KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[Mine_Turtle]

Looking at Community Resource Pack I do not see configs for lithium and aluminium. However they are present in ORS. Is it possible to add those resources to CRP? I can do that myself but I do not know which parameters to use for them.

[ss8913]

@FreeThinker (and others) - I'm still struggling to find an end-game use for the QSR.  I can see it being useful mid-game due to its longevity and efficiency, but once you unlock the alcubierre drives, a few things change about the way you design and fly craft:

1. QSR + Plasma doesn't produce enough thrust to burn off the required post-jump dV
2. Missions only last a few days at most due to the FTL, so the QSR longevity is no longer a factor.

At this point in the game, you get the best performance with antimatter reactor + charged particle electric generator + hydrazine + thermal ramjet/rocket... *by far*.  I think that the QSR either needs to be moved to a lower tech level or it needs to provide additional bonuses to thrust and ISP over what it currently does.  I've been trying like hell to make a craft that uses a QSR be more useful than my existing FTL craft using the thermal ramjet/rocket + antimatter + hydrazine, but I just cannot.  Perhaps I'm doing it wrong, though; suggestions appreciated if anyone has any.

[raxo2222]

28 minutes ago, ss8913 said:

@FreeThinker (and others) - I'm still struggling to find an end-game use for the QSR.  I can see it being useful mid-game due to its longevity and efficiency, but once you unlock the alcubierre drives, a few things change about the way you design and fly craft:

1. QSR + Plasma doesn't produce enough thrust to burn off the required post-jump dV
2. Missions only last a few days at most due to the FTL, so the QSR longevity is no longer a factor.

At this point in the game, you get the best performance with antimatter reactor + charged particle electric generator + hydrazine + thermal ramjet/rocket... *by far*.  I think that the QSR either needs to be moved to a lower tech level or it needs to provide additional bonuses to thrust and ISP over what it currently does.  I've been trying like hell to make a craft that uses a QSR be more useful than my existing FTL craft using the thermal ramjet/rocket + antimatter + hydrazine, but I just cannot.  Perhaps I'm doing it wrong, though; suggestions appreciated if anyone has any.

Its perfect for quantum vacuum engine - its lightest reactor per GW of power.

Quantum Vacuum Engine needs warp thrust mode like magnetic nozzle has, so you could put time acceleration and thrust - its acceleration is in between 1 - 5 m/s² depending on how much weight you put on it.

QSR with Quantum Vacuum is meant to be used for motherships.

Also interstellar should be used with RSS and SMURFF for low tech to be able to reach orbit, and high tech have actually its use of high DV, but isru mining doesn't work on RSS.

Edited May 31, 2016 by raxo2222

[Bishop149]

Ok, how to I get the upgrade to Graphene radiators?

I just spend 850 of my precious science to get to metamaterials (which the OP says is the unlock node) but all my Rads are still Mo-Li Heatpipe Mk2 

Is there any functional difference between the Thermal Ramjet and Thermal Turbojet? It looks like they're same but with different models. Same for the two Magnetic nozzles, is this a legacy issue?

I'm generally finding the OP a little confusing, it seems very outdated. Is there a better source? 

[FreeThinker]

46 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Its perfect for quantum vacuum engine - its lightest reactor per GW of power.

Quantum Vacuum Engine needs warp thrust mode like magnetic nozzle has, so you could put time acceleration and thrust - its acceleration is in between 1 - 5 m/s² depending on how much weight you put on it.

QSR with Quantum Vacuum is meant to be used for motherships.

Also interstellar should be used with RSS and SMURFF for low tech to be able to reach orbit, and high tech have actually its use of high DV, but isru mining doesn't work on RSS.

Indeed, the QSR is the first engine truely mend for interstellar multi mission vessel. Antimatter cost would simply too high for this purpose. It should be played with mods like Stellar Neighbourhood or RSS with nearby stars

20 minutes ago, Bishop149 said:

Ok, how to I get the upgrade to Graphene radiators?

I just spend 850 of my precious science to get to metamaterials (which the OP says is the unlock node) but all my Rads are still Mo-Li Heatpipe Mk2 

Is there any functional difference between the Thermal Ramjet and Thermal Turbojet? It looks like they're same but with different models. Same for the two Magnetic nozzles, is this a legacy issue?

I'm generally finding the OP a little confusing, it seems very outdated. Is there a better source? 

metamaterials is the only tech that  increases the effective surface area of the radiators, the radiator tech allow them to increase their maximum temperature. Depending on reactor and configuration, one can be bore effective than the other

Edited May 31, 2016 by FreeThinker

[ss8913]

1 hour ago, raxo2222 said:

Its perfect for quantum vacuum engine - its lightest reactor per GW of power.

