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

@FreeThinker One other thing. With compatibility with NFE scaling the reactors down, it makes radiators super overpowered, due to the reactors barely producing any power anymore, without the radiators being scaled down. Also, I still haven't gotten my thermal nozzle to work off of the magnetized targeted reactor :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Destroyer said:

@FreeThinker One other thing. With compatibility with NFE scaling the reactors down, it makes radiators super overpowered, due to the reactors barely producing any power anymore, without the radiators being scaled down. Also, I still haven't gotten my thermal nozzle to work off of the magnetized targeted reactor :-/

@The Destroyeryou don't need to connect the reactor to the nozzle, I think it is assumed they pipe the fuel throughout the ship where it's needed, and most fusion reactors need a power generator to mantain fusion plasma, so either rectena receivers or a thermal/charged particle generator on the reactor, you can even have both and still run a thermal nozzle off a reactor.

here's an example:

 http://imgur.com/6aXp3AA [/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so... @FreeThinker I should have noticed this earlier but... having my intakes open or closed makes no difference for any of the air-breathing engines like the thermal ramjet nozzle.  The intakes have to be *present*, but their open/closed state makes no difference.  Is that something unfortunate and  unavoidable?  or is that a bug that can be fixed?

Share this post


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

@The Destroyeryou don't need to connect the reactor to the nozzle, I think it is assumed they pipe the fuel throughout the ship where it's needed, and most fusion reactors need a power generator to mantain fusion plasma, so either rectena receivers or a thermal/charged particle generator on the reactor, you can even have both and still run a thermal nozzle off a reactor.

here's an example:

 http://imgur.com/6aXp3AA [/img]

I do have a super capacitor to power the fusion reactor, and my design works in sandbox, but not career :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Destroyer said:

I do have a super capacitor to power the fusion reactor, and my design works in sandbox, but not career :-/

The capacitor can start the reaction, but it needs electricity(MJ) to maintain the fusion reaction. the design in your screenshot doesn't have any way to create electricity, so after the power runs out the reactor stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Destroyer said:

@FreeThinker One other thing. With compatibility with NFE scaling the reactors down, it makes radiators super overpowered, due to the reactors barely producing any power anymore, without the radiators being scaled down. Also, I still haven't gotten my thermal nozzle to work off of the magnetized targeted reactor :-/

It appears you right. It used to have a multiplier NF modifier which appears to be no longer valid. I will have it fixed next version. It might upset some people ...

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


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

Yes, most of the time you'll have not so much issues. For the gravity, the size of the ring matters. Higher speed, bigger ring, bigger interferences. 

An highly inclined orbit will be enough.

For fun, I did some rough calculations:

from my understanding, electro magnetic power requirement grows with with  4th power

given the LHC requires 200 MW to generate 8Tesla , 208 GW (equivalent to 4 low orbit Solar power stations) would generate 256 Tesla

Given a highly inclined elliptic orbit with the Apoapsis of Pluto, the diameter would be 40 AU

Then the particle accelerator strength is  0.3 * 6000 x 10^9 * 256 = 4.6 x 10^14 GeV which when converted into mass generates

which is still not enough to reach Planck energy at 1.221 x 10^19

still is about 3.2 x 10^10 more powerful as the LHC, which should count for something

But would it be enough to generate a quantum singularity?

To make a miniature black hole, one must concentrate mass or energy sufficiently that the escape velocity from the region in which it is concentrated exceeds the speed of light.

In a head on proton collision, we would generate 4.6 x 10^14 GeV, When we convert the electronvolt momentum energy into mass multiply this with  5.3 x 10^-19 we get 0.2458 gram which significantly more than  22 micrograms , the minimum mass to create a black hole.

However, at that size it would evaporate too fast. In order to keep it alive it needs to be at least 1 gram, so we need to increase the power by a factor of 4 somehow.

Then if we just multiply power by 208 x 4 x 4 = 3328 GW, and we should be able to generate our miniature black hole for our 320 GW Quantum Singularity reactor.

 

 

 

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest that the four units be rather heavy to launch, preferably far more so than any of the reactors, thus requiring in space construction or tons of energy.  And I do definitely agree with you, this is one point where the beamed power feature could really make a difference in space travel   That way the program is suitably expensive and serves as a high barrier to entry for superluminal travel.

