FreeThinker

[1.7.3/1.6.1/1.5.1/1.4.5/1.3.1] KSP Interstellar Extended 1.23.8 Continued Development Thread

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure I fully understand this. Could you explain it in a bit more detail? Then again, I'm tired and need a nap- so maybe that's also a factor...
The problem is the small stack ISRU Refininery weights 2 Ton, I want much lighter parts with lower performance. With Universal Storage you can create small modular parts which can implement the desired resource conversions. Of cource they will be less flexible and weaker, but they can specialise and reduce dead mass.

Btw, I did some experiments with the Thermal Thruster feeding directly from the Refinery output but production with 40MW for electrolysis is much to low. I want to create a refinery part specialised in electrolysis of Water/Ammonia. What would realisitcly be a upper limit for Electrolysis for a 1 Ton part?

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took a look at Ammonia as a NTR propulsion, and it seems we overlooked something. Ammonia has a base ISP multiplier of 0.3438 (based on molecular mass) but an effective ISP multiplier of 0.63. In order to reach that ISP, it's thermal decomposition would have have to increase thrust by a factor of 0.63/0.3438 = 1.832. This would make the effective Isp multiplier 0.63 but with a 83.2% higher Maximum engine thrust. The increased thrust at higher ISP willl improve Ammonia as a launch propellant, with excess propellent converted into Hydrogen and Nitrogen for electric/magnetic propulsion.

Probably something similar should be done for Methane and Carbon Dioxide

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I took a critical look at Ammonia as a NTR propulsion, and it seems we overlooked something. Ammonia has a base ISP multiplier of 0.3438 (based on molecular mass) but an effective ISP multiplier of 0.63. In order to reach that ISP, it's thermal decomposition would have have to increase thrust by a factor of 0.63/0.3438 = 1.832. This would make the effective Isp multiplier 0.63 but with a 83.2% higher Maximum engine thrust. The increased thrust at higher ISP willl improve Ammonia as a launch propellant, with excess propellent converted into Hydrogen and Nitrogen for electric/magnetic propulsion.

That seems about right.

Probably something similar should be done for Methane and Carbon Dioxide

Methane decays into graphite (which will clog up engines if you're not careful) and Hydrogen when it pyrolyzes. Same effective increase to thrust, but then you have to do something about the graphite build-up... (I guess if you managed to get it suspended in the exhaust stream you would actually have a slightly larger thrust-multiplier than Ammonia- as gas volume doubles AND you get these little dust particles of Methane suspended in it AND both exhaust components will start promptly burning with Kerbin's atmosphere as soon as they are exposed to atmosphere when leaving the rocket-nozzle, for a free afterburning-effect on Kerbin...)

CO2 doesn't decay into much of anything at the relevant temperatures. Breaking it down into graphite and Oxygen, or Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen, is going to require an electric current and catalysts (it doesn't become spontaneous at any reasonable temperature), and is a fairly power-hungry process....

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

I already implemented this. The depending on the availability of resources, it will either get the resources from the atmosphere or from local resources

O:o - I wasn't aware of that. :blush:

We've still got the other 7 ISRU reactions to think about, though! :)

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a possible error in the tweakscale config:

@TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS[FNModuleCryostat]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
@PowerOutput = 3.2
@upgradedPowerOutput = 3.2
}

Based on context it might be supposed to be modifying:

TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
{
name = InterstellarFissionMSRGCsmall
radius = 1
PowerOutput = 3.2
upgradedPowerOutput = 3.2
partMass = 2.5
}

and not:

TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
{
name = FNModuleCryostat
boilOffRate = 1
powerReqKW = 2
fullPowerReqKW = 2
boilOffAddition = 1
}

It looks like it doesn't actually matter (unless this interacts with some KSPI module or something).

- - - Updated - - -

While we're talking ISRU - would it be possible to implement a floating-window panel for the resource extraction, like there is for reactions and reactor info? The list of extraction options in the stock menu is long enough that I have difficulty maneuvering the bottom few onto my screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found a possible error in the tweakscale config:

@TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS[FNModuleCryostat]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
@PowerOutput = 3.2
@upgradedPowerOutput = 3.2
}

Based on context it might be supposed to be modifying:

TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
{
name = InterstellarFissionMSRGCsmall
radius = 1
PowerOutput = 3.2
upgradedPowerOutput = 3.2
partMass = 2.5
}

and not:

TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
{
name = FNModuleCryostat
boilOffRate = 1
powerReqKW = 2
fullPowerReqKW = 2
boilOffAddition = 1
}

It looks like it doesn't actually matter (unless this interacts with some KSPI module or something).

What do you mean by "based on the context".

