Fractal_UK

This is the earliest point it appears for me on the launchpad. It's perhaps a little later than ideal with the largest reactor but not too bad.

This must be something specific to your installation because the refinery loads and reloads fine for me. The only consistent problem I can find with the refinery is the missing tech entry, which is my fault, other players have definitely been able to use it successfully in sandbox mode and in career mode, after fixing the science entry. As for the reactor, I only assume your Kerbal is not close enough to it, that is the only reason no EVA options would appear. Also, in response to your previous post, you have to shut down the reactor before you get any refueling options.

I am not sure this is an Interstellar bug - notice when the station loads the first time: [LOG 21:31:57.594] [FLIGHT GLOBALS]: Switching To Vessel LKO Station ---------------------- [LOG 21:31:57.598] Camera Mode: AUTO [LOG 21:31:57.706] stage manager resuming... [LOG 21:31:57.708] 11/25/2013 9:31:57 PM,KerbalAlarmClock,Active Vessel changed - resetting inqueue flag [LOG 21:32:00.722] 11/25/2013 9:32:00 PM,KerbalAlarmClock,Removing DrawGUI from PostRender Queue [B][EXC 21:32:00.727] IndexOutOfRangeException: Array index is out of range.[/B] [EXC 21:32:00.733] ArgumentException: Getting control 1's position in a group with only 1 controls when doing Repaint Aborting [LOG 21:32:00.747] TAC Fuel Balancer [FFFBA82C][86.6]: Rebuilding resource lists. [LOG 21:32:00.820] 11/25/2013 9:32:00 PM,KerbalAlarmClock,Vessel Change from 'Lithium Tanks' to 'LKO Station' [B][EXC 21:32:00.827] IndexOutOfRangeException: Array index is out of range. [EXC 21:32:00.834] IndexOutOfRangeException: Array index is out of range. [EXC 21:32:00.841] IndexOutOfRangeException: Array index is out of range.[/B] [LOG 21:32:00.880] 11/25/2013 9:32:00 PM,KerbalAlarmClock,Adding DrawGUI to PostRender Queue [LOG 21:32:00.881] 11/25/2013 9:32:00 PM,KerbalAlarmClock,Skipping version check and when the station loads again, same exception: [LOG 21:42:22.025] [FLIGHT GLOBALS]: Switching To Vessel LKO Station ---------------------- [LOG 21:42:22.027] Camera Mode: AUTO [LOG 21:42:22.132] stage manager resuming... [LOG 21:42:22.143] [Orbit Targeter]: Target is null [B][EXC 21:42:22.207] IndexOutOfRangeException: Array index is out of range.[/B] So I'm not sure if anything different is happening between the two loading processes - other than one resulting in a crash and the other not. It's unclear where those exceptions are coming from and it's hard to say if they are even responsible for your crash given that they occur previously without causing a problem. Regardless, since none of the Interstellar tanks (other than antimatter tanks) execute any code and there don't appear to be any other Interstellar parts on that tug ship craft, it's hard to imagine how it could be responsible. Are the docking ports the only other non-stock part on that tug? Where do they come from?

Based on the image, it looks like you still have the old nuclear reactor models. It's really important when upgrading to version 0.8 that you delete the old WarpPlugin folder before installing, otherwise you might get some strange behaviour. I don't know if this is related but it seems likely given that the Lithium tanks don't actually run any code. Scott Manley's first video is still quite relevent even though it focuses on the mod a few versions ago. His new Interstellar Quest video is probably another good thing to follow, though he's only just getting to the point where some of the Interstellar parts are starting to appear. Otherwise, look at the first page and the wiki. As always, it's nice if regular players can help out with the wiki because maintaining this mod is a large amount of work before I even try to work on documentation but either way, I will try and do some work on it soon (after I'm done bug-fixing). Looking at the pictures of the crafts that people build is also a good idea, that is often better than a text-based description anyway. Also, if you have specific questions, ask away and people can probably help. It's automatic for new parts. Older parts that are left over should have an option to upgrade them in the right-click menu once you've unlocked the upgrade tech.

You are correct, I will fix it, thanks for the report.

Are you using the refinery as the vessel root part? If so, can you make sure you test it without this being the case? Nuclear fuel doesn't pump, this is correct behaviour. You can only move it with EVA options.

How are you installing Interstellar? I can only assume there is some issue with the installation if it's causing such weird behaviour. It might be worthwhile downloading another copy of Interstellar in case something become corrupted upon download.

