NewtSoup
-
Posts
533 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by NewtSoup
-
I use imgur constantly. The only thing I have to do when copying the image link is add the file extension of the original picture and it works fine.
-
$&%$%^$££~@! after 2 hours of testing I messed up my test again by accidentally throttling down. I am going to have to change the throttle controls to something else. That said my current design is not going to explode. Ever. With 4 medium TCS and 2 small TCS the increase in heat levels off around 2395 Kelvin. Given that most craft will have a much greater thermal mass than my skimpy gantry craft I'd say 1 Medium TCS per Nuke engine will always be sufficient.
-
Re-Running my above test with the same ship (4 medium TCS and 2 small ) at 2370k the increment in temperature is just 0.5k/s or thereabouts
-
I can't wait to read your results My tests are not hugely scientific.
-
Running the new test with 2 small TCS added to the lander can I'm at the 54 minute mark the temperature in the lander can is MUCH lower at a balmy 294k My other observation is that the rate of increase in internal temperature decreases as you approach max T Damit I messed up again by throttlign down while switching desktops. Ctrl Alt Arrow key switches desktop on my machine. Ctrl reduces throttle. The results will be skewed slightly Going to have to run this test again as the throttle down has skewed too much. But not now.. it's 03:35 and I have wine to drink before bed! ( also known as liquid fuel )
-
Ok.. I stuck with it. MET was 1hr 2min 40 seconds when the first engine exploded, after that the TCS cooled the remaining 3 sufficiently that there was no more rapid deconstruction. Though the G-Forces from the resultant spin made Jeb reconsider the Kedgeree he had for breakfast. Rice grains look so much like incoming asteroids when stuck to the console!. Really I consider 1 hour of full burn on Nukes "enough".. however I'm going to add 2 small TCS to see if I can mitigate the heat production from the NERVS completely.
-
At the current rate of dt the ship will explode at ~54 minute MET. I'm bored and pulling the plug... Time to add 4 small TCS to the 4 Medium ones. Jeb also reports he's lost more than 78% of his body weight and can we please splash down near one of the poles.
-
Currently at the 23 minute mark. Internal temperature is 1666 k and climbing slowly. Current velocity is ~18650 m/s Ok.. The craft may not explode. The internal temperature has fallen to 1623 Kelvin. My bad. I had throttled down by accident switching desktops. The craft will eventually explode. Jeb should be boiled in the bag by now. Lander can internal temp is 458k ( holding steady ) good thing Kerbals don't pass out with high temperatures.
-
Added 4 small TCS tot he gantries. Craft Exploded at 8m03s MET. Fascinating!. Adding the cooling system apparently accelerated the tendency to overheat. Added some Medium TCS to the gantry - the ship is still going to explode. When the engines internal temperature reaches 877K the TCS then kick in and once their cooling reaches 99% the engines then go back to heating up. This also happened with the small TCS so I wonder why the overall time to overheat was shorter than with no cooling at all.
-
Craft exploded at ~12 minutes Probably due to the lack of exhaust gas collecting around it then. Bear in mind I've just run my tests with no cooling at all. I am testing to see if Nukes will fly with no cooling. The answer is yes but watch the heat. Probably advisable to use some TCS if you can spare the mass.
- 59 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- thermal control system
- radiator
- (and 1 more)
-
It’s all good information. Yes, for me 6 minutes is a long burn the furthest I’ve been was Duna, once, in a twin ion engine craft. I cut the burn into 6 minute chunks at kerbin PE. Please forgive my inexperience
-
The TWR is obviously climbing as I leave Kerbin's SOI.
-
The temperature is climbing rapidly Engines blew at 6 minutes, which is a conceivable for a long burn. How do you think TWR affects the overheating? Going to take off the Forward Facing engines and see how long an overheat takes. TWR in a vacuum here is ~9 according to KER in the VAB with 4 rear facing engines. Which is not low. In space though TWR is actually 1.9 in LKO but also climbing as my altitude climbs. Interesting! Internal temp is climbing just as quickly as before with 4 engines. In fact it seems to be climbing quicker!
-
Good to know!. I've not much experience of Nukes so far and the ship I built under guidance used no cooling at all and I've seen ships on youtube with a pair of nukes use no cooling. I knew the Fixed Radiators would cool the parts they are attached to. I wonder if your test rig would still explode if instead of a quad adapter which places the nukes close together, uses a gantry with fixing points so the engines are spread out. Even LfOx engines can explode when close together and run continuously.
-
@Geschosskopf all modern reactors need cooling even when scrammed, that's why they need cooling towers. So I don't see nuclear engines needing TCS as implausible. I make no assumptions of the underlying code at all which is why I went with a simple on/of state and have the cooling rate proportional to fuel flow ( throttle setting ). Of course you can run nuclear engines happily without cooling in KSP so it doesn't really matter either way.
-
Regarding Nuclear engines, the simple reasoning to my brain is - Nuclear Engines would be prone to overheat when NOT being used if the reactor is turned on. Engines which are spun down need their TCS deployed Engines under full thrust are cooled in whole or in part by propellant being passed over the reactor. To make it simple on the coding the reactor can be on / off. The exact amount of cooling required can then be inversely proportional to the amount of propellant being passed over the reactor.