The code you actually posted doesn't have any glaring faults I can spot, but it is important that it be applied in the correct place- as that is the code that either scales the power output of the Molten Salt or Gas Core Reactors (I can't tell from "MSRGC" which exactly it is- they used to be one part but now FreeThinker made MSR and GC two separate parts- and I don't know which he left with the original name- which could probably use some cleaning up to be either "MSR" or "GC" not "MSRGC" at this point...) or the power-consumption of the Cryostats- both of which are critically important parts in KSP-Interstellar Extended.

Looks like I'm going to have to go and load up the game and double-check that both parts are scaling correctly with TweakScale...

While we're talking ISRU - would it be possible to implement a floating-window panel for the resource extraction, like there is for reactions and reactor info? The list of extraction options in the stock menu is long enough that I have difficulty maneuvering the bottom few onto my screen.

That's a great idea- and one I was already toying with before! FreeThinker, we should probably add this to our to-do list while we're playing around with ISRU at the moment... (this is not something I would know how to code, unlike perhaps the ISRU reactions themselves- so it's definitely something you'll have to come up with a solution for...)

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uploaded Version 0.7.28 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90

Released on 2015-03-17

  • Fixed Maximum Trust modifier of 1.832 to Ammonia allowing
  • Added 2 Stack Fuel tanks for Ammonia
  • Removed resource storage Small inline ISRU Refinery and reduced mass by half
  • Set Liquid Nitrogen as default Nitrogen resources for ISRU Refinery

- - - Updated - - -

I found a possible error in the tweakscale config:

@TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS[FNModuleCryostat]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
@PowerOutput = 3.2
@upgradedPowerOutput = 3.2
}

Based on context it might be supposed to be modifying:

TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
{
name = InterstellarFissionMSRGCsmall
radius = 1
PowerOutput = 3.2
upgradedPowerOutput = 3.2
partMass = 2.5
}

and not:

TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
{
name = FNModuleCryostat
boilOffRate = 1
powerReqKW = 2
fullPowerReqKW = 2
boilOffAddition = 1
}

It looks like it doesn't actually matter (unless this interacts with some KSPI module or something).

It seems you are correct, it's dead code.

- - - Updated - - -

While we're talking ISRU - would it be possible to implement a floating-window panel for the resource extraction, like there is for reactions and reactor info? The list of extraction options in the stock menu is long enough that I have difficulty maneuvering the bottom few onto my screen.

I understand and I want to do something similar for other GUI, most importantly Engine propellant selection, which is currently very messy to switch during in flight.

- - - Updated - - -

WZbgjig.jpg

I experimented today with one of my favorite nuclear engine setup. Notice I lauched with Thermal Turbojet/Methane/Nitrogen and convert excess Methane to Hydrogen for use in my Magnetic Nozzle

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand and I want to do something similar for other GUI, most importantly Engine propellant selection, which is currently very messy to switch during in flight.

Another great idea! I heartily agree/approve of that idea, even if I don't really have to coding expertise to be of much help with it...

I experimented today with one of my favorite nuclear engine setup. Notice I lauched with Thermal Turbojet/Methane/Nitrogen and convert excess Methane to Hydrogen for use in my Magnetic Nozzle

You converted excess Methane- don't you mean Ammonia? Unless you already added one Methane Pyrolysis without announcing it there is currently no way to convert Methane into Hydrogen...

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You converted excess Methane- don't you mean Ammonia? Unless you already added one Methane Pyrolysis without announcing it there is currently no way to convert Methane into Hydrogen...
Yes, I mend Ammonia. But I also want to implement Methane Pyrolysis, what is actually needed to achieve this (in terms of power) and what is the fraction of Hydrogen in Methane?

Perhaps this will help

Hydrogen may be obtained from methane by pyrolysis in the temperature range 1000°−1200°C.

The main reaction products are hydrogen and carbon, though very small amounts of higher hydrocarbons, including aromatic hydrocarbons are formed. The con-

version efficiency is about 95% at 1200°C.

- - - Updated - - -

Methane decays into graphite (which will clog up engines if you're not careful) and Hydrogen when it pyrolyzes. Same effective increase to thrust, but then you have to do something about the graphite build-up... (I guess if you managed to get it suspended in the exhaust stream you would actually have a slightly larger thrust-multiplier than Ammonia- as gas volume doubles AND you get these little dust particles of Methane suspended in it AND both exhaust components will start promptly burning with Kerbin's atmosphere as soon as they are exposed to atmosphere when leaving the rocket-nozzle, for a free afterburning-effect on Kerbin...)

I wonder how we can implement this, any ideas?. My idea was to implement is like Actinides are implemented. Using Methane in a NTR would create Soot (Carbon), which would decrease the Maximum thrust of the engines. Perhaps when the reactor is cooled down a Kerbal Engeneer could remove the Soot for a large percentage ...

