Jump to content

[WIP] Nert's Dev Thread - Current: such nuke, wow


Nertea
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, chaos113 said:

the other domes besides the first one are not hollow and that defeats the purpose of them being domes

Not true.
My favorites are dome with greenhouse inside, and one with luxury habitat (having sunbeds on rooftop). They are absolutely amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So apparently working on Heat Control is mind numbing and motivationally sapping so I've been doing some new reactor model work.

From left to right, models based on SNAP-10A, Kilopower, NASA Fission Surface Power System. Rightmost is the current 0.625m reactor

a.png

The idea is that the FSPS replaces the 0.625m reactor (at 40 kWe) and the other two smaller reactors are more entry-level, probably at 1 kWe and 5 kWe respectively. I will also add a new 1.25m reactor model based off either the SNAP-100 or a Project Prometheus concept, and a all new 1.875m model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Nertea said:

So apparently working on Heat Control is mind numbing and motivationally sapping so I've been doing some new reactor model work.

From left to right, models based on SNAP-10A, Kilopower, NASA Fission Surface Power System. Rightmost is the current 0.625m reactor

a.png

The idea is that the FSPS replaces the 0.625m reactor (at 40 kWe) and the other two smaller reactors are more entry-level, probably at 1 kWe and 5 kWe respectively. I will also add a new 1.25m reactor model based off either the SNAP-100 or a Project Prometheus concept, and a all new 1.875m model.

Any chance for built in radiators for Kilopower so it can cool itself without external hardware?

unknown.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we are going to receive more low power low mass solutions but how are they going to be placed in ctt? They should be entry level right? So we are going to have less powerful reactors at the start ?

Btw can we expect some new gameplay with these like for example feeding molten salt reactor from external tanks so they can fit nicely between fusion and fission ones by having no need to charge capacitors but providing much less power.

Edited by ra4nd0m
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TaintedLion said:

I'd personally like the SNAP-10 for the 0.625m reactor, it would fit nicely with progression.

Why? If you look at the inspiration, SNAP-10 produced a piddly total of 590W, is functionally smaller than the other reactors and was ultimately superseded by other, more scaleable and reliable designs. It fits much better as a lower tech, lower output power source with something more reasonably powerful stepping up to fill the 0.625m slot, which is currently 'inspired' by a Kilopower type design. The Constellation FSPS is a great fit there, as it fits both the target power envelope and size envelopes. I don't generally copy reality like that but if it fits so well... 

6 hours ago, ra4nd0m said:

So we are going to receive more low power low mass solutions but how are they going to be placed in ctt? They should be entry level right? So we are going to have less powerful reactors at the start ?

Btw can we expect some new gameplay with these like for example feeding molten salt reactor from external tanks so they can fit nicely between fusion and fission ones by having no need to charge capacitors but providing much less power.

Yes a couple lower power lower mass solutions. In the intermittent times I play the game I find the high (>500 Ec/s) power areas are serviced well, but there's a lot of times where I am wishing for something functionally smaller that 40 Ec/s to run some experiments, cool some radiators or cool some hydrogen tanks. I've tentatively baselined the reactors in the image as 1 Ec/s, 10 Ec/s and 40 Ec/s, which is probably going to be mostly correct in terms of order of magnitude

No external tank reactors are planned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Why? If you look at the inspiration, SNAP-10 produced a piddly total of 590W, is functionally smaller than the other reactors and was ultimately superseded by other, more scaleable and reliable designs.

I don't  mean the electrical output, I'm talking more about how it was an early model of nuclear reactor flown in space, you don't necessarily have to fit the electrical output with the design you're basing it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coyotesfrontier said:

@NerteaWill the new reactors have a cylindrical hitbox for attaching radiators to? One of the most frustrating parts of the old reactors was that their hitbox in the truss variant was slightly slanted, making attaching radiators a nightmare.

I liked this. Sorry you found it a nightmare. You can do small rotations to keep the parts from clipping. I suppose if Nertea followed your suggestion, I could do the same rotations to get it to follow the shape again.

I do miss the conformal deploying radiators being sized to reject enough heat for the reactors they fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2021 at 11:40 AM, TaintedLion said:

I don't  mean the electrical output, I'm talking more about how it was an early model of nuclear reactor flown in space, you don't necessarily have to fit the electrical output with the design you're basing it off.

That's the thing though, if I'm putting reactors that are smaller than the .625 reactor, wouldn't that be the place for SNAP? 

On 8/28/2021 at 10:47 AM, coyotesfrontier said:

@NerteaWill the new reactors have a cylindrical hitbox for attaching radiators to? One of the most frustrating parts of the old reactors was that their hitbox in the truss variant was slightly slanted, making attaching radiators a nightmare.

