KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[raxo2222]

Although usefull as Northstar concluded, it's nothing but a resized stock part, and it doesn't contain or support any Interstellar technology. Other reasons are realsim. Although I cannot prevent people from using Liquid Fuel with Nuclear Engine, it doesn't make sence and we should therefore not facilitate it.

Btw, has anyone tested the improved Linear Arcjet RCS yet? It can switch between all Arcjet propellants

If your disapointed about it thrust, don't worry, I also plan to create a throtlable Ristojet, it will allow for VTOL, it will be ideal for landing ort take off with space planes on muns

O nice can you make this VTOL engine as normal one, so I could hover it with Throlle Controlled Avionics mod?

[FreeThinker]

O nice can you make this VTOL engine as normal one, so I could hover it with Throlle Controlled Avionics mod?

Yes, that's the goal. I noticed several people attemping to use KSPI-E engines for this purpose, but of cource failed because these parts were not ment for this purpose.

These parts will also be fysicsless, whichs should help make the game faster, lower drag and improve balance. But they will not be massless, instead they add their true mass to the attched part, like they are integrated (which they are)

Edited August 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Trolllception]

I am having an issue with the Attila where it generates no effects when hotrockets is installed.

I fixed this and submitted a pull request on github.

I will take a look if I can integrate it.

The ModularFuelTanks config should be ready to go. I will probably have an update for it tonight to add the remaining electric propulsion fuels and maybe looking into the densities a bit more although they already scale by weight.

Btw, has anyone tested the improved Linear Arcjet RCS yet? It can now switch between all Arcjet propellants

I did get a chance to play around with the Linear Arcjet RCS yesterday. I was able to use it with LqdHydrogen and tested rotations and directions and everything seemed to be working well. This weekend I hope to get alot more playing/testing time in and will definitely report any issues I run into.

I may need to fire up my 3ds max environment and start looking at some models in game to see how complex it would be to rework some. Also I expect to submit more Github pull requests as I would like to contribute as I gain more knowledge of KSP and I want to start looking at the turbojet thrust/atmospheric curves to see if they can be made a little more lively in the atmosphere. I will have to test it again tonight but my ThermalTurbojet still sucks down water despite the presence of the isPropellent = False

[yafeshan]

Well, I liked the idea of intergrating the Science Lab Antimatter production with Antimatter capture in space (effectevly improving antimatter efficency) and make it a depletable resource, giving you reason to build Antmatter Farms in orbit around other planets and muns with a magnetic field.

EDIT: you mentioned Antimatter production required a lot of hydrogen, I wasn't aware of this, I assumed you only need a small amount of it. Could you answer the following question. To produce 1 mg of antimatter, how much Hydrogen is required?

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/antimatter1.html

This fermilab answer includes some good numbers about anti-proton production. It says only 1 anti-proton is gained out of 200000 proton. Protons are accelerated to gain very high energy and they are targeted to metal plates (iridium). So any meaningful amount of antiproton will require a lot of proton therefore a large amount of hydrogen(main source of proton). It is also very energy inefficient

"It takes about 2 days to get 10¹² antiprotons and consider a watt = Joule/sec so with a beam of 10¹² protons and the same of antiprotons colliding given they all collide when you want them to which never happens, you get:10¹² x 3.2 x 10^-7 / 2 x 24 x 3600 ~ 2 Watt

Compare this with the 10⁷ Watts you are burning up doing all the accelerating. A factor of 10 million is not just inefficient, it does not even come close."

So my primary idea goes out of window. But I believe it is possible to modify our existing orbital antimatter collector arrays. Van Allen belts of planets have anti-protons and anti-electrons. Some studies say there is about 10 micrograms of anti proton trapped in earth magnetic field in any given time.

"As particles are lost through diffusion processes, new ones aregenerated to maintain a quasi-static supply trapped in the near dipole field of the Earth"

So we can collect it but not over a certain limit of efficiency. We also have about 10 miligrams of anti-electrons in the magnetic Van Allen belt.

We can collect these separately, confine them in magnetic confinement tanks. Another module will be required to decelerate them and prepare for combining. When they have a very low energy they are confined in a trap module. In the same environment they will form anti hydrogen but this material should be kept near 0 degrees Kelvin temperatures.