The folowing text game me an great idea

The solid carbon formed in the above reaction can be burned off with carbon dioxide at elevated temperatures (with an associated energy penalty) according to

C(s) + CO2 ⇒ 2CO ∆ H = 172.6 kJ/mole [2]

So this effectively means CO2 can be used as a cleaning agent to remove the Soot caused by Methane in our thermal thrusters and Methane Pyrolysis converters! I never realised the CO2 stuff was so usefull for atomic rocketry! Damn why are we wasting this stuff in our athmosphere while we could use it to clean our rocket engines? ;)

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on Methane atomic mass , the Methane base Isp modifier should be 0.3545. But we know it's effective Isp is 6318/8093 = 0.78 so that would mean we need a thrust multiplier of 2.2 to reach this Isp. This would mean methane almost gives as much thrust as Ammonia but at a significantly higher Isp. k_cool.gif

Fortunaly this is balanced by the fact that NTR engines propelled with Methane get's clogged with Soot and need to be cleaned with CO2 (or risk overheating). I predict this will be Jebs favorite Propellant, traveling at high speed while preventing the engines from blowing up, sounds like fun :D

Now it's a question of how fast do they get clogged and and how much CO2 is needed to clean them? :P

Besides Methane, I wonder what else you could put in a NTR to produce thrust. What would happen if used LiquidFuel, aka Kerosine? I guess it would be somewhat similar Methane, probably worse but still usefull I think. I'm asking because I want replace LiquidFuel by LqdHydrogen as the Default KSPI Hydrogen resource

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Implemented!

Version 0.7.29 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90 Released on 2015-03-18

  • increased Methane/Kathane IspMultiplier to 0.78 ThrustMultiplier to 2.2
  • increased Metalox IspMultiplier to 0.468 ThrustMultiplier to 4
  • added SootFactor 4 to Methane, Kathane and Metalox, which will slowly clog the Noozle with Soot, causing it to overheat
  • added SootFactor -4 to CO2 allowing it to remove the Soot buildup, removing overheating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how we can implement this, any ideas?. My idea was to implement is like Actinides are implemented. Using Methane in a NTR would create Soot (Carbon), which would decrease the Maximum thrust of the engines. Perhaps when the reactor is cooled down a Kerbal Engeneer could remove the Soot for a large percentage ...

Yeah, it would actually mainly clog the reactor's heat exchanger- which would lead to a loss of Thrust and eventually cause the reactor to overheat... Implementing it as overheating of the Thermal Rocket Nozzle would work too- just as long as something eventually goes BOOM if you run the NTR too long without cleaning...

Manual cleaning (by an Engineer) probably wouldn't be very safe due to the radioactivity, though...

So this effectively means CO2 can be used as a cleaning agent to remove the Soot caused by Methane in our thermal thrusters and Methane Pyrolysis converters! I never realised the CO2 stuff was so usefull for atomic rocketry! Damn why are we wasting this stuff in our athmosphere while we could use it to clean our rocket engines? ;)

Yeah it's very useful, and I actually already mentioned this before. Didn't you see where I talked about using heated atmospheric CO2 to clean the electrodes when you carry out Solid Oxide CO2 Electrolysis on Duna!? (reaction #3 on the list of ISRU reactions I posted before)

Keep in mind that if you're going to allow CO2 to be used to clear a reactor in an NTR exhaust stream, this isn't just limited to CO2 fuel-mode alone. Any exhaust-mixture that contains CO2 will have this same effect- which means that Meth/LOX propulsion will be nearly as effective at cleaning the reactor as CO2 on its own. Basically, by adding some Oxygen into the Methane-stream, you're able to remove or prevent the soot-buildup. It's perfectly reasonable to think a REAL Nuclear Thermal Rocket might actually just operate on an extremely fuel-rich Meth/LOX stream, that would basically achieve the following net reaction:

2 CH4 + 3 O2 --> 2 CO + 4 H2O

That is, it might be simpler to just partially-oxidize the carbon in the first place rather than having to constantly switch off between Methane alone and Oxygen-rich Meth/LOX... The lighter mixture of exhaust-gasses also gives you an ISP intermediate between normal Hydro/LOX and Met/LOX propulsion (but at the expense of Thrust) since the main driver of Thrust and ISP is the heat of the nuclear reactor rather than the supplementary combustion reaction...

Of course, there's an argument to be made for the efficiency of the latter process- because it allows you to use Methane alone where you need higher ISP (such as when making a Mars-transfer) and Meth/LOX where you need higher Thrust (such as when making your capture-burn, as Mars' atmosphere is too thin for a pure aerocapture...) Or you could maybe even just heat the reactor up early during the aerobraking-assisted capture and allow CO2 from the Martian upper atmosphere (where there probably wouldn't be much dust) to enter into the reactor and help clean it out before beginning your capture-burn... (which you would want to start at a periapsis inside the Martian atmosphere for maximum utilization of the Oberth Effect...)

