Gilliam

I just installed the newest version of KSPI and i have a lot more resource maps in my resource data folder. I'm going to assume that this fixes it. Thanks a lot for the help!

Thanks, this cleared up a lot for me. I checked the folder you mentioned, but there is no minmus_water.png map. There is a duna water map, but for minmus there is only thorium and uranium. Could this be because i am using an outdated version of the mod? I will download it again and see if the planetresourcedata folder contains different files.

Yeah I checked everything on ISRU's on that wiki already. It didnt get me very far, as it only states that ISRU's can extract resources. This doesnt help me answer why mine doesn't I guess if noone else is running into this issue it might be that my mod is out of date or something. Or I just dont understand how to work the ISRU's, but that seems doubtfull as I did bring along power (160 MW nucular powah) and empty water and fuel tanks linked by fuel pipes. Am I missing something obvious?

Thanks a lot for clarifying this. In order to make methane on duna im going to need t bring a certain amount of hydrogen (liquid fuel) right? As for the question which was bugging me more, Why is it that most often resource extraction by the ISRU refineries doesnt seem to be possible? The problem doesnt seem to be related to resource availability, since water extraction should be possible everywhere on an ice moon like minmus. I was thinking, do I require other mods aside from KSP interstellar to activate resource extraction? the only mods i have installed are infernal robotics and KSP interstellar.

Hey guys, I've been looking for guides on how to use the ISRU module correctly, but sofar ive come up with nothing. I've been experimenting with a bunch of vehicle designs that have ISRU refineries in them, to try to set up an off-kerbin fuel supply line. Sofar though, I just cannot make it do what I want it to do. There was a video from Scott manley where he landed a ship with 2 ISRU's on minmus. He then set one of them on extract water from the minmus 'soil', and the other on electrolise water. I have basicly re-enacted this, but my ISRU's are giving me no options for mining water (or any other resource except thorium and uranium). Now, I had 4 1.25m nuclear reactors with the appropriate electrical generators on my craft, so power was not the issue. I had a pair of water containers and standard liquid fuel - oxidiser tanks for storage, but for some reason all resource extraction processes remained on offline without an activate option. What could be the issue here? What I am also wondering is this: what is the correct process for producing fuel on duna by means of ISRU's? As far as I understand it, you need to bring prerequisite liquid fuel (hydrogen), and then use the sabatier process to collect CO2 from the atmosphere. The ISRU refineries then react the H and CO2 to water and methane. This process is only really useable on duna due to the high atmospheric CO2 levels, correct? Now, I have a full tank of methane, what do i do with it? does it only function as a fuel for the specific methane engine added by the KSP interstellar mod? It doesnt work with regular oxidiser + liquid fuel engines right? Are there ways to fuel these on duna aswell? I'd be very grateful if you guys can help me out!

I actually didnt think of the radiation much. but as far as what I have read, the risk of fallout with NERVA engines was estimated to be really low. NERVA engines were only ever intended by NASA to function as upper stages, firing only once in space. NASA also believed that if a launcher blows up, the engine would remain intact due to it being incredibly tough and heat resistant. They might have actually given the engines their own parashutes. I can see though, how radiation shielding is a big issue. Its not like you can slap a bunch of layers of lead on there, because thats way too heavy. As for KSP game mechanics though, all the more reason to make the LV-N engines heavier due to radiation shielding requirements, but better in other aspects . @numerobis: i like your mentioning of the law of conservation of fun, and i guess thats worth a thread on its own. The question really is, what do you find fun in KSP. For me, I really find it fun to optimize, find the limits of how well certain vehicles work. And I dont mind reading a bunch of wikipedia articles to reach that goal. So for me, more depth in the game = more fun .

Well, I agree with the concern that the LV-N engine would simply be too overpowered to use anything else. However, I wanted to suggest that there are other ways of balancing an engine, other then just giving it a really low thrust. One way to do it is to make the engine overheat way quicker, forcing you to adjust thrust to lower levels. A new cooling unit could help with this, but making this very heavy would balance that out aswell. Another option is to increase the mass of the engine itself. As far as I can tell, real nuclear thermal engines would way a lot more then 2.25 tonnes, since their basicly solid chunks of Carbon, Uranium and heat shielding materials. Also, the need for your engine to "spool up" as its level of overheating increases also helps balancing. This is because you'd essentially waste fuel while your cold engine isnt providing any thrust. I just think that these changes would make nuclear based vehicles a lot more interesting, and have a lot more depth to them. Also, what do you think about a separate LA-NTR engine: a nuclear engine that has similar thrust and ISP to the in game version, but can inject liquid oxygen for a higher thrust / lower ISP afterburner effect?

