[1.0.5] Atomic Age - Nuclear Propulsion - Red Hot Radiators

[Fraz86]

Porkjet, how do your radiators operate? On stock module, or custom / with heat pump / something else?

They use the stock radiator module, like the stock folding radiators. This is different from the stock static radiator panels, which are passive. Porkjet also set various heat parameters (e.g., heatConductivity, emissiveConstant, maxEnergyTransfer, thermalMassModifier, maxTemp) different from the stock radiators, so expect them to behave a bit differently.

[Darth Lazarus]

Qestion for Prokjet:

is it normal, that i can surface attach things to the reactor core body of the Lantern engine?

now i can build my nuclear UR-700 ... YAY

[Randazzo]

Nuclear Globetrotter incoming!

These are awesome!

[includao]

These new radiators are masterpieces

[Porkjet]

Nuclear thermojets without interstellar, at least!

Porkjet, do you have some plans for simple nuclear decay functionality for these engines?

Thought about that. I'm concerned that it might overcomplicate things. Might make it as an optional component maybe.

Love the update kinda disappointed with the 1.5 mach limit on the TJ. Is that for gameplay as I don't see why this would have such a low speed limit? Also that begs the question of how you got that plane to eve in your screenshot with just the TJs especially with the mach limit.

You're probably refering to the machLimit = 1.5 parameter in the CFG, it has nothing to do with a speed limit tho, instead it's a limit after which the engine starts to produce extra heat. What does limit the speed are the curves, and the engine actually still produces thrust well within mach 3.5, it's mainly the low TWR that effectively limits it to subsonic. Also note that thrust scales almost linearly with atm density, meaning it'll also give much more thrust on eve. (tho due to high drag there you still won't go supersonic easily)

It's based on performance of real experimental machines from the 60's. I found some vague info on performance values which i generously increased till it was just enough to be fun in game. Real stats are quite underwhelming, might be part of the reason they never put these things into actual production. Fits with gameplay balancing tho, an infinite fuel cruise drive is already good enough, especially since you can use it for cruising in places like EVE.

Qestion for Prokjet:

is it normal, that i can surface attach things to the reactor core body of the Lantern engine?

Yes. You can also attach things to the base mount of the lightbulb. Helpfull if you decide to use passive radiators.

Nuclear Globetrotter incoming!

http://i.imgur.com/OAln52u.png

These are awesome!

Yay almost supersonic!

[Randazzo]

Yay almost supersonic!

Top speed so far with a nuclear death dart.

[Starwaster]

It's based on performance of real experimental machines from the 60's. I found some vague info on performance values which i generously increased till it was just enough to be fun in game. Real stats are quite underwhelming, might be part of the reason they never put these things into actual production.

A larger part of the reason why is public perception. People were starting to turn against nuclear anything, especially atmospheric use. That's also a large part of why we don't have any functioning flight ready nuclear rockets yet. (the end of the space race and the push for manned Mars missions is the other)

[Yukon0009]

The nuke turbojet looks really sleek.

[Temeter]

Those engines are even a bit better in far. Managed 407m/s in even flight. Who'd have thought?

A larger part of the reason why is public perception. People were starting to turn against nuclear anything, especially atmospheric use. That's also a large part of why we don't have any functioning flight ready nuclear rockets yet. (the end of the space race and the push for manned Mars missions is the other)

Extremly low thrust and heavy engines make military crafts very easy to shoot down, while radiation is a big issue for passenger transport besides the low freight margins. Not to mention stuff like accidents.

I'm not a specialist, but those nuclear jets don't seem very reliable, especially compared to nuclear rocket engines. Both ofc also had the issue of not having an actual purpose in most missions. Almost reminds me of the current SLS rockets, which do look great, but don't exactly have an abundance of applications.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Temeter

[wisnoskij]

Interesting additions. The radiatrs look great, consider possibly putting out bigger ones; Taller or full ring. The main reason, last time while working with stock radiators, I chose the large fold out variety even tho the static performed better and were far less likely to be involved in docking accidents, was because I could replace 50 radiators with a single one, taking a huge chunk out of any existing or future game performance issues.

[Tellion]

Extremly low thrust and heavy engines make military crafts very easy to shoot down, while radiation is a big issue for passenger transport besides the low freight margins. Not to mention stuff like accidents.

I'm not a specialist, but those nuclear jets don't seem very reliable, especially compared to nuclear rocket engines. Both ofc also had the issue of not having an actual purpose in most missions. Almost reminds me of the current SLS rockets, which do look great, but don't exactly have an abundance of applications.

Low TWR is likely a question of enough funding, certainly it could be made usable. The same thing goes for radiation of passengers, this is more of a nuisance than some principal obstacle. Accidents, well, we have got nuclear submarines too, so why would planes be beyond possibility.