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

Implemented!

Version 0.7.29 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90 Released on 2015-03-18

  • increased Methane/Kathane IspMultiplier to 0.78 ThrustMultiplier to 2.2
  • increased Metalox IspMultiplier to 0.468 ThrustMultiplier to 4
  • added SootFactor 4 to Methane, Kathane and Metalox, which will slowly clog the Noozle with Soot, causing it to overheat
  • added SootFactor -4 to CO2 allowing it to remove the Soot buildup, removing overheating

Needs a negative SootFactor (I would suggest -6) to Meth/LOX propulsion as well. The CO2 exhaust-component should be able to oxidize the Carbon the same as with CO2 along, and the H2O component should help to clear out the soot as well for the same reason hot steam is often used for industrial soot-removal in real life... Actually scratch that explanation- if the combustion reaction occurs in the exhaust-nozzle of the rocket (as this is how you do Hydro/LOX LOX-augmentation), then the OXYGEN in the propellant-stream should be able to oxidize the graphite soot-deposits quite effectively... (Heated Oxygen should be much more effective than CO2 as the reaction is exothermic, and does not even require heating to become spontaneous...)

I would make that a -6 or -7 to SootFactor for Meth/LOX propulsion, but consider adding a slight additional decrease to the Thrust-production (of maybe 5-10%) beyond what the soot clogging the reactor already does as C + CH4 + 2 O2 --> 2 CO + 2 H2O is actually going to yield less Thrust and energy per mole of methane or LOX than CH4 + 2 O2 --> CO2 + 2 H2O is going to...

This is due to the following Gibbs Free Energy of formation values:

Graphite: 0 kJ/mol

Dioxygen (O2) : 0 kJ/mol

Carbon Monoxide: -137.16 kJ/mol

Carbon Dioxide: -394.39 kJ/mol

Steam: -228.61 kJ/mol

Methane: 50.6 kJ/mol (note the sign-difference!)

This means that you are going to have the following Gibbs Free Energy for each reaction (which is the energy of Reactants - Products)

C + CH4 + 2 O2 --> 2 CO + 2 H2O

(0 + 50.6 + 0) - (2 * -137.16 + 2 * -228.61) = 782.14 kJ released per mole of Methane

CH4 + 2 O2 --> CO2 + 2 H2O

(50.6 + O) - (-394.39 + 2 * -228.61) = 902.21 kJ released per mole of Methane

So, your energy-production is going to be 13% less, and distributed over 4 moles of gas instead of three- making for a substantially colder exhaust-stream... However your exhaust-mass is actually a tiny bit higher, which is going to increase Thrust/MW a bit at the expense of ISP... So, a 5-10% decrease in Thrust (and a 10-15% decrease in ISP) when using Meth/LOX to clean out a Nuclear Thermal Rocket seems reasonable... That's actually a smaller percentage-penalty than should apply to using Carbon Dioxide alone to clean out a reactor, as the reaction CO2 + C --> 2 CO is actually endothermic- the math for which I will try to do at a later point...

Note that the Gibbs Free Energy of formation of H2 is, like Graphite, also zero, so Methane Pyrolysis (CH4 --> C + 2 H2) actually *RELEASES* 50.6 kJ of energy per mole (16.04 grams) of Methane consumed... This actually makes Methane Pyrolysis a substantial heat-source: you get 50.6 MW of ThermalPower if you consume 16.04 kg of Methane (37687 units at the density of 425.61 kg/m3 currently in the CRP 2.0 document) each second

I hope that also answers your question of how much energy it takes to pyrolyze Methane with a (already hot) nuclear reactor available- theoretically, none (as the reactor's standby-heat should provide enough heat to get the exothermic reaction started, and after that with enough insulation it's self-sustaining and actually capable of heating itself up to even higher temperatures...) In fact, the main issue becomes if you have enough radiator-mass to dissipate the extra WasteHeat that pyrolyzing Methane is going to generate, not if you have enough energy to carry out the reaction...

For the record, the Sabatier Reaction is also exothermic- and shouldn't require you to ramp up your nuclear reactor beyond standby-levels either (an issue I originally took up with Fractal_UK, but he didn't want to fix for balance-reasons...)

CO2 + 4 H2 --> CH4 + 2 H2O

(-394.39 + 0) - (50.6 + 2 * -228.61) = 12.23 kJ of energy RELEASED per mole of CO2 (or for every 4 moles of H2)

Note that the Sabatier Reaction is considerably less exothermic than Methane-Pyrolysis, and thus at practical levels of insulation is still going to require some external-heating to proceed- but MUCH less energy than Fractal_UK has currently coded the Sabatier Reaction to consume...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

First, I want to thank all involved for this great mod. It's one that I cannot enjoy Kerbal without.

