Jump to content

Starwaster

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,282

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Starwaster

  1. Starwaster
    I think maybe you're complicating parts of this for yourself more than they need to be. Yes you can assume that generated heat is removed but all you really need is to consider the net result and use the stock engine module to produce the net amount of heat. I would pick an actual design to use as a model, maybe a scaled down Pewee 2. From that you can find the thermal output of the reactor and its operating temperature while at thrust. (for engines of this size something like the 67 kN LUNOX engines would be comparable) It probably wouldn't explode outright if it overheated as you describe but it would at worst crack the core rendering the engine inoperable. (take that with the caveat there must be some circumstance under which NTR could explode since they simulated just such an explosion with Kiwi-TNT - one of the early nuclear rockets that they rigged to explode out in the desert)
  2. Starwaster
    At the very least over-engineered. Who would design a nuclear engine that runs hotter than is necessary for the amount of thrust it's going to provide? If you really want to get serious about making it realistic then what would actually happen is that the throttledown period would be gradual so that the LH2 could cool down the engine. IIRC that's according to the documentation for proposed procedures for NERVA but the procedures were not finalized as funding was withdrawn before a flight capable engine was produced. A long throttledown period is possible with the stock module without the need for an additional mod but it would make it harder to successfully perform maneuver burns. I'm not even sure MechJeb can deal with prolonged throttledown periods. Another proposed solution has been to plug the throat, continue to flush the core with LH2 which would most likely be vented non-propulsively. And it will still require cooling afterwards though not as much I don't know the answer to how much cooling would actually be required but it can be determined through standard heat transfer equations based on the core temperature immediately post-burn and the goal temperature of its idle temperature which would - realistically - also require cooling. The Mars mission proposals can also yield some useful info.
  3. Starwaster
    If it's a solid core engine it shouldn't overheat while it's in operation as the propellant cools the core. After it's finished is when it would need cooling, but KSP thermal mechanics don't work that way. I think Squad made the Nerv overheat only so that they could give players another reason to use radiators. So really the question is whether you want players to have to use radiators to run the tug's nuclear engines or not. In which case you should decide what radiator type you want to require and how many of them. And then make the engine put out enough heat to be hazardous without the radiators.
  4. Starwaster
    The log isn't telling me anything obviously abnormal is going on. You said it works on your PC but not your Mac. Are they both running the same version of everything? (same version of Real Fuels, same version of RF stockalike. (actually one thing I notice is that several parts patched by stockalike configs are trying to insert ignition values into the PART node itself in addition to ignition values in the engine configs but the result of that would be that the engine isn't configured as they intended. What you're describing seems different) edit #2: Show a screenshot of the engine's PAW menu when it's not igniting.
  5. Starwaster
    It's probably not installed correctly. I don't think you're supposed to install that quarter sized mod OVER RSS but in place of it. Check that mod's forum page though to be sure. Also don't forget the texture files.
  6. Starwaster
    So what? It's a bunch of config files and it has no plugins, relying on Kopernicus to do the heavy lifting. But if you're absolutely sure you can't make use of it then the answer to your question is no.
  7. Starwaster
    No, it is not up to the users to decide. Not if they want support for Realism Overhaul from us. Which is not the same thing as saying you cannot use it! Use it if you want to. If you encounter any problems and need to ask us for support then you will be required to uninstall KJR NEXT and reproduce your issue with the supported version of KJR or with no KJR installed at all.
  8. Starwaster
    Yes, through proper editing of the config files that define where the planets are and how big they are. I think that there is a mod out there which does that already. As a stand alone mod? I think? Don't know what size it was; probably not quarter sized.
  9. Starwaster
    Yeah and I think the ranges I quoted were actually for the 3.75m hydrolab and since its a radius that's 0.15m shy of the edge. And the 2.5m one was.... 1.2m? So yeah, not meant to do that. And looking at the parts again that kind of makes sense.... I mean what would the Kerbal be doing? Opening up the window and cleaning things from outside? WOOOOOSOooooooooshhhhhhhhh dirt and plant salad rushing out the window splattering over his helmet as he tries to wipe stuff with a rag. yeah...... not good times.
