[0.25]KSP Interstellar (Magnetic Nozzles, ISRU Revamp) Version 0.13

ABZB · November 7, 2014

I'm not a modder / coder... I don't try to make permanent or elegant solutions. I do what I need to do to make my creations work and not 'cheat' doing it.
~Steve

I didn't say you did - In fact I like your solution - it is hardly cheating, it gives one what one should get from that welded part. My point was that despite the existence of that pathway, optimally that functionality will be built-in.

GreeningGalaxy · November 7, 2014

Since I thought the new version of KSP Interstellar was suffering from a profound lack of good high-thrust high-ISP antimatter propulsion options, I took the liberty of making a simple .cfg file using the existing magnetic nozzle model for a plasma-core antimatter rocket, loosley based off of the values provided on the Project Rho website.

Copy-paste this code into a text file, give it a name like "part4.cfg", and drop it into the GameData/WarpPlugin/Parts/Engines/MagneticNozzle directory.

PART
{
name = BeamCoreAntimatterRocket
module = Part
author = Fractal (Altered by GreeningGalaxy)

MODEL
{
        model = WarpPlugin/Parts/Engines/MagneticNozzle/MagneticNozzle
	rotation = 0,0,180
	scale = 2.462,2.757,2.462
}

node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.505, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.93, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2

fx_exhaustFlame_blue = 0.0, -0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running
fx_exhaustLight_blue = 0.0, -0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, running
fx_exhaustSparks_flameout = 0.0, -0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, flameout

TechRequired = interstellarTechAntimatterPower
entryCost = 14000
cost = 78000
category = Propulsion
subcategory = 0
title = Plasma-Core Antimatter Rocket
manufacturer = Zefram Kerman's Warp Supplies Co.
description = By annihilating the antimatter and propellant directly inside the magnetic nozzle, the plasma-core antimatter rocket achieves far greater thrusts and specfic impulses than nearly any other propulsion system available. In addition to a healthy supply of fuel and antimatter, this engine will need a substantial amount of power to run. It also makes use of an innovative cooling system that greatly reduces the engine's explosiveness by dumping waste heat into to the ship's heat management system, but this naturally mandates the use of larger radiators.
attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0

// --- standard part parameters ---
mass = 6
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.2
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 7
breakingForce = 200
breakingTorque = 200
maxTemp = 3600

// --- FX definitions ---

fx_exhaustFlame_blue = 0.0, -0.74338, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running
fx_exhaustLight_blue = 0.0, -0.74338, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, running
fx_smokeTrail_light  = 0.0, -0.74338, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running
fx_exhaustSparks_flameout  = 0.0, -0.74338, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, flameout

// --- Sound FX definition ---

sound_vent_medium = engage
sound_rocket_hard = running
sound_vent_soft = disengage
sound_explosion_low = flameout

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleEngines
	engineID = ClosedCycle
	runningEffectName = running_closed
	thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform
	exhaustDamage = True
	ignitionThreshold = 0.1
	minThrust = 0
	maxThrust = 3750
	heatProduction = 350
	fxOffset = 0, 0, -0.1
	PROPELLANT
	{
	 	name = LiquidFuel
        	ratio = 1.0
		DrawGauge = True
	}
	PROPELLANT
	{
		name = Antimatter
		ratio = 0.0031189
	}
	PROPELLANT
	{
		name = Megajoules
		ratio = 40000
	}
	atmosphereCurve
 	{
   	 key = 0 56000
  	 key = 1 52000
 	}

}

{
	name = ModuleGimbal
	gimbalTransformName = thrustTransform
	gimbalRange = 1
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleAlternator	
	RESOURCE
	{
		name = WasteHeat
		rate = 50000.0
	}

}

}

Features:

3750 kN thrust (substantially higher than suggested on Project Rho)

56000 s specific impulse (quite a lot lower than suggested on Project Rho)

2.05 TW total thrust power (substantially higher than Project Rho, but this is probably okay - the antimatter usage makes up for it).