16 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Now the collision of particles at many time the power of the LHC might give us access to physics that are currently simply out of our reach. At the moment I can think of 2 things, miniature black holes and Exotic matter. The miniature black hole would be useful to initiate the (exisitng) quantum singularity reactor and the exotic matter would be a fuel source for the alcubiere warp drive. Currently they just require a lot of power to get started, but how these substances or effects are actually created was essentially handwavium. A Circum Solar Particle Accelerate might make it more realistic. It would be a nice stepping stone for the player to overcome, before you can warp to another solar system, you first need to build a quantum singularity reactor and breed enough exotic matter to make the jump ..

 

 Do you think it would be possible to require certain research be done by certain things?  That is to say that you cannot just develop warp drives by scanning planets, but rather you have to have some huge particle accelerator or what not operational.

But on the topic of creating black holes, in the book a black hole was created using the accelerator using one of Jupiter's moons.  So possibly to make a black hole there could be a requirement like "have a ton of mass on hand so that the mini black hole created can be directed at the mass and stabilized."  That way to fuel up black hole ships you will need tons of mass to be brought to the accelerator.

Another way to make the black hole reactors interesting is to simulate (currently theoretical) hawking radiation (and possibly have the black hole reactors produce power that way).  Hawking radiation emission rates are (if I am not mistaken) inversely proportional to the mass of a black hole, and thus should present a potent energy source if you can capture small black holes.  Of course the black hole decay rate increases as it's mass decreases, releasing more and more energy, so if the black hole is cut off from a supply of fresh matter for too long...

Hawking radiation is also primarily hard gamma radiation, so the black hole would suffer from the problem of being unable to emit charged particles, and instead just producing prodigious amounts of heat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Charon Moloch said:

The capacitor can start the reaction, but it needs electricity(MJ) to maintain the fusion reaction. the design in your screenshot doesn't have any way to create electricity, so after the power runs out the reactor stops.

Alright, makes sense. Although, the reactor appears to consume MJ slowly, and the reactor provides thermal power for less than a second- I guess it needs constant power, I'll try that

Share this post


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

For fun, I did some rough calculations:

from my understanding, electro magnetic power requirement grows with with  4th power

given the LHC requires 200 MW to generate 8Tesla , 208 GW (equivalent to 4 low orbit Solar power stations) would generate 256 Tesla

Given a highly inclined elliptic orbit with the Apoapsis of Pluto, the diameter would be 40 AU

Then the particle accelerator strength is  0.3 * 6000 x 10^9 * 256 = 4.6 x 10^14 GeV which when converted into mass generates

which is still not enough to reach Planck energy at 1.221 x 10^19

still is about 3.2 x 10^10 more powerful as the LHC, which should count for something

But would it be enough to generate a quantum singularity?

To make a miniature black hole, one must concentrate mass or energy sufficiently that the escape velocity from the region in which it is concentrated exceeds the speed of light.

In a head on proton collision, we would generate 4.6 x 10^14 GeV, When we convert the electronvolt momentum energy into mass multiply this with  5.3 x 10^-19 we get 0.2458 gram which significantly more than  22 micrograms , the minimum mass to create a black hole.

However, at that size it would evaporate too fast. In order to keep it alive it needs to be at least 1 gram, so we need to increase the power by a factor of 4 somehow.

Then if we just multiply power by 208 x 4 x 4 = 3328 GW, and we should be able to generate our miniature black hole for our 320 GW Quantum Singularity reactor.

 

 

 

Right. Another way to come around the problem is to use existing gravity to make the virtual singularity not to evaporate immediately. The better way would be to use the gravity of a planet to start the reaction, like we actually do with the Quantum Singularity Reactor.

Share this post


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

But on the topic of creating black holes, in the book a black hole was created using the accelerator using one of Jupiter's moons.  So possibly to make a black hole there could be a requirement like "have a ton of mass on hand so that the mini black hole created can be directed at the mass and stabilized."  That way to fuel up black hole ships you will need tons of mass to be brought to the accelerator.

