Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

KSP's multi-mode engine module only allows for cycling between two engine modes. Effectively you could dodge that module and have all the engine modules you want in a part but you'd have to manually trigger (or action group) the deactivation of the current module when you no longer want it, and the activation of the next module you want, separately. The extra steps you need to take to do manual cycling goes up very fast. Some solutions for handling truly multi-mode engines do exist:

  • GT Industries (I never tried this one to be honest. It may be better than WBI but I'll never know, lol.)
  • B9 Part Switch (This is great and allows you to pack an array of propellant options and performance characteristics per engine module-- you can have several engine modes per engine mode!-- but the extra effort needs to be spend to make the informative tooltips per option so the average player has an idea what details are behind the extra options. Also you can't action group these.)
  • WBI Kerbal Actuators (straightforward and the best option if you want to just add engine modules onto an engine and it replaces the stock multi-mode engine where you choose to use it...but you can only action group cycling forward, not reverse.)

Yes you can make Nitrous Oxide. It exists in CRP so it doesn't need to be defined by the part mod that uses it. But its Isp is roughly equal to MonoPropellant and it's actually only used in sports cars (and in hospitals). I'm pretty confident no KSP mod uses it.

I was more asking him if N2 and H2O could be reacted to make it. I know in KSP there's multiple mods for it, and not any hurdles to defining it xD.

And yeah, thanks for the detailed breakdown on fuel switching. I looked into B9 a while back but couldn't find any solid documentation for actually using it to roll my own patched engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathematically you can add N2 and H2O and get N2O and H2. But who knows what particular process would be necessary (rather, what it would be called) and if it can directly be done that way. More appropriate ISRU chains would be: Adding N2 and O2; Splitting Water for its O2 for adding to N2; Processing IntakeAir which contains both.

If you have enough understanding of B9 and configs, I can help you out and you can study my mods (specifically, Rational Resources and OPT) which make very heavy use of B9 for expanding what engines, tanks and RCS can do.

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

Mathematically you can add N2 and H2O and get N2O and H2. But who knows what particular process would be necessary (rather, what it would be called) and if it can directly be done that way. More appropriate ISRU chains would be: Adding N2 and O2; Splitting Water for its O2 for adding to N2; Processing IntakeAir which contains both.

If you have enough understanding of B9 and configs, I can help you out and you can study my mods (specifically, Rational Resources and OPT) which make very heavy use of B9 for expanding what engines, tanks and RCS can do.

MM configs I'm alright with, but the B9 portion is where I hit a brick wall. Unfortunately I can't really work much on it, but I'll keep it in mind when I can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 4:21 PM, Nate Simpson said:

Futurama fan art

Nate, the art looks great, and I'm stoked by everything you've put out so far.... but I'm not sure about inflating the purchase cost of the game merely for licensing rights.  :)        Keep up the good work!

Edited by Gargamel
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

N2 and H2O and get N2O and H2

2H2O → 2H2 + O2 (electrolysis)

N + H3 → NH3 (ammonia synthesis, a hot reactor, a cooler, a two-column purification unit)

NH3 + O → H2O + mix of NxOy, their separation.

2H2O → 2H2 + O2 (electrolysis)

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Could you possibly create Nitrous Oxide? I feel like there's a much easier reaction path even if that's the case.

Could you? Sure. Can you get energy out of it? No. 

N2  Bonds are very strong triple bonds and nitrogen likes being that way. Lots of conventional explosives work because they form nitrogen as a biproduct and the energy released from the formation of a triple bond is insane

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@mcwaffles2003 No. By oxidating agent I mean the NTR burns things that contain Oxygen (and is not bi-propellant). You can choose between CO2 and Water for this NTR. And for the other NTR, the reducing agent, you can choose from propellants that do not contain Oxygen, so Nitrogen alone, Ammonia alone and so on.

Ok but that isn't what oxidizing agent or reducing agent means. They're specific chemistry terms for redox reactions (oxidizing agents lose electrons and reducing agents accept electrons).

NTRs don't change electrons/the chemistry of the propellant normally, it just heats them and in the case where combustion is used as a style of after burner or something for higher thrust N2 would never be useful

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Could you? Sure. Can you get energy out of it? No. 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question here, but doesn't StarshipTwo use a NO2/Nylon based hybrid engine? 

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

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question here, but doesn't StarshipTwo use a NO2/Nylon based hybrid engine? 