At full power, the engine uses 0.0002 milligrams of antimatter and 0.175 units of liquidfuel per second. This gives an input power of about 3.5 terawatts, giving the engine an efficiency of about 57%. ProjectRho didn't provide a value for the efficiency of this type of engine, but 60% is about what a beam-core engine gets, so that's probably about right.

As an added bonus, running the magnetic nozzle to contain all that uses power roughly equal to the maximum output of an upgraded 3.75-meter fusion reactor driving a direct-conversion generator in helium-3 mode. You could also use an antimatter reactor if you like, which would probably be easier anyway.

This config file rescales the magnetic nozzle model for this part so that it now fits 3.75-meter parts, so don't worry about adding a module for it to that fix config someone posted a bunch of pages back if you're using that for the normal magnetic nozzles.

I used the standard rocket visual and sound effects for this part instead of the particles used by the magnetic nozzles. You can switch it back if you like, but I thought an engine this powerful needed some rumble and bright light. Instead of overheating like a normal engine, I supposed that this engine would be hooked into the ship's cooling system, so it now generates 50000 units of wasteheat per second when fully active that must be dissipated through radiators. I have tried this out in-game, and it works well - 50000 per second is significant enough to necessitate bigger radiators, and if the radiators reach maximum temperature, the reactor will shut down and cause the engine to flame out - a similar mechanic to engine overheats, but more forgiving. I'm assuming 50000 heat/second is about 50 gigawatts of wasteheat, which is far lower than the other 43% of the 3.5-terawatt input power, but I think most of the lost energy is escaping in the form of gamma rays from the exhaust. I don't know how to add the radiation-death mechanic from the DT-Vista, but it would apply here.

EDIT: I did the math all wrong. The numbers should be fixed now.

EDIT AGAIN: Nope, I'm just really bad at this. Now they're fixed.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Just kidding! NOW the numbers MIGHT be right, but I have no clue because I was wrong about that three times already. Right now the antimatter usage is, according to my calculations, much too high for the power I said, but I have yet to see a single unit get used in-game (it should take about 5 minutes of full burn to use a milligram, which I guess I haven't done yet), so I'm leaving it alone for game balance reasons. Why does the 405-GW antimatter reactor use the stuff so fast anyway?

Lastly, some photographic evidence:

This is on 2x physics warp, so the exhaust effect is further from the nozzle than usual. I tried moving it even closer to the nozzle than usual, so there should be less of a gap while it's running.

My ridiculous torchship in all its glory. Note MechJeb's estimate of seven-figure delta-V on the left.

Note that I've made some changes to the engine since these pictures were taken, so your results may vary.

Is this engine overpowered? Yes, probably. But it's not even as powerful as a real antimatter engine could be, and it sure makes running around the solar system for antimatter more worthwhile. If you've been wishing for this sort of thing as much as I have, then you're in luck!

Disclaimer: I am claiming absolutely no rights to the above code. Most of it is still Fractal's, and what few changes I made don't amount to much. This could be considered a 'submission' under Fractal's license, or you could just say you found it scrawled on some paper lying in the middle of the street yesterday. I don't really care. If posting this was in violation of any terms of the license I managed to misinterpret or ignore, let me know and I'll take it back down.

Edited November 8, 2014 by GreeningGalaxy

gerbilDan · November 7, 2014

alright so i still cant seem to get the tech tree to look like the screen shot on page one. ive already tried switching the tree file from warp plug in folder, said yes to the update to the tech tree prompt, even deleted teh treeloader folder. i know the mod is installed right because i get everything in sandbox mode.

im playing in science mode simply because i dont feel like managing cost and rep. now if this is why the tree wont fully unlock that is bs.

help or suggestions? the FAQ didnt help.