The KTEC thermoelectric generator, the upgraded one, is based on a specific piece of technology, namely the Johnson Thermoelectric Energy Converter (or JTEC). I think this was originally designed with solar energy in mind but is also applicable to other heat sources at very high efficiency levels. The unupgraded version is just a closed cycle Brayton turbine system (almost all real world power plants use the Rankine cycle), these systems feed the working fluid through a compressor and turbine assembly. I understand that in a normal power plant, the compressor typically takes advantage of gravity to seperate the vapour and condensate. I understand there are a number of different schemes that can be used to perform this function in zero gravity conditions. Are you using the same vehicle for testing purposes? The only thing that has changed and could affect the results slightly are some tweaks to the atmospheric limit code, which prevents flameouts. The nuclear reactors are fairly hampered by atmosphere, their specific impulse using atmospheric propellant is very low - the advantage of that is it gives you more thrust, the downside is it makes flameouts occur quicker than is ideal. Anyway, on the launch pad, my testing shows 16.3kN from a clamped thermal turbojet and a basic uranium MSR and an 85.5% atmospheric limit - that means with more airflow I could get up to 19.1kN, exactly the same value as you recorded in the previous version. This change was neccessary in order to prevent twin-jet engined aircraft from yawing unpleasantly due to the two engines producing different thrusts, something that often happens when intake propellant is available but in short supply (but before a flameout). Now, intakes are quite velocity dependent and stationary on the launchpad is not their ideal operating regime. Under actual flight conditions, you shouldn't see such a big difference between this version and the last - once you get off the ground, you'll start to see the benefits of increased specific impulse due to more ideal atmospheric conditions as well as higher intake values due to aircraft velocity. You can also add more intakes to your plane in order to make sure you get access to all the atmospheric propellant you need and try and push that atmospheric limit close to 100%. Additionally, switching over to thorium fuel can be an asset for an aircraft you plan to make regular use of. By doing so, you will see a 27% increase in thrust as well as an 8% increase in specific impulse. By doing both this and adding a couple more intakes, you should actually see a big improvement in un-upgraded nuclear flight compared to version 0.7.4. As for the fusion reactors - it's hard to say whether they are overpowered yet because they are a new addition. That said, the unupgraded fusion reactor is available on the same tech as the upgraded fission reactors and they are a moderate improvement - 175MW thermal power compared to 120MW but the fusion reactor requires an ongoing 7MW of electrical power to continue operation, which can cut off somewhere between 14MW and 45MW from the thermal power depending on operating temperature conditions and whether you have upgraded generators. Unupgraded, they therefore offer a very modest increase in power output compared to the upgraded fission reactors at the expensive of drastically increased fuel consumption. A fusion reactor burns through it's fuel way more rapidly than the fission reactors. Once upgraded, they are a lot better but are by that point competing with the first generation of antimatter reactors, which give you a whole new set of capabilities again. Anyway, I hope some of that rundown helps you get your aircraft working smoothly again.

Can you give a longer list of the messages that appear? A copy of your KSP.log file would do the trick. Also - Actinides don't come out of the reactor, you reprocess Actinides to get UF4 or ThF4 and DepletedFuels, they cannot be removed from the reactors by any (normal) means. It makes sense once you work out whats going on with the system but might not be obvious until then. I'll try and write up a new and complete description on the wiki tomorrow.

Check what is happening in the Alt+F2 screen. You could also try adding the entry cost field to the part.cfg and that should make it perform better. As for the reactors, this is the proper behaviour. You don't get DepletedFuels anymore until you do some fuel reprocessing (and you must have a container to store the DepletedFuels in). Thus the resource tanks have slots for UF4 and ThF4 plus DepletedFuels, you take new fuel out of these tanks and slowly fill them up with DepletedFuels. The reactors then use one type or another of nuclear fuel and turn that into Actinides.