Possibly, I'm unsure about that specifically, but I know that N2 itself is useless for trying to extract energy from. It takes energy to turn N2 into anything else which is why we use fuels that turn into Nafter being burned like NO, NO2, N2O5 etc. You only get energy out in 1 direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I'm unsure about that specifically,

Well, I was kinda passive aggressive in the comment, as I worked at the company that made the physical motor.    :D 

" RocketMotorTwo is a hybrid rocket engine utilizing solid hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) fuel and liquid nitrous oxide oxidizer – sometimes referred to as an N2O/HTPB motor[8][9] – providing 70,000 pounds-force (310 kN) of thrust. [10] "

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

I'm pretty confident no KSP mod uses it.

From memory RP-1 uses it as an rcs fuel.  (I'm guessing it is defined in Real Fuels, and probably available in RO, but I only ever use those mods as part of RP-1, so I'm not sure whether it is available without RP-1).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Could you? Sure. Can you get energy out of it? No. 

N2  Bonds are very strong triple bonds and nitrogen likes being that way. Lots of conventional explosives work because they form nitrogen as a biproduct and the energy released from the formation of a triple bond is insane

Well yeah, but i was more thinking that in an Nuclear Thermal Engine the NOX would decompose and contribute to much, much higher ISP (Though NH4 is likely far better for this purpose, but i digress). Plus you could introduce a proper fuel into the seething stream of heated N2 and O gas afterwards for a massive boost to raw thrust, afterburner style.

You wouldn't "Burn" a mixture of N2 and H2O for propellant, i was thinking IRSU at most tbh.

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

Well, I was kinda passive aggressive in the comment, as I worked at the company that made the physical motor.    :D 

" RocketMotorTwo is a hybrid rocket engine utilizing solid hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) fuel and liquid nitrous oxide oxidizer – sometimes referred to as an N2O/HTPB motor[8][9] – providing 70,000 pounds-force (310 kN) of thrust. [10] "

Oh yeah; Hybrid Liquid N2O and Solid Propellant rockets are rather common in "High-Power" hobbyist rocketry and university rocketry settings. But he was responding to the idea of combining N2 and H2O to yield N2O, which assuming it's even possible would be energetically unfavorable. Since he mentioned how Stable Nitrogen was, and Water's reluctance to release it's Hydrogen vassals is a close second on the tier list of  "Stubborn chemistry things to keep note of"

Arent those Hybrid jobs actually Throttleable also? Since the HTPB only burns in presence of Oxidizer, so by cutting off the supply of NOX or reducing it you can actually get around the issue of traditional solids not being very friendly after ignition.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

But he was responding to the idea of combining N2 and H2O to yield N2O, which assuming it's even possible would be energetically unfavorable

Ah yeah, no, that wouldn't create a net positive energy yield, else every lightning strike that hit the oceans would set off a (bigger) bomb. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Well yeah, but i was more thinking that in an Nuclear Thermal Engine the NOX would decompose and contribute to much, much higher ISP (Though NH4 is likely far better for this purpose, but i digress). Plus you could introduce a proper fuel into the seething stream of heated N2 and O gas afterwards for a massive boost to raw thrust, afterburner style.

You wouldn't "Burn" a mixture of N2 and H2O for propellant, i was thinking IRSU at most tbh.

A heated stream of N2 would never benefit from introducing any fuel type as any biproducts formed would just cool the exhaust. Also, you & @Kerbaloid have both referred to oxygen gas as "O" and this disturbs me greatly. Not to mention, having a super heated stream of O2 sounds like a beautiful recipe to destroy any container unless you intend the nuclear reactor and reaction chamber themselves to be burnt away in this process.

14 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

But he was responding to the idea of combining N2 and H2O to yield N2O, which assuming it's even possible would be energetically unfavorable. Since he mentioned how Stable Nitrogen was, and Water's reluctance to release it's Hydrogen vassals is a close second on the tier list of  "Stubborn chemistry things to keep note of"

Yes

14 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Arent those Hybrid jobs actually Throttleable also? Since the HTPB only burns in presence of Oxidizer, so by cutting off the supply of NOX or reducing it you can actually get around the issue of traditional solids not being very friendly after ignition.

Yeah that's the point of making the rocket hybrid. Normal SRBs have no way to turn off, but with hybrids, the moment you stop introducing oxidizer then the solid propellant no longer has anything to react with and trust stops. Basically thrust is proportional to oxidizer flow. Fully liquid fueled engines are a bit trickier to throttle due to turbopump mechanics unless you're using a battery to power them like the electron rocket.