My question is, has anyone encountered issues with Tweakscale? Particularly with the Computer Core part? With a default install, the computer core doesn't have any Tweakscale option. When I copy another part setting in the Warp Plugin tweakscale file, I am able to resize the piece. However, when switching to another vessel and back, it resizes itself to the default 3.75m. Moving the Tweakscale setting to the part cfg itself prevents it from resizing. However, it has a different new problem in which a 'gap' appears between it and the piece stacked above / under it which appears whenever I switch vessels or return go the VAB.

I'll continue checking cfg files, but am hoping someone has encountered this or has a fix. This is with Tweakscale v1.52 & Interstellar 0.7.21.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

First, I want to thank all involved for this great mod. It's one that I cannot enjoy Kerbal without.

My question is, has anyone encountered issues with Tweakscale? Particularly with the Computer Core part? With a default install, the computer core doesn't have any Tweakscale option. When I copy another part setting in the Warp Plugin tweakscale file, I am able to resize the piece. However, when switching to another vessel and back, it resizes itself to the default 3.75m. Moving the Tweakscale setting to the part cfg itself prevents it from resizing. However, it has a different new problem in which a 'gap' appears between it and the piece stacked above / under it which appears whenever I switch vessels or return go the VAB.

I'll continue checking cfg files, but am hoping someone has encountered this or has a fix. This is with Tweakscale v1.52 & Interstellar 0.7.21.

Current version of Interstellar is 0.7.26, and current version of Tweakscale is 1.50, so I don't see how you could be testing it with version 1.50.

Try with a stock install and making sure that everything is up to date :)

Regards,

DuoDex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Implemented!

Version 0.7.29 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90 Released on 2015-03-18

  • increased Methane/Kathane IspMultiplier to 0.78 ThrustMultiplier to 2.2
  • increased Metalox IspMultiplier to 0.468 ThrustMultiplier to 4
  • added SootFactor 4 to Methane, Kathane and Metalox, which will slowly clog the Noozle with Soot, causing it to overheat
  • added SootFactor -4 to CO2 allowing it to remove the Soot buildup, removing overheating

Is this SootFactor applied to all engines that use those resources? Or is it exclusive to KSPI's engines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Current version of Interstellar is 0.7.26, and current version of Tweakscale is 1.50, so I don't see how you could be testing it with version 1.50.

Try with a stock install and making sure that everything is up to date :)

Regards,

DuoDex

The newest version of pellinor's TweakScale is v1.52.1, and should work with this mod. Hopefully, an updated KSPI-Extended will help with technoDaleks problem. Also, it might still be a bad idea to use a tweak-scaled part as the "root" part when building in the VAB/SPH (can cause rescaling when reverting or switching vessels).

Edited by lurkoholic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this SootFactor applied to all engines that use those resources? Or is it exclusive to KSPI's engines?

Of cource only Kspi engines, which are the Thermal noozle and Thermal Turbojet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Needs a negative SootFactor (I would suggest -6) to Meth/LOX propulsion as well. The CO2 exhaust-component should be able to oxidize the Carbon the same as with CO2 along, and the H2O component should help to clear out the soot as well for the same reason hot steam is often used for industrial soot-removal in real life... Actually scratch that explanation- if the combustion reaction occurs in the exhaust-nozzle of the rocket (as this is how you do Hydro/LOX LOX-augmentation), then the OXYGEN in the propellant-stream should be able to oxidize the graphite soot-deposits quite effectively... (Heated Oxygen should be much more effective than CO2 as the reaction is exothermic, and does not even require heating to become spontaneous...)

I always assumed Oxigen was added like an afterburner in the last stage in the nozzle because mixing it with the main propellant would corrode the Heat exchanger, eventualy creating a leak allowing it to leak deadly radiation. :P

One problem with solid-core NTRs is that if the propellant is corrosive, that is, if it is oxidizing or reducing, heating it up to three thousand degrees is just going to make it more reactive. Without a protective coating, the propellant will start corroding away the interior of the reactor, which will make for some real excitement when it starts dissolving the radioactive fuel rods. What's worse, a protective coating against an oxidizing chemical is worthless against a reducing chemical, which will put a crimp in your wilderness refueling. And trying to protect against both is an engineering nightmare. Oxidizing propellants include oxygen, water, and carbon dioxide, while reducing propellants include hydrogen, ammonia, and methane. Carbon Monoxide is neither, as the carbon atom has a death-grip on the oxygen atom.

By default thermal noozle will have a reducing coating, which works well with hydrogen and ammonia. For each propellant we should determine the corrosive factor, positive if its oxidising, negative if it's reducing. Pure oxygen would be a very oxidising agent while hydrogen is a strong reducing agent.

