KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[ss8913]

1 minute ago, FreeThinker said:

notice that the Isp for the hybrid thermal rocket is limited to 3000s To get higher Isp, you need the Thermal Nozzle, which will operate in Magnet Nozzle mode at very high temperatures reactor like the Antimatter reactor

does that have an atmospheric mode?

[FreeThinker]

6 minutes ago, ss8913 said:

does that have an atmospheric mode?

Yes it does, but it performs like a ramjet, instead like a turbojet. Which means it does not provide much thrust at take off. Use some auxiliry engines to get up to speed (like rocket boosters).

Notice if you got both engines on vessel, you can switch between them by turning them on and off. A good stragy it to use 2 thermal turbojet at takeoff and switch to ramjet when you reach upper atmosphere. The single Ramjet will also make it easier to enter orbit.

Edited May 17, 2016 by FreeThinker

[SciMan]

2 hours ago, Aghanim said:

Now it would be very great if there is some sort of integration with B9 Aerospace HX parts so that there will be matching parts to the huge black hole reactor

Ever since I saw the B9 HX reactor part I thought it belonged as a reactor part for KSPI. There's nothing complex in its config that prevents using it as a reactor, which helps out someone trying to make an MM patch for it. I always thought it would be some kind of fusion reactor, but antimatter makes sense as well. Additionally, the HX engine would make a nice thermal nozzle (which would work good for both launch and vacuum use). This would again be one of those mothership scale engines, but that doesn't prevent it being usable for surface launch (how the heck else are you supposed to get it into space in the first place unless you have Extraplanetary Launchpads installed?).

One thing that I thought of that opens the possibility for making better looking reactors would be if there was a way to tie reactor activity to an animation (looped or not) that was baked in to a part's model. That would allow people to make reactors that show how much work they're doing. More specifically, I'm asking for a part module that goes thru the frames of an animation as reactor power output increases, and/or a (possibly different) part module that speeds up a looped animation as reactor output increases. Perhaps it would be easier to tie it to (current power demand / maximum potential power output), but it would be better if it could be done on a reactor-by-reactor basis.

Examples of what I'm thinking are things like the rings on a Mass Relay (would speed up as reactor power output is increased), size of the "flare" inside the center of a reactor (grows in size at higher power output), or blue glow from Cherenkov radiation around control rod openings in a fission reactor (brighter as power output increases). This might encourage other modders to make more reactor models.

To be clear, this reactor animation controller PartModule isn't something critical I think we need, it's just a "nice to have" thing. It wouldn't have any impact on gameplay.

Edited May 17, 2016 by SciMan

[Liquid5n0w]

Here is an idea for an interesting and novel part that would fit perfectly into KSPI, just reading about it makes it sound like high tech magic that would be very cool to see in practice.

I'd love to research Magnetoshell Aerocapture in KSP and stick it on a lander for Duna.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/05/magnetoshell-aerocapture-for-manned.html

 

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by Liquid5n0w

[FreeThinker]

By the way, I forgot to mention the Molten Salt Reactor now produces 6% XenonGas as one of it fission producs. This might become usefull on long voyages, given enough time, you can collect enough xenon for a return trip even after you ran out of fuel.

Edited May 17, 2016 by FreeThinker

[SciMan]

1 hour ago, Liquid5n0w said:

Here is an idea for an interesting and novel part that would fit perfectly into KSPI, just reading about it makes it sound like high tech magic that would be very cool to see in practice.

I'd love to research Magnetoshell Aerocapture in KSP and stick it on a lander for Duna.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/05/magnetoshell-aerocapture-for-manned.html

Looks plausible for craft powered by an electric thruster, and particularly useful for craft using magnetic nozzles. Of course this would only work well in the upper atmosphere of a planet or moon, making it mostly applicable to gentle aerobraking instead of direct aerocapture from a transfer orbit (or anything faster).

Another similar idea is reducing orbital speed using the interaction between the planet's magnetic field and a magnetic field created by the ship. I've heard it called "mag-sail braking", and it's mostly useful for slowing down near something with a massive magnetic field like a gas giant or star, but it is an observable effect in orbit of anything with a magnetic field.

The cheapest way to create the effect is to deploy a conductive tether from a spacecraft while it's in orbit. However, creating a cloud of plasma contained by a magnetic field (identical method to the one quoted in the link above) would create a much stronger effect at the cost of some "propellant" to create the plasma and the electrical power used to maintain the magnetic field (or run the cryocooler if you're using a superconductor to create the magnetic field).

