Northstar1989

I am having problems with pitching up as well- and the problem is made far worse by the inverted Center of Lift relative to where it should be (any craft with wings swept strongly back in this mod will have its Center of Lift way in front of where it *SHOULD* be)- making it near-impossible for me to move the Center of Lift far enough back to counter the odd pitching-up behavior. Example below:

I also decided to send one last LiquidFuel tanker that I had sitting in a parking orbit around Kerbin on a Duna transfer... I figure I can never send too many supplies- or potential backup power supplies- to ensure mission success in establishing a Duna colony. Like all my other tankers, its utility extends beyond the fuel it contains- the tanker itself can also be recycled for RocketParts to help construct orbital/surface fuel depots and mining/refining installations on the Dunar surface... I'm running out of vessels to send off to Duna and Munar orbit- so soon, I'll start constructing my Munar base, and then speed up time and begin orbiting my numerous colony and support ships around Duna... Regards, Northstar

Haven't forgotten about my second Ultra-Long Range Argon Probe either. Here it is on its transfer burn to the Duna system- as I've decided to use Duna as a gravity-assist for this probe as well... Not only can it provide potentially TWO gravity assists (one from Duna, one from Ike- if it's lined up correctly), it's also a convenient place to make a second burn, closer to the target, to put my probes on a trajectory straight for their final destinations taking advantage of the Oberth effect (less of an effect than if these adjustments were made near Kerbin on a straight transfer burn- but the gravity assist of an entire planet is nothing to sneeze at...) Also, there's one other very important reason I'm routing through the Duna system, even though I'm not really sure if it'll save me much Delta-V (unless I use an Aerobrake to *accelerate* the probes relative to the sun), or may even end up costing me in net if I botch the maneuvers: the probes also provide a convenient emergency-backup power supply for the Duna colony ships if it becomes apparent that none of their power supplies will work correctly (all three rely on KSP-Interstellar or NearFuture nuclear reactors- none of which are still working exactly as intended after several updates...) Regards, Northstar

For that matter, why are you getting rid of the Atmospheric Scoop Intakes, Fractal? I hate clutter in my resource display, and it was so nice to have an intake that produced ONLY the IntakeAtm that I needed to run the turbojets (which I am trying to use on Duna as well) rather than both IntakeAtm *AND* IntakeAir- the latter of which most of my designs don't use (and the intakes don't produce on Duna anyways...) Also, maybe I shouldn't point this out, but you can run almost twice as many thermal turbojets on the same number of Ram intakes on Kerbin if you have a large enough number (at least 3), and run some on IntakAtm, and some on IntakeAir... And if you DON'T do this, then the IntakeAir you aren't using just weighs you down (as it has weight) unless you custom disable each individual intake from accepting the resource, and empty all your intakes of the resource with TAC Fuel Balancer, before each takeoff/reentry. I too would greatly like to see 2.5 meter versions of the thermal turbojets (the 2.5 meter reactors also have better power-weight ratios than the 1.25 meter reactors, so this would also improve my TWR), as larger versions to use larger reactors (for precisely the TWR reasons mentioned) were a technology that they were actually working on when they abandoned the thermal turbojet projects back in the 60's/70's... It would be GREAT for my strategic-lifter designs meant to operate on Duna (where lower gravity makes weight less of an issue...) I would also GREATLY prefer if the Atmosphere Scoops stayed in the game (and maybe were even upscaled to have a 3.75 meter version to go with 2.5 meter thermal turbojets)- as I already have a number of existing thermal turbojet vessel designs that use them, and several such craft in operation; and they are currently the only part that allows me to use 2.5 meter intakes, so I don't need to intake-spam to run my engines at high altitude... (this saves me a LOT of part-count and lag)

Btw, a few pics of some orbital maneuvers I performed a while back with the Blackhawk Mk6 to move it to a lower Munar orbit: I'd like to remind everyone that the plan with this vessel is to circularize it in a lower orbit, refuel, and then send it on a transfer orbit to Duna. Once there, the Blackhawk (Mk6) will perform an aerocapture, possibly an orbital rendezvous to transfer most of its leftover fuel to a tanker or space station, and then a direct reentry into the Dunar atmosphere. Once there, it will land (at at least 2500 meters- to meet the challenge requirements for "Flying Duna"), autosave, and then likely take off again immediately to rendezvous with whatever other ground crews I already have on the surface (hopefully by the Blackhawk's arrival, I will have at least established some crew quarters near the future site of my main Duna Airbase in that valley near "sea-level"- possibly a deployable runway as well. If not, I'll probably have at least sent down a small lander for soil samples and Science Points- though thanks to the 0.23 update, I'll have to establish a stock laboratory in orbit if I hope to make those kinds of Science Points sustainable...) Eventually, when the Blackhawk is done with its mission, it will load up 2 Kerbals of my choosing (probably the two of the stupidest and most cowardly Kerbals I sent to Duna- as I prefer to keep the brave and intelligent ones on-the-job), refuel on the surface (via KAS winch), and return to Kerbin to prove SSTDABK capability. - Northstar -

Yeah- turns out the radiators aren't actually broken either: the code for them was just changed to make them even weaker than before, to the point where you need roughly an equal amount of radiator mass to reactor mass to get anything to work anymore... And Lord have mercy if you don't include enough radiators for the new code in your design- I've found that due to the scaling system the WasteHeat uses, the generator efficiencies QUICKLY plummet to less than 1%, basically shutting down all your electrical systems... At least the Duna planes will still work at lower speeds (than their previous maximums)- for the moment. Although Fractal_UK has announced he will be removing the atmospheric scoops I used as intakes for the planes from the mod in a future update for some strange reason- which means they won't work at all soon... So I'm going to push getting them to Duna quickly, expect a post on that in the coming days...