Btw, for your understanding what the number sootFactor actualy means:

Overheating = Overheating + FixedDeltaTime * SootFactor

This effectively means that your throtle % will not effect soot buildup, only the time the engines is active (> 0%). This should motivate players too keep your burn times as short as possible. As shoot builds up clogging the heat eachanger , maximum thermal output will decrease and the Noozle will start to overheat, eventually forcing the playing to constanly throtle to down or the engine will blow up. Right now, there is no limit and it will eventualy make the engines completely useless.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it would actually mainly clog the reactor's heat exchanger- which would lead to a loss of Thrust and eventually cause the reactor to overheat... Implementing it as overheating of the Thermal Rocket Nozzle would work too- just as long as something eventually goes BOOM if you run the NTR too long without cleaning...
Note the loss of Maximum thrust is essentialy an engine inefficiency which will therefore translate into wasteheat, which will not only cripple your thrust but overheat the whole system. :P Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manual cleaning (by an Engineer) probably wouldn't be very safe due to the radioactivity, though...

Bob Kerman would definatly not want to do it, but if a kerbal engeneer is brace and stupid enough, I can allow them to sacrifice himself for the greater good:D

I think the same should apply when you want to start the engines and it isn't fully cooled down...you just have to bring along the kerbal with the "Right Stuff" for the job :rolleyes:

Although Stupid engeneers are uselees in the research lab, they could save your sorry ass when they is a problem with the nuclear engines. I guess you have to be brave and a bit stupid to be on a nuclear rocket anyway ;)

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always assumed Oxigen was added like an after burner in the last stage in the nozzle because mixing it with the main propellant would corrode the Heat exchanger, eventualy creating a leak allowing it to leak deadly radiation. :P

By default thermal noozle will have a reducing coating, which works well with hydrogen and ammonia. For each propellant we should determine the corrosive factor, positive if its oxidising, negative if it's reducing. Pure oxygen would be a very oxidising agent while hydrogen is a strong reducing agent.

You may have a point... I didn't think of that when I suggested using LOX to clear the soot-deposits... We wouldn't want to dissolve the fuel-rods and exhaust them out (potentially into Kerbin orbit or the atmosphere) now, would we? :D

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may have a point... I didn't think of that when I suggested using LOX to clear the soot-deposits... We wouldn't want to dissolve the fuel-rods and exhaust them out (potentially into Kerbin orbit or the atmosphere) now, would we? :D

Regards,

Northstar

Perhaps I could implement the effects of radioactive leaks. When your reactor starts leaking and you are are still in Kerben Atmosphere, you lose 1 Reputation for every miligram nuclear material lost. Losing an entire Nuclear reactor, would destroy your Reputation and automaticly activate as strategy which would lower your income from contracts and forbit construction of nuclear reactors. :P

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: When using the Community Tech Tree, do we need to select it using TechManager, or do we select the unofficial KSPI tech tree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps I could implement the effects of radioactive leaks. When your reactor starts leaking and you are are still in Kerben Atmosphere, you lose 1 Reputation for every miligram nuclear material lost. Losing an entire Nuclear reactor, would destroy your Reputation and automaticly activate as strategy which would lower your income from contracts and forbit construction of nuclear reactors. :P

That seems over-reactive, even for humans. Certainly for Kerbals!

The fact is, the atmosphere of a planet is so BIG that the loss of a single rocket's nuclear reactor in the upper atmosphere isn't going to make a significant difference to ordinary citizens' radiation-exposure levels... Much less than that of all the nuclear weapons surface-testing that occurred on Earth in real life to be sure.

I mean, come on, they were going to build Project Orion at one point, and that was basically just a pogo-stick that rode a series of nuclear detonations to orbit! (for VERY high ISP and immense payload-capacity I might add, far beyond even the Thermal Rockets in this mod...)

Anyways, keep an eye out for my next post (probably just an update when you see it)- I'm going to be re-posting a list of resources found in CRP that should be harvestable in KSP-Interstellar Extended, as well as where and their relative abundances, that I drew up for RoverDude because he was asking you for it (and given that it took me over 4 hours to do the research for this list, I *really* don't think you would have wanted to draw this up yourself, with all the code you're probably still dying to write up... Of course, this kind of thing, hitting the books and doing research, making hard decisions about how to represent something where it is ambiguous, is what I'm best at...)

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

The following CRP resources should be harvestable in KSP-Interstellar Extended. I have provided some abundance-data for reference, based on the Sol system- they should be useful for determining actual harvest-rates with ORS (which allows us to code in atmospheric abundances as fractions/percentages...), but I have no idea how useful they will actually be for ReoverDude if he decides to attempt to draw up extraction-code for some of these using Regolith like he seemed to want to do...

UF4 (In randomly-distributed Uranium deposits. At least I *think* the deposits are random. Some planets/moons have more Uranium than others, but Eve/Kerbin/Duna should all have similar ratios of Uranium and Thorium, like Venus/Earth/Mars.)