Both of these effects would be possible to create with a superconducting magnetic ram-scoop, with the additional benefit of collecting the particles of the solar wind (or interstellar medium). For smaller craft (probes and small manned ships), the deployable tether version is much more practical as it has lower mass and uses no power. Larger ships (motherships, cargo ships, other big stuff) need the superconducting magnetic ram-scoop to create a useful braking effect, a tether of useful size would be quite massive and only useful for this one purpose.

 

Edit: Was it intended that we can't scale up the Quantum Singularity Reactor? I'm making a MM patch for tweaking the thing to my own liking, but I thought it was supposed to be able to scale up to at least 5m. Also, it's description is still the same as the 3.75m ISRU processor.

Edit 2: Would it be possible to allow the DT-Vista to use other fusion fuels? I'm more interested in the coding being there than I am in the DT-Vista engine itself being able to use fuels other than D-T. Got a few ideas for an engine.

Edited May 17, 2016 by SciMan

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, SciMan said:

Edit: Was it intended that we can't scale up the Quantum Singularity Reactor? I'm making a MM patch for tweaking the thing to my own liking, but I thought it was supposed to be able to scale up to at least 5m. Also, it's description is still the same as the 3.75m ISRU processor.

No I'm planning to add a tweakscaling to QSR as well, but it's going to be a little different from what usaly is done. Instead of increasing the power as a whole I want to keep the minimum at 32 GW and allow to upper range to scale with volume. For example, Scaling 3.75m to 5m would increase maximum power from 320GM to 758 GW but still allow minumum power at 32 GW.

Edited May 17, 2016 by FreeThinker

[SciMan]

I like it. For now I just made it tweakable from 3.75m to 10m size, among other things. I've also been tweaking the cost and scaling of the heavy warp drive (more expensive than the other warp drives, tweakscale from 2.5m to 10m).

Edited May 17, 2016 by SciMan

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, SciMan said:

Looks plausible for craft powered by an electric thruster, and particularly useful for craft using magnetic nozzles. Of course this would only work well in the upper atmosphere of a planet or moon, making it mostly applicable to gentle aerobraking instead of direct aerocapture from a transfer orbit (or anything faster).

Another similar idea is reducing orbital speed using the interaction between the planet's magnetic field and a magnetic field created by the ship. I've heard it called "mag-sail braking", and it's mostly useful for slowing down near something with a massive magnetic field like a gas giant or star, but it is an observable effect in orbit of anything with a magnetic field.

The cheapest way to create the effect is to deploy a conductive tether from a spacecraft while it's in orbit. However, creating a cloud of plasma contained by a magnetic field (identical method to the one quoted in the link above) would create a much stronger effect at the cost of some "propellant" to create the plasma and the electrical power used to maintain the magnetic field (or run the cryocooler if you're using a superconductor to create the magnetic field).

Both of these effects would be possible to create with a superconducting magnetic ram-scoop, with the additional benefit of collecting the particles of the solar wind (or interstellar medium). For smaller craft (probes and small manned ships), the deployable tether version is much more practical as it has lower mass and uses no power. Larger ships (motherships, cargo ships, other big stuff) need the superconducting magnetic ram-scoop to create a useful braking effect, a tether of useful size would be quite massive and only useful for this one purpose.

 

Edit: Was it intended that we can't scale up the Quantum Singularity Reactor? I'm making a MM patch for tweaking the thing to my own liking, but I thought it was supposed to be able to scale up to at least 5m. Also, it's description is still the same as the 3.75m ISRU processor.

Edit 2: Would it be possible to allow the DT-Vista to use other fusion fuels? I'm more interested in the coding being there than I am in the DT-Vista engine itself being able to use fuels other than D-T. Got a few ideas for an engine.

Well we could add other fusion modes than D-T, but the would be a lot less powerfull. Still a fuel like D-D would be significantly cheaper, then Tritium Fusion

About that would you know a way we could create Tritium using the QSR?

