Jump to content

Stockalike RF Engine Configs v3.2.6 [01/20/19][RF v12]


Recommended Posts

This may be a problem with the base RealFuels mod, or it may be related to the Stockalike config...

Currently, a number of the stock parts aren't configured for RealFuels. Specifically, I'm referring to the new engine body parts (that combine intakes and fuel tanks), the radial monopropellent engine, and I think a couple other parts...

Also, +1 on the integration of Life-Support systems with propulsion. Personally (and probably like many players who use RealFuels) I use TAC Life Support- and would very much like to see the ability to turn Water into LH2 and LOX (this would be a more long-term way to store Hydrogen), and recycle CO2 into LiquidMethane and Water through the Sabatier Reaction (currently part of KSP-Interstellar and a couple other mods).

Speaking of which, what are the chances we could see a MM file release for KSP-Interstellar. Specifically, I would like to be able to integrate the Methane-burning chemical engines from that mod with the LiquidMethane I am already launching to orbit for my Nuclear Tug (uses an LV-N engine), be able to produce LH2 and LOX through the Water Electrolysis or Alumina Electrolysis (LOX only) reactions in that mod without having to go in and mod the configs for compatibility myself, and be able to use the same Ammonia resource for KSP-Interstellar and the RealFuels version of the LV-N... This is mostly to minimize the number of potential resources and conflicts in the game- as I am likely to switch over from RealFuels LV-N engines to KSP-Interstellar nuclear rockets in the long run. But the ability to use Methane produced from my TACLS CO2 resource (via the KSP-I Sabatier Reaction) in my KSP-I metha/LOX engines would also be awesome...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989
Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually have some configs for the Sabatier block that is in Universal Storage, changing it over to outputting Methane rather than Liquid Fuel. Moreover, Universal storage has an Electrolysis block in it which produces H2 and Oxygen. I've been meaning to throw together things like a O2 phase changer (lox->gox & vice versa) using the Universal Storage blocks. A quick note about my diagram above for RCS, I am aware of the error in the Sabatier reaction, but the net result is the same. It produces an excess of Oxygen, but that's not a bad thing, really. Oxygen is inevitably lost over time, not to mention is needed for the RCS system. Also, I did the math, and turns out that water holds 78% the oxygen by weight per cubic meter compared to LOx, and holds 157% the hydrogen by weight per cubic meter compared to Liquid Hydrogen (comparisons at 1 atm), not to mention it's non-cryogenic, and stable over a wide temperature-pressure range compared to LOx/LH. (I checked the math over several times, but i'm no Physics or Chemistry major, so feel free to correct me if your numbers are different).

Thinking about electrolysis and fuel cells though, it got me wondering; fuel cells are incredible methods of energy storage in terms of density, and density is the biggest inhibiting factor for Ion/Plasma/VASMIR engines running for long periods. What if Fuel Cells could have a high enough output to power an electric engine? Turns out modern Solid Oxide fuel cells actually do have the capacity for just that! I present to you the Nuclear Solid Oxide Fuel Cell & Electrolysis Generator & battery:

gwYYyzq.jpg

To give some more info, here's a post I made in the Near Future thread (and have yet to get a reply from Nertea on):

This is the most detailed and accurate data I was able to find on the matter: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2..._pnnl_2012.pdf

For more general scientific/academic info on how Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs) operate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell

For information regarding Very High Temperature Reactors, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

The paper outlines SOFC for use in aircraft, so it pays special attention to weight, fuel efficiency, and power output. Here, including frame, casing, insulation, transformer efficiency loss, pumps, compressors, condensers, piping, and the fuel cell stacks themselves, the system weighs just over 3000kg and produces just under 1 megawatt. most inefficiency in such a system comes from power transformers and heating the system. The paper is dated March of 2014.

The model used here differs from one which would be used on a spacecraft with a nuclear reactor. Most importantly, the model provided uses power to maintain the heat, and does not bring oxygen or equivalent chemicals. In the case of a spacecraft which uses a nuclear reactor, this would have a high efficiency, and the volume of fuel brought could be relatively low, as using a similar process electrolysis can be performed with solid oxides. Thus only as much fuel cell reactants as will be needed for the longest burn need be taken along.