If we are only going to use anti protons as we supposedly do in KSPI-e it is not advisable to use real efficiency values. But we can require a large production chain. Anti-proton production require several steps

"The proton beam is accelerated up to 26 GeV, and then dumped into a target followed by a so-called magnetic horn.Basically, it is an air cooled iridium target. When the beam is dumped, two protons are converted into three protons and an antiproton. During the dump a powerful current is sent along the beam axis, which generates a magnetic field, keeping as many antiprotons as possible on axis. Immediately after the target there is a “lithium lens†(a Russian invention), which tries to capture even more of the very precious antiprotons. The created antiprotons have a very high energy of several GeV and are then captured by the Antiproton Decelerator(AD). It then takes more than 80 seconds for the beam to slow down. The deceleration is actually not the time consuming issue, but rather shaping the beam, making it small and narrow, so antiprotons are not lost during the deceleration process." (CERN Method)

short

hydrogen to proton module>>proton smasher(protons hitting metal plates)>>temporary magnetic confinement>>antiproton Decelerator>>permanent magnetic confinement.

These are very big facilities. proton acceleration is done kilometer wide accelerators and high energy anti-protons will require some smaller track to cool down before capturing.

[FreeThinker]

I will have to test it again tonight but my ThermalTurbojet still sucks down water despite the presence of the isPropellent = False

What, that should not happen, I made ther whole LqdWater reroute specificly to prevent lifesupport water usage. I intend to use the same technique for other resources, like hydrogen and oxygen. It should allow you to run on Uncooled gas tanks instead of cryogenicly cooled Liquid Tanks that require a lot of power, which is especialy a problem with places nearer to the sun.

- - - Updated - - -

It says only 1 anti-proton is gained out of 200000 proton.

Intresting, but what happens with the Waste mass, will it be converted to neutrons, tritium, alpha particles or waste energy? The tritium could be used for fusion or helium3 production.

alpha particles are still usefull as propellant and Any neutrons might be usefull for breeding tritium.

- - - Updated - - -

These are very big facilities. proton acceleration is done kilometer wide accelerators and high energy anti-protons will require some smaller track to cool down before capturing.

Would this be suffciently large?

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps we could integrate this part into KSPI to generate Antimatter in a more realsitic way.

- - - Updated - - -

I think for playability, we need to scale this part down to 1/100 of the real size, like we did for the Vista engine, which in reality is about the same size. But no one likes to play with such large sizes except for a small fringe of players.

Edited August 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Ed Gauss]

Sabatier Reactor is still broken.

Resources are being consumed, but nothing is coming out. It's also claiming that there's "insufficient storage".

Here's a screenshot: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ycni3l2iiu7jkt/screenshot1.png?dl=0

[maphstra]

Quick question. How do upgrades work? Do they automatically apply when you have discovered the new tech, or do you have to do something to enable them?

[Trolllception]

What, that should not happen, I made ther whole LqdWater reroute specificly to prevent lifesupport water usage. I intend to use the same technique for other resources, like hydrogen and oxygen. It should allow you to run on Uncooled gas tanks instead of cryogenicly cooled Liquid Tanks that require a lot of power, which is especialy a problem with places nearer to the sun.

I am using TAC Life support and my water resource is listed simply as 'Water'. I take it you are already accounting for this though since the 'Use Propellant' controls only appear on that resource.

I think for playability, we need to scale this part down to 1/100 of the real size, like we did for the Vista engine, which in reality is about the same size. But no one likes to play with such large sizes except for a small fringe of players.

Another thought would be to leave it's scale as is and force it to be constructed orbitally using Extraplanetary Launchpads.

[ABZB]

Quick question. How do upgrades work? Do they automatically apply when you have discovered the new tech, or do you have to do something to enable them?

parts on craft that are already built and launched at the time of unlocking the new node can be upgraded from their right-click menus, for some amount of science per upgrade. any craft launched after the node is unlocked starts with the upgraded part at no extra cost. A couple of parts (the warp drive and the AI probe core) do not have an upgrade tech, and every instance of them must be individually payed for w/ science if the upgraded form is desired.

[FreeThinker]

I am using TAC Life support and my water resource is listed simply as 'Water'. I take it you are already accounting for this though since the 'Use Propellant' controls only appear on that resource.

The trick that is used is that Water is converted into LqdWater, which can them be used propel the Engiine. Special parts are used to prevent conveting water resouces that are marked as not beeing a propellant. This should prevent any accidental usage. At least that is the intention. You say that it still sucks water from part maked as locked?

- - - Updated - - -

Another thought would be to leave it's scale as is and force it to be constructed orbitally using Extraplanetary Launchpads.

This is indeed an option, but it would require a very large amount of constucting material and an army of engeneers. Besides that it would require a lot of power, at least this is covered by KSPI-E

- - - Updated - - -

Sabatier Reactor is still broken.