*MIGHT* be a little overpowered, considering how many other parts already add Science. But what *WOULD* be nice, would be to see definitions of science values using the Magnetometer for the new planets introduced in Krag's Planet Factory Mod: (http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceP...sentar_system/)

Ahh, now *THAT* explains why my mathematical predictions didn't work at all. It does, however, also mean that the temperature builds up much more quickly than it should at first (when the WasteHeat % is low), and slowly later on (when the WasteHeat % is high), if WasteHeat is produced at a constant rate while the bar fills up... On an entirely different note, I would very much like to see smaller versions of the Aluminum Hybrid Rocket Engines- more suitable for smaller craft and landers. Also, is it possible you could get an original texture for them? I find the resized Route-10 booster texture currently in use (in the version I am running, at least) to be quite ugly, as well as the Aluminum Hybrid Rocket Engines to be almost unusably large. Also, please don't forget about the emissivity issue I raised before. If the radiators don't already reflect emissivity differences, they should- and Graphene radiators should radiate more heat at a given temperature (relative to metal radiators) as a result of their higher emissivity... Look up emissivity with regards to the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation if you're not sure what I'm talking about- no material is a perfect black-body, and the emissivity reflects how closely a material approaches being one (Graphene is a much better black body than most metals). Regards, Northstar

What about emissivity differences? As I pointed out, the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation includes a term for emissivity (effectively how capable a given material is at radiating or absorbing heat), and Graphene radiators have a much higher emissivity than metal radiators in real life? My number-crunching before seemed to indicate the Graphene radiators had a roughly 25% greater emissivity (their maximum thermal radiance is higher than you would expect just from extrapolating the metal radiators to higher temperature ranges), which sounds reasonable... Not to sound like a nag- but did you look at my numbers before? I agree, the station I discussed before did not have enough radiator area to deal with all the WasteHeat produced (nor did the 3.75m reactor with only 4 medium radiators- which can radiate up to 560 MW power, but produced 900 MW of heat on standby mode), but the generator efficiency still did decline MUCH more quickly than mathematical prediction indicates it properly should *IF* WasteHeat = 100% is when the maximum radiator/reactor temperatures are both reached... (and not before) (the reactor doesn't necessarily need to be on all the time- the station is manned, and I'm willing to turn off the reactor at regular intervals- but the efficiency plummeting much more quickly than it should with WasteHeat accumulation makes this strategy much less feasible)

OK, let's throw in some hard numbers here, directly from the configs and VAB editor: Maximum reactor temperature: 1674 (assuming that's 1674 K) Maximum Mo-Li Radiator Temp: 1350 Maximum Graphene Radiator Temp: 3500 (3500 according to "RadiatorTemp" in the .cfg, but note the part EXPLODES at 3400 according to a different line in the same .cfg) - The temperature differences are misleading. Graphene has a higher emissivity than most known metals- which is what the Mo-Li radiator probably represents (metal radiators). The Stefan-Boltzmann Law has an additional coefficient for emissivity, which ranges in value between 0 and 1. Graphene would have a value much closer to 1 than any metal, and therefore higher output relative to its temperature. Mo' Li Radiator Maximum Output: 3 MW (taken from displayed values in the VAB editor) Graphene Radiator Maximum Output: 170 MW (taken from displayed values in the VAB editor) Inferred Mo'Li Radiator Emissivity (setting Graphene Emissivity to 1) - 0.80 (calculated from: predicted Mo' Li heat-radiation at 3500 / Graphene heat-radiation at 3500) Predicted Graphene Heat-Radiation at 1350 K : 3.75 MW (based on 25% greater emissivity) Predicted Graphene Heat-Radiation at 1674 K : 8.87 MW ( [3.75]*[1674/1350]^4) So basically, yeah, you're right, it's not enough heat-radiation to deal with all the WasteHeat from a 40MW reactor (12MW on standby)- because Radiator Temperature caps at the "MaxTemp" of the Reactor. However, if MaxTemp is reached when WasteHeat is at 100% in the reactor part, then we STILL have a serious bug/problem- because generator efficiency was at 0.6% at 16.4% of MaxTemp, and at that point the reactor was at 100% WasteHeat and the rest was in the radiator, meaning... Th = 1674 Tc/Th = 0.994 Tc = 1663.956 K Radiator WasteHeat Capacity = 400,000 Expected WasteHeat at Tc = 1663.956 K : ([1663.956-270]/[3500-270])*400,000+4500= 177,126 Observed WasteHeat at Tc = 1663.956 : 66,241 Clearly, something isn't right here: either the radiator was far hotter than it should have been at that 66,000 WasteHeat, or the generator was far less efficient than it should have been at 66,000 WasteHeat (4500 in the reactor, 61,500 in the radiator). Given the generator's other weird behavior (like suddenly plummeting from over 20% efficiency to less than 1% efficiency, skipping all the values in between), I'm leaning towards the latter. Regards, Northstar

