raxo2222

Well curved radiators are useless for TW scale.

Well tweak scale exists for reason

So cold bath is essentially after-cooler? In this pic cold bath is colder than ambient heat by around 50 kelvins - in stock KSC air temp is at 290 kelvins. There must be strong refrigeration. Wow it can cool down thermal generator by 900 kelvins, when radiator runs at 3700 kelvins! Molten salt reactor very quickly throttles down and up, when its cold batch temp is higher than core temp.

Something broken is with cold batch temperature in thermal generator. Its much colder than air temperature of around 290 kelvins and radiator temperature of 332 kelvins. Also at max (cheated wasteheat) it gets locked at around 2000 K even though radiator can heat up to 2600 K

i have suggestion: Can termal turbojets/ramjets generate electricity just like standard engines do? Or at least minature generator with reactor would be nice BTW 1.25m thermal turbojet still overheats with molten salt reactor on uranium burnup (1.25m) Edit: It looks like thermal fusion reactor+thermal generator has problem with feeding itself maintenance energy. It just starves itself and then restarts. Edit: It just causes short loss of thrust for thermal ramjet. But still it would be nice if required power production was locked, if only source of electricity is generator, that fusion reactor is connected to.

Isn't here total drama of GTA V modding and Take Two? Or was that because GTA V had multiplayer and modding changed stuff in GTA V even when online? I heard rumors so just asking here. Hopefully KSP modding will be untouched.

I like new radiators, also this Lithobraking mod is so awesome

And what about other radiators, that are needlessly big, like in screenshots above?

I think you need to review all radiators for their consistency between graphical size and actual size. Some radiators look bigger and other smaller despite setting them all on 50 square meters area. Not all radiators glow when hot BTW Only radiators I didn't place here Wrapped Graphene Radiator and Wrapped Microwave Thermal Receiver - they didn't want to scale town to 50 square meters On unrelated note, where I can find good ladders for this planet jumper? I managed to launch myself high enough to trigger epstein, moved a little then gently climbed down. I guess you don't even have to reentry - just slow a lot while above atmosphere wihth epstein and then land. Edit: this is so badass, that it can fly out of Jool. I guess it can fly out of any RSS gas giant and Venus, at first using only thermal turbojets, as only these engines work in dense atmosphere.

I found weird area bug with radiators. Visually graphene triangle-ish radiator is 2x bigger than square graphite radiator.

Um I posted it in one of screenshots? >.> for example here

I can say this one is pretty... cool Now stuff isn't uselessly wasted Also I built lower tech version of your spaceship. It has 2 pairs of atmospheric boosters, a lot of air intake, 5m antimatter initiated reactor and epstein engine. For dense atmosphere I use 2 2.75m thermal fusion reactors on D-T with thermal turbojet on atmospheric mode, for upper atmosphere I use 2 2.75m WAKEFIELD engines on compressed air mode, once I reach 40 km on Kerbin I can toggle Epstein and have 1.5g acceleration from this engine itself. 2.5m atmo boosters were too weak. I guess I could reduce them to 2.6m size That jumper weights 264 tons, and atmoboosters weigh 65 tons. Edit: 2.6m parts work good enough to get high enough for Epstein. These big reactors are needed for Wakefield, that wasily loses thrust due to overheating.

Yep, enough electricity for fusion maintenance (thermal turbojets) and ARCJETS (rcs) and some other stuff. No need to waste expensive resources and produce excess waste heat. SUGGESTION: Can antimatter initiated reactor have Charged Particle only mode (or at least with incrased ratio)? For example Deuter-Lithium6 fusion.

I'll send you both antimatter and AIM ones. http://www48.zippyshare.com/v/qpRcfjri/file.html - 2 Antimatter Initiated Fusion main reactors, can produce electricity (charged particle generators) and 2 Fusion reactors (thermal energy only one), that doesn't have generators connected, only thermal engine. http://www48.zippyshare.com/v/u2lNb1JT/file.html - Single antimatter reactor with charged particle generator and same 2 fusion reactors + engines There is a lot of parts both inline and radially between reactors with generators and engines with connected reactor without generator between them. Thermal/charged energy from reactors shouldn't be transferred to thermal/magnetic engines, if engine isn't directly connected to reactor. Or just block thermal energy transfer, if there is more than one part in between engine and reactor.

This bug also makes main reactors useless for electricity production for fusion maintenance. When I changed my space plane to contain antimatter reactor instead 2 antimatter initiated reactor I suddenly got much larger waste heat production when using fusion reactor powered thermal engines - both of these reactors [AIM/Antimatter] went to 100% load, when much less power was needed to maintain fusion reactors. Wasteheat production fell when I switched to electrical engines. I guess I need thermal generators for fusion engines and turn on AIM/Antimatter reactors only when switching to electric engine.

I think there is still few quirks to fix. Antimatter containers doesn't show units properly and antimatter initiated reactor still go to 100% load needlessly when using thermal turbojets with fusion reactors.

You need parts, that give you highest ISP, that is fuel efficiency. I bet anything above 1000 and especially 10 000 ISP would mean less total fuel is used, meaning you don't have to carry insane amount of fuel. Edit: I read somewhere you run into diminishing returns, when your DV is 10 - 20 times higher than your ISP. So this means with 1000 ISP you would be pushing really hard to have lets say 50 000 DV, Edit: Its DV = ISP*g*ln(wet/dry mass). If weight of fuel (wet mass - dry mass) as weight of spaceship without fuel, then you get around 6.8*ISP m/s DV y = ISP*9.81* ln(x + 1), where x represents fuel mass relative to dry mass, If x = 1, then it means fuel mass equal to dry mass. Such equation says how much DV you can get from given fuel fraction. Fun fact: If fuel is 10% of dry mass, then you get DV almost equal ISP numerically.

And what about nonresizeable parts, that I listed in same post?

QSR + EM drive = can accelerate at 1 m/s2 for hundreds of years. BTW docking port, hex core tube and radiator heat shield still aren't resizable (structural parts) and wrapped graphene radiator

I assume such flight needs fission/fusion reactors or beam network to power engines of such ships. Would be constant acceleration and deceleration at 0.1 g good enough for lunar/solar system colonization/tourism? How much DV would use such flight to Moon/Mars/ other planets? Higher acceleration would mean higher top speed at midway. But you spend less time in flight.

So at certian size radiators may be even 50% of mass of starship? So which engine with what properpallant protuces most MN per GW? I remember kerosene-fueled thermal engines using Antimatter reactors had very high thrust.

It seems like scaling of tri-alpha fusion reactor wasn't changed, as still doesn't matter if single LiH tank + Tri-Alpha + Epstein engine is 5m size or 10m size stack for DV and TWR It seems like GW/MN produced per ton of mass is constant for tri-alpha/epstein when comes to size of these parts. Shouldn't all possible combinations of engines/reactors get benefit from bigger size? That is if you use reactor X powering engine Y using propellant Z and you aim for certain DV, then bigger combination would result in better TWR (or you can use fixed TWR and have more DV)

I know, but antimatter would turn matter to energy on contact resulting in some mass converted to energy

What if a lot of antimatter was dumped on neutron star (or its mass was removed something else)? Would it puff up faster and faster and then explode due to gravity being weaker?

There are maximum mass for these stars. But what are known lightest objects (neutron star/white dwarf) and theoretically how light these can be?