I currently made the folling reaction table list

Hydrogen  1/0 + Hydrogen  1/0  = Deuterium 1/1

Deuterium 1/1 + Hydrogen  1/1  = Helium3   2/1
Deuterium 1/1 + Deuterium 1/1  = Helium    2/2

Helium    2/2 + Deuterium 1/1  = Lithium6  3/3
Helium    2/2 + Tritium   1/2  = Lithium   3/4

Lithium6  3/3 + Helium    2/2  = Boron     5/5
Lithium   3/4 + Helium    2/2  = Boron6    5/6

Nitrogen  7/7 + Deuterium 1/1  = Oxygen    9/9 
Nitrogen  7/7 + Helium    2/2  = Florine   9/9 

Oxygen    8/8 + Helium    2/2  = Neon      10/10 
Oxygen    8/8 + Deuterium 1/1  = Florine   9 /9
 
Florine   9/9 + Florine   9/9  = Argon     18/18

 

[SciMan]

The reason I asked about using other fusion fuels with the DT-Vista engine module is that I might want to start working on a config for that Daedalus engine model.

Additionally, if I remember correctly, the DT reaction is easiest to start and therefore contain because it starts at a relatively low temperature. While igniting the other reactions would require higher power driver beams, the higher temperatures produced would enable higher specific impulse to be achieved. The other fusion reactions do not have as high of an energy gain factor, but again, increasing the amount of fusion fuel used will offset this. In other words, for the same thrust, a D-Li6 fusion reaction would consume fusion fuel mass at a higher rate, but it would consume propellant at a slower rate. This is a trade-off, but increasing the power of the magnetic field used as the nozzle will only increase specific impulse so far. Switching to a higher temperature fusion reaction would allow even higher specific impulse, or it would be possible to achieve the same specific impulse without using so much power in the magnetic field of the nozzle, tho the benefit may be offset by the greater power required by the driver beams.

(More info here) Use Ctrl-F to search for "D-T Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF)", that's the vista, other reactions follow below that section.

 

Regarding how to make Tritium with the QSR, it's not going to be easy if it's even possible...

One of the few reactions that would work is Deuterium (1/1) + Helium (2/2) + Energy = Tritium (1/2) + He3 (2/1). The equation balances out with respect to mass, but I expect that the energy required makes this practically useless. The problem as I understand it is that there aren't enough neutrons to go around unless you already have some Tritium or Lithium-7.

You'd probably have a higher Tritium production rate using the copious neutron radiation from a fission reactor to breed Tritium from Lithium.

My conclusion is that tritium is not a manufacturable resource unless you can easily source large amounts of neutrons and Lithium. While the QSR can manufacture Lithium, it does not supply a large enough amount of neutrons to be able to create Tritium efficiently.

The best way to use the QSR to get Tritium is to use it in the propulsion system of a ship that harvests Tritium from the atmosphere of a gas-giant. The QSR does not have a reaction that produces enough neutrons to enable production of Tritium in useful amounts.

Edited May 17, 2016 by SciMan

[Profit-]

3 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

By the way, I forgot to mention the Molten Salt Reactor now produces 6% XenonGas as one of it fission producs. This might become usefull on long voyages, given enough time, you can collect enough xenon for a return trip even after you ran out of fuel.

I had always wondered if this would go in.   I can just play and find out for myself but being at work and curiosity is striking, will the reactor shut down when full or will it just "vent" the extra gas. 

[FreeThinker]

37 minutes ago, SciMan said:

 

The best way to use the QSR to get Tritium is to use it in the propulsion system of a ship that harvests Tritium from the atmosphere of a gas-giant. The QSR does not have a reaction that produces enough neutrons to enable production of Tritium in useful amounts.

Well that not going to work as the reason I want to create Boron6, which needs to be created from Helium4 + Lithium7 , which is created from Tritium + Helium4

49 minutes ago, SciMan said:

One of the few reactions that would work is Deuterium (1/1) + Helium (2/2) + Energy = Tritium (1/2) + He3 (2/1). The equation balances out with respect to mass, but I expect that the energy required makes this practically useless

seems to me this should work. It actually create of a fair amount of power

[raxo2222]

I built spaceship capable reaching Milky Way core - it has heavy warp drive, 2 2.5m quantum vacuum engines, and quantum singularity reactor.

Nice feature of this reactor is that it can power 2 quantum engines or 6 VASMIR engines (both 2.5m sized) - power usage would be 100% at 99.5% of throttle (or 9.95% for VASMIR).

 

It seems like that 320 GW wasn't random number.

Edit: Consumption of H isn't right -  it is per second, not day.