Atrius129 · November 7, 2014

alright so i still cant seem to get the tech tree to look like the screen shot on page one. ive already tried switching the tree file from warp plug in folder, said yes to the update to the tech tree prompt, even deleted teh treeloader folder. i know the mod is installed right because i get everything in sandbox mode.
im playing in science mode simply because i dont feel like managing cost and rep. now if this is why the tree wont fully unlock that is bs.
help or suggestions? the FAQ didnt help.

You need to use TechManager in place of TreeLoader. Simply follow the same instructions with the tree.cfg file and don't install/remove TreeLoader.

@GreeningGalaxy. That looks Great! I'll have to try it out. Thank you.

Yaivenov · November 7, 2014

@GreeningGalaxy: Thanks for that engine.

So silly question moment, but has there been any thought given to an inverter-transformer-rectifier type part? Purpose being to take "electric charge" (kW DC power) and step it up to megajoules. This would give craft orbiting close to Kerbol a lighter weight power option.

GreeningGalaxy · November 7, 2014

@GreeningGalaxy: Thanks for that engine.
So silly question moment, but has there been any thought given to an inverter-transformer-rectifier type part? Purpose being to take "electric charge" (kW DC power) and step it up to megajoules. This would give craft orbiting close to Kerbol a lighter weight power option.

Would it not be easier to take your existing solar cells (if you're not already using the Near Future Technologies ones, they sound like the tool for the job) and just make copies of them with config edits to produce megajoules instead of electric charge? Just remember to move the decimal point three to the left.

Edit: If any of you grabbed the code for my torch engine, you might want to get it again. I changed a bunch of the values, added wasteheat production, and thrust vectoring.

Edited November 7, 2014 by GreeningGalaxy

cicatrix · November 7, 2014

I've been trying for several days already to sort the things out with this great mod. I covered the basics but still have a few questions:

1. Are there any restrictions about where could I attach magnetic nozzles? Can I cluster them as long as I have a generator powerful enough elsewhere or they should be attached immediately to a reactor that emits charged particles?

2. Can anyone explain to me (in plain and easy words preferably) how do I arrange a microwave transmitting/relaying network around Kerbin. I have 3 stations orbiting at 900 km at approx 120 degree at equatorial orbit each equipped with a 2.5m fusion reactor producing charged particles, a direct conversion generator and a microwave transceiver set in transmit mode. Still I'm getting no power down on Kerbin. What am I doing wrong?

gerbilDan · November 7, 2014

You need to use TechManager in place of TreeLoader. Simply follow the same instructions with the tree.cfg file and don't install/remove TreeLoader.
@GreeningGalaxy. That looks Great! I'll have to try it out. Thank you.

EPIC THANK YOU!!!!

now im just 3k science why of finishing the tree

Yaivenov · November 7, 2014

Would the solar panels still produce the appropriate amount of waste heat?

Oafman · November 7, 2014

The only unusual thing about what you did is using KAS to separate the impactor from the ship that would record. The flickering right-click menu indicates that something threw an exception trying to determine the state of those controls. Need a player log to figure out whether it's something in your install or an actual bug in the code. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92229-How-To-Get-Support-%28READ-FIRST%29 explains where to find the player log on each supported OS.

Yeah, good shout about KAS, that could well be involved.

I will have a go at repeating this without KAS involvement, and see what result I get

ZonkX · November 7, 2014

2. Can anyone explain to me (in plain and easy words preferably) how do I arrange a microwave transmitting/relaying network around Kerbin. I have 3 stations orbiting at 900 km at approx 120 degree at equatorial orbit each equipped with a 2.5m fusion reactor producing charged particles, a direct conversion generator and a microwave transceiver set in transmit mode. Still I'm getting no power down on Kerbin. What am I doing wrong?

Check if your transceiver is directly attached to the generator, it doesn't work that way. Attach it somewhere else or put something between, it should work then.

GreeningGalaxy · November 7, 2014

I've been trying for several days already to sort the things out with this great mod. I covered the basics but still have a few questions:
1. Are there any restrictions about where could I attach magnetic nozzles? Can I cluster them as long as I have a generator powerful enough elsewhere or they should be attached immediately to a reactor that emits charged particles?