Just to check but do you have thorium tanks on there? You cannot mine thorium directly into a reactor, you have to put it into a fuel tank first. You can only refuel the reactor itself via the EVA option. Yes, it's a nice idea in theory and I have actually discussed this issue with Majiir but both of us are rather set against acquiring cross-plugin dependence. Interstellar requiring a Kethane install is out of the question and the reverse is likewise true. The only option that remains would therefore be a third plugin that could be distributed with any compatible plugins to provide the interface for the mods wanting to make use of it but this has issues that have been discussed recently, e.g. in the ModuleManger thread. Particularly, if a user downloads one plugin with an older version of this resource handler, a newer version might get overwritten and cause bugs that are quite opaque to the user. Kethane has a very good API for third parties and I know that Majiir is helpful to people who want to make use of it. I'm likewise happy to help anyone who wants to make use of Interstellar's resource system, which I have tried to make very easy to use and to mod but I obviously have no feedback about this aspect yet. I would however recommend these features mainly to modmakers who are interested in making resources a supplemental part of their mod. Obviously this is definitely not the case of Kethane and while it's probably true of Interstellar as of 0.8, it will become less so over time as many of my plans for expansion revolve around use of the resource system - particularly using the resource system for new science experiments, maybe even some science experiments that require a bit of thought from the operator, as well as things like Helium-3 mining from regolith and potentially tracking abundances of more common materials. Of particular interest amongst these is obviously Aluminium, which already has a place in the mod but is currently a binary thing that is either present or not. I know it's nice for players to have common frameworks so that everything appears to be unified and tidy but it's unclear whether such a mechanism will become viable by any means at this stage. Additionally, the two resource systems are already quite different and I guess it depends on the direction of both Interstellar and Kethane as to whether they evolve to be more or less similar in the future - I actually hope for the second because two systems that do more or less the same thing are far less valuable to the community than two systems that have unique strengths.

Haha, thanks. The interest in nuclear power is very much related to my stance on climate change, I find it hard to understand people who are both genuinely concerned about environmental matters and anti-nuclear. That said, even ignoring climate change completely, I think there are still enough advantages to make it worth pursuing. Anyway, debate is healthy and I don't think anyone with a scientific interest in the subject should be worried about debate. That said, it is a subject that tends to cause heated debate (pun intended), but it is also one where vested interests are very much at play - you need only look at the typical sources and, where possible funding, of denialist sources. Most amusingly, Koch industries contributed funding to a recent well publicised study lead by a researcher who was initially quite sceptical about climate change, mainly due to some of the research methodologies used by some climate research groups, but his team discovered over the course of their research that the conclusions of those other research groups appeared broadly correct.

I think you may have missed my point. I didn't say I agreed with the idea, in fact, I explicitly stated I found the idea unlikely; that does not change the fact the idea has been suggested. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/EI157.1 I don't dispute the idea that these societies would've had some impact, any change in the level of CO2 output requires a corresponding change in the level of CO2 sequestration from the atmosphere otherwise otherall levels will tend to move either upward or downward. Thus, if you have more humans burning fuels and clearing forests, you're likely to increase atmospheric concentrations of CO2 even if the amount you increase it by is trivially small. At some point though, these changes, due to both increasing population and increasing fuel use per capita will expand to the point at which they are no longer trivial. Finally, despite a number of "skeptic" posts since my comments, I've heard no answer to my requirement that additional negative feedbacks be explained to dismiss even the positive feedbacks I described, nevermind the existing warming the ideal greenhouse model describes as a lower bound. Without doing this, climate sensitivity must be higher than this value, it is really quite simple.

You have to shut down the reactor and then wait a while for the decay heating to subside, after that the option should appear (with an EVA Kerbal).

I have a similar issue with respect to posting at the moment but I'll look it up later and integrate that into my Interstellar patch for Real Fuels.

Sorry, can you provide a citation where somebody suggested relying on information from propoganda pamphlets or are you making things up again? Rhetorical question, I know the answer. Honestly the only mathematical analysis I've read from you in this thread is laughably meaningless, most models are predicting 2-4C of warming and trying to analyse the impacts of this level of warming while you're drawing warming upper bounds based on IR opaque shells, which represents a totally different atmospheric regime from the one we live in or are even close to living in. Upper bound of 30C of warming in this regime? That's nice but so far from the state of the atmosphere currently as to be totally irrelevant. One can actually draw somewhat relevant conclusions taking a similar approach using the idealised greenhouse model, which predicts a climate sensitivity of 1.2C (to doubling of CO2). We can take this as a lower bound because there are numerous positive feedbacks we need to account for, increased water vapour concentration, methane from permafrost, rainforest loss, ice albedo effect while negative feedbacks are almost solely down to increased radiation with temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is obviously already taken into account in this model. If you want to predict climate sensitivity at this value or lower, you're going to have to start describing additional negative feedbacks to counter the positive feedbacks I have just illustrated.

Did you delete the WarpPlugin folder before you installed the update? That's really important for this update or you will have texture issues and load some unnecessary assets that will use crucial memory, I've made some optimisations in 0.8 to try and be as responsible with memory as possible.

The issue has to be related to the antimatter collectors, it may be that the stock resource system isn't coping well with resources being added and removed at the same time. If I add the resources to unfilled tanks directly instead of part.requestResource()ing, it might finally resolve this.