Moreover, Solid Oxide Fuel Cells have a lifespan of at least 1000 hours now, which will likely be improved over time, as will their output and efficiency. It's even possible that the same hardware could be used in 'regenerative mode' making the fuel cell also the electrolysis unit as well, with a small increase in weight and apparatus.

Alternatively, hydrogen/oxygen can be produced using only heat by a high temperature reactor using a thermochemical process, such as the Sulfur-Iodine cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur%...93iodine_cycle

Edited by dreadicon
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

KSP-Interstellar's Meth/LOX engine lags far behind the Space-X "Raptor" in almost every possible design criteria, and needs to have its TWR and ISP adjusted to better match real-world specs for the Stockalike config (unless I can convince FractalUK to make the engine more realistic in KSP-Interstellar to begin with- I made a similar post there). Here are just *SOME* of the specifications for comparison:

Interstellar's "Deinonychus 1-D"

Thrust 1425 kN (thrust does not vary with atmospheric pressure in stock engine module)

Mass 3500 kg (for the record- what TWR is that?)

ASL ISP 309 s

VAC ISP 368 s

Space-X's "Raptor"

ASL Thrust 6900 kN

VAC Thrust 8200 kN

Mass Unknown- but TWR predicted likely to exceed 120

ASL ISP 321 s

VAC ISP 380 s

Keep in mind that the "Deinonychus 1-D" is not available until "Experimental Rocketry" - the *very last* tech node in the rocketry series of the tech-tree! So, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect it to significantly out-perform Kero/LOX engines in many ways, considering its higher tech level (and as a Meth/LOX engine, it is in fact a bit further towards the "high ISP" end of the fuel-density vs. ISP spectrum than Kero/LOX engines...)

Also, a potential issue that I'm worried about is that there are already ModuleManager patches made to the Meth/LOX engine in the *base* RealFuels mod to change the resources it consumes from LiquidMethane/Oxidizer to LiquidMethane/LiquidOxygen (through its KSP-Interstellar integration config, which is currently outdated and incomplete- I even went so far as to suggest some additions to it to make it more complete recently...) So, could it potentially cause issues applying a *separate* MM patch through the "Stockalike" engine config to also change the TWR/ISP of the engine?

Maybe the best solution is to simply add my code additions to the integration config into the base integration config, and then use *that* as a starting point to add in further lines of code to create an alternate Stockalike engine config version of the integration config that *also* changes the Meth/LOX engine's TWR (reduces mass) and ISP (increases ISP) to better match real-world values; and have players replace the base integration config with *that* expanded config when installing the Stockalike engine config...

However, I am currently talking with Dreadicon, who is trying to create an even more complete version of the RealFuels/Interstellar integration config. So maybe it might be wise to work off *that*, or have him write in a version with changes to the engine ISP/TWR as well and kick it over here???

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, geez, sorry guys. Didn't realize everyone was waiting on this update. Thread subscription fail...

Anyway, the configs are updated for RF v8.x. At least they should be. Haven't had time to play at all much less test this stuff, so if you find anything odd, let me know. If I don't respond here, PM me, as that seems to be getting through.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, geez, sorry guys. Didn't realize everyone was waiting on this update. Thread subscription fail...

Anyway, the configs are updated for RF v8.x. At least they should be. Haven't had time to play at all much less test this stuff, so if you find anything odd, let me know. If I don't respond here, PM me, as that seems to be getting through.

Great! Awesome man!

By the way, did you get a chance to take a look at what I've been posting here about a RealFuels/KSP-Interstellar integration config? It appears that the base RealFuels mod already contains some engine-altering MM patches to 3 of the KSP-Interstellar engines, that ought to be removed from the base RealFuels config and migrated over here (and possibly to the other engine configs as well). Also, the TWR and ISP of the KSP-Interstellar Meth/LOX engine need some up-rating if they are to match the real-life TWR/ISP values, as I posted about earlier...

Regards,

Northstar

Link to post
Share on other sites
Great! Awesome man!