They need to be hooked directly to the reactor as far as I can tell from my experimentation, and you won't get anything close to the advertized thrust or Isp with any reactor included in the mod. Sadly, clustering them will not work. (this is why I added my antimatter torch drive on the preceeding page).

GreeningGalaxy · November 7, 2014

Would the solar panels still produce the appropriate amount of waste heat?

I'd imagine they would, but I don't know for sure. I'm not quite sure how wasteheat production with solar panels works anyway, because it's not in the individual cfgs and I can't find KSPI's module manager patch for it. I'm not sure the NFT solar cells produce any wasteheat by default in any case.

ABZB · November 7, 2014

I'd imagine they would, but I don't know for sure. I'm not quite sure how wasteheat production with solar panels works anyway, because it's not in the individual cfgs and I can't find KSPI's module manager patch for it. I'm not sure the NFT solar cells produce any wasteheat by default in any case.

Wasteheat is controlled by entirely by code in the plugin - basically, it seems to simply do stuff whenever the solar panel code is running. The nearfuture tech panels that use the nearfuturesolar module to work (the curved ones) will not trigger wasteheat, unless Fractal adds to the wasteheat.cs to look for and properly interact with that as well

undercoveryankee · November 7, 2014

Since I thought the new version of KSP Interstellar was suffering from a profound lack of good high-thrust high-ISP antimatter propulsion options, I took the liberty of making a simple .cfg file using the existing magnetic nozzle model for a plasma-core antimatter rocket, loosley based off of the values provided on the Project Rho website.
Copy-paste this code into a text file, give it a name like "part4.cfg", and drop it into the GameData/WarpPlugin/Parts/Engines/MagneticNozzle directory.
PART
{
name = BeamCoreAntimatterRocket
module = Part
author = Fractal (Altered by GreeningGalaxy)

MODEL
{
        model = WarpPlugin/Parts/Engines/MagneticNozzle/MagneticNozzle
	rotation = 0,0,180
	scale = 2.462,2.757,2.462
}

node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.505, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.93, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2

fx_exhaustFlame_blue = 0.0, -0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running
fx_exhaustLight_blue = 0.0, -0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, running
fx_exhaustSparks_flameout = 0.0, -0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, flameout

TechRequired = interstellarTechAntimatterPower
entryCost = 14000
cost = 78000
category = Propulsion
subcategory = 0
title = Plasma-Core Antimatter Rocket
manufacturer = Zefram Kerman's Warp Supplies Co.
description = By annihilating the antimatter and propellant directly inside the magnetic nozzle, the plasma-core antimatter rocket achieves far greater thrusts and specfic impulses than nearly any other propulsion system available. In addition to a healthy supply of fuel and antimatter, this engine will need a substantial amount of power to run. It also makes use of an innovative cooling system that greatly reduces the engine's explosiveness by dumping waste heat into to the ship's heat management system, but this naturally mandates the use of larger radiators.
attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0

// --- standard part parameters ---
mass = 6
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.2
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 7
breakingForce = 200
breakingTorque = 200
maxTemp = 3600

// --- FX definitions ---

fx_exhaustFlame_blue = 0.0, -0.74338, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running
fx_exhaustLight_blue = 0.0, -0.74338, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, running
fx_smokeTrail_light  = 0.0, -0.74338, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running
fx_exhaustSparks_flameout  = 0.0, -0.74338, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, flameout

// --- Sound FX definition ---

sound_vent_medium = engage
sound_rocket_hard = running
sound_vent_soft = disengage
sound_explosion_low = flameout