I too find using the rotation tool a nightmare. I haven't even decided what cylindrical models, if any, will look like, but they will have colliders that approximate their surfaces

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2021 at 12:22 PM, Nertea said:

Very unlikely. 

May I ask why? I know there's several possible good reasons (technical issues, wanting to make sure players learn how to deal with radiators as early as possible, etc), but I'm curious what your reasoning is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Starseeker said:

May I ask why? I know there's several possible good reasons (technical issues, wanting to make sure players learn how to deal with radiators as early as possible, etc), but I'm curious what your reasoning is!

Both of those, primarily. I would need to do my work with SH to make fully functional 'independant' reactors which seems like something I don't want to do. 

I've generally finished the two microreactor meshes and bakes now. I don't intend to make inline versions for these as they are principally designed to be surface attached and have the 0.625m rings as a bonus. 

unknown.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking at coding up a test engine that uses a heatloop to define max thrust and propellant flow to define maximum cooling rate.
My intention is an engine that uses heat from either a fission or fusion source to heat propellant like an NTR, and can run on either intakeatm or on board propellant.

Is this going to be a possibility? I can foresee some issues with unrealistic performance, or with engines becoming starved of heat by having excess propellant flow to heat ratio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gryphorim said:

I'm looking at coding up a test engine that uses a heatloop to define max thrust and propellant flow to define maximum cooling rate.
My intention is an engine that uses heat from either a fission or fusion source to heat propellant like an NTR, and can run on either intakeatm or on board propellant.

Is this going to be a possibility? I can foresee some issues with unrealistic performance, or with engines becoming starved of heat by having excess propellant flow to heat ratio.

NTRs actually perform much better when the propellant (liquid hydrogen in nearly all cases) flows through as a) hydrogen is a neutron moderator, reflecting neutrons back into the reactor such that they can cause more fission reactions, so the fission rate increases linearly with increased hydrogen and the reactor will output more energy when the rocket bit needs to produce  more thrust (good), and b) liquid hydrogen is really, really cold, helping to cool the reactor and meaning you don’t need to throw away any of that nuclear energy by dumping it overboard via radiators (also good).

Breaking that connection will probably be a bad thing- the reactor won’t produce as much power, the rocket part could end up out of sync with the reactor meaning either too little heat being produced (low thrust and ISP) or too much (leading to reactor shutdown/scram/meltdown if the heat built up too quickly), and you’ll get more efficiency losses transferring heat from reactor to cooling loop to propellant than going directly from reactor to propellant.

It might be possible to implement in KSP, but I doubt you’d get better performance than a conventional fission (or fusion) thermal rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gryphorim said:

I'm looking at coding up a test engine that uses a heatloop to define max thrust and propellant flow to define maximum cooling rate.
My intention is an engine that uses heat from either a fission or fusion source to heat propellant like an NTR, and can run on either intakeatm or on board propellant.

Is this going to be a possibility? I can foresee some issues with unrealistic performance, or with engines becoming starved of heat by having excess propellant flow to heat ratio.

You are ultimately trying to make SH behave more like KSPI, which in my opinion is not really wise. Some things you'll run into, functionally:

  • SH has no locational understanding, so you could have a reactor on the other end of a 500m vessel from the engine with no issues
  • SH doesn't represent 'consumers' very well so there may be specific issues with trying to have a part consume flux.

Good luck though!

 

unknown.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nertea said:

You are ultimately trying to make SH behave more like KSPI, which in my opinion is not really wise. Some things you'll run into, functionally:

  • SH has no locational understanding, so you could have a reactor on the other end of a 500m vessel from the engine with no issues
  • SH doesn't represent 'consumers' very well so there may be specific issues with trying to have a part consume flux.

Good luck though!

 

unknown.png

Jesus, you're a machine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KeaKaka said:

Ooh, Lovely!

Will the little half pipes on the smaller reactor rotate to control the reaction like IRL?

I haven't modeled them as such but I guess I could think about it.

I also had in the past modeled some RTGs that I will be working on

unknown.png

More or less balance as follows:

PB-NUK Early General Purpose Heavy Advanced
.8 Ec/s .5 Ec/s 1 to 1.5 Ec/s 2 Ec/s 3 Ec/s
Poor mass ratio Poor mass ratio Poor mass ratio Poor mass ratio Adequate mass ratio

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nertea said:

 

I also had in the past modeled some RTGs that I will be working on

unknown.png

More or less balance as follows:

PB-NUK Early General Purpose Heavy Advanced
.8 Ec/s .5 Ec/s 1 to 1.5 Ec/s 2 Ec/s 3 Ec/s
Poor mass ratio Poor mass ratio Poor mass ratio Poor mass ratio Adequate mass ratio

 

What are the inspirations for these? I think one of them is the GPHS. 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...