By the way, did you get a chance to take a look at what I've been posting here about a RealFuels/KSP-Interstellar integration config? It appears that the base RealFuels mod already contains some engine-altering MM patches to 3 of the KSP-Interstellar engines, that ought to be removed from the base RealFuels config and migrated over here (and possibly to the other engine configs as well). Also, the TWR and ISP of the KSP-Interstellar Meth/LOX engine need some up-rating if they are to match the real-life TWR/ISP values, as I posted about earlier...

Regards,

Northstar

Hadn't had a chance to check it out yet. But that shouldn't be too hard. I'll maybe check with NathanKell to see what we can do with that, since you're right, the engines should probably not be in RF proper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta admit that I'm so hooked on the RF + KIDS using these engine configs. I was just looking at Chaka Monkey Exploration part pack and they seem to be some of the most realistic rockets, is there any chance we'll have support for their engines?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The engines *are* no longer in RF proper as of 8.1 :)

Well, sheesh, that was fast service. :wink:

I gotta admit that I'm so hooked on the RF + KIDS using these engine configs. I was just looking at Chaka Monkey Exploration part pack and they seem to be some of the most realistic rockets, is there any chance we'll have support for their engines?

Yes there is a possibility. :) Once I get to updating this again, I can add those.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Raptor831

OK, just don't forget about the Interstellar Meth/LOX engine. If you set the ISP values to those of the Raptor, and adjust the TWR to 120 by reducing the engine mass (the predictions by Space-X are slightly more optimistic than this in terms of TWR, but actual engines with a TWR of 120 have been designed by the Soviets before- so it's a good conservative # to go with...) it should be relatively easy to fix...

It's not available until Experimental Rocketry (the final, mod-only node of rocketry), so there's no need to add even more advanced tech-levels: and it's already head-and-shoulders above most of the other chemical rocket engines with those real-world stats...

The ISP values again:

ASL ISP 321 s

VAC ISP 380 s

Note that the real-world variant produces a LOT more thrust than the Interstellar version (1425 kN), and is the same diameter (2.5 meters), so if you want to go *really* realistic, you'll use the following thrust values as well as adjusting engine-mass (currently 3.5 metric tons). That would make the engine a lot more useful as a heavy-lifter, which is what it's designed for...

ASL Thrust 6900 kN

VAC Thrust 8200 kN

FractalUK probably should have made it a 1.25 meter engine if he wanted to stick with 1425 kN of thrust, for realistic balance... (even though that would have been *VERY* high thrust for a 1.25 meter engine in Stock KSP)

The real-world Raptor engine is designed to operate at extremely high chamber pressures and using a more advanced fuel cycle (full-flow staged combustion) than any other engine currently in use (in fact, only 2 engines have ever been successfully tested with this cycle- although neither saw use beyond the test-stand on actual rockets), which is a big part of why its thrust is so high for its size...

Regards,

Northstar

EDIT: I'm trying to get Dreadicon to design such a MM patch for this, since I have no idea how to go about it myself. But if you were able to design it instead, that would be awesome too. As long as it gets done- that's what matters.

Edited by Northstar1989
Link to post
Share on other sites
@Raptor831

OK, just don't forget about the Interstellar Meth/LOX engine.

Don't worry, I won't. I've got a growing list of mods to add. :)

Hey! Just started using these configs and I must say I love them! Is there any chance you could create a config for the Tantares mod?

Keep it cool :cool:

Yeah, I'll see what I can do about that. I've been curious about that mod, but I've been using HGR for the Russian-type pieces.

I'm going to try to push an update with the new RF resource stats (currently only the names were updated) soon. If anyone else would like to suggest mods (or post a XLS with stats you set up for it) I can try to get them all in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to try to push an update with the new RF resource stats (currently only the names were updated) soon. If anyone else would like to suggest mods (or post a XLS with stats you set up for it) I can try to get them all in.

