FreeThinker

[1.8.1, 1.7.3/1.6.1/1.5.1/1.4.5/1.3.1] KSP Interstellar Extended 1.24.3 Support Thread

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

it suppose to be working with a magnetic nozzle but appears to be broken right now. I'm looking in it

Oh cool, I thought I was doing something wrong and moved on to positrons + plasma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/4/2019 at 9:54 PM, mbaryu said:

Oh cool, I thought I was doing something wrong and moved on to positrons + plasma.

No the magnetic nozzle is what you need. This is what it should look like when connected with the magnetic nozzle

QgTnbfi.jpg

Although the TWR is only 0.04, it pretty much can get you anywhere using timewarp

Edit: you can now connect it with a plasma nozzle as well which produces much higher thrust at the cost of losing efficiency

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I finally made a pretty powerful (30GW) beamed power in low Kerbin orbit using the quantum singularity reactor, free electron laser and the massive multi-band transceiver dish, so it's also very flexible band-wise.
It gets its hydrogen from atmospheric harvesting and ISRU electrolyzer, and also has a positron antimatter reactor to restart it in case it shuts down for some reason I'm not aware of.
It also got to orbit the proper (launchy) way (in two parts). That was, ahm, interesting...

vyzbgo2.jpg

Anyway - ok, so that's cool, now - what can I do with it?
I was hoping I could make launch vehicles a lot lighter (or at least, much more reusable), but yet to have found an engine that fits that profile (I really like the Vista engine, but apparently it doesn't work in atmosphere).

Any advice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Omeran said:

So I finally made a pretty powerful (30GW) beamed power in low Kerbin orbit using the quantum singularity reactor, free electron laser and the massive multi-band transceiver dish, so it's also very flexible band-wise.
It gets its hydrogen from atmospheric harvesting and ISRU electrolyzer, and also has a positron antimatter reactor to restart it in case it shuts down for some reason I'm not aware of.
It also got to orbit the proper (launchy) way (in two parts). That was, ahm, interesting...

vyzbgo2.jpg

Anyway - ok, so that's cool, now - what can I do with it?
I was hoping I could make launch vehicles a lot lighter (or at least, much more reusable), but yet to have found an engine that fits that profile (I really like the Vista engine, but apparently it doesn't work in atmosphere).

Any advice?

One option would be using a thermal power receiver. Can launch a thermal rocket without the reactor . Alternatively, you can use the ATLITIA (sp?) electric thruster for a smaller launch vehicle

Share this post


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

One option would be using a thermal power receiver. Can launch a thermal rocket without the reactor . Alternatively, you can use the ATLITIA (sp?) electric thruster for a smaller launch vehicle

Usually a combination of multiple receivers and transmitters works best. There are many options for making cheap SSTO  planes or SSTO rockets. When launching a SSTO rockets, you are advised to use an additional beamed power station near KTC (preferably at a high hill or floating in the sea). Launch vessel should preferably be equipped with a combination of thermal receivers for high thrust and a direct beamed power receiver (preferably rectennas) to generated electric power which can be used to power an high isp electric engine. You should put your orbit beamed power transmitter in a high orbit. preferably in a GEO stationary orbit  at 45 degrees east from KTC. This will allow you to launch a SSTO rockets or plane and keep it powered for half an orbit.

Notice that a orbital power station isn't strictly required, as you can do everything using only ground station, but it surely makes it a lot easier .

68747470733a2f2f75706c6f61642e77696b696d

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I wanted to make a realistic futuristic install based on  KSPIE, but I'm not sure what should and shouldn't work. I've tried a few things and run into problems but I don't know if it's my noobiness or incompatibility. Specifically:

Is KSPI-E compatible with  Realism Overhaul? It seems like the engines are balanced for RO (they're ridiculously OP for stock), but when I tried it with RO, my nuclear jets don't seem to recognize that they have intakes. Maybe it's a problem with Advanced Jet Engine? (know if KSPIE is compatible with AJE?).

Is KSPI-E supposed to work best with Real Fuels well? And if yes, which configs are best for it? If I use RO configs, it asks me to install all of RO which leads to the problems above.

I also have a problem with LqdHelium, whether using stockalike or RO configs. When I set a stock tank to use LqdHelium with RealFuels, it becomes ridiculously dense and holds what seems to be 100x more LqdHelium than it should. This gets in the way of making spaceplanes, since LqdHelium seems to be the best fuel for nuclear SSTOs. I think I have this issue with other KSPIE only fuels, but I will test more and post when I get home.