Using an entrire moon would be better, but there is a problem with implementation . Instead I was thinking of  adding a significant mass requirement to starting the QSR. Although the mass could technically be any substance, for connivance and effectivity a dense resource would be more effective for particle collisions. I was thinking Depleted Uranium. It would also significantly help in creating a black hole as the effective collision power becomes much higher (The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has a design energy of 14 TeV for proton–proton collisions and 1150 TeV for Pb–Pb collisions ) . Also the start (and stop) would generate a huge heat spike, which might be a big problem if you have insufficient radiators

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


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


Another way to make the black hole reactors interesting is to simulate (currently theoretical) hawking radiation (and possibly have the black hole reactors produce power that way).  Hawking radiation emission rates are (if I am not mistaken) inversely proportional to the mass of a black hole, and thus should present a potent energy source if you can capture small black holes.  Of course the black hole decay rate increases as it's mass decreases, releasing more and more energy, so if the black hole is cut off from a supply of fresh matter for too long...

Hawking radiation is also primarily hard gamma radiation, so the black hole would suffer from the problem of being unable to emit charged particles, and instead just producing prodigious amounts of heat.

Yes, I considered using real hawking radiation calculations, the problem is that the number become ridiculously high

For example, a 100 metric ton black hole would produce 3.56 * 10^16 MegaWatts

I found these numbers with help of a Hawking radiation calculator

You can play around with the Hawking radiation calculator yourself at http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any recent guide on how to use beamed power?

I found so many tutorials back from 2014 and when following them step by step, i just get nothing that is working. So many buttons that don't seem to exist anymore ect.

So i guess stuff and things have changed. I don't even seem to find a value indicating if i actually beam power away at all, or if i recive any power on another vessel or relay. TBH i love playing KSPI, but this is starting to get me frustrated since no matter what parts i attach to eachother i get zero results.

 

From my understanding i put a reactor (molten), a generator (thermal), a gyrotron and a deployable microweave phased array on a satelite to beam up power? Then for a relay i just put a microweave phased array on a probe? And to recive power on a third vessel i for example take a heat reciver and attach a thermal engine? What parts am i missing? What do i need the dozens of differend laser parts for?

/confusedmode

Share this post


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

Yes, I considered using real hawking radiation calculations, the problem is that the number become ridiculously high

For example, a 100 metric ton black hole would produce 3.56 * 10^16 MegaWatts

I found these numbers with help of a Hawking radiation calculator

You can play around with the Hawking radiation calculator yourself at http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/

Ah, I see.  Powering the entirety of humanity on a single 10 000 ton black hole would be awe inspiring, if anything could survive such power densities.  And I am certain that the physics of the game would start to beak down when we consider multi billion ton black holes.

But if I may, I would suggest that the black hole reactor could also be based on the relativistic jets that some black holes can produce.  Not only should it be more manageable than compressing the entirety of mount Everest into an area less than the size of a atom, but it would also avoid the mass requirements by allowing us to ignore hawking radiation.  The reactor would in essence run at some absurd coolant outlet temperature, producing only charged particles.  The reactor would probably have an efficiency lower than antimatter but considerably better than fission or fusion.  Though unfortunately the mechanics behind the creation of relativistic jets are poorly understood.

 

17 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Using an entrire moon would be better, but there is a problem with implementation . Instead I was thinking of  adding a significant mass requirement to starting the QSR. Although the mass could technically be any substance, for connivance and effectivity a dense resource would be more effective for particle collisions. I was thinking Depleted Uranium. It would also significantly help in creating a black hole as the effective collision power becomes much higher (The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has a design energy of 14 TeV for proton–proton collisions and 1150 TeV for Pb–Pb collisions ) . Also the start (and stop) would generate a huge heat spike, which might be a big problem if you have insufficient radiators

Well it could also be a large asteroid, but I like your idea of tons of DU needing to be shipped to the accelerator better, mostly because it seems more realistic than guiding a short lived black hole into a large asteroid/small moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I built a spaceplane using both the Direct Cycle Nuclear Turbojet and TORY Nuclear Ramjet. Are these engines supposed to loose thrust over the time in closed cycle mode? I'm getting maybe half of the thrust I had after launch.

I have folding radiators with green numbers in VAB. Waste heat never gets higher than 50%. DCNT is attached directly to TORY and the radiators are all attached to DCTN.

Also, I could fly in atmo mode for a long time during launch with no issues, but upon return to Kerbin from Duna engines overheated quickly when I ignited them at 4km with just 200 m/s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kokospl said:

I built a spaceplane using both the Direct Cycle Nuclear Turbojet and TORY Nuclear Ramjet. Are these engines supposed to loose thrust over the time in closed cycle mode? I'm getting maybe half of the thrust I had after launch.

I have folding radiators with green numbers in VAB. Waste heat never gets higher than 50%. DCNT is attached directly to TORY and the radiators are all attached to DCTN.

