FreeThinker

KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

Recommended Posts

@GrimT

KSPIE also offers a realistic alternative to LFO ISRU production on the Mun, Aluminium Oxygen ISRU and Rocket .

It offers 7 methods to use use it for propulsion

1 Hybrid (Solid/Liquid),

2 chemical mixture engine (Pneumatic and Liquid Metal),

2 Thermal Propulsion modes

2 Monopropellant engine ( Resistojet RCS and Monopropellant Engine)

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I find "iHal" probe core quite OP. Infinite power, huge Torque and complete piloting, for 0.5 weight and 5K credits? 

A radioisotope generator alone costs from 20K on...

Wouldn't be more balanced if the cost would be, lets say, 50K? And the weight something higher.

I know, i know, "if you don't like it, don't use it". But i do like it! I only want to balance things a bit.

What do you think about?

Regards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will that Resistance thruster coming soon? I hope that at 300sci level  node (same with First power generator)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi! I noticed while making an ISRU module for my Minmus base that the standard ISRU processor produces only "liquid water" after processing hydrates. This, for me (at least in the mid-game) is useless, as I run TAC-LS and need plain "water" to not kill my Kerbals. Is there a converter already implemented in KSP-IE already? If not, I'd like to request a future feature of either a converter to change it into regular water ("purifies" the non-potable liquid water) or simply a change of resource definitions so this is compatible with TAC-LS.

Thanks for anything you can do, this is a fantastic mod!

 

EDIT:

The ISRU refrigerator works fine for this.

Edited by Clamp-o-Tron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Just think up a new thing:D

We already have a multi fuel-functional chemical engine.

So why not add a new fuel mix--  CO/O2 rockets?   

look for that isp about 250-280s

if it can add to NTR after burn mode that will way more better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/5/2020 at 10:19 AM, juvilado said:

Hi, I find "iHal" probe core quite OP. Infinite power, huge Torque and complete piloting, for 0.5 weight and 5K credits? 

A radioisotope generator alone costs from 20K on...

Wouldn't be more balanced if the cost would be, lets say, 50K? And the weight something higher.

I know, i know, "if you don't like it, don't use it". But i do like it! I only want to balance things a bit.

What do you think about?

Regards!

Good point regarding the cost, I will take it over. More balance suggestion are welcome

On 5/6/2020 at 11:46 AM, Sweetie bot said:

I Just think up a new thing:D

We already have a multi fuel-functional chemical engine.

So why not add a new fuel mix--  CO/O2 rockets?   

look for that isp about 250-280s

if it can add to NTR after burn mode that will way more better.

Sounds intresting.  Might be usefull on planets where acces to water/methane/hydrogen is hard.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I&friend have some intention to remake a couple of models from KSPI-E. Now we are working on Z-Pinch models (in my opinion, existing ones seem pretty low-quality - their nozzle center and detail center are in the different places; low-quality nozzle textures, but nice covering; and the main point - it's simply some futuristic model of engine, not a model of Z-Pinch engine.)
Here are our current state images of Z-Pinch engine (polygon count - 2307):
BCKDBnPHrBg.jpg
I have some essential questions:
1) Is this work good enough to replace current model (of course, work effects will be added, now it's just a box without any effects or animations)?
2) What is the necessary format of models? Can you make use of 3dsMax native format, you need fbx or any other?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Tedd_Deireadh said:

Hi, I&friend have some intention to remake a couple of models from KSPI-E. Now we are working on Z-Pinch models (in my opinion, existing ones seem pretty low-quality - their nozzle center and detail center are in the different places; low-quality nozzle textures, but nice covering; and the main point - it's simply some futuristic model of engine, not a model of Z-Pinch engine.)
Here are our current state images of Z-Pinch engine (polygon count - 2307):
BCKDBnPHrBg.jpg
I have some essential questions:
1) Is this work good enough to replace current model (of course, work effects will be added, now it's just a box without any effects or animations)?
2) What is the necessary format of models? Can you make use of 3dsMax native format, you need fbx or any other?
 

Hello Tedd, I agree the old model looks as its made by an amateur, but your model looks like its made by a professional artist. I love highly detailed parts that reveal their inner working.

I'm not experienced with converting a 3d max model into a native ksp format but I understand there is a plugin that allows you to convert it into a ksp model.

You should be able to find more details in the KSP Modeling and Textures subforum, alternative you could ask in the KSPIE modelling discord.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2019 at 1:34 AM, pmborg said:

Problem solved for now, I created a shield-dome variation :):

NuFP23A.png

5LvcLei.png

 

Where did you get those spherical habitats? they don't seem to be a part of KSPIE 

On 5/11/2020 at 4:03 AM, Tedd_Deireadh said:

Hi, I&friend have some intention to remake a couple of models from KSPI-E. Now we are working on Z-Pinch models (in my opinion, existing ones seem pretty low-quality - their nozzle center and detail center are in the different places; low-quality nozzle textures, but nice covering; and the main point - it's simply some futuristic model of engine, not a model of Z-Pinch engine.)
Here are our current state images of Z-Pinch engine (polygon count - 2307):
BCKDBnPHrBg.jpg
I have some essential questions:
1) Is this work good enough to replace current model (of course, work effects will be added, now it's just a box without any effects or animations)?
2) What is the necessary format of models? Can you make use of 3dsMax native format, you need fbx or any other?
 