Let me just put a couple key-points as bullet-points here, so I know they're not missed: - Tc/Th at 24% generator efficiency: 0.76 (A) - Tc/Th at 0.6% generator efficiency: 0.994 ( - Relative increase in Tc from A to B: >50-fold © - Increase in radiator heat-radiation with increase C: 6,250,000-fold - Radiator output at efficiency level A does not change when efficiency declines to level B due to WasteHeat accumulation! - Maximum Mo-Li radiator output: 3 MW (D) - Maximum Graphene radiator output: 170 MW (E) - Maximum molten-salt reactor output: 40 MW (F) - E>>F, yet radiator does not stop WasteHeat accumulation even after reactor reaches max output F at efficiency B! - WasteHeat level at which reactor reaches maximum output F: 20,000 (G) - WasteHeat level at which reactor is STILL accumulating WasteHeat: 66,000 (H) - Fold-increase in radiator temperature from G to H if WasteHeat units represent linear increase in temperature: 1.46 (I) - Expected fold-increase in heat radiation with increase I according to Stefan-Boltzmann law: 4.54 (354% increase in total radiation!) - Observed increase in heat radiation: NONE

OK, you did say the radiators "can get as hot as the reactor" with the unupgraded reactors, and that efficiency goes to zero. I read that as you saying the radiators get *hotter*, and that the *radiator* efficiency goes to zero. On a second reading of that, it looks more like you meant the *relative heat difference* between the reactor and the radiator is less than with a larger mass of basic radaitors (the upgraded radiators, as they are made of Graphene, should have higher emissivity than the unupgraded reactors- so they should *NOT* get as hot as an EQUIVALENT mass of unupgraded radiators, however- as they will reach equilibrium at a lower temperature due to higher heat emission), and the *generator* efficiency declines as a result. I can get the numbers you asked for (eventually), but like I said- the design worked FINE in space for several *hours*. If inadequate radiator capacity was the problem, that wouldn't have happened. It was only after several load/unload cycles WasteHeat began accumulating. However, I think you're missing *part of* my point about the radiator efficiency entirely... First of all, the more WasteHeat a craft has, the hotter the radiators should get. Radiator output should increase with increasing levels of WasteHeat (I've tested this numerous times- in the game it DOESN'T *at all* on ANY of my vessels, solar OR nuclear-powered. Radiator output is FIXED AND IMMUTABLE with regards to WasteHeat- which is highly inaccurate.) The upgraded radiators may have a higher maximum temperature, but what does this really mean? That they will somehow limit themselves from accepting any more heat after they reach that temperature? Regardless, the radiators should get hotter and hotter until they reach the point where they accept and give off heat at the same rate. If they initially do not give off enough heat, the craft should accumulate WasteHeat UNTIL the craft reaches a temperature where it can give the radiators as much heat as it is being produced, and then WasteHeat should STOP accumulating (assuming this temperature isn't outside the tolerance range of the ship's components- as represented by its WasteHeat storage limit). The radiator output HAS TO increase accurately with increasing WasteHeat levels for the system to work in anything like a realistic manner. The radiator temperature should not start off at its maximum when the reactor is first turned on. No matter how many/large, or how few/small the radiators, initially the radiators will be quite cold, and the reactor (once it has warmed up) quite hot. Therefore, the generators should ALWAYS start off at high efficiency, until WasteHeat accumulation has lowered their efficiency ... More importantly, generator efficiency should STEADILY decline as WasteHeat accumulates- but I am observing SUDDEN drops from 20%+ to 0.6% efficiency with less than 20% of maximum WasteHeat levels (in my screenshot, WasteHeat was at 66241/404500 - 16.4% of maximum). One moment it's at over 20% efficiency, the next it's at less than 1%... Now, the upgraded radiators aren't reaching their optimal operating temperature you say, and therefore the reactor/radiator temperature difference is becoming relatively small as WasteHeat accumulates... But the radiators should come closer to their optimal temperature as the vessel accumulates WasteHeat, so the WasteHeat accumulation should at least level off at some point... If their maximum temperature simply represents the maximum temperature the radiators will allow themselves to reach, then they should heat up towards that temperature as the vessel accumulates WasteHeat, and give off more heat as they warm as a result. Over time, the ABSOLUTE difference between reactor and radiator heat should increase, as the radiators give off more and more thermal energy (with the fourth power fo their increasing temperature). What should decline is the RELATIVE difference between radiator and reactor temperature (made-up numbers: 480/800 is a worse ratio than 160/400, even though the absolute difference is greater), and thus the generator efficiency. The generator efficiency will still fall off, but there are several KEY differences here- what is sustaining the continued heating of the craft is the reactors cranking up to higher and higher levels of ThermalPower output to try and meet a fixed power demand on the generators with a lower and lower generator efficiency. However this *should* hit a limit when the reactor reaches maximum output (which it already had, in the craft where I took a screenshot). At that point, the increases in radiator heat giveoff (remember, the radiators are nowhere near maximum temperature- and heat giveoff should climb rapidly) should quickly outpace the continued declines in generator efficiency (the generator is already near 0% efficiency- so any continued decline will make very little difference), and the WasteHeat accumulation should level off and hit an equilibrium fairly quickly... In the space station you saw a snapshot of there, it DIDN'T- the vessel actually reached maximum reactor output at a much lower level (around 20,000 I think) of WasteHeat- but continued to accumulate WasteHeat at an undiminished rate until (and after) I took that screenshot. Right-clicking on the radiators revealed no increase in heat radiation the whole time, and shutting down the generator (which led the reactor to instantly fall from 100% to 0% output- actually 30% at standby according to your earlier post) did not stop the WasteHeat from continuing to accumulate, despite the fact that it should have led to a more than three-fold decrease in WasteHeat production (at 0.6% generator efficiency, 99.4% of maximum reactor output was being converted into WasteHeat. With the generator shut down, 30% of maximum reactor output was being converted to WasteHeat). The upgraded radiator in use was capable of over 170 MW of heat output at maximum temperature. The basic version of that radiator is only capable of about 3 MW of heat output. That's a more than 50-fold difference! So, if the 40 MW molten-salt reactor only starts off about warm enough to heat the radiator to the maximum temperature of the lower-tier version of the radiator, causing the radiator to only give off a little over 3 MW of heat, it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that the radiator give off more heat as WasteHeat accumulates. The decline in generator efficiency from 24% (when WasteHeat = 0) to 0.6% (when WasteHeat =66,000) represents an increase in Tc/Th of 30.8% (from 0.76 to 0.994), and THAT means a SUBSTANTIAL increase in radiator temperature (a more than 50-fold increase in radiator temperature, according to my calculations. 0.76 is a little more than 3/4. 0.994 is a little more than 150/151). The Stefan-Boltzmann law indicates that total heat radiation increases to the FOURTH POWER of temperature, so that means the radiators should give off 6,250,000 times more thermal energy at a WasteHeat value of 66,000 than at a WasteHeat value of 0, when they are 50 times as hot. Regards, Northstar