Resources are being consumed, but nothing is coming out. It's also claiming that there's "insufficient storage".

Here's a screenshot: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ycni3l2iiu7jkt/screenshot1.png?dl=0

seems KSPI-E thinks storage is insufficient, something seems inherently wrong here

Edited August 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Trolllception]

The trick that is used is that Water is converted into LqdWater, which can them be used propel the Engiine. Special parts are used to prevent conveting water resouces that are marked as not beeing a propellant. This should prevent any accidental usage. At least that is the intention. You say that it still sucks water from part maked as locked?

It was still using water from parts/tanks marked as locked for the ThermalTurbojet. I believe it drew from both my Mk2 cockpit and the hexcans I had in the cargo bay. I will test with a new ship tonight when I get home to see if it was an issue with using an existing ship in my save.

[Nansuchao]

FreeThinker, I encountered a weird behavior with the Attila Thrusters. I made a spaceplane, with a Thermal Turbojet and a couple of Attila, powered by 2.5M Charged Particle Generator and 2.5M Dusty Plasma Reactor. When I activate the Attila (with Hydrogen), one of them has 22/23 Kn of thrust and the other one just 4 Kn. Looking better, they say to share energy 50% from the reactor, but it's clearly false. Here's a couple of explicative screenshot.

EDIT: I know that actually they're asking for more energy than provided by the reactor, but when the Megajoule bar is full, one engine has power, the other one 0.

[FreeThinker]

FreeThinker, I encountered a weird behavior with the Attila Thrusters. I made a spaceplane, with a Thermal Turbojet and a couple of Attila, powered by 2.5M Charged Particle Generator and 2.5M Dusty Plasma Reactor. When I activate the Attila (with Hydrogen), one of them has 22/23 Kn of thrust and the other one just 4 Kn. Looking better, they say to share energy 50% from the reactor, but it's clearly false. Here's a couple of explicative screenshot.

http://i.imgur.com/wu86Sko.png

http://i.imgur.com/xBXu4pR.png

EDIT: I know that actually they're asking for more energy than provided by the reactor, but when the Megajoule bar is full, one engine has power, the other one 0.

Yes, I need some good method to balance avialable power, which is not as easy as it sounds.

Perhaps I should solve it as a family of brother. The first engine collects all avialble power and then distributed the power among it brothers. (engines). THis would work well, as long all engines are of the same type, which should usualy be the case.

Edited August 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Nansuchao]

Obviously yes, the same size and kind. In the past I hadn't this issue with two Plasma Thrusters and a Tokamak reactor, so I can't figure out the reason...

[FreeThinker]

Obviously yes, the same size and kind. In the past I hadn't this issue with two Plasma Thrusters and a Tokamak reactor, so I can't figure out the reason...

This might be explained if some part is illigaly consuming Megajoules, it would create shortages as parts would not recieve the amount of power that should be available. Notice in the Megajoule power display, the 2 engines are requesting the same amount, which should be avialble considering it's production. Somehow, a large amount of power is "Lost". As if some part are leaching it..

Edit: wait, I see the supply is only 512 MW, but the engines seem to think 857 MW is produced. What reactor are you using?

Edit: I think I see the problem, you are using a peble bed, they have heat throthling which causes them to lose power when the reactor starts getting hot. Still this should have been compensated for by the engines which should have requested less power.

Edited August 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Nansuchao]

Dusty Plasma reactor

[yafeshan]

Intresting, but what happens with the Waste mass, will it be converted to neutrons, tritium, alpha particles or waste energy? The tritium could be used for fusion or helium3 production.

alpha particles are still usefull as propellant and Any neutrons might be usefull for breeding tritium.

- - - Updated - - -

Would this be suffciently large?

http://i.imgur.com/06X771v.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps we could integrate this part into KSPI to generate Antimatter in a more realsitic way.

- - - Updated - - -

I think for playability, we need to scale this part down to 1/100 of the real size, like we did for the Vista engine, which in reality is about the same size. But no one likes to play with such large sizes except for a small fringe of players.

As far as I could learn the most reliable anti-proton generation

[TABLE=class: display dcenter]

[TR]

[TD=class: dcell]p + p ⇒ p + p + p + p^{–}

^{including some extra particles which can be anything.} [/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

This method will cause the metal plate(iridium generally) to be used up in time. I am not sure if its creating alpha particles, I could not find anything on it but its possible to have free neutrons.

http://www.av8n.com/physics/bevatron.htm

Waste mass will be mostly useless but extra generated protons can be put back into accelerator and used again for generation.