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

A heated stream of N2 would never benefit from introducing any fuel type as any biproducts formed would just cool the exhaust. Also, you & @Kerbaloid have both referred to oxygen gas as "O" and this disturbs me greatly. Not to mention, having a super heated stream of O2 sounds like a beautiful recipe to destroy any container unless you intend the nuclear reactor and reaction chamber themselves to be burnt away in this process.

Yes; it's famously inert (Quasi-Inert? It's not noble, but close enough). Thanks to that triple bonding you mentioned earlier :P

It would be the Oxygen that would react with any fuel, and the extra energy from the reaction of the Oxygen and Fuel would also impart more velocity to the N2 particles. So while the N2 wouldn't react; it would still contribute to increased ISP in this "Afterburning" situation. You're completely correct that if you didn't have any other combustion/reaction and just threw some random gas/liquid into the stream it wouldn't do anything but hurt the performance.

Also i wasn't sure if the O would be able to find a partner at these temps, so that's why i didn't say "O2" since this is pretty far from standard pressure and temperature. And if we're Decomposing the NOX using heat, then you could easily make sure the portion of the reactor where it would begin decomposing was hardened against it (There's a select few compounds that won't react with it, even at high temps). And the combustion chamber you might actually be able to keep shielded using the N2 gas, assuming it could be directed after decomposition into a somewhat laminar flow across the bell/chamber walls.

All a tall order indeed, but then again so is making a nuclear reactor in space and using it to accelerate your rocket using it's coolant(s) xD

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

It would be the Oxygen that would react with any fuel, and the extra energy from the reaction of the Oxygen and Fuel would also impart more velocity to the N2 particles. So while the N2 wouldn't react; it would still contribute to increased ISP in this "Afterburning" situation. You're completely correct that if you didn't have any other combustion/reaction and just threw some random gas/liquid into the stream it wouldn't do anything but hurt the performance.

This is possible but as said earlier you wouldn't want hot pressurized O2 gas anywhere as that would destroy anything around it.. It would be far better to superheat a reducing agent and introducing O2 to that.

16 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Also i wasn't sure if the O would be able to find a partner at these temps, so that's why i didn't say "O2" since this is pretty far from standard pressure and temperature.

A fair assumption, but H2O will not react and leave an O2- out in the wild. At temperatures capable of dissociating O2 any product of combustion wont be able to form as they too will be atomized meaning you get no energy back from bond formation. Funny thing though, if you could make a reactor get around the 13,000K mark you can disassociate H2 halving the molecular weigh of a pure Hydrogen exhaust insanely increasing Isp by a factor of about the sqrt(2). You're thrust near the transition would probably fall a lot in response too as energy would be used in breaking the bond in H2

16 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

And if we're Decomposing the NOX using heat, then you could easily make sure the portion of the reactor where it would begin decomposing was hardened against it (There's a select few compounds that won't react with it, even at high temps). And the combustion chamber you might actually be able to keep shielded using the N2 gas, assuming it could be directed after decomposition into a somewhat laminar flow across the bell/chamber walls.

Separating N2 and O2 gas in a reaction vessel and having the N2 act as a boundary layer seems a far taller order IMO. Using a centrifuge method wouldn't even work as O2 is heavier than N2

 

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

This is possible but as said earlier you wouldn't want hot pressurized O2 gas anywhere as that would destroy anything around it.. It would be far better to superheat a reducing agent and introducing O2 to that.

A fair assumption, but H2O will not react and leave an O2- out in the wild. At temperatures capable of dissociating O2 any product of combustion wont be able to form as they too will be atomized meaning you get no energy back from bond formation. Funny thing though, if you could make a reactor get around the 13,000K mark you can disassociate H2 halving the molecular weigh of a pure Hydrogen exhaust insanely increasing Isp by a factor of about the sqrt(2). You're thrust near the transition would probably fall a lot in response too as energy would be used in breaking the bond in H2

Separating N2 and O2 gas in a reaction vessel and having the N2 act as a boundary layer seems a far taller order IMO. Using a centrifuge mthod would even work as O2 is heavier than N2

 

Oh i know

It's the entire mechanism behind an Oxyacetylene torch, which doesn't cut it's way through metal so much as BURN a path through it. But i was really just thinking about a potential application, even if it was out there.

And that's the important bit i seem to have forgotten from my chemistry courses, we always treated any Oxygen products from H2O as Oeven if it meant balancing the equation differently.

So fair enough, take your damn like. (Also now you have me thinking of a rotating engine bell for the lulz).

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

(Also now you have me thinking of a rotating engine bell for the lulz).