ThF4 (In randomly-distributed Thorium deposits. Thorium tends to be much more common overall than Uranium, at least in real life and KSP-I...)

Plutonium-238 (In randomly-distributed deposits. Should be considerably more rare than Uranium...)

Fluorine/LqdFluorine (Should be present at 0.004 ppm in atmosphere of Eve, like HF is on Venus. Rich in Eve's oceans, at least 5-10% abundance, because there are no oceans on Venus and we need more fluorine-sources... Will be used for ISRU production of UF4 and ThF4 in future releases of KSP-I Extended.)

NeonGas (Should be present at 0.1946% the abundance of Argon on Duna/Kerbin, like on Mars/Earth. So 18.18 ppm in the atmosphere on Kerbin/Earth, 40 ppm on Duna. There should also be trace levels of Neon in the Munar/Ike regolith due to solar wind. 7 ppm on Eve/Venus. Should not be found on Laythe if it is like Titan. Based on the composition of Jupiter's upper atmosphere, .10% of the atmosphere in the accessible layers of Jool...)

ArgonGas (2% of the atmosphere of Duna, 0.934% of the atmosphere of Kerbin. 0.00435% of the atmosphere of Laythe- assuming its atmosphere is like Titan's. 2.5% of the atmosphere of Jool, based on the composition of Jupiter. 70 ppm on Eve/Venus.)

KryptonGas (1.14 ppm on Kerbin, like on Earth according to multiple sources. Present on Mars at same relative abundance compared to other noble gasses- so 2.14 ppm on Duna due to relatively higher noble-gas content on Mars/Duna. Based on Jupiter's atmospheric-composition, 2.7% of the atmosphere on Jool)

LqdHelium (Represents Helium-4 rather than Helium-3. 5.24 ppm in the atmosphere of Kerbin/Earth according to multiple sources. 1.1 ppm on Duna, like on Mars. 12 ppm on Eve/Venus. 13.6% of the *accessible* layers on Jool/Jupiter, though abundance in the lower layers is much lower... Present at up to 28 ppm in the soil/regolith of the Mun wherever Helium-3 is found, at the same relative concentration to other Helium-4/Helium-3 co-deposits... Ike has no real-life analog, so place it at up to 45 ppm in Ike soil/regolith, once again in co-deposits at a constant ratio to the Helium-3 concentration...)

Helium-3 (Can be bred from Tritium, but can also be mined on the Mun/Moon- at 50 parts per billion content in the most concentrated patches of regolith, so a *VERY* slow rate of surface-mining... Similar for Ike, which is basically a lot like a copy of our Moon around Duna, and has no real-life analog- but let's make it 80 ppb to make it a bit more rewarding... Present in 1:10000 ratio to Helium-4 in atmosphere of Jupiter, so at 13.6 parts per *million* total concentration in Jool's atmosphere... Would be much richer still in Saturn and Neptune-analogs, if either are ever added to KSP...)

LqdHydrogen (0.55 ppm on Kerbin/Earth- but should be much higher at upper edge of atmosphere. 86.4% of the atmosphere on Jool/Jupiter. 2,000 ppm on Laythe/Titan.

LqdNitrogen (Nitrogen comprises 78.084% of the atmosphere on Kerbin/Earth. 1.9% on Duna/Mars. 3.5% on Eve/Venus. 77.4% on Laythe- to allow a fraction for Oxygen, which is obviously not present on Titan- which is 98.4% Nitrogen... 0.6% of the atmosphere on Jool/Jupiter after accounting for 3% in form of Ammonia...)

LqdCO2 (0.04% of the atmosphere of Kerbin/Earth. 95.9% on Duna/Mars. 96.5% on Eve/Venus. 0.1% on Laythe to give a Kerbin-like mix, but higher due to high coincidence of both Oxygen and Methane...)

LqdMethane (0.000179% of the atmosphere on Kerbin/Earth. 4.9% in Laythe/Titan lower atmosphere, but 1.4% in the upper atmosphere. .009% of the atmosphere on Jool/Jupiter.)

LqdAmmonia (Found as substantial ice-clouds on Jupiter as has too high a freezing-point to be present as a liquid or gas- but could simulate as 3% effective atmospheric abundance, comprising the vast majority of Jool/Jupiter's 3.6% Nitrogen elemental mass-fraction in the upper layers of its atmosphere. Richly present as Ammonia-ice and Ammonia-hydrates in soil of Titan, Ammonia-hydrates possibly comprising as much as 50% of entire planetary solid mass, with Ammonia comprising up to 8% of that mass, so should be richly present in oceans of Laythe at abundance of 5-8% by mass. Similarly, should be found as main component of oceans on Eve- as is most likely molecule to be found in liquid form at such high temperatures and pressures, so 70-80% total abundance in Eve's oceans.)