 

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by raxo2222

[SciMan]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Well that not going to work as the reason I want to create Boron6, which needs to be created from Helium4 + Lithium7 , which is created from Tritium + Helium4

Couldn't you use that boron to create Hexaborane in an ISRU converter by adding Hydrogen? It's not totally useless, but it's not going to be that useful for making Tritium unless you can figure out a way to make the QSR start spitting out neutrons.

The big problems with using the QSR to create heavier elements are the power requirements and the lack of neutrons. The power problem can be solved by feeding it much more hydrogen than would be required to add up to the mass of the desired atoms, but the neutron problem is only really solvable by feeding the QSR with something that has neutrons, and accepting that the reactor will create some Hydrogen along with whatever you're creating.

 

I think there has been a misunderstanding of what I intended the black hole reactor to be. I intended the QSR to be ONLY a reactor, not an elemental transmutation device.

A totally separate Particle Accelerator part (using the particle accelerator model for obvious reasons) would handle any and all elemental transmutation work.

Let me break that down a little differently.

Reactor: Hydrogen in, energy (as charged particles) out. Simple, right? Don't even need to calculate nuclear reactions yet, just use E=MC². And it runs on existing fusion reactor code (with a few modifications). The reactor that's in KSPI at the moment is pretty close to this, I won't ask for many changes to it.

Particle Accelerator: Hydrogen and lots of MegaJoules in, heavier elements out. It could be used to make Antimatter too, and the model fits this purpose better than the Science lab. Both of these things would be rather simple to do using existing KSPI ISRU converter modules, or the stock resource converter modules. The current functionality of the Particle Accelerator part is broken, but the model itself is fine. This makes it a good candidate for rebuilding the config to make it into something useful and usable.

To be perfectly honest, I think you're making it hard on yourself by trying to make one part do everything (generate power and transmute elements at the same time).

I'm trying to make your job easier, and I think this is the easiest way to implement the elemental transmutation mechanics. It also makes balancing the various conversions easier, as you can set the power consumption of each separately without creating 50 different reactor operation modes (which would also clutter up the right-click menu in the VAB/SPH).

Edited May 17, 2016 by SciMan

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

I built spaceship capable reaching Milky Way core - it has heavy warp drive, 2 2.5m quantum vacuum engines, and quantum singularity reactor.

Nice feature of this reactor is that it can power 2 quantum engines or 6 VASMIR engines (both 2.5m sized) - power usage would be 100% at 99.5% of throttle (or 9.95% for VASMIR).

 

It seems like that 320 GW wasn't random number.

Edit: Consumption of H isn't right -  it is per second, not day.

 

 

Interesting. What did you use to charge up the singularity reactor? Good to see you were able to use use it full power. Was it difficult to use?

Edited May 17, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

5 hours ago, Profit- said:

I had always wondered if this would go in.   I can just play and find out for myself but being at work and curiosity is striking, will the reactor shut down when full or will it just "vent" the extra gas. 

By default, if it has storage, it should be stored, otherwise it will be vented. notice xenon extraction is a unique feature for molten salt reactors, is a big problem in conventional reactor as it can can seriously interfere with the reactor neutronicy and if there is no way way of the gas to escape, it can even damage the fuel rods  causing leaks. It was  actually responsible for the biggest nuclear accident in history, Chernobyl.

Edited May 17, 2016 by FreeThinker

[ShadyAct]

I asked about the radius modifier a few times and didn't get a response so I went into the code and made GetHeatExchangerThrustDivisor always return 1 and it solved my problem. I just wanted to fix the radius modifier never giving me 100% - are there any negative side effects that my "fix" may cause, @FreeThinker?

[Profit-]

2 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

By default, if it has storage, it should be stored, otherwise it will be vented. notice xenon extraction is a unique feature for molten salt reactors, is a big problem in conventional reactor as it can can seriously interfere with the reactor neutronicy and if there is no way way of the gas to escape, it can even damage the fuel rods  causing leaks. It was  actually responsible for the biggest nuclear accident in history, Chernobyl.

I think that is Xenon-135 with the huge neutron cross section or something and it has a really short half life, but yeah.   RBMK's though if memory serves me right have a lot of issues, and I thought Chernobyl was they were doing a plant blackout test to see if the turbines had enough momentum to keep the generators and the plant on while the emergency ones came up to speed and it all went sideways because they disabled the safety's. 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Profit-

[FreeThinker]

On 16-5-2016 at 4:45 AM, ShadyAct said:

Should I be getting 100% for the radius modifier when the reactor and nozzle have the same diameter?