Quantum Vacuum Engine needs warp thrust mode like magnetic nozzle has, so you could put time acceleration and thrust - its acceleration is in between 1 - 5 m/s² depending on how much weight you put on it.

QSR with Quantum Vacuum is meant to be used for motherships.

Also interstellar should be used with RSS and SMURFF for low tech to be able to reach orbit, and high tech have actually its use of high DV, but isru mining doesn't work on RSS.

warp thrust mode is for before you have FTL drives.  It makes no sense if you're using the FTL.  You need to be able to burn down those heavy dV deficits.  On a mothership, quantum vacuum doesn't make sense at all since you'd need about 50 of those things to produce enough thrust for a 2500t mothership + dropship to be useful...

@FreeThinker - speaking of warp drive - you know how the gravity well will slow you down/pull you out of warp?  Well, it's still doing that, but now there's a new behavior - when you exit warp this way, the ship explodes.  reproducible 100% of the time.  Dropping out of warp normally is fine, but if a gravity well does it, *boom*.

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, ss8913 said:

@FreeThinker - speaking of warp drive - you know how the gravity well will slow you down/pull you out of warp?  Well, it's still doing that, but now there's a new behavior - when you exit warp this way, the ship explodes.  reproducible 100% of the time.  Dropping out of warp normally is fine, but if a gravity well does it, *boom*.

Strange, aren't you flying into an atmosphere or something?

When it does go boom, what does the log say? Somethig must gone critical

Also, show big what the gravity well? It might be relevant because it might slow down too fast, causing massive gefore shocking, ripping the ship appart.

Edited May 31, 2016 by FreeThinker

[ss8913]

56 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Strange, aren't you flying into an atmosphere or something?

When it does go boom, what does the log say? Somethig must gone critical

Also, show big what the gravity well? It might be relevant because it might slow down too fast, causing massive gefore shocking, ripping the ship appart.

tried it on Kerbin, Dres (the modified one with 2.1g of gravity, still no atmosphere though), Mun, and Moho.  so... all different sizes of everything there.  I'll check the log at the moment of impact; at least it's very reproducible

[maranble14]

@FreeThinker Do you plan to keep the model setup for the QSR such that you cannot have any radial attachments to it? It makes sense for an ISRU, but it does make it kind of difficult to attach radiators to it properly haha

Edited May 31, 2016 by maranble14

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, maranble14 said:

@FreeThinker Do you plan to keep the model setup for the QSR such that you cannot have any radial attachments to it? It makes sense for an ISRU, but it does make it kind of difficult to attach radiators to it properly haha

Well the reasoning is that the gravitational forcess on the sphere are still too high to allow connecting any light stuctures like radiators. It would also not look very well.

Seems to me in general it's a bad idea to radialy connect anything to reactors that is capable of emiting vast amount of radiation, magnetic or gravitational field lines, as it would damage the radiators. In real nuclear powered space craft designs, great care is taken to make sure the radiator stays inside the anti radiation shadow shield.

 

We can't yet make an accurate simulation of neutron embritllemend  on radiators surrounding a reactor but we could at least prevent players from connecting radiator on the radiator directly.

Edited May 31, 2016 by FreeThinker

[maranble14]

@FreeThinker Ok that makes sense. I didn't know there was reasoning behind that design decision. Thanks

[raxo2222]

6 hours ago, ss8913 said:

warp thrust mode is for before you have FTL drives.  It makes no sense if you're using the FTL.  You need to be able to burn down those heavy dV deficits.  On a mothership, quantum vacuum doesn't make sense at all since you'd need about 50 of those things to produce enough thrust for a 2500t mothership + dropship to be useful...

Ummm thats why we need ability to thrust during warp - you don't want to spend hour irl waiting for ship to decelerate.

[Mine_Turtle]

1 hour ago, raxo2222 said:

Ummm thats why we need ability to thrust during warp - you don't want to spend hour irl waiting for ship to decelerate.

Is it not possible to use something like vista or thermal nozzle with high core temp reactor to produce thrust? Vista can deliver variable ISP/thrust so you can tradeoff between burn time and fuel, while with high core temp and methane fuel you can get high thrust and high ISP(3k) at the same time.

 

[Nansuchao]

@FreeThinker is intentional that the Microwave Transmitters are capped at 27 GW with any size?

[raxo2222]

25 minutes ago, Mine_Turtle said:

Is it not possible to use something like vista or thermal nozzle with high core temp reactor to produce thrust? Vista can deliver variable ISP/thrust so you can tradeoff between burn time and fuel, while with high core temp and methane fuel you can get high thrust and high ISP(3k) at the same time.

 

huh?

I meant ability to accelerate during 5x or more time warp, just like magnetic nozzle.