It also appears that KSP-Interstellar broke my previous Duna thermal turbojet designs by now requiring precoolers for high-speed flight. The older designs obviously don't have them- as the KSP-I precoolers hadn't even been introduced when I designed them. They may still fly on Duna, but they won't be able to fly nearly as high or as fast as they could've before...

I decided to continue with the save- but boy is KSP Interstellar giving me a lot of headaches lately! I mentioned some of the WasteHeat problems it was giving me intermittently before, but with the latest update it seems to have reached the point where the only feasible way to power my vessels is with RTG's and KSP-I nuclear reactors that I shut down after exiting atmosphere... Even craft powered by nothing but stock solar panels aren't safe anymore- the mod adds WasteHeat production to the panels, but the radiators absolutely refuse to radiate ANY of that heat half the time... EDIT: On second thought, I could always go back to NearFuture nuclear reactors- though I'm seriously worried they'll pull another stunt similar to what they did before, with removing the built-in radiators and requiring addition of separate radiator parts to all reactors (already, they require a very broken nuclear refueling system... Not really sure I want to mess with that.) Either way, I'll just have to suck it up and work through it I guess. If I have to constantly recycle and re-design my craft because the mods keep breaking them, then maybe that'll just have to be the price I pay for ambitious mission plans until they can get their act together. I'll probably continue to chalk these issues up to "electrical problems" or "design issues" from a roleplaying perspective, though...

I think you miss docfish' point- the radiators NEVER reach equilibrium with these bugs, the craft just keeps heating up until the solar panels auto-shutdown (like reactors, they will stop worknig at 95% heat). I've experienced the same bug myself- though more inconsistently than the bug above with my nuclear reactors (not always reproducibly)- sometimes the radiators will start giving off heat at some obscenely low value in space (usually after a unload/load cycle), with noting but solar panels attached to the craft, and will continue to accumulate heat until I either restart KSP, unload the craft, undeploy and redeploy the solar panels or radiators, or some other sort of meddling (it seems to be different every time). If allowed to run its course without interruption, eventually the craft will reach 95% heat levels, even with radiators rated WAY above the power output of the solars. And *NO* the radiators don't give off more power as the craft heats up with this bug. Fractal, I really hope you're paying attention to all these bug reports regarding the WasteHeat module- because these bugs have been creating a LOT of problems for guys like me, who try and build up a significant Interstellar-utilizing permanent space infrastructure over time (I ended up having to scrap/recycle several vessels relying on KSP-I, utilizing a scrapper ship from other mods, as they simply would not dissipate WasteHeat correctly...) It *MIGHT* be related to the weak computers some of us are trying to run the mod on (like was suggested before, RAM issues), but whatever the cause, it's a real pain in the a$$. I've had to take to running entire craft off RTG's because of the problems this mod has created even for my stock solar panel vessels- even when equipped with what should be an excessive capability of heat radiators... Regards, Northstar