On what basis do you hope to argue this exactly? The climate situation, while perhaps non ideal for portions of the middle ages does not have any impact on the prevailing cultural attitudes of the time, namely that learning or innovation were not particularly important and that knowledge was the purview of priests and the Catholic church in general. The climate situation was much improved in the Roman period compared to Europe during the little ice age and the Romans were more advanced both culturally and technologically than the Europeans throughout all or almost all of the little ice age. In other words, if climate were the prevailing factor, it would have happened a good 1600 years earlier. Honestly your argument strikes me more as beginning with a predefined conclusion and trying to argue your way back to it, it has been a consistent theme of your contributions on this topic. Some people have similarly argued that the little ice age also had anthropogenic causes, namely the large population reduction in Europe following the black death and the consequent reduction in agriculture, reforestation, etc and it ended as the population grew and exceeded previous levels. I'm sure this had some impact but it's not even clear how global these climate changes actually were and I'm not convinced about the scales involved, just pointing out that you can draw very different conclusions from isolated bits of evidence and come to radically different conclusions. I'd suggest avoiding drawing unfounded conclusions without more evidence on your side.

You might have better luck using it with an aircraft-like launch. You will get more thrust with intake air and lower TWR will be less of a problem when you have lifting surfaces. My testing definitely gave me the impression that they make aircraft which fly very nicely as well as a nice space engine.

It'd be good if someone who uses Firespitter could let me know if they have any ongoing compatibility problems. I think the issues are fixed but it'd be nice to have confirmation from regular users of those parts.

Sephirotic: KSP interstellar has NTRs with realistic thermal power/mass ratios ~ 900 Isp and up to ~600kN with the largest reactors. You can probably figure out the real reactors the un-upgraded versions were based upon by their names. With research you can upgrade to nuclear lightbulbs, with no increased thrust but 2000+ Isp. Specific impulse scales with both reactor core temperature and molar mass of propellant. I've also just added a reasonable simulation of the nuclear fuel life cycle in the latest version. It also has an MPD but due to the realistic power figures, it requires a hell of a lot of power to get useable thrust out of. You can indeed use it with argon, hydrogen, lithium or xenon propellant. There is a real fuels compatibility file on the first page of this thread, I'll update this soon to take advantage of some of the compatibility features I added in 0.8, this should support electrolysis of LiquidH2/LiquidOxygen and atmospheric scooping of those resources. Hopefully this will be done by the end of today.

Can you give me a hand testing new compatability options for Real Fuels? If you locate the WarpPluginSettings.cfg file in the GameData/WarpPlugin directory and change it such that: HydrogenResourceName = LiquidH2 OxygenResourceName = LiquidOxygen You should be able to scoop those resources from atmosphere, as well as generate them via electrolysis. Thanks for the large report, I'll take a look at those issues. Edit: Should be in advScienceTech like the science lab.

There is some more information about the changes in the first post - hopefully nothing in this update is too complicated once you've played it it a bit. Anyway, if you need general help with the mod, check out the wiki. I'll try and get it updated with the new features from 0.8 soon - though I need some sleep first, this update has been a massive job! Until then, don't be afraid to ask for help if you need it.

Version 0.8 Released The much awaited update is finally here. The comparitively large gap between updates this time has given me loads of time to cram this update full of new features so I hope you all enjoy them! Version 0.8 -Added resource system for Uranium and Thorium mining -Added new nuclear reactor models by Vaporlynx -Added nuclear reactor thorium fuel options - as well as EVA shutdown/restart and refuel options -Added Gamma ray spectrometer for resource scanning -Nuclear reactor temperatures and thermal rocket isp correlation adjusted (doesn't affect engine performance) -Existing small nuclear reactor repurposed into a fusion reactor - uses Deuterium and Tritium fuel + requires power to maintain -Added Microwave Thermal Rocket - much of the code and the models by Conti -Total rewrite of Microwave transmission system, solar and nuclear power can be used together, plus proper relay functionality -Added methane oxygen rocket and ISRU sabatier process + methane oxygen fuel tank -Added refinery part to handle resource mining, nuclear fuel reprocessing and electrolysis -Electrolysis option removed from science labs -Computer core fixed for Linux -Computer core science persistence fixed -Resource manager fixed to avoid free thrust bugs -Thrust asymmetry fixed -Liquid Fuel + Oxidiser now provides proper thrust -Solar Panel inverse square law fixed, works with stock solar system and RSS -Added science lab notification of amount of science added -Improved Antimatter storage tank code -Various GUI fixes Download links on the first page have been updated Edit: By the way, don't be surprised if your nuclear reactors have magically refueled themselves, they will do that to preserve compatibility.