  10. Starwaster
    Anything and everything that has not had RO certified configs created for it is non-RO by default. Or to put it another way, nobody has created a patch for those parts that would make them realistic.
  11. Starwaster
    @severedsolo Gemini 8 suffered an uncontrolled spin due to unwanted RCS firing. The cause was believed to be an electrical short.
  12. Starwaster
    Bond line failure comes to mind. That would mostly be an issue during reentry.
  13. Starwaster
    As long as stock parts routinely have failure temperatures above the melting point of tungsten then Deadly Reentry will always be a thing. As far as heat shields go, any legacy parts that used the old ablative resources continue to use them for compatibility purposes but that’s it.
  14. Starwaster
    It’s not possible at this time to to limit KSP’s resource requests to pressurized tanks. We detect if they are there and can be accessed by the engine. We can ensure the pressurized tank has the resources required by the engine but once those conditions are met and the engine makes the resource request we can’t stop ksp from fulfilling that request from tanks it thinks are eligible but which we do not. Edit: at least not without restricting access to that tank by other eligible consumers.
  15. Starwaster
    No. The H parts weren't meant to be used that way.
  16. Starwaster
    I have no idea if you do or do not - have you tried right clicking the lab and then clicking 'clean experiments'?
  17. Starwaster
    Every time I use the hydroponics parts it's on a station with a lab Edit: According to the config, the interaction range is 1.85 and it's a 1.25m part measured from the center so it should work from EVA... Edit #2: I meant that as radius because I forgot for a moment we measrue it by diameter still that should be close enough?
  18. Starwaster
    No no no, worst case scenario you might have to have a scientist clean it up (I forget if it’s a requirement for that part) but it’s totally reusable.
  19. Starwaster
    The same reason all science experiments can't be re-run. Each one is good for a given amount of science per environmental situation/biome. Additionally some experiments require that they be run multiple times before they yield all of their science and sometimes you have to physically transport the science to Kerbin to get the maximum amount of science out of them. (as opposed to transmitting the data) And of course you can choose to process the data in a lab to further maximize the science you get from them. But ultimately, every experiment has a set amount of science that they will yield per situation after which they will yield no more science no matter how often you run the experiment.
  20. Starwaster
    Maybe you should take over RC support then. I give up.
  21. Starwaster
    The heat shield code requires that there be an associated resource with thermal mass so it has to have both mass and a specific heat value.
  22. Starwaster
    How about 1000% over Eve
  23. Starwaster
    I don't know but I gotta say after trying it out, 1000% will be asking for trouble. I think that will do as the upper limit. I can't even imagine someone wanting to go that high let alone higher
  24. Starwaster
    Here is a link to beta Deadly Reentry for KSP 1.7 - its menu has a reentry heating slider that overrides the stock slider and allows scales up to 1000%: https://www.dropbox.com/s/moge45bumutdcwj/DeadlyReentry.dll?dl=1
  25. Starwaster
    @Atlessa I have looked into increasing the 120% limitation and unfortunately the necessary data fields for the GUI controls are private so I can't touch them directly with Deadly Reentry. Directly. The GameParameters themselves seem to be public however and I just did a little experiment with with editing the heatscale in the save file and I set it to 1000 (1 is 100% so... I set it to 100,000%) Jeb died pretty quickly as soon as he started walking. Convective heat was almost 50 kW. Interestingly, what killed him was not hitting the max temp but the fact that he wasn't wearing his helmet. So the heat scale is apparently only checked by the GUI itself. The rest of the code doesn't seem to care what the heat scale is set to or how it got set. It just dutifully reads it and applies it. This is something I can work with. I can create my own difficulty slider in the DRE menu and apply that to the heatscale as long as the player doesn't go into stock game settings and try to adjust the scale there. If you want to do that as a workaround before something makes it into Deadly Reentry, you have to edit it per save game file: Just edit a save file and look for ReentryHeatScale. Divide the desired percentage by 100 and that's what you want to set ReentryHeatScale to. Edit: (so 400% would be ReentryHeatScale = 4)
×
×
  • Create New...