KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

1 minute ago, raxo2222 said:

Some not yet discovered physics, that makes QSR, mach effect and warp drive work.

The farther into the future, the fuzzier it gets becoming indistinguishable from magic. In game terms, it means creative license increases the further in time it is projected.

[raxo2222]

3 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

The farther into the future, the fuzzier it gets becoming indistinguishable from magic. In game terms, it means creative license increases the further in time it is projected.

Well this resource could be unlocked in same tech node as warp drive.

By the way positron reactor is 2 - 3 times more energy dense than QSR.

[FreeThinker]

19 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

By the way positron reactor is 2 - 3 times more energy dense than QSR.

1

Yes, I the QSR could theoretically be made a lot more energy dense. The problem is that many players do not know how to handle it properly because it continuously produces a huge amount of wasteheat. I already assume that most radiation flies out of the reactor but keeping the good stuff (charged particles and antimatter).

What I could do is double power output and reduce the minimum power percentage by half, that way, it initially produces about the same power but it can scale up higher.
 

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

looking at the SQR config I noticed a mistake, I limited charged particle usage to 50%, which should only apply when used for propulsion. It is assumed the SQR creates 2 charged particle beams, one directed away from the north pole and another directly away from the south pole like in a Quasar

Edited September 20, 2018 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, raxo2222 said:

On wikipedia dynamic pressure is density [kg/m^3] * speed squared (m/s)^2 and divided by two.

1/2 * density*speed^2

I used density of 1 - speed would be around 450 m/s on sea level.

Both stock and FAR should use this equation for dynamic pressure.

2

Ok, so I wasn't now far off with my estimation. Lets first see how this plays out in gameplay before we start tweaking.

20 hours ago, secretly_asian said:

Unfortunately i did not test the vasmir engines because... well i haven't had to yet. 

4

Interesting, how far are you in the rest of your campagin? please share your experience and plans.

16 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

Magnetic nozzle is so efficient that is uses more hydrogen than antimatter :p

1

Not sure how you conclude that but notice it does some tricks under the hood to make the magnetic nozzle being able to run on pure antihydrogen. What it does it convert the antimatter into hydrogen which can then be used by the engine module for propulsion.

[raxo2222]

14 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Not sure how you conclude that but notice it does some tricks under the hood to make the magnetic nozzle being able to run on pure antihydrogen. What it does it convert the antimatter into hydrogen which can then be used by the engine module for propulsion.

Something flipped around - I meant it uses more antimatter than hydrogen.

14 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Ok, so I wasn't now far off with my estimation. Lets first see how this plays out in gameplay before we start tweaking.

I used division by 10 of dynamic pressure to simulate that radiators are almost always almost parallel to wind.

That is they move like wing not parachute.

Edited September 20, 2018 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

8 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

I used division by 10 of dynamic pressure to simulate that radiators are almost always almost parallel to wind.

That is they move like wing not parachute.

2

Alright, so your point is that in regular use of radiators, they usually have a low angle of attack and therefore experience less dynamic pressure than a radiator on the front of a brick, and therefore should only have a fraction of the maximum dynamic pressure which is a valid point. I implemented the change

Edited September 20, 2018 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

21 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

2.5m can store 106 kg of antimatter that is 57g of positrons.

Can I use antimtter reactor to make positrons?

106 kg of antiproton isn't too useful in that case :p

 

 

Reviewing the positron densities again, I come to the conclusion its impossible to determine a specific storage density for antimatter and positrons, which seems to depend highly on available future technology. Therefore next version, I will add tech levels to some antimatter storage devices which will make them gradually able to carry higher densities of antimatter.

Edited September 20, 2018 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

@FreeThinker

Can Antimatter Initiated Fusion reactor use positrons as alternate of antimatter?

[FreeThinker]

1 minute ago, raxo2222 said:

@FreeThinker

Can Antimatter Initiated Fusion reactor use positrons as alternate of antimatter?

Unfortunatly no, at least according to what I have read. If you can find a counter example, perhaps we can.

[raxo2222]

7 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Unfortunatly no, at least according to what I have read. If you can find a counter example, perhaps we can.

Ah okay.

Can you make "Infinite Propellant" cheat more useful?

That is with it any engine can use any propellant, that it can use even if it isn't currently present on ship.

So basically this cheat would replace need to have all in one fuel tank.

It would be very useful for testing.

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

4 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Ah okay.

Can you make "Infinite Propellant" cheat more useful?

That is with it any engine can use any propellant, that it can use even if it isn't currently present on ship.

So basically this cheat would replace need to have all in one fuel tank.

It would be very useful for testing.

I'm afraid that not a trivial request, the types of propellant is determined at inflight startup, so it cannot be added on the fly. Instead I recommend to have a tiny amount of all resources that you want to test.

[raxo2222]

4 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

I'm afraid that not a trivial request, the types of propellant is determined at inflight startup, so it cannot be added on the fly. Instead I recommend to have a tiny amount of all resources that you want to test.

I guess I have to manually check what resources can be use as propellant.

If I use Thermal nozzle and ARCJET to determinate propellants will I get complete list?

Edited September 22, 2018 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

9 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

I guess I have to manually check what resources can be use as propellant.

If I use Thermal nozzle and ARCJET to determinate propellants will I get complete list?

Notice that I discovered that the list of propellants the thermal nozzle was able to use was missing some resources, by default is should be able to use everything except containing boron.

Also notice, next release I will attempt a re-balance of thermal heating using a new arcane formula.