You could export the model as .FBX, then import that to Unity with your image textures. Then you compile them with KSP part tools... Also don't forget to add thrustTransform to the part you're making ( I made the antimatter radiant drive a while ago). I appreciate your amazing work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SynX said:

Where did you get those spherical habitats? they don't seem to be a part of KSPIE 

 

Hello @SynX

These Spheres are Similar to those on Civilian population Mod.

This was a test that I was doing to trying to cover the crew parts, but I abandoned because the Mother-ship becomes very unstable at high speeds.

I would say that was a discontinued prototype, of the very successful: Alfa1.8StellarShuttle-v5-9Fx  with (Space2 SSO Orbit Ship)

https://kerbalx.com/pmborg/Alfa18StellarShuttle-v5-9FxSpace2

  • Earth to Alpha Centauri:
  • Ship-name: Alfa1_8StellarShuttle-v5-9fx
  • Duration: 26y 23d Kerbin Time
  • Duration: 7 years and about 6 days Earth Time (Earth time converted)
  • Max speed: 125,072,124 m/s
  • Launch Mass (Kerbin): 94, 705tones
  • Launch Mass (Jupiter): 539, 739tones (after refuel)
  • Dry Mass: 12,977 tones
  • Wet Mass: 553,788 tones
  • Part Count: 99 (kerbin launch)
  • Part Count: 67 (Jupiter launch)
  • Cost: 4,451,096,064
  • Fuel at Jupiter: 142,228,032m/s (deltaV)
  • Fuel in orbit of target planet: 60,138m/s (deltaV)
  • Crew Capacity: 59

 

Edited by pmborg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2020 at 11:46 AM, Sweetie bot said:

I Just think up a new thing:D

We already have a multi fuel-functional chemical engine.

So why not add a new fuel mix--  CO/O2 rockets?   

look for that isp about 250-280s

exactly where did you get this number from?

according to this document, iso will not be higher than 211s

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hello @FreeThinker
We have just finished (or we hope we have finished) the model of Z-Pinch engine.
We prefer to make the engine preview look like this, if it is acceptable - it's more informative:

4SV3NgJRXXY.jpg

Can we do so?

Some pics of working engine:
l8g_lAFpgIM.jpg

Edited by Tedd_Deireadh
adding some visual info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Tedd_Deireadh said:

Hello @FreeThinker
We have just finished (or we hope we have finished) the model of Z-Pinch engine.
We prefer to make the engine preview look like this, if it is acceptable - it's more informative:

4SV3NgJRXXY.jpg

Can we do so?

Yes that looks good,

Now what remains is the problem of power supply, because how will the Z-pinch engine be powered? The old models had room for an intergrated power generator but this model doesn't. There are 2 possible solutions, either we connect it with a external power generator which convert some of its energy into electric power or it requires an external power supply like the VISTA fusion engine. I think the second option would be the most realistic option because the model does not appear to have any power transfer mechansim to the back.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


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

Now what remains is the problem of power supply, because how will the Z-pinch engine be powered? The old models had room for an intergrated power generator but this model doesn't. There are 2 possible solutions, either we connect it with a external power generator which convert some of its energy into electric power or it requires an external power supply like the VISTA fusion engine. I think the second option would be the most realistic option because the model does not appear to have any power transfer mechansim to the back.

Oh, I didn't mention all of the units of the engine. Sorry. We also have a small charged particle power converter, mounted directly on the fusion camera, and even a heat pipe channel to the top of the engine - for the possibility of thermal electric generator mount. In fact, We even hope to have a small electric generator module in this engine - the concept of all-in-one detail seems pretty good for such an engine - and it's crucial due to strict part number limitations in modded KSP. For example, I have more than five-minute loads on 400+ part crafts.

Here are images:

TqLTELSbx4E.jpg

This model was made for KSP Interstellar only, other usage without authors' permission is prohibited.
*I cannot send a link to the file in personal message now due to forum limitations, think I have to make more posts to unlock this ability)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tedd_Deireadh said:

Oh, I didn't mention all of the units of the engine. Sorry. We also have a small charged particle power converter, mounted directly on the fusion camera, and even a heat pipe channel to the top of the engine - for the possibility of thermal electric generator mount. In fact, We even hope to have a small electric generator module in this engine - the concept of all-in-one detail seems pretty good for such an engine - and it's crucial due to strict part number limitations in modded KSP. For example, I have more than five-minute loads on 400+ part crafts.