 

 

Beyond that, I just want to know what the best way to use KSPIE is, or what it's intended to work with. Should I be using procedural tanks or stock tanks or something else? Is KSPIE compatible with Kerbalism, or is it meant to use TAC life support? What size solar system should I be using, and how should the stock end be balanced? RO? SMURFF?

Share this post


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

 Maybe it's a problem with Advanced Jet Engine? (know if KSPIE is compatible with AJE?).

Yes it is. It probably caused by some script which in indiscriminately replaces all jet like engines. I'm sure I can think of something to counter it.

40 minutes ago, kerbnub said:

I also have a problem with LqdHelium, whether using stockalike or RO configs. When I set a stock tank to use LqdHelium with RealFuels, it becomes ridiculously dense and holds what seems to be 100x more LqdHelium than it should.

Interesting issue. sounds as if Helium gas and LqdHelium are mixed up somewhere

40 minutes ago, kerbnub said:

It seems like the engines are balanced for RO (they're ridiculously OP for stock),

Notice that KSPIE in general are late game parts which only gradually gain more potency with every generation of techlevel meaning to most Overpowered parts can only be found at the very end were you can achieve stuff that borders on as science fantasy.

40 minutes ago, kerbnub said:

Beyond that, I just want to know what the best way to use KSPIE is, or what it's intended to work with.

Well KSPIE has always been intended to be played with a scaled up or larger more realistic sized solar system for sure, preferably with more than one star (otherwise how else can you go interstellar). At least KSPIE ISRU resource system is intended to function in conjunction with RO / Real Fuels mods, but it is not mandatory.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@mbaryuNotice in the last update of KSPIE, the SQR has been changed. You can now connect it with a plasma nozzle like you tried to do.

 

 

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there, I have some questions myself about some of the numbers I’m seeing in the VAB with the gas core nuclear engines. First, I’m curious as to why those two engines have vastly lower ISP multipliers for certain fuel types than the other nuclear engines. Specifically, I think it’s fuels like methane, liquid fuel and ammonia that have a lower isp multiplier, yet fuels like hydrogen, helium and diborane are the same as the liquid and solid core engines. 

Also, the final max thrust in space numbers for the open cycle gas core engine seem to be awfully low for a 3.75m engine. I think it shows something like ~60kn for hydrogen, then the highest I think is around ~300kn with one of the cryogenic gases (argon I think?) I’m curious if I need upgrades or I’m just missing something. 

I’ve been hoping to upgrade from the open cycle liquid core engine as my “starship” engine of choice, so any insight is much appreciated. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@FreeThinker 

I have a vessel with 4 reactors onboard. When I try to refuel them from a tank of UF4, each reactor takes the fuel from the previous reactor so that when I'm done the 4th reactor is full and the others are empty. I've had this problem with multiple vessels. Is it possible to avoid this sort of reactor cannibalism?

Edited by davidle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FreeThinker previously mentioned you can change the Thermal key by changing ThermalUiKey in WarpPluginSettings.cfg to another key than P.   But what are the key formats?   Alt-P,  ALT_P,  None?   Specifically I am interested in None.  I think I left it blank, but it seems to default back to P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, kurtu5 said:

FreeThinker previously mentioned you can change the Thermal key by changing ThermalUiKey in WarpPluginSettings.cfg to another key than P.   But what are the key formats?   Alt-P,  ALT_P,  None?   Specifically I am interested in None.  I think I left it blank, but it seems to default back to P.

Good point, I will make the change that when left empty it will not be active at all. In fact i'm thinking about setting the default to disabled as you can show the window by pressing the KSPIE button in the VAB.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Drtyhppy2 said:

Hey there, I have some questions myself about some of the numbers I’m seeing in the VAB with the gas core nuclear engines. First, I’m curious as to why those two engines have vastly lower ISP multipliers for certain fuel types than the other nuclear engines. Specifically, I think it’s fuels like methane, liquid fuel and ammonia that have a lower isp multiplier, yet fuels like hydrogen, helium and diborane are the same as the liquid and solid core engines. Also, the final max thrust in space numbers for the open cycle gas core engine seem to be awfully low for a 3.75m engine. I think it shows something like ~60kn for hydrogen, then the highest I think is around ~300kn with one of the cryogenic gases (argon I think?) I’m curious if I need upgrades or I’m just missing something. 