Also, I could fly in atmo mode for a long time during launch with no issues, but upon return to Kerbin from Duna engines overheated quickly when I ignited them at 4km with just 200 m/s.

Well they supposed to lose power over time due to anticides building up, poisoning the reactor neutronicity, but how long did they run? I might need to adjust the amount of nuclear fuel.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Version 1.11.9 for Kerbal Space Program 1.2.2

Released on 2016-12-18

  • Replaced Shielded Multi Bandwidth Rectenna by Shielded Multi Bandwidth Dish Transceiver, which is capable of sending, receiving, linking, relaying beamed power and data
  • Made Medium Multi Bandwidth Dish Transceiver available earlier.
  • Efficiency Diode Laser Beam generator and Free Electron Laser now depend on unlocked tech nodes
  • Cleaned up right click menu Beamed power transmitters and receivers
  • Included Tweakscale 2.3.3
Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for including a newer version of Tweakscale, but the shielded diode laser beam transmitter still acts like a helium balloon if you scale it up :

http://imgur.com/a/OXkDj

and the electric generators keep their mass at whatever size, it is not a problem, but I don't know why..., I see no difference in the part files between parts that scale normally and these parts.

Is it just me or are diode and free electron lasers 100% efficient at all frequencies in this version? the tool tip says 0%.

The pivoted light mirror works as a relay to visible radiation, but relays microwaves from a laser?

I can't make any other relays to work, I would like a how to do links guide.

Share this post


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

Thanks for including a newer version of Tweakscale, but the shielded diode laser beam transmitter still acts like a helium balloon if you scale it up :

http://imgur.com/a/OXkDj

oops, my mistake, fixed it

2 hours ago, Charon Moloch said:

and the electric generators keep their mass at whatever size, it is not a problem, but I don't know why..., I see no difference in the part files between parts that scale normally and these parts.

That intended, the mass of the generator scales with the type and amount of power of the reactor produces.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


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

Is it just me or are diode and free electron lasers 100% efficient at all frequencies in this version? the tool tip says 0%.

Your correct, I fixed it

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

That intended, the mass of the generator scales with the type and amount of power of the reactor produces.

I never noticed that, thanks.

23 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Your correct, I fixed it

did you fix the gyrotrons as well?

on a side note, I never managed to make the "duel mode thermal sphere receiver" or the "folded radial rectenna receiver" to work my guess is they are old parts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Version 1.11.10 for Kerbal Space Program 1.2.2

Released on 2016-12-19

  • Updated IFS to 2.3.1
  • Fixed floating Transmitter problem
  • Fixed bug with beam generator displaying efficiency to be always 0%
  • Fixed bug with wall to beam efficiency having no effect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question on the wakefield engine... and on the VASIMR.. @FreeThinker ... so:

 

1. VASIMR- appears not to work.  have the entire tech tree open, have huge antimatter reactor + charged particles electric generator... VASIMR engine produces no thrust with any propellant.  Says fuel requirement met 100%, but.. 0.0kN.  The electric window shows there's far more power available than what it wants to draw, so that is not the issue either.  This used to work, not sure what changed.
2. Wakefield - produces effectively no thrust between 0-90% throttle, then varying ISP from 91-100% but this is a very.. odd throttle curve and makes the engine quite difficult to use with any degree of effectiveness.  Was this throttle curve intended?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016/12/16 at 2:44 PM, Rattenmann said:

Is there any recent guide on how to use beamed power?

I found so many tutorials back from 2014 and when following them step by step, i just get nothing that is working. So many buttons that don't seem to exist anymore ect.

So i guess stuff and things have changed. I don't even seem to find a value indicating if i actually beam power away at all, or if i recive any power on another vessel or relay. TBH i love playing KSPI, but this is starting to get me frustrated since no matter what parts i attach to eachother i get zero results.

 

From my understanding i put a reactor (molten), a generator (thermal), a gyrotron and a deployable microweave phased array on a satelite to beam up power? Then for a relay i just put a microweave phased array on a probe? And to recive power on a third vessel i for example take a heat reciver and attach a thermal engine? What parts am i missing? What do i need the dozens of differend laser parts for?

/confusedmode

Hello. This guy read my mind and anticipated my post so I am just quoting ... could you point us to some guides, resources, or YouTube videos that explain even partially the new beamed power mechanics? Thanks

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.