Intresting,  so the engine should be able to power itself. A problem I see is that it would only function in a vacuum due to it open character, I guess that will be the trade off for this high performance engine. Another issue would be that no attemp is made to absorb the neutron radiation, which means the engine will embrittle itself over time and kill nearby kerbals and crew.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Intresting,  so the engine should be able to power itself. A problem I see is that it would only function in a vacuum due to it open character, I guess that will be the trade off for this high performance engine. Another issue would be that no attemp is made to absorb the neutron radiation, which means the engine will embrittle itself over time and kill nearby kerbals and crew.

Or it can use aneutronic fuel modes. As I remember, currently fusion pellets consist of D + He3, thus its result is  He4 + P and can be either fully stopped by charged particle power converter or used for heating propellent in burn chamber - which, of course, is two-walled thermostat, completely shielded from less-than-MeV radiation. However, kerbals outside the ship will be killed.

Edited by Tedd_Deireadh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tedd_Deireadh said:

Or it can use aneutronic fuel modes. As I remember, currently fusion pellets consist of D + He3, thus its result is  He4 + P and can be either fully stopped by charged particle power converter or used for heating propellent in burn chamber - which, of course, is two-walled thermostat, completely shielded from less-than-MeV radiation. However, kerbals outside the ship will be killed.

D + He3 is indeed clean, but you always have side reactions like D-D which produce neutrons, which is still enough neutrons produced to kill anything nearby

 

Share this post


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

D + He3 is indeed clean, but you always have side reactions like D-D which produce neutrons, which is still enough neutrons produced to kill anything nearby

 

P + B11. My favorite one. Challenging, but awarding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Tedd_Deireadh said:

P + B11. My favorite one. Challenging, but awarding.

The Main advantage of P+B11  would be cheaper fuel, making it suitable for long term power production, but when used for propulsion it produces much less power and lower exhaust speed. Therefore better stick to D He3 fusion, a.k.a. Fusionpellets

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

The model has a problem: its regular nozzle would be instantly vaporized, and frankly, is redundant, at this temperatures would be all ionized plasma. I originally thought that the  external coils werent a magnetic nozzle, but the Z-pinch coils put in such a way that the reaction is outside (a few meters only) and directed by a VISTA-style lorenz forze magnetic nozzle. Even with that trick, and assuming reflectivity to the X-rays (a bit unobtanium...), a lot of radiators or ablator woul be needed. But, if the reaction is inside and the extra ropellant isnt shooted back as an afterburner, dont know how on Kerbin this engine will survive...

I think to widen and shorten the coils (like the areospike Zpinch, (wose intakes are redundant in this design), remove the thermal nozzle, have it generate thermal power so it can sustain itself with an external generator, and give it an awful waste heat footprint, that is reduced by a bit (but not much) when using criogenic propellants by open cycle cooling.

Edited by AntaresMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 2/2/2020 at 11:09 PM, jhook777 said:

kspie doesn't have a way to convert resources into LFO as stock liquid fuel and oxidizer are of unknown composition (i've heard people say it's Liquid H2, kerosene, cyclohexane, etc). stock mechanic of mining ore and converting using stock isru will provide you with LFO.

LF has to be LH2 to have the nerva work with that Isp, and pressurized, gaseous O2 as oxidizer (yes, I know is a stupid idea, but, better thoughts?) would make for the low densities and absurdly heavy tanks. The low Isp for HydroOx is explained with bad engineering abilities from the kerbals (that also explain the awful oxidizer choice), and because of that, they hired you to design/fly, but give you the parts done beacuse of low budget XD

Monoprop is robably HTP, because its cheap, relatively dense and makes for the Isp, but can be everything, not like the LF, that has to be H2, or the NERVA wont work... We need more info, but Id say HTP. And ore may be just things that contain H and regular rocks, and the ISRU module is just a brute force hyper electrolizer+H2/O2 separator...

Edited by AntaresMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2020 at 12:52 PM, AntaresMC said:

LF has to be LH2 to have the nerva work with that Isp, and pressurized, gaseous O2 as oxidizer (yes, I know is a stupid idea, but, better thoughts?) would make for the low densities and absurdly heavy tanks. The low Isp for HydroOx is explained with bad engineering abilities from the kerbals (that also explain the awful oxidizer choice), and because of that, they hired you to design/fly, but give you the parts done beacuse of low budget XD

Monoprop is robably HTP, because its cheap, relatively dense and makes for the Isp, but can be everything, not like the LF, that has to be H2, or the NERVA wont work... We need more info, but Id say HTP. And ore may be just things that contain H and regular rocks, and the ISRU module is just a brute force hyper electrolizer+H2/O2 separator...

Then NERVA should not be working. I can't see LF as LH2. LF is stable and requires no cryogenic cooling -- it is a stand in for kerosene or other room temperature rocket fuel that also requires an oxidizer.

 

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.