I’ve been hoping to upgrade from the open cycle liquid core engine as my “starship” engine of choice, so any insight is much appreciated. :)

2

For the Gas core reactors, I use the lower atomic isp multiplier because I tread them as electric engines where any complex molecule (like Methane) first gets atomised before they are heated to their final maximum temperature. The reasons for this is technical, mathematical and game balance. The Technical reason is that Gas core reactors are extreme nuclear high-pressure ovens where the propellants are heated by infrared radiation instead of convection (as a consequence, there will be no open cycle cooling). Mathematical  I only have some method of predicting the performance of complex propellant (like methane) in solid core reactor, I have no method of predicting the performance of complex molecules in gas core reactors, which make me want to be conservative. And for gameplay reasons, I wanted the solid core reactor to continue to have advantages over the gas core which isp are much higher. I also wanted to promote the usage of Liquid Hydrogen which is the reference propellant always mention as the recommended propellant for gas cores because in general you want to maximise your isp.

To understand the large difference in thurst, You have to take into account that the energy density of gas core reactors is inherently lower than solid core reactors due the volumes required by gas and the additional reinforcements needed to keep it pressurized. The Liquid Core is an intermediate between the solid core and gas core, where combine the higher power density of solid core with the higher isp of gas cores.

7 hours ago, davidle said:

@FreeThinker 

I have a vessel with 4 reactors onboard. When I try to refuel them from a tank of UF4, each reactor takes the fuel from the previous reactor so that when I'm done the 4th reactor is full and the others are empty. I've had this problem with multiple vessels. Is it possible to avoid this sort of reactor cannibalism?

Perhaps you could block fuel usage  I'm afraid not. I'm afraid the refuelling mechanic never took into account for more than one reactor. It's one aspect I want to address when I overhaul the nuclear salt reactor. In general, I would recommend using one nuclear reactor per vessel to prevent issues and it also offers mass bonuses as a single big reactor has a lower mass than multiple smaller reactors with the cumulative same capacity.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 5/6/2019 at 1:22 AM, FreeThinker said:

Usually a combination of multiple receivers and transmitters works best. There are many options for making cheap SSTO  planes or SSTO rockets. When launching a SSTO rockets, you are advised to use an additional beamed power station near KTC (preferably at a high hill or floating in the sea). Launch vessel should preferably be equipped with a combination of thermal receivers for high thrust and a direct beamed power receiver (preferably rectennas) to generated electric power which can be used to power an high isp electric engine. You should put your orbit beamed power transmitter in a high orbit. preferably in a GEO stationary orbit  at 45 degrees east from KTC. This will allow you to launch a SSTO rockets or plane and keep it powered for half an orbit.

Notice that a orbital power station isn't strictly required, as you can do everything using only ground station, but it surely makes it a lot easier .

So, a thermal receiver and a thermal nozzle (I used the thermal turbojet) works pretty neat, except for one interesting (read: weird) bit -
If I start the engine with full throttle, it heats up and explodes almost immediately. If I start it with closed throttle and increase it to 100%, everything works fine. Is this a bug?

Also, in effort to be able to supply power in orbit I placed 5 2-pivoted IR mirrors in 400k orbit so they can all see each other and at least one of them sees the power plant. However, although the IR mirrors are listed as relays, I don't get the power from the QSR ("QSR - Phase 1") and only from other small reactors (I tried using all IR bands). Could the problem be aperture size? Do I need to beam it as laser in order to make it work?

7gmmEeS.jpg

Share this post


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

 

So, a thermal receiver and a thermal nozzle (I used the thermal turbojet) works pretty neat, except for one interesting (read: weird) bit -
If I start the engine with full throttle, it heats up and explodes almost immediately. If I start it with closed throttle and increase it to 100%, everything works fine. Is this a bug?

2

Sounds like a bug yes.

32 minutes ago, Omeran said:

Also, in effort to be able to supply power in orbit I placed 5 2-pivoted IR mirrors in 400k orbit so they can all see each other and at least one of them sees the power plant. However, although the IR mirrors are listed as relays, I don't get the power from the QSR ("QSR - Phase 1") and only from other small reactors (I tried using all IR bands). Could the problem be aperture size? Do I need to beam it as laser in order to make it work?

2

Beamed power relay is currently broken but if it wasn't you need to be sure the mirrors are compatible in the wavelength you are transmitting which for all aluminium mirrors is ultraviolet. Will probably add dielectric mirrors once relaying is restored

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the note of relays, I believe it has been broken for some time. How goes the efforts to fix this, might I ask?

Share this post


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

Perhaps you could block fuel usage  I'm afraid not. I'm afraid the refuelling mechanic never took into account for more than one reactor. It's one aspect I want to address when I overhaul the nuclear salt reactor. In general, I would recommend using one nuclear reactor per vessel to prevent issues and it also offers mass bonuses as a single big reactor has a lower mass than multiple smaller reactors with the cumulative same capacity.

The first time I encountered this was on a station I built to breed Tritium and beam power using four MSRs. The second time was on a spaceplane using 4 Lanter Engines. Since they were running on enriched Uranium, the onboard ISRU drained them while making UF4 and I was unable to refuel them. The second instance is more of a problem because using multiple nuclear engines on a vessel is pretty standard. I agree that in most circumstances using a single  reactor is a better use of mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, davidle said:

@FreeThinker 

I have a vessel with 4 reactors onboard. When I try to refuel them from a tank of UF4, each reactor takes the fuel from the previous reactor so that when I'm done the 4th reactor is full and the others are empty. I've had this problem with multiple vessels. Is it possible to avoid this sort of reactor cannibalism?

Perhaps you could block fuel usage  I'm afraid not. I'm afraid the refuelling mechanic never took into account for more than one reactor. It's one aspect I want to address when I overhaul the nuclear salt reactor. In general, I would recommend using one nuclear reactor per vessel to prevent issues and it also offers mass bonuses as a single big reactor has a lower mass than multiple smaller reactors with the cumulative same capacity.

The first time I encountered this was on a station I built to breed Tritium and beam power using four MSRs. The second time was on a spaceplane using 4 Lanter Engines. Since they were running on enriched Uranium, the onboard ISRU drained them while making UF4 and I was unable to refuel them. The second instance is more of a problem because using multiple nuclear engines on a vessel is pretty standard. I agree that in most circumstances using a single  reactor is a better use of mass.

I've noticed that the UF4 in tanks can't be used to refuel reactors.  I've never figured out what's going on or if that's even intentional.  At least for one of the other reactors you can only refuel it when it's fully shut down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@FreeThinker I've noticed that post-1.7 and with the KSPIE version apropos for that version - 1.21.5.4, the thermal ramjet/thermal turbojet behave a bit differently.. i'm using positron reactors to power them.  observed differences:

1. specific impulse is a lot higher; same design that netted me ~15k dV now nets me ~40k
2. thrust is far lower; what used to get me 7G of acceleration now gets me around 2G.  VTOL with thermal turbojets now requires much larger engines, or more of them, to get off the ground
3. heat generation is significantly higher but not unmanageably so

which of these were intentional?  or were they all intentional and this is more in line with how it's "supposed" to be?  This is all in a new sandbox game with obviously everything unlocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, ss8913 said:

@FreeThinker I've noticed that post-1.7 and with the KSPIE version apropos for that version - 1.21.5.4, the thermal ramjet/thermal turbojet behave a bit differently.. i'm using positron reactors to power them.  observed differences:

1. specific impulse is a lot higher; same design that netted me ~15k dV now nets me ~40k
2. thrust is far lower; what used to get me 7G of acceleration now gets me around 2G.  VTOL with thermal turbojets now requires much larger engines, or more of them, to get off the ground
3. heat generation is significantly higher but not unmanageably so

which of these were intentional?  or were they all intentional and this is more in line with how it's "supposed" to be?  This is all in a new sandbox game with obviously everything unlocked.

what propellant are you using? If you are using stock liquidfuel, this is exactly what I would expect.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


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

what propellant are you using? If you are using stock liquidfuel, this is exactly what I would expect.

I'm using HTP.  Haven't tried with anything else, only HTP (Hydrogen Peroxide).  Oh, also atmosphere, on the ground to 20k or so.

I've also noticed that the radiator part temps on the graphene radiators, their max temps don't sync up with the stock skin/internal temps so things like critical temp gauge and the heat animations themselves start showing "omg this is hot, flames are shooting out" when the parts aren't that close to their "real" max temps defined by the mod...

Edited by ss8913

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello my friend just moving in from our other discussion.

  On 5/9/2019 at 9:58 PM, flyguybc said:

Anyone got any tips for the above?

1 Regarding usage of multiple nozzles, its important to match the cumulative surface area of the diameters the nozzles with the reactor. Lets say you have a 1.25 PubbleBed reactor connected to a Thermal Ramjet. To connect it turbojet as well the diamters of the turbojet would idealy be    sqrt(1.25 * 1.25 / 2) = 0.88 m

2: When powering a targed fusion reactor, you need an external power source, or it needs to power itself by connecting it with a power generator. But a power generator will by have the capacity to convert all thermal power into electric power, but you only need a fraction of that to keep the reactor for beeinged power. In the VAB there is an option to lower the capacity of the generator, this will reduce the mass of the power generator to a significantly.

3: The thermal power helper only shows the worst conditions where you want convert all thermal energy into electric power. In that case you need a lot of radiators but for a SSTOyou are generally only interested in keeping it passive heat production under control as the majority of the wasteheat is absorbed by the open cycle cooling.

 

1.  I'm not quite following your math.  Are you saying both the Ramjet and the Turbojet need to be .88m in that situation?  Or are you saying a 1.25 Ramjet with two .88 Turbojets?

2.  So where do I see what the requirement is to keep the reactor stable?  I now see the option regarding the Capacity and how it affects its mass.  So for example 2.5 Generator attached to the targeted fusion has a theoretical power of 200mw at 100% capacity.  You're saying that if the Fusion reactor only needs 100mw to keep reacting I can pull the generator down to 50-60% and save some mass.  Thus not needing a second reactor.

3.  Ok that makes more sense.  What about long space transfers though where you aren't running the engines for 100 days.  Is it still easy enough to reach an equilibrium there?  Or do I need to limit the generator to cut back on the thermal/electric heat?

 

Thank you so much again for your help, I'm starting to use more and more of the parts as I'm figuring this stuff out.  Its great!!!!

Share this post


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

1.  I'm not quite following your math.  Are you saying both the Ramjet and the Turbojet need to be .88m in that situation?  Or are you saying a 1.25 Ramjet with two .88 Turbojets?

Yes that what I tried to say

4 hours ago, flyguybc said:

2.  So where do I see what the requirement is to keep the reactor stable?  I now see the option regarding the Capacity and how it affects its mass.  So for example 2.5 Generator attached to the targeted fusion has a theoretical power of 200mw at 100% capacity.  You're saying that if the Fusion reactor only needs 100mw to keep reacting I can pull the generator down to 50-60% and save some mass.  Thus not needing a second reactor.

A second reactor is not needed no, but it is an option if you want to maximize thrust of the first reactor at the expense of additional mass.

4 hours ago, flyguybc said:

3.  Ok that makes more sense.  What about long space transfers though where you aren't running the engines for 100 days.  Is it still easy enough to reach an equilibrium there?  Or do I need to limit the generator to cut back on the thermal/electric heat?

equilibrium are reached quite fast, usualy withing a few minutes.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.  I think my questions aren't translating correctly.  Let me ask a different way.

 

Is the answer to #1.

 a.)  Both Ramjet and a single Turbojet need to be .88

or

 b.)  Ramjet is 1.25 and two turbojets are .88

 

#2  Where do I see the power requirement for the reactor to maintain its fusion?  So I can see how much power I need to keep it going.

 

Thank you again for all your help!! I'm about to make some good Duna crafts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi all,

I recently started playing around with KSP (v. 1.7) again, and I have to say that it is still as fascinating as I had remembered it.

After installing KSPI-E, I found some rather odd behavior. Specifically, I think the waste heat system is somehow broken. I am using the Liquid Core Reactor Engine. It seems that no matter how many radiators I put on my vessel, the engine will always overheat after a short time, and this time is the same regardless of the number and size of radiators. (I'd like to post a screenshot but I could not find the function to do so).

I am also super confused about the difference between radiator temperature and part temperature, and why these are even separate. It looks as if these two have hardly any correlation at all, with either of them being much higher than the other at times. From what I have seen, the only thing that seems reasonable is the relation between the radiator temp and the power radiated. For the particular example of the Titanium Radiator Semi Foldable, in one case I get a rad temp of 415 K and a power of 44 kW. When you plug these numbers into the Stefan--Boltzmann radiation law [1], you will get a total of area of 26 square meters,  which is I guess is about right when compared to my eyeballing estimate of the radiator's size.

Cheers,

Lennex

[1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=43.8kW+%2F+(stefan+boltzmann+constant+*+(415.3+K)%5E4)

 

Edited by Lennex

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.