A "great" purpose would have been bombers carrying nuclear warheads that do not really have to land for a long time given enough supplies. Before ICBMs became a thing, Strategic Bombers were the bread and butter nuclear deterrent for both the US and the Soviet Union. For some time, some of those were even kept in the air at all times to ensure the ability of striking back in the case of a large scale attack - planes not limited by fuel are a huge advantage in such a situation.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Tellion

[billkerbinsky]

It's based on performance of real experimental machines from the 60's. I found some vague info on performance values which i generously increased till it was just enough to be fun in game. Real stats are quite underwhelming, might be part of the reason they never put these things into actual production. Fits with gameplay balancing tho, an infinite fuel cruise drive is already good enough, especially since you can use it for cruising in places like EVE.

Along those lines, have you seen the Nuclear Ramjet?

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html

Tory IIC got 170kN thrust; next generation (Tory III) was supposedly good for mach 3 at sea level, mach 4 at altitude as part of a 27 ton craft. cancelled because ICBM's were faster and less scary.

[Svm420]

Along those lines, have you seen the Nuclear Ramjet?

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html

Tory IIC got 170kN thrust; next generation (Tory III) was supposedly good for mach 3 at sea level, mach 4 at altitude as part of a 27 ton craft. cancelled because ICBM's were faster and less scary.

Now that sounds like what I want.

[Sandworm]

Low TWR is likely a question of enough funding, certainly it could be made usable. The same thing goes for radiation of passengers, this is more of a nuisance than some principal obstacle. Accidents, well, we have got nuclear submarines too, so why would planes be beyond possibility.

A "great" purpose would have been bombers carrying nuclear warheads that do not really have to land for a long time given enough supplies. Before ICBMs became a thing, Strategic Bombers were the bread and butter nuclear deterrent for both the US and the Soviet Union. For some time, some of those were even kept in the air at all times to ensure the ability of striking back in the case of a large scale attack - planes not limited by fuel are a huge advantage in such a situation.

I would add that improvements in air-to-air refueling was another nail in the coffin. Improvements in flight controls, radar and radio communications during the same period made getting two large aircraft so close together much easier and more reliable. The big bombers (Bear+B52) spend a huge amount of fuel just getting to altitude. Giving them a full tank once already up there more than doubles the time aloft. So keeping enough bombers on station via refueling became the much cheaper option.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Sandworm

[Temeter]

Now that sounds like what I want.

Huh, sounds like you were right and I severely underestimated the capabilities of nuclear jets.

Or the concepts are just very optimist.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Temeter

[ArcFurnace]

I'm not sure if you can really call the Project Pluto design a "jet" in the sense of a manned aircraft useful for anything other than destruction. It was unmanned, had no radiation shielding at all and had radioactive reactor-core dust as part of the exhaust stream, and I doubt you can eliminate those without reducing the performance substantially. Radiation shielding to keep crew and passengers healthy is heavy, and if you don't want bits of the reactor core coming out the exhaust you have to run it at lower temperatures and/or without supersonic airflow through the heat exchanger (making it a jet instead of a ramjet) and thus giving lower exhaust velocity.

The Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion project was a lot more sane, and they wound up abandoning it after studying shielding requirements for an active nuclear reactor in an aircraft. However, the ability to operate in non-oxygen-containing atmospheres might be enough of an advantage to make it worthwhile.

Edited July 4, 2015 by ArcFurnace

[Starbuckminsterfullerton]

Wow, what an update! Porkjet, you continue to make the most stunning heat emmissives anywhere?

Edit: removed question that had already been answered a a few pages further back than I had read

I didn't see anyone discussing this one though: Porkjet, could you explain a little of how the jet operates intake resource wise? I am working on some air assist turborockets, which other than burning Lf/Ox perform similarly to this engine. I was planning to MM patch the CRP IntakeAtm resource to all stock intakes, and use a atmosphere thrust curve approaching zero in vacuum, is this what you did?

I don't have time to download it and test it out right now or I would do that instead.

Also, when I eventually texture that engine I would like it to fit in with your parts. Is there any chance you have an image of the mkII endcap texture that I could use? I am not skilled enough to replicate it.

Can't wait to use these parts!

Edited July 4, 2015 by Starbuckminsterfullerton

[wisnoskij]

Playing around with the ramjet I have to agree it is balanced gameplay wise. It is not going to revolutionize SSTOs or anything like that. It is a workable airplane engine in low altitude kerbin, with basically no VTOL ability whatsoever. On EVE and Jool is has way more thrust, apparently with the higher atmosphere density; If you ever want to explore the atmosphere of either it will probably be your absolute best choice. Unfortunately, even factoring in the reduced gravity of Duna, its atmosphere is too thin to sustain any usable amount of thrust.

[Porkjet]

Along those lines, have you seen the Nuclear Ramjet?

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html

Tory IIC got 170kN thrust; next generation (Tory III) was supposedly good for mach 3 at sea level, mach 4 at altitude as part of a 27 ton craft. cancelled because ICBM's were faster and less scary.