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleEngines
	engineID = ClosedCycle
	runningEffectName = running_closed
	thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform
	exhaustDamage = True
	ignitionThreshold = 0.1
	minThrust = 0
	maxThrust = 3750
	heatProduction = 350
	fxOffset = 0, 0, -0.1
	PROPELLANT
	{
	 	name = LiquidFuel
        	ratio = 1.0
		DrawGauge = True
	}
	PROPELLANT
	{
		name = Antimatter
		ratio = 0.00111189
	}
	PROPELLANT
	{
		name = Megajoules
		ratio = 40000
	}
	atmosphereCurve
 	{
   	 key = 0 560000
  	 key = 1 520000
 	}

}

{
	name = ModuleGimbal
	gimbalTransformName = thrustTransform
	gimbalRange = 1
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleAlternator	
	RESOURCE
	{
		name = WasteHeat
		rate = 50000.0
	}

}

}
Features:
3750 kN thrust (substantially higher than suggested on Project Rho)
560000 s specific impulse (somewhat lower than suggested on Project Rho)
2.05 TW total thrust power (substantially higher than Project Rho, but this is probably okay - the antimatter usage makes up for it).
At full power, the engine uses 0.0002 milligrams of antimatter and 0.175 units of liquidfuel per second. This gives an input power of about 3.5 terawatts, giving the engine an efficiency of about 57%. ProjectRho didn't provide a value for the efficiency of this type of engine, but 60% is about what a beam-core engine gets, so that's probably about right.
As an added bonus, running the magnetic nozzle to contain all that uses power roughly equal to the maximum output of an upgraded 3.75-meter fusion reactor driving a direct-conversion generator in helium-3 mode. You could also use an antimatter reactor if you like, which would probably be easier anyway.
This config file rescales the magnetic nozzle model for this part so that it now fits 3.75-meter parts, so don't worry about adding a module for it to that fix config someone posted a bunch of pages back if you're using that for the normal magnetic nozzles.
I used the standard rocket visual and sound effects for this part instead of the particles used by the magnetic nozzles. You can switch it back if you like, but I thought an engine this powerful needed some rumble and bright light. Instead of overheating like a normal engine, I supposed that this engine would be hooked into the ship's cooling system, so it now generates 50000 units of wasteheat per second when fully active that must be dissipated through radiators. I have tried this out in-game, and it works well - 50000 per second is significant enough to necessitate bigger radiators, and if the radiators reach maximum temperature, the reactor will shut down and cause the engine to flame out - a similar mechanic to engine overheats, but more forgiving. I'm assuming 50000 heat/second is about 50 gigawatts of wasteheat, which is far lower than the other 43% of the 3.5-terawatt input power, but I think most of the lost energy is escaping in the form of gamma rays from the exhaust. I don't know how to add the radiation-death mechanic from the DT-Vista, but it would apply here.
EDIT: I did the math all wrong. The numbers should be fixed now.
Lastly, some photographic evidence:
http://i.imgur.com/5r46khL.png
This is on 2x physics warp, so the exhaust effect is further from the nozzle than usual. I tried moving it even closer to the nozzle than usual, so there should be less of a gap while it's running.
http://i.imgur.com/t6E9OEA.png
My ridiculous torchship in all its glory. Note MechJeb's estimate of seven-figure delta-V on the left.
Note that I've made some changes to the engine since these pictures were taken, so your results may vary.
Is this engine overpowered? Yes, probably. But it's not even as powerful as a real antimatter engine could be, and it sure makes running around the solar system for antimatter more worthwhile. If you've been wishing for this sort of thing as much as I have, then you're in luck!
Disclaimer: I am claiming absolutely no rights to the above code. Most of it is still Fractal's, and what few changes I made don't amount to much. This could be considered a 'submission' under Fractal's license, or you could just say you found it scrawled on some paper lying in the middle of the street yesterday. I don't really care. If posting this was in violation of any terms of the license I managed to misinterpret or ignore, let me know and I'll take it back down.