- 59 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- thermal control system
- radiator
- (and 1 more)
-
Yeah if you shut down two engines diagonally it you'll have half the thrust but still be balanced. Then if you need them on again in a hurry it's easier to reactivate two engines than adjust the power on 4
-
As far as I know, once in flight there is no way to change all four engines to the same value simultaneously It might, and I say MIGHT, be possible with a mod such as kOS but that would require you to have a scriptable control system installed on the ship in the case of kOS In the assembly process if you added four engines on radial symmetry and then alter the thrust of one engine it does indeed change the thrust of the remaining three that were added at the same time. Sorry to disappoint. Hopefully someone else might have better news / experience than I.
-
Yes, absolutely are five reasons not enough? Seriously - mods is the best one. Also the game is much more playable on a PC. I used my friend's PS4 version and it was frustrating. The first 3 mods you want are: Kerbal Engineer Redux, - knowing your dV is so, so useful and something a rocket engineer should have available to her Maneuver Node Evolved ( or similar advanced maneuver node manipulator ) Pilots need to be able to navigate accurately [X] Science! - Scientists need to be alerted when there's new opportunities for research detected! Using a joystick is ok. Really only works for aircraft. I have a HOTAS system but I much prefer to tip rockets over with keyboard presses for minute precision adjustments. If you want to go for prettyfication then install Stock Visual Enhancements ( and the respective EVE components it wants ) Scatterer Maybe Copernicus if it works ( doesn't work for me ) Distant Object Enhancement And for ease of docking if you want easier docking Docking Port Alignment Indicator Later on you might want Kerbal Alarm Clock For automation of launches and flights try Mechanical Jeb
-
The reason I'd placed the fixed radiators on the cockpit was because as far as I understood the fixed ones only cool the component they are attached to while TCS will draw heat from the entire structure. My minmus base has a module of 4 large TCS for cooling the drill module ( 2 large drills) and the ore processing module ( a single convertotron 250 ) Incidentally 4 large TCS should be overkill for 2 drills and a large ore processor but if you time warp the base and then return to "normal" time the TCS glow red hot and spark and show temperature bars. They do eventually cool down again. This I think is a bug with the heating calculations on time warp.
-
@Archgeek - here is the post I was constructing - you may still want to re-run your old experiments. I have not exactly been thorough. But it was fun hooning Jeb and Bill down the runway to almost certain death every time. I am just conducting a test: Mk 2 Cockpit Mk 2 Cargo Short Liquid Fuselage Mk 2 Cargo Bay ( long ) Mk 2 Bi Coupler 2 x AV8 Winglets 2 x Vector Medium Landing gear Fuel For balance only Infinite propellant Hit space bar and the craft went down the runway @ 700m/s the speed stagnated. Pulled in the landing gear and the speed went up to 1923 m/s at which point the cockpit exploded due to overheating (3015 / 2500 K) Note: You now get shock heating effects at almost sea level - this craft didn't go above 200m - so presumably you get them at all altitudes considered within the atmosphere. Reverted to SPH Added 2 fixed small thermal radiator panels to the cockpit Ran the test again: Craft went out of control and exploded due to g-forces Added Canards Wings Elevons Ran test again: Craft exploded when the cockpit overheated at 1726 m/s and 2865K - actually slower and at a lower temperature than without the radiators. However the aim was to make the craft run faster and cooler not explode sooner. Suspect Drag from the radiators was slowing the craft while still allowing heat to build to the point where the cockpit failed. Remembered to turn the radiators on and re-ran the test: Craft exploded when the cockpit overheated at 1836 m/s ( no significant difference to above ) Put 2 medium TCS in the cargo bayt and extended them and relaunched with the cargo bay closed. Craft exploded at 1926 m/s and 3021 K ( effectively the same result as the first test with no cooling ) Ran test again with the cargo bay open. This time the TCS fell apart due to aero forces even though they were inside the bay. Conclusions: Radiators and TCS do not appear to mitigate shock heating. Radiators are Robust however and will survive re-entry. I did actually run each test several times. I've just posted typical results
- 59 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- thermal control system
- radiator
- (and 1 more)
-
Ive been doing just that. Was writing up but had to go to work. Spoiler - you now get shock heating at all altitudes. TCS and Radiatiors do not mitigate shock heating.
- 59 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- thermal control system
- radiator
- (and 1 more)
-
I am currently using a main 6 ton lifter with 2 SRB's. I don't bother trying to recover the SRBs as they are deleted by the game for being out of atmosphere physics range long before they'd parachute to safety. The Lifter though yes, I recover that every single time. Mostly because I get a kick out of it. The cost of the lifter is ~23,000 with fuel and ~19,000 empty. Landing on the opposite side of kerbin will net you 25% return on the cost ~ 4000 funds. Being careful where I de-orbit I can usually get 75%+ cost back.
-
If the game ever reaches persistent physics for craft anywhere at any time then I will build Jeb a solar-electric powered glider and let him forever patrol the skies of Eve guarding it from the Kraken. Would be cool to get him flying against Eve’s rotation for permanent daytime.
-
Even Better! On the map - Jeb, outside of his capsule is marked by a Kerbal Face. This is better for locating the KSC than any vehicle icon. Jeb's duties now include "Acting Locator Beacon" AND Valentina is now the default pilot for any vehicle.