I've already experimented with ramjet settings, again had to cheat up the thrust compared to information i got on Project Pluto quite a bit to make it work, probably due to higher drag in KSP. It's really challenging to fly, or even boost it up to sufficient speed to get self sustaining thrust, but also much fun smashing through the landscapes a few meters above the ground at mach 3. Gotta be real careful to keep up enough speed at all times, too slow and it couldnt keep up the thrust. Also it overheated quickly, had to turn on cheats etc. Anyway, this is much fun and would fit nicely so I'll definetly make a proper nuke ramjet at some point.

Wow, what an update! Porkjet, you continue to make the most stunning heat emmissives anywhere?

Edit: removed question that had already been answered a a few pages further back than I had read

I didn't see anyone discussing this one though: Porkjet, could you explain a little of how the jet operates intake resource wise? I am working on some air assist turborockets, which other than burning Lf/Ox perform similarly to this engine. I was planning to MM patch the CRP IntakeAtm resource to all stock intakes, and use a atmosphere thrust curve approaching zero in vacuum, is this what you did?

I don't have time to download it and test it out right now or I would do that instead.

Also, when I eventually texture that engine I would like it to fit in with your parts. Is there any chance you have an image of the mkII endcap texture that I could use? I am not skilled enough to replicate it.

Can't wait to use these parts!

Yes thats exactly what I did, added intakeAtmo to the intakes. Didnt use the CRP "IntakeAtm" because according to the google doc it has 0 density, just checked interstellar tho, which is where this comes from and there it has standard intakeAir density, so i guess that's a mistake in the CRP doc. For air turbo rockets, since they should still work in vacuum I think you don't wanna use any additional intake resource at all, might be enough to give it better ISP in atmo, but not sure on exact performance of those in relation to atm density, check if you can find any precise info, if it's more complex than that you could try making it an airbreather without the need for intake resource, but have it use the jet parameters like atmcurve to precisely tune the performance.

For mk2 texture, you could always edit one of the stock textures.

[Jananton]

May I ask why this mod adds all kind of empty slots in the tech tree that seem to have nothing to do with atomic engines this mod supplies?

I like the parts, but some documentation about what's needed to fill the supplied communitytechtree.cfg would be very welcome, apart from the fact I've been looking for hours where those empty slots came from... ;-)

Greets,

Jan

[Porkjet]

May I ask why this mod adds all kind of empty slots in the tech tree that seem to have nothing to do with atomic engines this mod supplies?

I like the parts, but some documentation about what's needed to fill the supplied communitytechtree.cfg would be very welcome, apart from the fact I've been looking for hours where those empty slots came from... ;-)

Greets,

Jan

From Community Tech Tree FAQ:

Q: Why do I see so many empty nodes!

A: Because of the current state of KSP tech tree modding. There are compromises to having empty nodes hidden (little lines leading to nowhere). The decision was made to unhide all the nodes for clarity's sake.

I agree its not optimal, I'll see if I can hide them without breaking compatibility to CTT

[Yemo]

I suggest making CTT a required mod instead of redistributing it. That way people are directed to the CTT thread for those questions and would more easily see that unnecessary nodes are a "feature" of 1.0.x tech tree modding. As far as I know, there is already a plugin dealing with that in the CTT thread, though I m not sure about issues.

[Jananton]

Ah right, so when I upgraded to the latest version of this mod the hiding of empty slots was abandoned.

As long as I know this behavior is intended and not something that broke during my attempts to install mods I'm a happy puppy. :-)

Thanks for the info.

Greets,

Jan

[Starwaster]

Porkjet, I suggest reducing heatConductivity so that it is no higher than 0.001, or maybe even lower. Given that you're using the actives, the end result of high conductivity is that they are going to end up leaking most of that heat back into the vehicle through adjacent parts.

Maybe also set skinSkinConductionMult to match.

[Temeter]

So, i've got a 'little' problem, might be an integral issue of stock ksp's heat radiator system:

From what I'm seeing, heat radiators basically 'suck' the heat out of all hot parts on the ship? My current vessel is very large, and it's engines apparently are causing too much heat for the radiators, killing them (all ~16 of them) basically as soon as i start them. Even with heat cheat the heat from the radiators spreads very, very fast through the ship via conduction. Which would be issue nummer 1, is there something I can do about?

Issue number two is caused by the 'ignore max temp' cheat. Now the vessel is safe in orbit, but the heat won't radiate anymore. Context menu claims Infinity Heat, which does not sound too likely to radiate anyway. Maybe killed the number's bit-limit. Shot the thing into solar orbit and max radiation/timewarp, but no change. Some way to fix the ship, disabling the heat cheat instakills them (also casuses performance issues)? It's not the worst of cases, since it has no crew and I might get the next up via Hyperedit (first ship took like an hour to start ). I'd love to know if there isn't some kind of advanced trick to fix stuff like this, tho!

Edited July 5, 2015 by Temeter