We already have passive anti-proton generation without much effort. The idea is active and efficient antimatter production should require quite a load of modules connected to eachother. That accelerator prototype image is quite beautifull and size looks reasonable, but it is only the first section of anti-proton generation and it will require quite a load of power to accelerate protons(I should recheck fermilab link for power requirements). The higher the power, the higher efficiency we will have.

I also think playability is more important than realism.

[FreeThinker]

Dusty Plasma reactor

Yes, they suffer from the heat throtling as well . For the moment I sugdest to compensate by using the thrust limiter to about 60%, this should give both engines equal amount of power

- - - Updated - - -

We already have passive anti-proton generation without much effort. The idea is active and efficient antimatter production should require quite a load of modules connected to eachother. That accelerator prototype image is quite beautifull and size looks reasonable, but it is only the first section of anti-proton generation and it will require quite a load of power to accelerate protons(I should recheck fermilab link for power requirements). The higher the power, the higher efficiency we will have.

Requiring too many part will make it too hard, at most I think it would require 3 parts to generate antimatter. 1 particle accelerator (shriken to a practical size) + antimatter collectors + science lab to put it all to gether. Beside these parts you need a lot of power the run the accelerator, some eggheads and an antimatter storage device. That quite complicated if you consider pople have a lot of difficulty maging a magnetic nozzle functioming

Edited August 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Trolllception]

Yes, they suffer from the heat throtling as well . For the moment I sugdest to compensate by using the thrust limiter to about 60%, this should give both engines equal amount of power

- - - Updated - - -

That quite complicated if you consider pople have a lot of difficulty maging a magnetic nozzle functioming

I think a few tutorials may be in order to address this. When I first started using KSPI I struggled and found myself searching all over Google for information. The fractal wiki has some useful information but needs to be updated for certain aspects. Can fractals wiki be updated or does it need to be cloned? The charts on the front page are very useful but could use some additional information as Northstar pointed out. I think if more information is available for the players the mod can remain fairly complex. The complexity is the reason I prefer this mod over NFT for example. It's the same reason many players go to real fuels and realism overhaul. The hard part is balancing complexity to be a valid game mechanic that feels like it matters and to allow for flexibility. If there is only a single way to assemble the components, then adding additional parts may not add to the experience but if it can be customized to function differently the complexity is a rewarding experience. At least that's my 2cents.

Edit: Ah awesome I see the charts have been updated with the RCS thrusters and the like. I also want to note that the front post has improved dramatically from about a month ago when I first started using KSPI. Kudos to all the hard work being done on this. Documentation is often not one of my favorite activities at the office and unfortunately working in IT requires most systems to be documented appropriately.

Edit2: I just started to write a beginners guide. It will be based off the charts on the front page. I will share as soon as I have most sections added.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Trolllception

[Nansuchao]

Thanks!

[yafeshan]

Requiring too many part will make it too hard, at most I think it would require 3 parts to generate antimatter. 1 particle accelerator (shriken to a practical size) + antimatter collectors + science lab to put it all to gether. Beside these parts you need a lot of power the run the accelerator, some eggheads and an antimatter storage device. That quite complicated if you consider pople have a lot of difficulty maging a magnetic nozzle functioming

Particle accelerator should have at least a minimum effective size. I saw one of the mods have a very nice looking sas module which looks exaclty like a torodial particle accelerator. I am trying to determine which mod it is(I have too many), an enlarged version of it can be quite fitting

found the torodial SAS, it is one of the modules from roverdudes freight transport mod

Edited August 21, 2015 by yafeshan
update

[FreeThinker]

Particle accelerator should have at least a minimum effective size. I saw one of the mods have a very nice looking sas module which looks exaclty like a torodial particle accelerator. I am trying to determine which mod it is(I have too many), an enlarged version of it can be quite fitting

found the torodial SAS, it is one of the modules from roverdudes freight transport mod

I wonder what a good minimum size is, Berkeley Rad Lab using an accelerator that has a diameter of 184 inch, which is 4.67m which is very reasonable, but I'm afraid it processes no where near the power to create antimatter.

[Nansuchao]

Maybe I can suggest a single curved part of great size, 5/7 m, to dock in orbit with same other parts. Together they form the accelerometer ring, big enough IMHO.

[FreeThinker]

Alright, I did some test, at appears 15m is about the size the base will fit 2.5m It has some realy cool graphics when activated.

It also serves as a nice experiment! For this reason alone, you want to have it!

Edited August 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Nansuchao]

Sure I want it!!!