LqdOxygen (20.946% of atmosphere of Kerbin/Earth. 0.14% of atmosphere of Duna/Mars. 20% atmospheric composition on Laythe to reflect KSP facts, even though not present on Titan. Indirectly produced from Alumina in Mun/Ike regolith, but not directly extracted.)

Alumina (present in patches on Mun and Ike- where can be extracted and converted into Aluminum+LqdOxygen by a separate reaction...)

Lithium (can be extracted from oceans of Eve, Kerbin, and Laythe at low abundance of about 0.18 mg/L based on abundance in Earth's oceans. Should be present as mineable patches on Kerbin- like on Earth- where it can be used for in-field refueling. Present on Mars, but unknown if mineable deposits are present- so let's add a small number of mineable deposits at random locations on Duna... Useful in both bulk amounts that can be obtained through surface-mining for propulsion, and trace amounts easily obtained from seawater for breeding Tritium...)

Deuterium (Should be present at a 1 in 6400 ratio of the Hydrogen-mass of Kerbin's oceans- the equivalent of a 17.36 ppm concentration of a resource if it were found in isolation rather than as part of Heavy Water. I suggest a 18 ppm concentration in Laythe's oceans, and a 23 ppm concentration in Eve's oceans, to reflect high Ammonia-concentrations in these obviously-fictional oceans, and that Ammonia actually has a higher hydrogen-fraction than Water, and Deuterium can form NDH2 as well as HDO...)

I hope all this was of help. I told RoverDude you would probably approve of my list and suggested abundances, so it would be great if you made sure to swing by the CRP thread to leave a comment on it...

Also, feel free to point out any resources that I might have missed, additional locations that they might be extracted at, or corrections you feel are necessary to the resource-abundances (which were kind of a rush-job as due to the shear number of resources on the list I could not afford to spend long making sure each abundance was 100% accurate to real life- although I did my best to base my numbers on the real-world data as best I could understand it in a hurry...)

EDIT: Already realized one I forgot! Water! It should be present on Kerbin (obviously) in both the atmosphere and oceans (which can be assumed to be effectively 100% water), on Duna (in mineable deposits in the soil), in craters near the poles of the Mun and possibly Ike (which is more similar to the Moon/Mun than any real celestial body), as approximately 30% of the volume of Eve's oceans and 92% of the volume of Laythe's oceans (the rest being Ammonia for both Eve and Laythe), pretty much everywhere on the surface of Vall- which is an iceball moon, and near the poles of Moho (yes, you read that right- Moho! In real life Mercury has confirmed ice-deposits in permanently-shaded parts of its poles much like the Moon...) Finally, Minmus is assumed to be composed of some sort of water-ice mixed with salt or dirt in KSP-Interstellar: and in current versions of KSP-Interstellar the entire flats are assumed to be basically frozen lakebeds with low concentrations of Water that can be harvested from them...

EDIT #2: I also forgot completely about Eeloo and Dres when making this list- sad, sad little rocky planets... Or not so sad, actually! Eeloo, as a Pluto-analog, should be pretty much MADE out of ice. And not just water-ice either. Also nitrogen-ice and methane-ice, due to the EXTREMELY cold temperatures. Which means, there should be mineable surface-deposits of Water, LqdNitrogen, AND LqdMethane pretty much everywhere on Eeloo. As for Dres, it's a Ceres-analog, and we don't know much about Ceres yet, but we do know it's a rocky-iceball. That is, it contains more rock than ice, but it does contain substantial amounts of water-ice, which is of course another source of WATER!

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UF4 (In randomly-distributed Uranium deposits. At least I *think* the deposits are random. Some planets/moons have more Uranium than others, but Eve/Kerbin/Duna should all have similar ratios of Uranium and Thorium, like Venus/Earth/Mars.)

Uraninite is the harvested form of uranium in CRP, and as I recall UF4 was being swapped to EnrichedUranium for consistency with RF, USI, and NFT.

Also Plutonium 238 does not occur naturally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plutonium-238 (In randomly-distributed deposits. Should be considerably more rare than Uranium...)

From my understanding Plutonium-238 is an artificial resource which cannot be found in the wild, instead it should be able to create it from natural occurring Uranium deposits.

- - - Updated - - -

Uraninite is the harvested form of uranium in CRP, and as I recall UF4 was being swapped to EnrichedUranium for consistency with RF, USI, and NFT.

UraniumFloride is technically a processed form of Uranium. I therefore concur UF4 can be substituted by EnrichedUranium which has about the same mass and behavior (Non Flow). Uranium Nitrode on the other hand is something completely different. This an advanced nuclear fuel is transferable by pump and cannot cause meltdowns and cannot be reprocessed (it doesn't have to).

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.