You might've missed the part where I said the design worked fine in space (with absolutely no WasteHeat accumulation for several HOURS)- and then it suddenly stopped radiating heat correctly after several unloads/reloads. ALSO, keep in mind this bug occurs with EITHER the inline radiators, OR the deployable versions. The bug also occurs when the Science Lab is off- and there is almost no electrical demand on the system, or when the generators were off- which means essentially the same thing to the reactor... I even experienced this problem on a design utilizing a 3.75m fission reactor and 2 of the LARGEST ("HUGE") upgraded deployable radiators... The most power-drain any of these craft ever experienced (when the thermal rocket nozzles were inactive) was 5 MW- from a single Science Lab performing research. So the reactor only needed to run at less than 10% capacity to meet the power demands with the upgraded generators in use... 4 of the medium deployables (or two of the largest deployables for sure) *SHOULD* be more than enough to dissipate the heat of a 3.75 meter fission reactor running at low capacity to meet an electrical demand of only 5 MW... What you said about the radiators not working properly when they got HOTTER makes no sense, and you might want to re-examine the coding that went into the radiators if you programmed them that way. Radiators should always give off MORE heat the hotter they get- so if the unupgraded fission reactors allow the upgraded radiators to reach their maximum temperature, but the upgraded reactors don't, the radiators should give off MORE heat at the higher temperatures reached with the unupgraded versions according to the basic physical laws governing heat radiation. It doesn't matter what the reactor temperature is when calculating the radiator heat give-off to the vacuum of space- a given size radiator gives off a given amount of heat at a given temperature. Period. End of story. I think you're over-complicating things by thinking of the equations for the heat-transfer *TO* the radiators, instead of the equations for the heat transfer *FROM* the radiators. The radiators will heat up or cool down until the rate they receive energy is equal to the rate they give it off at- but none of that effects the rate of power give-off of the radiators themselves at a certain (set) temperature. The efficiency that was falling to zero, once again, was that of the electric generators, not the radiators (which indicated they were giving off more than enough energy to cool the reactors, at full output, when right-clicked). It's not exactly explained anywhere how that is related to radiator temperature- but one would think their efficiency should be related to the ambient temperature of the craft (total fractional WasteHeat levels)- NOT to the temperature of the radiators. Of course, I've also noticed the WasteHeat not partitioning in any logical way- i.e. rather than spreading out evenly through the craft, one radiator or one reactor will climb to maximal levels before another starts to accumulate WasteHeat, apparently without any logical ordering (it MIGHT work by the stack-priority rule used to govern fuel drain by engines, but that wouldn't make any logical sense, as the heat sources can be placed anywhere on the craft...) No matter what, WasteHeat shouldn't have been accumulating with the generators OFF. This effectively decouples the reactors from all power drains, and means they should only be running on standby (0%). Considering the inline radiator used was a 170 MW radiator, and the reactor was only a 40 MW reactor, even the inline radiator should have been able to radiate the reactor's output at full-power anyways. The 3.75m reactor was a 3GW reactor, yes- but the radiators attached were either four 3.4 GW radiators, or two 13.6 GW radiators- once again more than enough for the reactor size... Even using the un-upgraded figures instead, the 3GW reactor was overheating on standby with either four 75 MW radiators, or two 300 MW radiators attached... And once again, this only began to happen after several load/unloading cycles- it worked fine at first... RECAP: Bug experienced ONLY after multiple load/unload cycles, with: 1.25m Molten-Na uranium reactor + 1.25m Solid State Generator + 2.5m Graphene Inline Radiator (generator on *OR* off) 3.75m Molten-Na uranium reactor + 3.75m Solid State Generator + 4 upgraded medium deployable radiators (deployed; generator on *OR* off) 3.75m Molten-Na uranium reactor + 3.75m Solid State Generator + 2 upgraded "Huge" deployable radiators (deployed; generator on *OR* off)

Just some scrapping operations for you guys at the moment... I thought about roleplaying out this one, giving some story to whether Bill Kerman is enjoying his new job- but decided against it as I'm rather tired, and would rather spend my time on other things at the moment. Anyways, I hope you guys enjoy the pics: Eventually, I'll be consolidating all those LiquidFuel and LFO tankers floating around into my two space stations (the 350 km depot, and the Munar Spacedock), and recycling the empty tankers for RocketParts. I've also decided I'm just going to recycle the Early Spacedock, since I haven't heard anything to the contrary from you guys about it... I've come to the conclusion that I have enough to handle colonizing Mars *cough* Duna and setting up a base on the Mun, without having to manage a badly under-supplied (I can't afford to spare much LFO mix or many RocketParts from my Mun colonization effort) mission to set up an outpost near Jupiter *cough* Jool with an increasingly obsolete craft (not only has it started to develop electrical and WasteHeat-management problems; but if I'm going to be moving a heavy vessel out there primarily with LFO mix, then I'm better off using a couple NERVA engines- which get 800 ISP- instead of a fission-powered thermal Rocket, which only gets a bit over 600 ISP with LFO mix...)

I seem to have a recurring problem with the efficiencies on my (always upgraded!) electric generators dipping down to around 0.6%, *AFTER* which WasteHeat often starts to seriously build up due to the reduced efficiency and the fact that it still revs up the reactor to 100% to get that 0.6%... Or, for some reason, a design that once was able to maintain zero WasteHeat, suddenly starts building up a surplus of WasteHeat even with the generator off, and with no significant quantity of Actinides accumulated in the reactor. Or, worse, BOTH happen, like in the case shown here: I'd really like to know why this keeps occurring... Oh, and if you're wondering why I'm using an (upgraded) 2.5m inline radiator on this space station, it's to reduce lag from independently moving parts, and create fewer parts that can potentially be broken off by a ship attempting to dock with the station passing a little too close... However, the buildup of WasteHeat is clearly not due to insufficient radiator mass- I also had a similar problems with a station that hosted no fewer than FOUR of the upgraded 2nd-largest deployable radiators, and a 3.75m reactor/generator pair with minimal power drain (just one Science Laboratory), meaning the generator and reactor didn't need to be on most of the time (but, as with this design, WasteHeat initially was in balance shortly after the vessel reached space, but a few load/unload cycles later it was generating a large WasteHeat surplus even with the Generator off...) Also yes, I checked several times that the mod was installed correctly. It is, without a doubt, in the right location. Regards, Northstar