Well that's what you should aim for.   It matches the reactor with the nozzle. It ensures optimal heat or charged particle transfer. You can mismatch to achieve more convenient effect, Note that it is cumulative. you can create at 100% match by dividing 1 reactor with multiple nozzles. As long as the sum of the surface area mix, there should not be loss of efficiency.

6 hours ago, ShadyAct said:

I asked about the radius modifier a few times and didn't get a response so I went into the code and made GetHeatExchangerThrustDivisor always return 1 and it solved my problem. I just wanted to fix the radius modifier never giving me 100% - are there any negative side effects that my "fix" may cause, @FreeThinker?

Yes, you are unbalancing your game as you can now put tiny nozzle on a big reactor. The tiny nozzle is off course significantly lighter, which, gives you a big advantage which could be considered unfair

5 hours ago, Profit- said:

I think that is Xenon-135 with the huge neutron cross section or something and it has a really short half life, but yeah. 

Correct, but if you keep it near the reactor as part of the neutron shield, there is enough time for it to collect a neutron and become stable XenonGas

[raxo2222]

9 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Interesting. What did you use to charge up the singularity reactor? Good to see you were able to use use it full power. Was it difficult to use?

3.75m Molten Salt at first, but it was bit too slow. But it was surprisingly effective, then radiator temperature went above molten salt core rendering this reactor useless.

Then I switched to 2.5m AIM - 4 x more power with almost same mass including charged particle generator and fuel. You can turn off AIM after charging QSR - thrust loss is minimal, like 1% - 2%

Looks like singularity reactor produces more deuterium in pure H fusion than 2.5m AIM can use it, but it seems QSR cant refuel, when tanks are full.

There is ship for testing: http://www12.zippyshare.com/v/Qy1T0U7k/file.html

It uses procedual fairings (to create multi engine mount), procedual parts, Mechjeb and I have KJR here too. That's all 4 mods affecting ship itself.

QSR (quasar.... hmmmm) isn't very difficult to use - all you need is to charge it with some reactor - molten salt if you are patient and you really want durability at cost of being useless when QSR is up, or AIM, if you want to turn it on and off, and have quicker power up time for QSR.

I have KRASH Simulation mod, so I can put this ship anywhere I want.

I play only in sandbox - I like creating 23rd century spaceships

And in Stellaris (game is placed in 23rd century) first ships are like this one I created, if you go for warp tech.

This reactor can work indefinitely long with large air scoops installed sucking in hydrogen - ship must be between 250km and 300km for Earth in RSS.

ISP for QV ship must be insanely big - like tens of millions, and it has mild TWR of 0.25 - 0.5 depending on how much fuel you take. DV should be high enough to orbit target, even if you are coming out of warp at 100 km/s

Edited May 18, 2016 by raxo2222

[_Astra_]

On ‎11‎.‎05‎.‎2016 at 2:16 PM, FreeThinker said:

Mmm, so It doesn't work anymore? That too bad but I do not intend to fix it as there is another mod SolarSailNavigator , which has replaced it with an improved version also introduced a  Navigation tool, something KSPI never had.

 

 

Sadly, there's no option for "another mod".

 

These  parts seem to be completely identical. They do look and perform exactly the same - both operational in 1.0.5 and broken in 1.1.x

(Never seen this Navigator even in 1.0.5. The manual says nothing about how to launch it)

 

Solar Navigator's info says it's a part *from* KSPI.

Edited May 19, 2016 by _Astra_

[raxo2222]

Disabling mech jeb prevents explosions on high warp speeds.

I suspect KJR mod causes ship to rotate and wobble at high warp speeds

 

Edit: Without KJR and with Mech Jeb you can warp up to 100c without rotations, but still you can lose part of ship.

Heres updated ship:

http://www47.zippyshare.com/v/Qgt0N45t/file.html

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by raxo2222

[Bishop149]

I started a new game recently (having been away a while!) combining KSP-IE with some other mods I haven't played with before, one of them being USI-MKS.

Do these play well together? I ask because MKS isn't on the compatible list both add nuclear reactors so I'm wondering if everything in the tech tree is correct and in the right place. 

The two nodes in particular that are bothering me are:

Nuclear Power - Unlocks three sizes (0.625, 1.25, 2.5) of Nuclear reactor + Molten Salt 

Improved Nuclear Power - Unlocks 3.75 USI Nuclear reactor, pebble bed, Thermal electric generator

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263836971402084476/4CFD2B62ADB0A9CDC8F20FB8CEAF6E07D0E1C9F3/

Now the molten Salt in particular looks like a USI model, however all seem to produce KSP-I resources and the extra info text all looks very KSP-I. Did you and Roverdude integrate them?