The upgraded antimatter reactor claims to be "plasma-core" with power output in the hundreds of gigawatts. If you gave them an operating mode that produced that power as charged particles, you could use the existing magnetic nozzle and get similar performance. I think that would be a more "Interstellar" way to model this engine. I'll see what I can work up this weekend.

cicatrix · November 7, 2014

Check if your transceiver is directly attached to the generator, it doesn't work that way. Attach it somewhere else or put something between, it should work then.

No, it isn't. They're apart. What else could be wrong?

Javascript is disabled. View full album

ArcFurnace · November 7, 2014

No, it isn't. They're apart. What else could be wrong?
http://imgur.com/a/b5Q71

That looks like it's transmitting just fine ... can we see a picture of your reception setup at ground level, that you said wasn't working?

GreeningGalaxy · November 7, 2014

The upgraded antimatter reactor claims to be "plasma-core" with power output in the hundreds of gigawatts. If you gave them an operating mode that produced that power as charged particles, you could use the existing magnetic nozzle and get similar performance. I think that would be a more "Interstellar" way to model this engine. I'll see what I can work up this weekend.

Honestly, this isn't so much a heavily-buffed plasma-core engine as it is a heavily-nerfed beam-core one. Project Rho suggests a beam-core engine having a thrust of about 10 meganewtons and an Isp of around ten million seconds, and at that point you might as well just turn on infinite fuel in KSP, because that would be totally ridiculous for any conceivable interplanetary mission. What I made is somewhere between plasma-core and beam-core, which was really conceived as a torch drive - I wanted to try to get places on a brachistochrone.

I do like the idea of using the 405-GW antimatter reactor with the magnetic nozzles as a proper plasma-core engine, though. If you made an engine with about 1,250 kN thrust and 200,000 s Isp (a nice next step up from the DT-Vista), it would have a thrust power of about 257 gigawatts, just right for a 405-gigawatt reactor at 62% efficiency. I'm still fuzzy on what the 'charged particles' produced by a fusion reactor actually are, but it seems like you could just repurpose them for the plasma produced by a sufficiently-powerful antimatter reaction anyway. I'm not sure how you'd reconcile the charged particle/thermal power output balance, but I guess if all else failed you could just make an engine with those stats and use a magnetic nozzle welded to a big antimatter reactor as the model.

This sounds cool!

cicatrix · November 7, 2014

That looks like it's transmitting just fine ... can we see a picture of your reception setup at ground level, that you said wasn't working?

NeoAcario · November 7, 2014

The upgraded antimatter reactor claims to be "plasma-core" with power output in the hundreds of gigawatts. If you gave them an operating mode that produced that power as charged particles, you could use the existing magnetic nozzle and get similar performance. I think that would be a more "Interstellar" way to model this engine. I'll see what I can work up this weekend.

I run a mostly AM based space program after about 2-3 in game months (besides my massive land-based fusion transmitted power base). It would be AMAZING if upgraded AM reactors could produce any percentage of charged particles. I know I'd exploit the crap out of it. The vast majority of my vessels after the first few months run almost exclusively off of AM (besides the tiny 0.625m fission reactors I use for containment of the cans and normal ship systems).

Is this something Fractal ever talked about or considered? Or do plasma core AM reactors not theoretically produce charged particles?

~Steve

undercoveryankee · November 7, 2014

Honestly, this isn't so much a heavily-buffed plasma-core engine as it is a heavily-nerfed beam-core one. Project Rho suggests a beam-core engine having a thrust of about 10 meganewtons and an Isp of around ten million seconds, and at that point you might as well just turn on infinite fuel in KSP, because that would be totally ridiculous for any conceivable interplanetary mission. What I made is somewhere between plasma-core and beam-core, which was really conceived as a torch drive - I wanted to try to get places on a brachistochrone.
I do like the idea of using the 405-GW antimatter reactor with the magnetic nozzles as a proper plasma-core engine, though. If you made an engine with about 1,250 kN thrust and 200,000 s Isp (a nice next step up from the DT-Vista), it would have a thrust power of about 257 gigawatts, just right for a 405-gigawatt reactor at 62% efficiency. I'm still fuzzy on what the 'charged particles' produced by a fusion reactor actually are, but it seems like you could just repurpose them for the plasma produced by a sufficiently-powerful antimatter reaction anyway. I'm not sure how you'd reconcile the charged particle/thermal power output balance, but I guess if all else failed you could just make an engine with those stats and use a magnetic nozzle welded to a big antimatter reactor as the model.
This sounds cool!