Northstar Kerman sat in Mission Control, in a commanding seat overlooking the Control Room, but anxiously furrowing his forehead... "This had better work" he stated to a subordinate, almost as if he wasn't even there. "The bureaucrats are really breathing down my neck about this one, to make sure it works. They say they want to make sure all these nukes don't go to waste, since it's about 5% of the International Coalition's reserves we're using for this mission." (OOC: In real life the United States alone has a total nuclear stockpile of approximately 5,000 nuclear warheads according to public records. Russia is estimated to have somewhat less- though of typically larger size. I assume for this roleplay that the Kerbal States, Krussia, and several other advanced nuclear-armed space-capable powers entered together into an uneasy agreement to construct and support this mission- as well most of my previous Duna missions.) "Don't worry about it" replied the subordinate- Northstar still staring into space through him as if he wasn't even there, distracted by his thoughts. "They'll see it all went to good use when they see the size of the Duna colony we set up!" "LIFTOFF IN T-MINUS 60 SECONDS" came the voice over the loudspeaker. "We'd better focus on the mission at hand" replied Northstar, suddenly regaining his focus, and shifting attention to his subordinate. "Where were we again- ahh yes- you were telling me the engineers had some last-minute concerns about the design. A bit late for that, don't you think?" "Indeed- but it's better late than never I always say" replied Northstar's subordinate "They say that the vessel is dangerously heavy for the launch clamps on the launchpad, even with 12 of them attached- and there is a high chance of the vessel breaking free from them with even a strong gust of wind." "LIFTOFF IN T-MINUS 30 SECONDS." "You've GOT to be kidding me" replied Northstar. "A strong gust of WIND?!" "Yep, that's what they said" replied the subordinate. "I only wish they ha---" and with that, they were both cut off by a loud SCAPPING sound that was audible in the Control Room across the auditory monitoring sensors. "Status Report!" shouted Northstar. "One of the launch clamps has broken loose sir! No, make that 2 clamps! Three clamps now! Four! Much more of this and the Orion will be crashing into the ground before she even lets loose her first nuke!" shouted a second worried-sounding subordinate. "Bump up the first release!" shouted Northstar. "But Sir!?" came the reply. "Don't question this- do it NOW, tell the rocket guidance crews to release the first Nuke IMMEDIATELY! That's an ORDER!" "Yes Sir!" was the rapid reply, as the second subordinate quickly unhooked a phone and began dialing to the guidance crews. "Uhhuh, yeah, do it right away. As in *NOW*. Those are the orders." And with that, there was a dull BANG, followed by another less than a second later, and then another and another- all of which could be heard even without the sensors (which had been muted), and the control room shook a little despite being buried many meters underground. "Orion is lifting off sir! Just in time too! Reports are indicating that the Orion had broken free of all remaining launch clamps just before release of the first warhead." The banging sounds continued, but the grew fainter and fainter as the Orion climbed into the sky in a slow step-wise manner, much like an overweight Kerbal beginning to climb a very steep flight of stairs... (Now THAT'S an interesting idea to think about-how often do Kerbals get fat?) "Th Orion is beginning to pick up speed Sir!" came a report catching Northstar's attention. "She's starting to catch up to terminal velocity!" "Good" thought Northstar privately "Maybe the engineers weren't so crazy after all to propose this plan..." "All systems are green Sir" came another report a minute or so later. "The Orion is reaching the upper atmosphere." "Good job men. After the ascent is over, take a breather- but keep in mind it'll only be 15 or 20 minutes from then until we'll need to make a transfer 'burn', if we can still call it that." Northstar praised his men... Some time later that day, Northstar sat in his office, confiding with the same subordinate who had informed him of the launch clamp failures before. "It's a shame the vessel broke loose of its launch clamps like that" said the subordinate. "If it had stayed stable just 10 or 15 minutes longer, we wouldn't have had to pause the releases until gravity could turn the Orion towards Duna after exiting the atmosphere, and we would have save a lot of warheards reaching escape velocity." "Don't worry about it." replied Northstar "We launch spacecraft for Duna all the time, and NEVER have we attempted a straight launch like that when the planet was nearly overhead or at its transfer window anyways. Sure this design was powerful enough to just point-and-shoot, but it's not like we still don't have plenty of warheads left in the thing. The Duna colonists will just have a few less leftover thermonuclears available to salvage for their modified Bluetonium nuclear reactors and lithium, deuterium, and tritium stockpiles." "Are they really going to tear apart thermonuclear weapons for spare LITHIUM?" asked the subordinate incredulously. "Sure, what else are they going to do with them? They're authorized to retain a few of the compressor plates for designing smaller sounding charges to detonate underground and locate ore deposits- but most of the material is better off used for fueling fusion reactors anyways. You know our engineers are telling us that the colonists will probably be able to eventually design plasma-drive HEAVY ROCKETS that will work on Duna, if they have adequate supplies of lithium for tritium-breeding, and deuterium to combine with it for some of the early fusion reactors our engineers think aren't too far away from entering service. Maybe they could even develop some more powerful thermal turbojet spaceplanes there- although you know personally I think a fusion reactor is a little overly-powerful for a spaceplane. Why waste valuable fusion material powering a spaceplane on a frontier planet where fission reactors will work just fine?" "Good point Sir. We'll have to see what they decide to do with the leftover stuff in the end though. Speaking of which, we'd better make that course adjustment soon or we'll end up wasting a lot more warheads to make it later in the transfer." And with that, Northstar and his subordinate walked out of the room, leaving nothing but a file of pictures of the Orion's launch by a small imaging probe with a telescoping camera behind: OOC: Hope you guys enjoyed that one! The Orion Heavy Parts Tanker was a complete success- even if they thing did break free of its launch clamps and force me to liftoff a little early... (I was gonig to liftoff when Duna was directly overhead- since at this point, near closest approach, that's the transfer window...) Keep that in mind if any of you are thinking of using an Orion to lift really heavy payloads... (this one I used to send 100 tons of RocketParts, plus the mass of the vessel itself, and its leftover bombs- all of which can be salvaged by a Scrapper Ship- on an 11 *DAY* transfer orbit to Duna.) With a little use of aerobraking before its capture burn (the design is VERY sturdy- it had to be to withstand the powerful shockwaves of the thermonuclear's hitting the pusher-plate...), it should be more than capable of reaching a low, stable orbit around Duna with PLENTY of bombs to spare... And this design only used the 3.5 kN variety of thermonuclear bomb- the Orion can be equipped with up to 400 kN devices for REALLY heavy payloads! Also, if I had assembled this thing in orbit (perhaps using smaller Orion vessels to bring up the necessary parts, tools, and bombs), waited for a better transfer window (Duna was near closest approach), and relied on a lower-energy transfer trajectory and a Munar gravity assist, I could easily have sent several *DOZEN* MEGATONS tons or more of payload to Duna, on a single transfer vessel utilizing a somewhat smaller quantity of the larger warheads (which get exponentially better ISP)... Using a propulsion system and bombs weighing in at under 100 tons... That's MEGA COLONY SHIP proportions (scaling it up to real world masses, you could probably transport over a GIGATON, maybe even two or three- thousands of colonists and their belongings)- though building anything that massive in KSP would inevitably crash my computer...

