment it gets even slightly hot the MHD generator loses all efficiency and you wind up with less power output than a tokamak that ostensibly produces half as much power. Also, what is the advantage of the Wakefield Engine? It just seems like a really expensive MPD thruster.

The plasma jet reactor is intended as the fusion version of nuclear open cycle gas core reactor, using its plasma nozzle as its main propulsion method, MHD power production is a bonus.

The Wakefield Engine is the most powerful pure electric engine and has a very high maximum isp (for an electric engine). This engine type is ideal when combined with beamed power or pure electric power reactors. The cost might indeed be too high

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. Also, upon further testing, I believe that the performance of the Wakefield engine justifies the price.

Oh, and while researching Nuclear Salt Water Rockets, I ran across this. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39844.0

Unlike most atomic rocket engines, however, this one suffers from not enough neutrons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kmMango said:

I see. Also, upon further testing, I believe that the performance of the Wakefield engine justifies the price.

Oh, and while researching Nuclear Salt Water Rockets, I ran across this. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39844.0

Unlike most atomic rocket engines, however, this one suffers from not enough neutrons.

Well lithium is one of the few things that we know has a large cross section to fast neutrons. I therefore give it a bonus when used in fusion engines, where the lithium can get hotter than the reactor.

KSPIE Magnetic Inertial Fusion engine actually is lithium exclusive engine, where lithium is used both to compress the fusion fuel and react with the neutrons to produce thrust.

see also

 

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.