Edited September 22, 2018 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

3 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Notice that I discovered that the list of propellants the thermal nozzle was able to use was missing some resources, b default is should be able to use everything except containing boron.

Also notice, next release I will attemp a rebalance of thermal heating using a new arcane formula.

I guess D, T, He3, Li6, Li7, ores and fission materials won't be used like Boron :p

[FreeThinker]

2 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

I guess D, T, He3, Li6, Li7, ores and fission materials won't be used like Boron :p

Logically Fusion fuel are skipped

Edited September 22, 2018 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

2 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Logically Fusion fuel are skipped

So ores and fission fuels can be used as propellant :p

I think magic cube containing 1g of each resource would be good for test.

[FreeThinker]

@raxo2222

One realism feature I'm seriously considering is to make the distinction between 2 types of solid heat exchange thermal nozzles. Thermal nozzles with anti reducing coating and thermal nozzle with anti oxidizing coating

Quote

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.

Keep in mind that the oxidizing/reducing effect is only a problem with solid-core NTRs, not the other kinds. This is because only the solid-core NTRs have solid reactor elements exposed to the propellant (for heating).

source http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php

Logically, the ramjet / turbojet fall in the anti oxidizing category because they can propel atmosphere containing oxygen, while the standard launch nozzle will has a anti-reducing coating.

This means that some propellant like Water, CO2, can only be used by a nozzle with a anti oxidizing coating while the  reducing agent like Hydrogen and  Hydrazine can only be used by a nozzle with anti reducing coating.

Edited September 22, 2018 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

Sounds good but what about Nitrogen?

It seems like you would need two sets of thermal turbojets if you wanted to fly in all atmospheres - Venus and Mars is mostly CO2, Earth Is Nitrogen/Oxygen, Titan - Nitrogen/Methane, Gas giants  - Hydrogen/Helium.

Also exospheres of terrestrial planets contains mostly H/He.

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

4 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Sounds good but what about Nitrogen?

It seems like you would need two sets of thermal turbojets if you wanted to fly in all atmospheres - Venus and Mars is mostly CO2, Earth Is Nitrogen/Oxygen, Titan - Nitrogen/Methane, Gas giants  - Hydrogen/Helium.

Also exospheres of terrestrial planets contains mostly H/He.

 

Nitrogen  is neutral , so it can be used by both types. The same goes for other non reactive propellant like helium and argon. THis will make these propellant much more valuable  as a kind of universal acceptor which can be used in any engine

Edited September 22, 2018 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

1 minute ago, FreeThinker said:

Nitrogen  is neutral , so it can be used by both types. The same goes for other non reactive propellant like helium and argon. THis will make these propellant much more valuable  as a kind of universal acceptor which can be used in any engine

I noticed that plasma engine can't use atmosphere directly, but it can use compressed air.

[FreeThinker]

Just now, raxo2222 said:

I noticed that plasma engine can't use atmosphere directly, but it can use compressed air.

I'm not 100% sure but technically, but plasma nozzle should be able to use any low molecular resource.

[raxo2222]

13 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

I'm not 100% sure but technically, but plasma nozzle should be able to use any low molecular resource.

So it should use intake air directly, since it runs on compressed air just fine.

 

13 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Also notice, next release I will attempt a re-balance of thermal heating using a new arcane formula.

Will it result in increased ISP/Thrust?

[FreeThinker]

7 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

So it should use intake air directly, since it runs on compressed air just fine.

Well that would be the exception as it still needs to be ionised

8 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Will it result in increased ISP/Thrust?

No performance remains the same, except higher isp for MCF which as much too low

[FreeThinker]

Download Version 1.20.0 for Kerbal Space Program 1.4.5 from here

Released on 2018-09-23

• Integrated Stock Ion Engine into KSPIE, including persistent thrust, exhaust and add power upgrades with electric tech nodes
• Added: "Discovery" Magnetic Confinement Fusion Rocket
• Added: Clover Graphene Radiator (texture by SilverSliver)
• Added Antiproton Storage Ring
• Added: display of exhaust during persistent thrust to Thermal and Plasma nozzle
• Added: Persistent thrust drop out of timewarp and cut engines after pressing X button
• Added: convection radiators to pre-coolers
• Added Graphene Radiators take dynamic pressure into account and are longer affected by atmosphere
• Added: Buckballs as an electric propellant
• Added: Radiators heat-color now range from Dark Red to Bright White
• Graphics: Switched colour scheme positron and antiproton on containers. Positron: red, Antiproton: blue
• Re-balanced thermal engines stock wastewheat
• Re-balanced: limited Ramjet/Turbojet to neutral and oxidizing propellant while Thermal Launch Nozzle is limited to neutral and reducing propellants
• Balance Fix: removed power requirement Kerbstein and reduced wasteheat by 50%
• Balance Fix: significantly increased core temperature Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactors
• Balance Fix: Doubled power output Quantum Singularity Reactor
• Balance Fix: unlock Molten Salt reactor upgrades with Thermal Management techs
• Balance Fix: Increased unlocking tech of VISTA, arcjets and resistojets
• Balance Fix: Changed tech requirement Thermal Receiver to Thermal management
• Balance Fix: Lowered unlocking tech of thermal power generator
• Bug Fix: Double charging of solar sells
• Bug Fix: issue with Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactors connected to only a thermal power generator not able to utilize all available power.
• Bug Fix: problem with haber proces
• Bug Fix: radiator slow updates
• Bug Fix: linear behaviour thermal and not geared electric engines
• Bug Fix: Crusader spool effect sound continuing after stopping engines

Edited September 24, 2018 by FreeThinker