Errrr, was having some problems with MechJeb before (the latest stable build doesn't work on KSP 0.23- turns out I needed to install the latest Dev Build to get it working), but those are resolved now, so expect an update on the progress of my numerous missions soon... I have been *TOYING* with the idea of wiping this save and starting a new one though... This would allow me to start over from scratch, and keep you guys in the loop through the whole development of the space program... It might also allow me to put a little more of a "theme" to the whole program (or, maybe not)... I was also considering the idea of throwing in FAR and the Project Orion mods this time around (and praying it doesn't lag my computer to a standstill). Finally, it would also allow me to take advantage of the new "Science Archives" system- which would make it much easier for me to tell where I should send my next missions (currently, I know I've exhausted most of the science points I can get from Kerbin, Gilly, and Ike- but there are still some I could probably get from less-visited biomes on the Mun, and it would just make it a lot easier for me to tell where to go next... Before I would do such a thing, I would want to get my copies of the Eagle Mk2 and the Blackhawk Mk6 to Duna anyways, for the "Flying Duna" challenge- though I'd probably scrap sending my RAPIER line of spaceplanes to Duna anytime soon... (mehhh, they'll probably get nerfed soon anyways- too many whiny players have been complaining they're "overpowered", despite their performance being inferior to real-life SABRE's...) EDIT: I gave it some thought- and looked at what people were saying about FAR- and decided my computer probably couldn't handle it, and I didn't want to deal with my spaceplanes (especially) and rockets being any harder to control... (I saw people commenting they couldn't even launch a simple Mk1 Command Pod + SRB with it anything other than straight up- so how am I going to ever get past starter tech in a new Career Mode game that way?) I *DID* however, decide I'd just go ahead, and try something EPIC with the Orion mod... So, I found the thread for it: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/28428-Orion-aka-Ol-Boom-boom and will be creating a "special" post on my experiments with this extremely powerful but dangerous propulsion system... Keep an eye out for that soon... Regards, Northstar

Simple enough request- but what about Career Mode compatibility? I've taken to adding the parts to the "Very Heavy Rocketry" node manually, since all that's required to use them in Career Mode is a tech node assignment (simply by adding "TechRequired =" followed by a tech name to the parts config), but it would be nice if the mod already came with built-in Career Mode integrations... OR, is this something that's already been integrated into the "continuation". I just became aware of it, and haven't installed it yet, for fear for breaking my large number of existing flights-in-progress utilizing StretchyTanks in my Career Mode save...

Are you referring to Craidie's post? Because I get the exact same issue (the Center of Lift seems to be inverted), and I *DON'T* have FAR installed... (I think my computer would croak on the more complicated aerodynamic calculations- lag already forces me to severely limit part-count on my spaceplanes) @DYJ Also, it would be GREATLY appreciated if you could add Career Mode compatibility for the parts (literally all you have to do is add "TechRequired =***" and a tech where the stars are) so I don't have to go adding "TechRequired = heavyAerodynamics" to the parts files myself every time I update this mod if I want t continue using it in Career Mode (I choose Heavy Aerodynamics as the tech for the parts because it is one of the very last aerodynamic techs available in the stock tech tree, and thus can't be used to get around the limitations on wing size and effectiveness imposed by technology at earlier tech nodes... This is the tech I would suggest you add all the parts to for Career Mode- although you could choose whatever other tech node or nodes you see fit...)