[maranble14]

Idk what I'm doing wrong but I'm still having an issue with the microwave relay networks not working. Attached are two screenshots of the same vessel, having the exact same orientation, but in one the transceiver is set to receiving mode, while in the other it is set to relay mode. You can clearly see that in receiving mode, the satellite is getting power and establishes a connection to the power station. But in relay mode, it's stating that the input power is offline and won't connect to any other satellites. Despite facing the exact same way. Please help.

http://imgur.com/a/3W1iZ

[FreeThinker]

38 minutes ago, maranble14 said:

Idk what I'm doing wrong but I'm still having an issue with the microwave relay networks not working. Attached are two screenshots of the same vessel, having the exact same orientation, but in one the transceiver is set to receiving mode, while in the other it is set to relay mode. You can clearly see that in receiving mode, the satellite is getting power and establishes a connection to the power station. But in relay mode, it's stating that the input power is offline and won't connect to any other satellites. Despite facing the exact same way. Please help.

http://imgur.com/a/3W1iZ

When in relay mode, it won't receive any power, it just becomes part of the network and allows other vessels with no direct line of sight with the power source to receive the transmitted power

[ss8913]

3 hours ago, Mine_Turtle said:

Is it not possible to use something like vista or thermal nozzle with high core temp reactor to produce thrust? Vista can deliver variable ISP/thrust so you can tradeoff between burn time and fuel, while with high core temp and methane fuel you can get high thrust and high ISP(3k) at the same time.

 

The problem is that with a 15km/sec dV burn you'll be out of the SOI before the burn finishes   KSP doesn't handle that so well.  Also is Methane better than Hydrazine for thrust/ISP?  so far hydrazine has been giving me the best results...

Not sure if thermal nozzles work as well with the QSR, I was told that it wasn't as high temp as the antimatter reactor?

[gdw098]

On 29-5-2016 at 11:06 PM, Nansuchao said:

Did you set them on the right propellant? Do you have enough energy to make them work?

How do I set the propellant of Resistojets? The right mouse button menu has only a scale option from Tweakscale, but no propellant switch like fuel tanks have with IFS?

[Nansuchao]

2 hours ago, gdw098 said:

How do I set the propellant of Resistojets? The right mouse button menu has only a scale option from Tweakscale, but no propellant switch like fuel tanks have with IFS?

You can set it in the VAB and in flight too. If you can't, there is something wrong in your install. I use on a daily basis that RCS thrusters without issues.

[Mine_Turtle]

10 hours ago, ss8913 said:

The problem is that with a 15km/sec dV burn you'll be out of the SOI before the burn finishes   KSP doesn't handle that so well.  Also is Methane better than Hydrazine for thrust/ISP?  so far hydrazine has been giving me the best results...

Not sure if thermal nozzles work as well with the QSR, I was told that it wasn't as high temp as the antimatter reactor?

Hydrazine is [email protected] ISP/Thrust while Methane is [email protected]. Out of all fuels methane seems to be the best in terms of ISP/Thrust ratio. It is also relatively easy to produce this fuel from water and CO2.

15km/s seems quite extreme. If time is not a concern you can try to do a fly-by near some planets to save on dV as well as use periapsis kicking to prolong burn time. Should be possible to plan the entire route in advance using TOT.

[ss8913]

So I encountered what I thought was a problem with MKS, and posted on that mod's thread... but the reply I got was:

12 hours ago, ss8913 said:

@RoverDude - I'm trying to start a 2.5m reactor that I built on the Mun with EPL... as before, it's empty of fuel, so I brought up a kontainer of EnrichedUranium and went to "Perform Maintenance" on the reactor with an EVA engineer like I did in 1.0.5

Problem is... the reactor (it's a USI reactor), takes "UF4" now instead of "EnrichedUranium".  That wasn't the case last time.  Is this a CommunityResources bug, a USI bug, or something else?

This has got to be something to do with another mod you have installed.  Are you running KSPI-E? That is the only mod I know which uses UF4 and maybe it bundles a reactor compatibility pack which changes the USI reactors.

 

I've run both of these mods together for a very long time, never seen this before; any chance KSPIE is in fact doing something to remap the resource?  Is there a way I can remap the Kontainer to use UF4 as well?  Or... I really don't know what to do here.  I can't remember how it worked in 1.0.5...

So it seems this is definitely coming from a MM patch in a recent KSPIE.  I suppose it makes sense, and I can get even more profit using the ISRU to convert UF4 plus ammonia into UN, which is the single most valuable resource defined by CRP.  I've tried this, and it works... and it's kind of a money cheat, although not really; build a refinery on Kerbin with an ISRU, feed it with liquid ammonia and UF4, and convert to UN... 4 200% tweakscaled UN tanks, full, and counting the "launch" loss and cost of materials, nets you millions of kerbal dollars in a matter of seconds.