If you're looking for suggestions, the RLA Stockalike pack has had some updates with new parts that could use adding :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be worth considering scaling the fuel costs to bring them inline with KSP costs? While RF uses 1 root = $1000USD in 1965 (as, I think, RO will) people playing this config pack might want to play a traditional campaign. You also should consider giving engines appropriate costs if you do not already do so; the final cost column of the spreadsheet can be useful here. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
It might be worth considering scaling the fuel costs to bring them inline with KSP costs? While RF uses 1 root = $1000USD in 1965 (as, I think, RO will) people playing this config pack might want to play a traditional campaign. You also should consider giving engines appropriate costs if you do not already do so; the final cost column of the spreadsheet can be useful here. :)

Nahhh, please don't increase the fuel costs. I appreciate having realistically-low fuel costs (in real life, fuel only equals 0.3% of launch costs for a space-X Kero/LOX rocket, according to Elon Musk- and I want it to be that way in "Stockalike" Real Fuels as well).

The engine costs also already seem fine. What needs changing?

Raptor831, if you want to CHANGE something, I suggest going and fixing up the resource names and TWR/ISP of the KSP-Interstellar Meth/LOX engine. Apparently, Dreadicon already sent NathanKell a pull request with the latest Ksp-Interstellar/RealFuels integration config we (well, mostly Dreadicon) designed, but it shouldn't include resource or TWR/ISP fixes for the Meth/LOX engine when it gets integrated into RealFuels, as I understand it (NathanKell, am I reading you correctly on how it's going to look when integrated into RealFuels?)

So there needs to be a file for each engine config, including this one, that adjusts the names of the Resources consumed by the engine (this fix was in the *old* integration config- I still have it installed, so send me a PM if you can't find it), and there should also be TWR/ISP fixes for it, as I mentioned before.

If you're looking for MORE to do, still, I'm trying to get FractalUK to add Nitrogen as a propellant for the KSP-Interstellar plasma thrusters. Considering it's the only plasma thruster type remotely close to real-world utilization, it would make sense for him to have it in that mod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicon_Double_Layer_Thruster

For him to add it, KSP-Interstellar would have to add a new "Nitrogen" resource. However, RealFuels already includes a Nitrogen resource- so perhaps a MM patch could be used to add it as a fuel-mode for the plasma thruster, similar to the way MM patches are already used to fix the changes to resource name for Hydrogen that RealFuels implements (Hydrogen is already one of the fuels used by KSP-Interstellar plasma thrusters).

FracalUK already has a nice simple algorithm figured out for the ISP/thrust values of each plasma thruster propellant- based off molecular mass and E = 1/2 m v*v. He just assumes all propellants are given equal energy per molecule (with an "efficiency" factor modifying the final thrust vs. heat production), and bases the ISP and thrust/MJ accordingly. So it shouldn't be too hard to figure out the right thrust and ISP values for adding Nitrogen plasma thrusters to his mod (with a MM patch active when RealFuel is installed) based off the molecular mass of N2...

I want this because Nitrogen-electric propulsion (coupled with Nitrogen RCS- which is already in RealFuels as I understand it?) would make it perfectly possible to build a Propulsive Fluid Accumulator system in Kerbin's upper atmosphere using the KSP-Interstellar Atmospheric Scoops...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propulsive_fluid_accumulator

The beauty of it is, all the other components necessary to build one are already there in KSP-Interstellar and RealFuels! (high-powered plasma thrusters with a realistic thrust-energy relationship capable of operating on multi-Megawatt power levels, Atmospheric Scoops, a realistic LOX resource, a Nitrogen resource, and space-capable particle bed nuclear reactors similar in design to the ones used in Project Timberwind).

And even though my Kerbals are perfectly willing to set up a nuclear-powered (solar panels produce too little power and too much drag) Propulsive Fluid Accumulator satellite just inside the edge of Kerbin's atmosphere, I could just as well make use of Microwave Beamed Power from ground-based nuclear reactors or orbital Solar Power Satellites to power it instead! (this strategy would work just as well in real life- if fact, NASA is *already* experimenting with Microwave Beamed Power on the ground- maybe they could be convinced to see the benefits for a Propulsive Fluid Accumulator satellite using ground-based power transmitters in real life...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989
Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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...