Its actually a theoretical model for some nuclear rockets. For instance, http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#ntrsolidpbed

Quote

Particle bed / nuclear thermal rocket AKA fluidized-bed, dust-bed, or rotating-bed reactor. In the particle-bed reactor, the nuclear fuel is in the form of a particulate bed through which the working fluid is pumped. This permits operation at a higher temperature than the solid-core reactor by reducing the fuel strength requirements . The core of the reactor is rotated (approximately 3000 rpm) about its longitudinal axis such that the fuel bed is centrifuged against the inner surface of a cylindrical wall through which hydrogen gas is injected. This rotating bed reactor has the advantage that the radioactive particle core can be dumped at the end of an operational cycle and recharged prior to a subsequent burn, thus eliminating the need for decay heat removal, minimizing shielding requirements, and simplifying maintenance and refurbishment operations.

Or

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#ntrliquid

Quote

Nuclear thermal rocket / liquid core fission. Similar to an NTR-GAS, but the fissionable core is merely molten, not gaseous. A dense high temperature fluid contains the fissionable material, and the hydrogen propellant is bubbled through to be heated. The propellant will be raised to a temperature somewhere between the melting and boiling point of the fluid. Candidates for the fluid include tungsten (boiling 6160K), osmium (boiling 5770K), rhenium (boiling 6170K), or tantalum (boiling 6370K).

Liquid core nuclear thermal rockets have a nominal core temperature of 5,250 K (8,990°F).

The reaction chamber is a cylinder which is spun to make the molten fluid adhere to the walls, the reaction mass in injected radially (cooling the walls of the chamber) to be heated and expelled out the exhaust nozzle.

Starting up the engine for a thrust burn will be complicated and tricky, shutting it down even more so

I found them while looking for high TWR NTRs that didn't have radioactive exhaust.

 

  

24 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

It's the entire mechanism behind an Oxyacetylene torch, which doesn't cut it's way through metal so much as BURN a path through it. But i was really just thinking about a potential application, even if it was out there.

You do welding/metalwork?

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Its actually a theoretical model for some nuclear rockets. For instance, http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#ntrsolidpbed

Or

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#ntrliquid

I found them while looking for high TWR NTRs that didn't have radioactive exhaust.

 

  

You do welding/metalwork?

Unfortunately not, but it's one thing I've wanted to pick up eventually. I loved reading about the forging techniques used in the iron age and medieval europe as a kid.

And then history channel aired Forged in Fire and I was basically in heaven. 

And I'm actually pretty surprised that there's a number of designs for rotating engine bells.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Ok but that isn't what oxidizing agent or reducing agent means. They're specific chemistry terms for redox reactions (oxidizing agents lose electrons and reducing agents accept electrons).

NTRs don't change electrons/the chemistry of the propellant normally, it just heats them and in the case where combustion is used as a style of after burner or something for higher thrust N2 would never be useful

Oh. I remember being told that once before... But pardon me, I don't have enough of an eye for Chemistry to easily remember the finer things like how valence(?) works... But I easily went with (digested) the concept that an NTR's reactor core can be shielded or otherwise prepped to deal with propellants that specifically do or don't have Oxygen in their molecule chains.

Edited by JadeOfMaar
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Oh. I remember being told that once before... But pardon me, I don't have enough of an eye for Chemistry to easily remember the finer things like how valence(?) works... But I easily went with (digested) the concept that an NTR's reactor core can be shielded or otherwise prepped to deal with propellants that specifically do or don't have Oxygen in their molecule chains.

To be completely fair I've taken college chemistry coursework and i still occasionally get aspects of it wrong.

And when you're dealing with anything Nuclear it's even trickier, since Uranium, Neptunium, Plutonium are all just Transition Metals, and thus there's not a single easy rule to remember how they'll interact. They can take on multiple oxidation states, Uranium especially (IRL we exploit this by making it into Hexafluoride for gaseous diffusion and separation of the U-238 isotope from the actually fissile (The stuff that goes bang at a critical mass) U-235 isotope). And as this thread shows; sometimes it's not even being wrong; just not specific enough (Which is just being wrong by omission i guess).

Basically, don't sweat it.

7 hours ago, DylanPruden said:

 

Clouds, and the LOD settings are making them look like fog due to the lowered quality....

Holy ***** excrements, if that's the case this facility is absolutely massive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Clouds, and the LOD settings are making them look like fog due to the lowered quality....

Holy ***** excrements, if that's the case this facility is absolutely massive.

Yes it is. In the pict showcasing the sunset, with a single kerbal in the foreground, there are also 6 kerbals hidden by and on the structures. I was wondering when someone would notice how big the colony is.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...