Which might be a problem - the ISRU does this conversion *instantaneously*.  Turn on the .. uranium ammonalysis or whatever it's called now, and boom instant convert.  Maybe because the unit size is so small?  But it's mega-profitable either way.  There seems to be no bonus for carrying things back from offworld, save I suppose you could get uraninite and mine it into UF4 offworld and save on parts cost, but in terms of dollars/time it's far faster to just buy materials and refine on Kerbin

Edited June 1, 2016 by ss8913

[Liquid5n0w]

@FreeThinker I think something might be wrong with the Experimental Nuclear propulsion node and the pebble bed reactor.  As soon as I unlock the node in my save, the pebble reactor acts like it's not unlocked in the VAB.  And unlocking the upgrade on the node doesn't change it, still not usable and not unlockable.  I suspect it's something to do with how it is getting an upgrade?

Edit:  I can still launch the design, but for the life of me I cannot place a new pebble bed reactor.

 

 

Also, the upgrade for the particle reactor doesn't seem to give more power, nor does it actually unlock.  If I unlock it then close and open the tech screen, there is another upgrade on the tech screen to do.  Here is a screenshot with 3 particle beds on the same node:

Edited June 2, 2016 by Liquid5n0w

[SciMan]

@FreeThinker

Bug report!

The "old style" magnetic nozzle's engine shrouds are bugged (showing up on craft that previously discarded them, showing up in the VAB when they shouldn't, not responding to right-click menu in VAB or in flight).

I think it's because the config was changed where it shouldn't have.

Specific part affected: WarpPlugin/Parts/Engines/MagneticNozzle2

For comparison:

The "old style" magnetic nozzle's OLD shroud config (from v1.8.18):

Spoiler

MODULE
{
       name = ModuleJettison
       jettisonName = engine_fairing  //separate mesh that appears when something is attached to the node set in the next variable; the mesh detaches when the lower part is staged
       bottomNodeName = bottom      //a part attached to this node will make the fairing mesh visible. must be a stack node
       isFairing = True             //affects Drag when the fairing is on.
       jettisonedObjectMass = 0.1     // mass of the jettisoned mesh as debris 
       jettisonForce = 5            // impulse on the fairing mesh when jettisoned
       jettisonDirection = 0 0 1     //in XYZ format; +Z is same direction as engine thrust, or some other direction you set.
}

 

The "old style" magnetic nozzle's NEW shroud config (from v1.8.22):

Spoiler

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleJettison
	jettisonName = fairingL
	bottomNodeName = bottom
	isFairing = False
	jettisonedObjectMass = 0.1
	jettisonForce = 1
	jettisonDirection = 0 -1 0
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleJettison
	jettisonName = fairingR
	bottomNodeName = bottom
	isFairing = False
	jettisonedObjectMass = 0.1
	jettisonForce = 1
	jettisonDirection = 0 1 0
}

 

The model for that part did not change AFAIK, so I think its safe to assume that this change to the config probably broke it.

 

Also, I figured out that I can wrap code tags in spoiler tags, should make my config bug reports easier to read.

 

EDIT: Realized it might be one of my own MM configs that messed stuff up. Checking that now.

EDIT 2: No such luck. Bug persists with the fix I made to my MM configs. Checking to see if reverting to the way the old config did it fixes it.

EDIT 3: Reverting that specific portion of the config has fixed the problem. Confirmed with in-game testing.

EDIT 4: Found another similar problem with the new style magnetic nozzle (WarpPlugin/Parts/Engines/MagneticNozzle3). Looks like that portion of the config got swapped around and/or scrambled with the one for the other magnetic nozzle somehow (not sure how that happened, probably involves copy/paste). Fix is similar, revert relevant section of config to earlier version.

Edited June 2, 2016 by SciMan

[ss8913]

regarding our earlier conversation on propellants:

I just built a craft with an antimatter reactor and a thermal ramjet/rocket engine (3.75m).  single tank, some radiators, AI core and a nose cone.  Basic stuff.  Did a launch with methane and a launch with hydrazine.  Results:

Hydrazine rocket launched by MJ2 to 100km circular orbit had 31,900m/s^2 dV remaining upon achieving orbit.  Launch mass with full fuel = 144t
Methane rocket was definitely more powerful but on the same launch to 100km, 13,300m/s^2 dV remaining upon achieving orbit.  Launch mass with full fuel = 110t

Shouldn't methane have had better ISP?  Despite the lower launch mass, it has less than half the dV of the same craft with the heavier hydrazine propellant.  Are the thrust/ISP multipliers currently inaccurate?

Also, [SEPARATE ISSUE]: if you scale the thermal ramjet to 1.25m, the performance is.. unusable.  2.5m will produce sufficient thrust, but on a smaller, lighter craft with the 1.25m, it produces like 300mm/sec^2 (yes, millimeters) on closed-cycle hydrazine.  Less than 1/10th the thrust of the 2.5m version.