The "Charged Particles" resource represents any energy that the reaction initially releases in the form of high-speed charged particles that can be contained and focused magnetically. Certain fission reactor designs (e.g. Interstellar's dusty plasma reactor) produce charged particles representing fission fragments that aren't absorbed in the fuel. The charged particles from fusion modes are whatever charged nuclei are produced, mostly helium-4. M/AM annihilation of baryons (protons and neutrons) produces a zoo of particles. In the long run, everything decays to gamma rays and neutrinos, but along the way you have charged pions and fairly long-lived electron/positron pairs that would count as charged particles.

NeoAcario · November 7, 2014

http://i.imgur.com/g7BBUcF.jpg

I don't normally use those types of receivers... but I know with the thermal receivers if you have more than 2 running at once... it breaks things.

Try starting with only 1 (one) and see if that works.

~Steve

undercoveryankee · November 7, 2014

I run a mostly AM based space program after about 2-3 in game months (besides my massive land-based fusion transmitted power base). It would be AMAZING if upgraded AM reactors could produce any percentage of charged particles. I know I'd exploit the crap out of it. The vast majority of my vessels after the first few months run almost exclusively off of AM (besides the tiny 0.625m fission reactors I use for containment of the cans and normal ship systems).
Is this something Fractal ever talked about or considered? Or do plasma core AM reactors not theoretically produce charged particles?
~Steve

Charged particles from an AM reaction are how the beam-core propulsion mode works. The unstable particles that it produces aren't as convenient to do ChargedParticle things with as the light ions from a fusion reaction (might not be able to run a direct conversion generator), but they should work for ChargedParticle-based propulsion.

Ogamaga · November 7, 2014

The upgraded antimatter reactor claims to be "plasma-core" with power output in the hundreds of gigawatts. If you gave them an operating mode that produced that power as charged particles, you could use the existing magnetic nozzle and get similar performance. I think that would be a more "Interstellar" way to model this engine. I'll see what I can work up this weekend.

This would be greatly appreciated by me.

ArcFurnace · November 7, 2014

I think the antimatter reactors as-they-are-now represent antimatter thermal generators; you dump antimatter into a massive excess of normal matter, and all the crazy stuff it produces just gets absorbed and turned into heat (which can be used to run a thermal generator, or to heat propellant). Beam-core propulsion would be a secondary "fuel" mode, where the reactor contains much less regular matter to ensure the charged particles can escape. Alternately, you could instead adjust the magnetic nozzles to work with ThermalPower+propellant so long as the source temperature is high enough to ensure the propellant becomes a plasma. The VASIMR electric propulsion system has a magnetic nozzle that handles plasma at >1,000,000 K - the plasma is generated in a different way, but that shouldn't really matter as long as it's plasma, yes? That would give you antimatter-thermal (plasma core) rockets with magnetic nozzles. That might work better game-wise than beam-core antimatter rockets; a realistically represented beam-core rocket would have absurdly high ISP (~10,000,000 s) and pathetic thrust at the power levels we have available. The numbers from Project Rho have 10 MN of thrust ... at an utterly insane power level of 500 TW! The 405 GW antimatter reactor would have <10 kN of thrust at that ratio, like some kind of antimatter-guzzling ion engine. The excessively high ISP is actually the problem, since increasing ISP decreases how much thrust you get for a given power level.

Edited November 7, 2014 by ArcFurnace

[0.25]KSP Interstellar (Magnetic Nozzles, ISRU Revamp) Version 0.13

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites