FreeThinker

[1.4.2 - 1.7.3, 1.8.1 - 1.9.1] KSP Interstellar Extended 1.25.17 Release Thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Version 1.25.17 for Kerbal Space Program 1.4.2 - 1.7.31.8.1 -1.9.1

Released on 2020-05-21

  • Altered tech requirement Fusion power and Fusion propulsion tech nodes in CTT
  • Increased icon size and compacted technode placing CTT
  • replaced Z-Pinch Aerospike by improved model (with removed air intakes but integrated power reactor) by Tedd Deireadh and Mad Medic
  • replaced Z-Pinch Engine by improved model (limited to vacuum but unlocked with specialized Fusion) by Tedd Deireadh and Mad Medic
  • balance: increated upgrade tech requirement Z-Pinch Aerospike and Z-Pinch Engine
  • balance: lowered tech requirement VISTA to advanced fusion propulsion
  • balance: increased tech requirement SAGE antimatter engine
  • balance: increased tech requirement SURGE fusion
  • fixed issue where Z-Pinch engine would consume fusion pellets when attempting to operate in the atmosphere
Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/5/2020 at 11:15 PM, FreeThinker said:

Version 1.25.13.5 for Kerbal Space Program 1.8.1 - 1.9.1

Released on 2020-04-05

  • Compatible with KSP 1.8.1 - 1.9.1
  • Replaced NSWR model and exhaust (by SpaceKiss)
  • Improved exhaust Open Cycle Gas Core Engine
  • Bugfix: Prevent Universal Mining from collecting surface regolith

9G1avWq.png

Can I talk a little bit about the science of the NSWR?

1st, where's that green comming from? Most of the thermal/bremsshtrahlung radiation would be from far extrem UV to mid Xrarys. And the only visible light would be dim gostly bulueish Cherenkov radiation from the water, no greens.

2nd, the engine isnt so simple, it would have a really small bell shaped ignition chamber full of N reflectos, black, but white-hot when turned on, then, a really BIG open magnetic nozzle in a shape simillar to an x^2 function from 0 to 1 (a wide open bell), like the Z-pinch aerospike) and then, the nozzle would start expanding exponentially as a VASIMR nozzle (still magnetic). Would be seen like 2 S curves, and the (white-blueish) plume would start aprox from a nozzle radious to a diameter from the end of the ignition chamber. This is to minimize heat absorption, the mag nozzle coils would have a red aura because a carbon N absorber+ablator, that if ran out the nozzle would heat up, lose superconductivity and stop working. So you'd have to have graphite in reserve and an egineer to replace it after few burn hours (kerbal time). The engine would still be black, but more like a fishing net, and as wide as the Unobtusstard engine.

Gameplay wise, it'd be cool if produced a lot of ThermalPower to make electricity if enough radiators.

Also would love  a NSWR with weapons grade fuel, havent got a design of it, but I need it for my setting so I working on it. Call me if interested, can do research, design and some detailed sketchs, but Im really bad at CGI and know ~0 of proggraming. 

100000s 20MN OPdalus sized is plausible, 100% U233/Pu239F4, 80-90% D2O. 

Edited by AntaresMC

Share this post


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

1st, where's that green comming from? Most of the thermal/bremsshtrahlung radiation would be from far extrem UV to mid Xrarys. And the only visible light would be dim gostly bulueish Cherenkov radiation from the water, no greens.

Yes, I'm aware this exhaust color isn't exactly scientificly accurate but it does succeed in telling a story which is that the exhaust contains high amounts of highly radioactive fission products.

16 hours ago, AntaresMC said:

2nd, the engine isnt so simple, it would have a really small bell shaped ignition chamber full of N reflectos, black, but white-hot when turned on, then, a really BIG open magnetic nozzle in a shape simillar to an x^2 function from 0 to 1 (a wide open bell), like the Z-pinch aerospike) and then, the nozzle would start expanding exponentially as a VASIMR nozzle (still magnetic).

I don't think that would work due to the extreme high presures in the nozzle. Instead it could apply the same technique used by the open cycle gas core engine where the walls would continiously sweat coolant (water), creating a  thin wall of water that would prevent the nozzle from melting by superheated water vapor

zBQmV.jpg

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


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

Also would love  a NSWR with weapons grade fuel, havent got a design of it, but I need it for my setting so I working on it. Call me if interested, can do research, design and some detailed sketchs, but Im really bad at CGI and know ~0 of proggraming. 

100000s 20MN OPdalus sized is plausible, 100% U233/Pu239F4, 80-90% D2O. 

Actualy a 90% enriched fuel would be capable up to  500000s, which makes is suitable for interstellar travel. How such an engine would look like I have no idea but I'm open for suggestions.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


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

Yes, I'm aware this exhaust color isn't exactly scientificly accurate but it does succeed in telling a story which is that the exhaust contains hight amount of highly radioactive fission products.

I don't think that would work due to the extreme high presures in the nozzle. Instead it could apply the same technique used by the open cycle gas core engine where the walls would continiously sweat coolant (water), creating a  thin wall of water that would prevent the nozzle from melting by superheated water vapor

zBQmV.jpg

OPedalus and Vista have similar pressuresures and Vista's nozzle is much weaker. Kerbstein's pressure is even bigger and with weaker nozzle. The OCGC "only" has ~10000K, this is like 20 times more! And GCNTR has much greater mass flow/heat and cryo cooling...

Mabe a 20T mag nozzle would work. Mabe 30. Even 50 might be needed, but thats not that far away from fusion's mag confinement and nozzles. And the water layer wont do NOTHING, just 1% of the radiative heat would melt CNTl alloy (was it the record holder, right?) And H2O vapor desnt stop anything but long infrared... And just not enough mass ratio for open cycle cooling.

Still working on the weapons grade version, but I almost have the tanks/plumbuing. Chamber have an idea. The nozzle is the hardest, and left for the end, but something along the lines of a VISTA/Kerbstein nozzle (if Kerbstein survives, this does, but kerbstein's thermodynamics are in the edge between unobtanium and handwavium).

Im working in a concept of plasma window radiators (a  double magnetic nozzle actively cooled, pumping the heat to a He plasma (the smaller Z, better, leaks dont matter, and the more heat they use up in ionizing, the better)) and a  type of mag. nozzle that takes back some of the bremsstahlung Xrays back at the expense of a sh1tload of charged particles (2CP-1heat is doable, mabe a 1-1 ratio in MW possible, .6/.7-1heat might be plausible). But a VISTA mag nozzle with a excrementsload of ablator (mabe an extra propelant even) is needed anyway

This diagram is wrong, inside detonation is impossible, and if not stupid, get same eff. for detonating inside nozzle and 1/2 heat and neutrons. 2/3 to 3/4 eff. if Vista style nozzle when only fractions of the heat/neutrons. And UBr4 is worse than UF4, lighter, more Isp, cheaper

And Im talking on 100%U233. 10-20% salt instead of 4%. Heavy H2O for allowing the unburnt U to burn in the nozzle, as most U will not burn in an open chamber, but inside detonation is impossible

And most radioactivity is unburnt U233 and actinides, exactly as the OCNTRs, just MOAR!

edit: 1/2Ms? Theoretically plausible, but efficiency and heatwise cant see more than 250000s and even 2e5 seems really difficult.

1st, only a VISTA nozzle of hundreds of meters could survive it, and, its possible, but cant see a way to ignite the fuel if 200m distace from the phisical engine...

2nd, would need  a way to not phisically shield Xrays, and only thing I can think of is a super ChargedParticles cloud (the thing I said earlier) and this has to be at least a beam core reactor worth of, and thats much higher tech...

Edited by AntaresMC
Excrementsload dont exist XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ive made a sketch by hand, explained, but how do I post an Img? XD

Ok, so Ill breafly explain what I didnt put there.

The fuel pump is a multi-tens-Km/s railgun (metal seeded fuel), this+the 1st 1/2 of the nozzle (whose main function is a giant MHD to cancel out lateral speeds and take electricity, also accelerates the fuel even more before the detonation takes over to the actual nozzle)

A good chunk of the heat is turned into electricity by a turbopump+generator. But this and the MHD nozzle are just enough to power the railgun IF PULSED (but fast, isnt orion) and capacitators (needed to start anyway), so effectively halving or less the thrust and cutting a bit of isp. Fortunetly, the engine still got loads of heat, so if enough radiators, you can run it constantly with a thermal generator.

Also 7000 Isp is really poor, the theoretical max of the open GCNTR is exactly its Isp (but no one seems way to get to 7000 :sealed:) but you get the most conservative approaches for the NSW?:rolleyes: c'mon! At least 10000s and 12000 aint too far away...

And talking of that, the open GCNTR (we need a better name) is quite making useless Discovery, same Isp, more TWR, not that much less power, even with radiators better TWR and money doesnt matter ((cough, UF4, cough) oh, mabe ive caught covid xD). Same tech tiers, much less situational, and u dont move small probes with a 5×10m engine! I prefer takig down Isp to 7000 but buff thrust a 25% so they are different engines for different roles (also, why fusion's SCREAMINGLY radioactive exaust is allowed fut fission's not? :huh:)

The nozzle I propose would not survive the weapons grade version, have to be completely different

Edit: also, for the thin nozzle to survive  whe pressure, in the shade of the coils that go in the thrust axis, there have to be some structure, I think of some trialngles going from the tip to the shadow shield like the fins in the mH engines from KSP2. Know which am I talking about?

Edited by AntaresMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

AH, EUREKA! A FOND DA WAE!

What about it? D2O+U233(100%)F4(10-20%) with around 20-30% dissolved He3.

You have antiprotons. Shoot it at say, 100m (around 1000-5000T VISTA nozzle). Shoot it with an aH beam as a jumpstart. Start a fission-fusion-fission explosion that keeps until stops getting fuel. Most energy is from D-D, a big portion from U233, a bit from D-He3, He3-N, and D-T. The D-D gives neutrons. The He3 keeps them moving around (Li7 also does, better, but unsoluble in water) by transmutating in some He and some H+T, fuses with D yo create moar neutrons!

Thats perfect way to confine neutrons (more correctly reuse some) while allowing much higher Isps with the H and the fusion heat!

Ok, Im gonna figure out and try yo find info, design an engine and KERBSTEIN, WE HAVE COMPETENCE! (Actually with AM catalizing kerbstein can go up to 1-1.5Ms, but...)

Talking on Kerbstein, did you know D-Li6 isnt aneutronic but nasty neutron rich? Think about it, a D-D side reaction generates a T or a n, the n goes to a D or a Li6 and becomes T, so u have that almost all D-D gives T, and if fuses with D and generates loads on N that give more T untill a good chunk has been D-D and other good chunk D-T, so, bit of neutrons, yea... I suggest using He3+D-H3 (aka the suggested EnrichedFusionPellets) with tuned temperature or straight up wasteful/inneficient He3-He3, only 100% aneutronic (excluding H-H and CNO) I know.

Still dont know how to post the img ;.;

Edit: just thinking on that is giving me the most kerbal ideas in the entire universe! My sanity is diminishing, Ive thinked in

TWO, PULSED, OPEN CYCLE, THERMONUCLEAR PREBURNERS! :0.0: the worst thing is that I dont see it a bad idea :S

do I go all the way down the rabbit hole?

Edited by AntaresMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/21/2020 at 7:23 PM, AntaresMC said:

Can I talk a little bit about the science of the NSWR?

1st, where's that green comming from? Most of the thermal/bremsshtrahlung radiation would be from far extrem UV to mid Xrarys. And the only visible light would be dim gostly bulueish Cherenkov radiation from the water, no greens.

2nd, the engine isnt so simple, it would have a really small bell shaped ignition chamber full of N reflectos, black, but white-hot when turned on, then, a really BIG open magnetic nozzle in a shape simillar to an x^2 function from 0 to 1 (a wide open bell), like the Z-pinch aerospike) and then, the nozzle would start expanding exponentially as a VASIMR nozzle (still magnetic). Would be seen like 2 S curves, and the (white-blueish) plume would start aprox from a nozzle radious to a diameter from the end of the ignition chamber. This is to minimize heat absorption, the mag nozzle coils would have a red aura because a carbon N absorber+ablator, that if ran out the nozzle would heat up, lose superconductivity and stop working. So you'd have to have graphite in reserve and an egineer to replace it after few burn hours (kerbal time). The engine would still be black, but more like a fishing net, and as wide as the Unobtusstard engine.

Gameplay wise, it'd be cool if produced a lot of ThermalPower to make electricity if enough radiators.

Also would love  a NSWR with weapons grade fuel, havent got a design of it, but I need it for my setting so I working on it. Call me if interested, can do research, design and some detailed sketchs, but Im really bad at CGI and know ~0 of proggraming. 

100000s 20MN OPdalus sized is plausible, 100% U233/Pu239F4, 80-90% D2O. 

The exhaust of this engine looks as if boron compounds were added to its flame, giving a green color )))
Personally, I liked the old model more because of the presence of many elements and the high complexity of the design. Now NSWR is just like NERVA for a more fantastic design.
ps To insert a picture here, you need to find in the network "photo hosting" and download a direct link to the picture. 1. Upload a picture to photo hosting. 2. Insert a direct link here.

Edited by OOM

Share this post


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

The exhaust of this engine looks as if boron compounds were added to its flame, giving a green color )))
Personally, I liked the old model more because of the presence of many elements and the high complexity of the design. Now NSWR is just like NERVA for a more fantastic design.
ps To insert a picture here, you need to find in the network "photo hosting" and download a direct link to the picture. 1. Upload a picture to photo hosting. 2. Insert a direct link here.

Why would yo add B? ITS A NUKE POISON! And also, remember its like 30000K, no matter whats in there it will be white hot, and in the borders where its cooler, we can start seeing a bulueish cherenkov mixed with the color of whatever there is. The old model was equally unrealistic, but better looking. It seems like a cold gas thruster without nozzle... And that dusty effect on the exaust is unsaveable. The heat problem as well.

Also, the img is a photo from the sketch isnt in the internet. Any clues?

Share this post


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

Why would yo add B? ITS A NUKE POISON! And also, remember its like 30000K, no matter whats in there it will be white hot, and in the borders where its cooler, we can start seeing a bulueish cherenkov mixed with the color of whatever there is. The old model was equally unrealistic, but better looking. It seems like a cold gas thruster without nozzle... And that dusty effect on the exaust is unsaveable. The heat problem as well.

Also, the img is a photo from the sketch isnt in the internet. Any clues?

You must convert the sketch to PNG and upload it through a special site that creates direct links to images (which you then paste here)

Edited by OOM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, OOM said:

You must convert the sketch to PNG and upload it through a special site that creates direct links to images (which you then paste here)

Got it, thanks!

ESiqxvn.jpg

10-15m nozzle diameter. 5m attachmet point (plus bigger shadow shield). Scalable down to 3.75, mabe 2.5, both with upgrades. Some kind of structural fins in the shade of the mag nozzle's coils are needed in order to withstand the pressure. KSP2 mH like ones to the shadow shield would do the trick. Some kind of deployable 3D print will be needed in order to replace the ablator, and an engineer for gameplay/balance reasons. TAKE THAT skeptics that say its too kerbal (aka impossible). IT CAN BE DONE! You only have to ban LO and suborbital usage  in anywhere but thd sun. For the weapons grade version (WiP) outridht ban usage in planet SoI

This is made by hand in an attempt of making it fast to make an idea, and its not to scale, Im gonna do a detailed one, but cant make the actual model for KSPIE anyway so Ill need someone. This design (not the sketch) is the result of many hours of making Zubrin's 100% not unreasonably kerbal idea possible (and "sane"/doable) and made for KSPIE.

Reccomend seeing earlier quotes for context. In order:

On 5/22/2020 at 10:30 AM, AntaresMC said:

OPedalus and Vista have similar pressuresures and Vista's nozzle is much weaker. Kerbstein's pressure is even bigger and with weaker nozzle. The OCGC "only" has ~10000K, this is like 20 times more! And GCNTR has much greater mass flow/heat and cryo cooling...

Mabe a 20T mag nozzle would work. Mabe 30. Even 50 might be needed, but thats not that far away from fusion's mag confinement and nozzles. And the water layer wont do NOTHING, just 1% of the radiative heat would melt CNTl alloy (was it the record holder, right?) And H2O vapor desnt stop anything but long infrared... And just not enough mass ratio for open cycle cooling.

Still working on the weapons grade version, but I almost have the tanks/plumbuing. Chamber have an idea. The nozzle is the hardest, and left for the end, but something along the lines of a VISTA/Kerbstein nozzle (if Kerbstein survives, this does, but kerbstein's thermodynamics are in the edge between unobtanium and handwavium).

This diagram is wrong, inside detonation is impossible, and if not stupid, get same eff. for detonating inside nozzle and 1/2 heat and neutrons. 2/3 to 3/4 eff. if Vista style nozzle when only fractions of the heat/neutrons. And UBr4 is worse than UF4, lighter, more Isp, cheaper

And Im talking on 100%U233. 10-20% salt instead of 4%. Heavy H2O for allowing the unburnt U to burn in the nozzle, as most U will not burn in an open chamber, but inside detonation is impossible

And most radioactivity is unburnt U233 and actinides, exactly as the OCNTRs, just MOAR!

edit: 1/2Ms? Theoretically plausible, but efficiency and heatwise cant see more than 250000s and even 2e5 seems really difficult.

1st, only a VISTA nozzle of hundreds of meters could survive it, and, its possible, but cant see a way to ignite the fuel if 200m distace from the phisical engine...

2nd, would need  a way to not phisically shield Xrays, and only thing I can think of is a super ChargedParticles cloud (the thing I said earlier) and this has to be at least a beam core reactor worth of, and thats much higher tech...

 

On 5/22/2020 at 12:16 PM, AntaresMC said:

Ive made a sketch by hand, explained, but how do I post an Img? XD

Ok, so Ill breafly explain what I didnt put there.

The fuel pump is a multi-tens-Km/s railgun (metal seeded fuel), this+the 1st 1/2 of the nozzle (whose main function is a giant MHD to cancel out lateral speeds and take electricity, also accelerates the fuel even more before the detonation takes over to the actual nozzle)

A good chunk of the heat is turned into electricity by a turbopump+generator. But this and the MHD nozzle are just enough to power the railgun IF PULSED (but fast, isnt orion) and capacitators (needed to start anyway), so effectively halving or less the thrust and cutting a bit of isp. Fortunetly, the engine still got loads of heat, so if enough radiators, you can run it constantly with a thermal generator.

Also 7000 Isp is really poor, the theoretical max of the open GCNTR is exactly its Isp (but no one seems way to get to 7000 :sealed:) but you get the most conservative approaches for the NSW?:rolleyes: c'mon! At least 10000s and 12000 aint too far away...

The nozzle I propose would not survive the weapons grade version, have to be completely different

Edit: also, for the thin nozzle to survive  whe pressure, in the shade of the coils that go in the thrust axis, there have to be some structure, I think of some trialngles going from the tip to the shadow shield like the fins in the mH engines from KSP2. Know which am I talking about?

To @FreeThinker the weapons grade version Im dedicating some hours a day and have done most the work. Will have a sketch soon and a bluelrint for the model as early as possible since its the most kerbal thing Ive made evah and Im excited :D.

Disclamer: orion style turbopumps confirmed :0.0:, its the only way to not break the engine I figured out. Not allowed to steal the idea or claim that there's something more kerbal XD gotta present this idea to the most kerbal one (world record) when ended the drive.

Edited by AntaresMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, such huge offers are good, but there is one BUT, namely:
In fact, the resources of the developer of this modification are very limited due to the low amount of sponsorship. I do not know why the best things with great potential are most often in the shade, and not under the sun.
FreeThinker is a doctor who treats for free according to the oath of Hypocrates.
Each minor update for KSP-I is a whole holiday. Not to mention the fact that FreeThinker keeps in touch with people on the forums and helps them fix KSP-I errors.

Therefore, most likely, a radical correction of textures and the addition of new engines will take a lot of time.
Mainly due to the fact that someone needs to draw the correct textures. All this is not very simple and cannot be done without assistance. For example, recently, some people offered help (KSP-I) by creating a new 3D Z-Pinch texture.
And despite this, it requires gradual improvement due to the fact that, in my opinion, the new model has too few polygons. Yes, and it looks kind of damp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, OOM said:

Of course, such huge offers are good, but there is one BUT, namely:
In fact, the resources of the developer of this modification are very limited due to the low amount of sponsorship. I do not know why the best things with great potential are most often in the shade, and not under the sun.
FreeThinker is a doctor who treats for free according to the oath of Hypocrates.
Each minor update for KSP-I is a whole holiday. Not to mention the fact that FreeThinker keeps in touch with people on the forums and helps them fix KSP-I errors.

Therefore, most likely, a radical correction of textures and the addition of new engines will take a lot of time.
Mainly due to the fact that someone needs to draw the correct textures. All this is not very simple and cannot be done without assistance. For example, recently, some people offered help (KSP-I) by creating a new 3D Z-Pinch texture.
And despite this, it requires gradual improvement due to the fact that, in my opinion, the new model has too few polygons. Yes, and it looks kind of damp.

yea, I know, for that I cant help, other than the science/design and mabe an amteur 3D model, and would take a lot of time... But I can think of a way:

1st: reuse the texture of the Unobtusstard engine (actually pretty close to what I have in mind) for the burn chamber.

2nd, you can reuse the texture of the mag. nozzle texture. Flatten it a bit into a dome shape, duplicate, cut the 1st curved half and wide open it. paint it black. I dunno to do that but Im sure its easier than make from 0.

3rd, add a few citlinders as tubes. the railgun you can say its hidden and make a few triangles as the strut fins, no need for textures, its all graphite, so all black.

For the plume you can reuse Kerbstein's plume, scale it up in the wide axis and youre fine.

But COVID is giving me infinite time and Im working in a sci-fi setting anyway so helping KSPIE is the least I can do for that hundeds of hours of fun! :D

If someone needs scientific advice/designs Im free and research anyway!

Edited by AntaresMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice commits on May 9, 2020. ionEngine now can have negative mass.

PPyzbN6.png

Tweakscale 2.4.3.14; KSPIE 1.25.18.5; ModuleManager 4.1.3

Edited by Siama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Siama said:

Nice commits on May 9, 2020.

Thank you. You have a good taste. :)

 

4 hours ago, Siama said:

 ionEngine now can have negative mass.

Yep, it was a possible side effect of the way KSP define Mass on the config file: by some reason, the Mass value on the Part on the config is related to the total mass of the part including resources, but TweakScale needs to calculate the Dry Mass of the part at default scale before scaling the part (since only the part's dry mass should be scaled!!) - what can be tricky with Fuel Switches, as different resources have different densities and, so, different mass for the same amount of Units of the resource: if you have a Part with 1.000 Units of Lead, and then a Fuel Switch change it to 1.000 Units of Cotton, failing to proper calculate the Dry Mass will lead to problems.

The commits you mentioned does not touch Mass in any way, whatever you detected, it was already happening before.

Well, since I'm already here:

G6c6U0N.png

See? No negative mass. Well, I think you are using an older KSP version? The newer ones are not giving me negative mass. Please mention the KSP version you are using, this is very important to diagnose the problem.

 

Share this post


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

Please mention the KSP version you are using

Sorry) I'm using 1.8.1 but I think it's just syntax issue. Take a look to GameData/ModuleManager.ConfigCache:

UrlConfig
{
	parentUrl = Squad/Parts/Engine/ionEngine/ionEngine.cfg
	PART
	{
		name = ionEngine
		module = Part
		author = Chris Adderley (Nertea)
<cut>
		MODULE
		{
			name = TweakScale
			type = stack
			defaultScale = 0.625
			TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
			{
				mass = 2.5
			}
		}
		MODULE
		{
			name = TweakScale:FOR
			type = stack
			defaultScale = 0.625
			scaleFactors = 0.2, 0.3, 0.45, 0.625, 0.95, 1.25, 1.875, 2.5
		}

And this one cannot be tweakscaled at all:

UrlConfig
{
	parentUrl = WarpPlugin/Parts/Engines/AluminiumEngine/LiquidMetalInjectionEngine.cfg
	PART
	{
		module = Part
		name = AluminiumLiquidMetalEngine
		author = TD
<cut>
		MODULE
		{
			name = IntegratedRadiator
			partMass = 5
			isDeployable = false
			emissiveColorPower = 6
			radiatorArea = 4
			keepMaxPartTempEqualToMaxRadiatorTemp = false
		}
		%MODULE[TweakScale]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
		{
			type = stack_interstellar
			defaultScale = 2.5
			scaleFactors = 0.625, 0.95, 1.25, 1.875, 2.5, 3.75, 5.0, 7.5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40
		}

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2020 at 1:55 AM, Siama said:

Nice commits on May 9, 2020. ionEngine now can have negative mass.

PPyzbN6.png

Tweakscale 2.4.3.14; KSPIE 1.25.18.5; ModuleManager 4.1.3

Where did you think the ExoticMatter came from? :D

Edited by AntaresMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2020 at 3:11 PM, OOM said:

Kerbstein's engine is the Fusion engine. And this means that for it to work, first of all, you need the electricity that you will receive using ANY compatible reactor and generator to generate electricity. The more powerful the better. Equally important is the presence of many radiators to prevent throttling (which in any case will take place, but its severity will depend on the quality of cooling). And finally, a large (or not very depending on the requirements) fuel tank with liquid Deuterium.

Actualy, it doesn't need any external power source anymore, it is fully self contained. You only need some radiators to get rid of excess waste-heat.

11 hours ago, Siama said:

Nice commits on May 9, 2020. ionEngine now can have negative mass.

PPyzbN6.png

Tweakscale 2.4.3.14; KSPIE 1.25.18.5; ModuleManager 4.1.3

Yes, I identified the problem, should be fixed next release

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


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

Actualy, it doesn't need any external power source anymore, it fully self contained. You only need some radiators to get rid of excess waste-heat.

I think Kerbstein need a balance (not a nerf but, a quasi-nerf) its WasteHeat footprint is laughable. DO YOU KNOW THE Sp POWER THAT BEAST HAS!?

Theres not enough mass ratio for OC cooling at more than 7000s (mabe 10000 with a bit unobtanium) no matter what you do, so the power it generates+what it uses is its wasteHeat footprint. For 1/2Ms 15MN, so its 3.75TW of WasteHeat. Having a VISTA nozzle is difficult to get above 50%eff, so double! Assuming NOTHING of the fusion's heat goes to the engine (we'll come back later) and that D-Li6 gives a perfectly round 3 orders of magnitude more power that it get (its a bit less) and 100% efficiency of the lasers (spoiler, cryo cooled ones get about 1/2) ITS 7GW! And if count laser inneficiencies, sround 14. If you assume perfect perfectlyness, 3.75GW, still a lot. In a 1.878pi^2 area, so a bit more than 12m^2, thats more than 3GW/m^2

And we havent started with the fusion heat. Lets assume 1/2 eff, a bit more than 20m VISTA (50% eff is a lot, for that kinda nozzle, but lets round) nozzle so that is finely and roundly 1/500 of the heat comes as heat/m^2 so, we have 37.5 GW of WasteHeat. Around a 5th is bernsthahlung Xrays, well assume thermal is reflected (its black, but Im lazy) and I couldn find the n output of the D-Li6 (because D-D and T breeding so D-T as well), Ill assume 10-15% for simplicity and between gammas, nozzle+generator WasteHeat lets say it gets to a bit more than 40%. So we've got around 10 times as before, so un total of 12.5GW/m^2, so around 150GW. And you have to have enough radiators to run the generator at around run the 50% eff (get 1/400, need a little more than 1/1000+ mabe another 1/100 for the hungry cryo cooling of lasers and few thousand tesla nozzle, right next to a 4000K wall). So your radiators have to be below 2000K...

And we havent talked about the plasma that goes through the nozzle and closes, getting this thing at around a meter is no joke... Can add a few GW/m^2

Needing external power and generating 4000K thermalPower will help, also cleaner (yet worse and expensive as hell) He3+D-He3 or even worse but cleaner He3-He3 will also help. Putting a sh1tload of ablator makes it not just thermally survivable but improves thrust, and mabe it can be pushed with laser/positron ablation if run out of fuel.

Another thing, is so important looking like the Expanse's Epstein? If not, I suggest change it a bit. Ive came up with one that looks super-dupper cool and alien, not finished, but simple poligons-wise and more realistic...

Edited by AntaresMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2020 at 12:16 PM, AntaresMC said:

And talking of that, the open GCNTR (we need a better name) is quite making useless Discovery, same Isp, more TWR, not that much less power, even with radiators better TWR and money doesnt matter ((cough, UF4, cough) oh, mabe ive caught covid xD). Same tech tiers, much less situational, and u dont move small probes with a 5×10m engine! I prefer takig down Isp to 7000 but buff thrust a 25% so they are different engines for different roles (also, why fusion's SCREAMINGLY radioactive exaust is allowed fut fission's not? :huh:)

Well from a balance perspective, it was my intention that the Fusion engines would offer more efficient propulsion (higher isp compared to the Nuclear propulsion) at the cost of lower power densities and lower TWR. Notice the Discovery still have 1 big advantage which is its ability redirect charged particles for either propulsion(pure or plasma) or power production(MHD or Venetian slits). The Core temperature for plasma propulsion is currently chosen arbitrarily and can be increased to any sane value. What I could do to make  Discovery  more attractive is to allow you to adjust the effective core temperature between 100k and 10000k (6600s -  66000s)

I could also do the same for the open gas core reactor/engines (allowing adjusting the temperature between 20000K - 200000K) with the caveat that the higher the temperature, the lower the heat transfer efficiencies and therefore the more wasteheat will be produces, this would give players the intresting choice to lower ther radiator amount at the cost of lower isp.

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


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

I think Kerbstein need a balance (not a nerf but, a quasi-nerf) its WasteHeat footprint is laughable. DO YOU KNOW THE Sp POWER THAT BEAST HAS!?

Yes I know but I'm assuming at this tech level we got access to 100% perfect reflective mirror technology which should ensure that 100% of all electromagnetic fusion energy is reflected. The Wasteheat is mainly produced by the high temperature super conductors (that redirect the charged particles)

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


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

Actualy, it doesn't need any external power source anymore, it is fully self contained. You only need some radiators to get rid of excess waste-heat.

Yes, now the canonical Daedalus. If I am not mistaken, then Daedalus should have received electricity directly from the synthesis reaction of the engine in order to maintain it in working condition. The old version was more like a “Longshot project” which had a small reactor for producing electricity and powering the engine.

Edited by OOM

Share this post


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

Yes, now the canonical Daedalus. If I am not mistaken, then Daedalus should have received electricity directly from the synthesis reaction of the engine in order to maintain it in working condition. The old version was more like a “Longshot project” which had a small reactor for producing electricity and powering the engine.

Well the Daedalus fusion engine will also get an update next release. The Daedalus Fusion Engine will only need access to (active/stored) power to startup but once it produces thrust, it will sustain itself and even produce significant amounts of surplus power. This means you only need a small nuclear reactor to charge up the capacitors and keep life support active during cruise

Edited by FreeThinker

Share this post


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

Yes I know but I'm assuming at this tech level we got access to 100% perfect reflective mirror technology which should ensure that 100% of all electromagnetic fusion energy is reflected. The Wasteheat is mainly produced by the high temperature super conductors (that redirect the charged particles)

100% reflective mirrors for Xrays are impossible for non-degenerate matter, since they can pass between electron orbitals. Not that heavy

Gamma mirrors are impossible, theyre the size of a nucleon, so only neutronium-like materials or magic deflects them. Dont helps, Nium gives a lot of WH

Things  like a quark gluon plasma (that add more heat than remove) and CP ultradense clouds are able to deflect'em, and that last will use magic or a beam core reactor the size of the engine at least.

Also Kerbstein is not all that hi tech, just brute force and themal management. Only add power comsuption and a need for stock ablator (better something like graphite or RotatedGraphene), and change the fuel.

43 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Well from a balance perspective, it was my intention that the Fusion engines would offer more efficient propulsion (higher isp compared to the Nuclear propulsion) at the cost of lower power densities and lower TWR. Notice the Discovery still have 1 big advantage which is its ability redirect charged particles for either propulsion(pure or plasma) or power production(MHD or Venetian slits). The Core temperature for plasma propulsion is currently chosen arbitrarily and can be increased to any sane value. What I could do to make  Discovery  more attractive is to allow you to adjust the effective core temperature between 100k and 10000k (6600s -  66000s)

I could also do the same for the open gas core reactor/engines (allowing adjusting the temperature between 20000K - 200000K) with the caveat that the higher the temperature, the lower the heat transfer efficiencies and therefore the more wasteheat will be produces, this would give players the intresting choice to lower ther radiator amount at the cost of lower isp.

Heat and tech wise, I cant see a GCNTR better than 7000s, but thrust can be improved. 

Heatwise, I cant see a DISCOVERY better than 15000d (12000 requires good assumptions). With that 3-5 thousand Isp difference and the CP I can see a reason to use DISCOVERY over GCNTR in many situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, AntaresMC said:

Heatwise, I cant see a DISCOVERY better than 15000d (12000 requires good assumptions).

Why not better than 15000s? shouldn't you be able to mix charged particles and cold propellant into a plasma of million degrees? the same effectivly happens in a MCF reactor where charged particles get thermalized in its plasma 

34 minutes ago, AntaresMC said:

Gamma mirrors are impossible, theyre the size of a nucleon, so only neutronium-like materials or magic deflects them. Dont helps, Nium gives a lot of WH

Well I was assuming Bremsstrahlung, not hard gamma rays. which I hope we can convert directly to energy or reflect by that time

Edited by FreeThinker

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.