P.S. Steven, just so you know, the higher tiers of KSP Interstellar tech are now a little more balanced with the latest update (0.9). The engines on your ultra-high speed plane design (Last Dancer) would now *EXPLODE* a LONG TIME BEFORE reaching the kinds of speeds you accomplished using level-2 fusion reactors coupled to level-2 TTJ's, as the KSP Interstellar thermal turbojets now overheat much more readily (due to compression-heating) at high speeds in atmospheric use- and require a (slightly heavy, and actually functional- unlike the stock and B9 Aerospace versions) precooler part directly attached to the air-intakes to prevent engine overheats... Also, you MIGGGGHT want to check the fuel-consumption on those fusion reactors... In the newest update, those reactors will burn through their entire fuel supply in just a couple weeks or less (the more powerful reactors consume their fuel much more quickly)- not years... Even the level-1 1.25 meter fission reactors can only last about a year on their full (100%) reactor loading in 0.90- which is not coincidentally why I performed a manual shutdown on the nuclear reactors of my Blackhawk Mk6 as soon as I reached LKO... (the Blackhawk Mk6, with its less than 5% reactor load, now only carries enough fissile fuel for a couple weeks of standby reactor operation- or about a week of full-throttle flying. The RTG included in the design provides all necessary power for maneuvering and imagined life-support during the long Trans-Dunar injection.)

Thanks for the well-wishes Geschosskopf! I just updated to 0.23, and was THRILLED to discover the new RAPIER engines... It looks like I won't have to wait to discover the tech node for B9 Aerospace SABRE engines after all (which I think actually have better performance than the RAPIER engines, as they are closer to rel-life SABRE engines- but higher weight) to implement some of my more ambitious designs for this challenge... Be on the lookout for posts not only on the Blackhawk Mk6 making its trans-Duna injection; but also on my design of a line of newer, better-performing STTDABK spaceplanes that utilize RAPIER engines as well as thermal turbojets to escape Kerbin gravity... I might also design a line that utilizes Firespitter electric propellers rather than thermal turbojets for sustained propulsion on Duna- since the RAPIER engines massively reduce the minimum size of my 2-man SSTDABK designs... Any chance I could convince you to make an exception for Tier 1 KSP Interstellar technology being in a separate class, by the way? (stuff that's accessible with only stock tech tree nodes) It turns out I was incorrect before- the KSP Interstellar fission reactors I was using weren't level-2, they were level-1! There are only 2 levels of fission rector (molten-sodium and solid-core), and the level-2 ones don't become available until Fusion Power! The Tier 1 Fission Reactors, in combination with Tier 1 (atmospheric) Thermal Turbojets are still very weak, and underperform Firespitter electric propellers (in terms of TWR- they produce 2-3x the thrust, but at over 4 times the weight) at low-altitude on Duna (they only outperform them at high altitude- due to their difference performance curves relative to air density)... The Tier 1 technology is far from overpowered- the most useful thing it can actually do is make a very compact nuclear powerplant for a moderately large array of Firespitter electric propellers (like in my Hummingbird design, posted earlier)...

OK... I've been busy with real life for a while (and will continue to be far busier than in the past for while), but I did find the time to make a MAJOR set of updates to my mods list. Check the OP for details. Basically, I just brought all my mods up to the newest version I could find, and updated the base game to 0.23- which means TWEAKABLES! (I guess I'll have to figure out how those work now...) One difference you'll all notice immediately (or whenever I get up some new images) though, is that many of my spacecraft look a lot lower-res (and less beautiful) than before. That's because I overwrote many of the files in NovaPunch 2.03a with reduced-res texture versions I found on the KSP Spaceport to save on memory and reduce lag... Sorry guys, but the lag is getting very out-of-hand, and something had to be done. I'm also looking at installing the memory-reduction Addon currently climbing the ranks in the forum- for a very slight additional performance boost from its optimization of the stock files' compression. However it hasn't been updated to 0.23 yet, AFAIK, as of the writing of this post- so I'm still waiting for that before I install it... Oh yeah- and I'm still waiting to hear from you guys about what you think I should do with my Early Spacedock! Also, thanks to the new stock RAPIER engines in 0.23, it looks like I won't have to wait for the tech node to unlock B9 SABRE engines (which are heavier, but higher-performance than the RAPIER engines- as the SABRE engines have specs closer to those of real-life SABRE engines...) before I design my next line of spaceplane utilizing them... At least one of my models will be SSTDABK capable- slapping a RAPIER engine onto the thing allows me to opt for a much higher-TWR ascent profile, as well as a much higher max cruising altitude (for speed) on Kerbin: utilizing the air-breathing function of the RAPIER engines to push up cruising altitude after reaching maximum cruising altitude with the thermal turbojets... (this allows me to essentially design the kind of three-step SSTDABK spaceplane that I previously dreamed of, but could not attempt due to the necessary part-counts and resultant lag) This means I should be able to escape Kerbin orbit with a much lower fuel fraction- which also means a relatively lighter fuselage and thus either improved sustained performance on Duna or a much smaller overall vessel... Anyways, explanation aside, I need a name for my new line of spaceplane. So, I also invite you guys to start thinking of names now, and even propose any really good ones you come up with (feel free to also propose names after you see the final design), since I'm drawing a blank on good names for a spaceplane at the moment... Regards, Northstar