Also they all seem to not require a Thermal electric generator seemingly having one built in, is that correct?

FInally I noticed there are two versions of the Thermal electric generator, one unlocking in the nuclear tech tree arm and another "advanced" one in the electric tech tree arm. . . . they appear identical at a glance?

[Nansuchao]

1 minute ago, Bishop149 said:

I started a new game recently (having been away a while!) combining KSP-IE with some other mods I haven't played with before, one of them being USI-MKS.

Do these play well together? I ask because MKS isn't on the compatible list both add nuclear reactors so I'm wondering if everything in the tech tree is correct and in the right place. 

The two nodes in particular that are bothering me are:

Nuclear Power - Unlocks three sizes (0.625, 1.25, 2.5) of Nuclear reactor + Molten Salt 

Improved Nuclear Power - Unlocks 3.75 USI Nuclear reactor, pebble bed, Thermal electric generator

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263836971402084476/4CFD2B62ADB0A9CDC8F20FB8CEAF6E07D0E1C9F3/

Now the molten Salt in particular looks like a USI model, however all seem to produce KSP-I resources and the extra info text all looks very KSP-I. Did you and Roverdude integrate them?

Also they all seem to not require a Thermal electric generator seemingly having one built in, is that correct?

FInally I noticed there are two versions of the Thermal electric generator, one unlocking in the nuclear tech tree arm and another "advanced" one in the electric tech tree arm. . . . they appear identical at a glance?

They play really well together. 

You see the same parts in different modes cause many parts in KSPI are upgraded while you unlock nodes.

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, Bishop149 said:

Now the molten Salt in particular looks like a USI model, however all seem to produce KSP-I resources and the extra info text all looks very KSP-I. Did you and Roverdude integrate them?

No, I simply used his Model, which is allowed according to it's license. I'm not a modeleler myself. At most I can retexture an exisitng part. This means I'm pretty much dependant on external artists.

The KSPI , USI pretty much behaves like roverdudes USI version, except it produces Megajoules, creates Anticides which will slowly poison the fuel, and send out neutrons which can be used to breed tritium from lithium, and it can be used for propusion if you connect it with a nozzle.  Also, this is a big one, it will upgrade when more advanced nuclear energy tech is reseached.

6 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

3.75m Molten Salt at first, but it was bit too slow. But it was surprisingly effective, then radiator temperature went above molten salt core rendering this reactor useless.

Then I switched to 2.5m AIM - 4 x more power with almost same mass including charged particle generator and fuel. You can turn off AIM after charging QSR - thrust loss is minimal, like 1% - 2%

Looks like singularity reactor produces more deuterium in pure H fusion than 2.5m AIM can use it, but it seems QSR cant refuel, when tanks are full.

There is ship for testing: http://www12.zippyshare.com/v/Qy1T0U7k/file.html

It uses procedual fairings (to create multi engine mount), procedual parts, Mechjeb and I have KJR here too. That's all 4 mods affecting ship itself.

QSR (quasar.... hmmmm) isn't very difficult to use - all you need is to charge it with some reactor - molten salt if you are patient and you really want durability at cost of being useless when QSR is up, or AIM, if you want to turn it on and off, and have quicker power up time for QSR.

I have KRASH Simulation mod, so I can put this ship anywhere I want.

I play only in sandbox - I like creating 23rd century spaceships

And in Stellaris (game is placed in 23rd century) first ships are like this one I created, if you go for warp tech.

This reactor can work indefinitely long with large air scoops installed sucking in hydrogen - ship must be between 250km and 300km for Earth in RSS.

ISP for QV ship must be insanely big - like tens of millions, and it has mild TWR of 0.25 - 0.5 depending on how much fuel you take. DV should be high enough to orbit target, even if you are coming out of warp at 100 km/s

The combination of Singularity Reactor + Antimatter Engine + Thermal Turbojet/Ramjet +  Warp drive + Quantum Vacuum Engine + Atmospheric Scoop / Aluminium mining, technically allows you to Go where no Kerbal has gone before by setting foot on the ground on every biome in the galaxy in a single grand tour. The only limmiting factor is patience, human error and the allmighty Kraken

Edited May 18, 2016 by FreeThinker