Thanks for responding and i respect your opinions regex. But I wonder, don't you find it frustrating to have to do 20+ minute burns to get larger sized ships from kerbin to a Jool transfer orbit? I sure do! Now, if this would match reality I wouldnt be bothered, but real nuclear engines are a lot better in space then the KSP counterparts (as described). So why should that element of frustration exist? Also, I'm not editing KSP files because i consider it a game and not an exercise in computer programming . Regarding game balance, an engine can be balanced in different ways then just the thrust and ISP. My example of making it overheat faster, and making it require heavy cooling equipment is one way. Another way would be to just increase the mass of the engine itself. Also, what do you think of the other propositions that i made, like varying thrust based on atmospheric density and engine overheating? And what do you think about adding a cooling unit and / or a LA-NTR based rocket engine to the game?

Apparantly they cloned Scott Manley 54 times! No wonder he's capable of having a family, DJ'ing, exploring the boundaries of KSP, tearing things up in EVE online PvP, and still has time to spare for indy games all at the same time haha. I guess i would describe my stage of KSPness as: "Interplanetary travel! but mostly stuck in kerbin low orbit obsessing over building the most efficient SSTO's"

Heyho guys, long time forum lurker but first time poster here. After having discovered KSP from scott manley's channel this summer, i've absolutely loved to play it. I am thinking of contributing to this awesome community with my ship designs, and perhaps opening a youtube channel dedicated to KSP playthroughs. But anyway, enough about me, lets go on to the topic! So I noticed a couple of things after reading the wikipedia page on the NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) late 60's / early 70's NASA research project: Holy guacamole, why arent these things in use today? they can realisticly reach 800-1100 seconds of specific impulse. I guess its because of the "N word", but the risk seems limited seeing as these engines are wrapped in carbonfibre and heat resistant composites. Land based nuclear applications seem a lot more risky to me, considering earthquakes and tsunami's and all that (COUGHfukushimaCOUGH). Kerbal space program is mentioned in the "in fiction and pop culture" section. Yay KSP! In comparisson to reality, the 60kN thrust of the LV-N atomic rocket motor in KSP is severely underpowered. I understand this from a game balance standpoint, but cant the game be balanced in a more realistic way? I mean, the last prototype NERVA engine produced 334 kN of thrust at 380 S isp (atmosphere) and with 850 S isp in vacuum. Just like in game, NERVA engines in real life also have issues with overheating. Contrary to the KSP mechanics however, the thrust and fuel efficiency of real NERVA engines increases with temperature with no theoretical limit. This makes it a careful balancing act of reaching high temperatures in the fuel expansion chamber, without causing the whole thing to melt or explode. Now, how can the LV-N atomic rocket motor better resemble the real thing without being overpowered? Well, i thought of the following possibility: Match the thrust and isp of the engine with the NASA prototype (so 334 kN and 850 S isp). Make the engine thrust drop to 150 kN at 380 S isp at sea level. This matches reality since rocket engines dont only lose isp, but also thrust inside atmospheres. Give the LV-N an even stronger tendency for overheating, especially inside the atmosphere. It could for example only function at 50% thrust at kerbin sea level without exploding. Make the thrust of the LV-N rely on its level of overheating. So, at 0% overheating it produces no thrust. At 80% overheating it would produce 80% of its maximum thrust. In summary, this would make the stable thrust of the LV-N at sea level: 150 kN * 50% * 80% = 60 kN It may seem a little complicated, but thats about how I understand these engines to work with real world physics. The whole change i described above would make LV-N's just as crappy at sea level as they are in KSP now. But it will give them progressively better thrust at higher altitudes just like the real thing. P.S. NERVA engines also dont use any liquid oxygen for thrust, since there are no chemical reactions involved. However, I dont know whether this is possible to balance in KSP. P.P.S. This could also give the opportunity to add a new module to KSP, the "Cooling cycle" or "Heat dissipator". This could dissipate a certain amount of heat from engines on your ship, allowing you to run them at higher thrusts without exploding. In order for these to be balanced, they should be progressively weaker as you slap more engines onto your ship. Furthermore, the module could be quite heavy or a strong electricity drain. Or it could require its own reserve of coolant (like liquid helium). P.P.P.S. I also read something obscure about a NASA project called LA-NTR. Im assuming this stands for "Liquid oxygen Assisted Nuclear Thermal Rocket". They function the same as NERVA engines, but they have the possibility of injecting liquid Oxygen as a sort of "afterburner" effect. This tripples thrust, but drasticly reduces fuel efficiency. This type of engine could be interesting in KSP aswell. Im really curious as to what you guys think of these possibilities. Do they fit within KSP, and do they give us mad kerbal rocketeers some more awesomeness to play with? Or are they just overcomplicating things? Cheers and happy space trucking!