Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'propulsion'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website


There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



About me



  1. [KSP 1.8.1-1.11.X] (V0.4.1) Interstellar Technologies [Antimatter Catalyzed Fusion Engine Powered Interstellar Spacecraft - Kepler] An Interstellar Propulsion System mod, made by Kepler- At long last, after months of hard work practicing modeling, and after finally unlocking the secrets to textures, The mod is finally released. This parts pack will be used to expand from the mod Kerbal Space Program Interstellar Extended. Those parts are extremely imbalanced with going around the stock system. The engines are made off the base of the KSPI-E engines' statistics, [DEPENDENCIES] All of the required mods for Interstellar Technologies to function properly is now in the main mod folder. Note that the KSPI-E folder is stripped of some of it's parts, due to complaints of complexity of KSPI-E. [RECOMMENDATIONS] Those are recommendations to download to play with the mod. They are NOT required. - Far Future Technologies - TUFX - MEV Heavy Industries - Galaxies Unbound - A Stellar Odyssey - Interstellar Extended (The whole pack in order to get all the parts) - Near Future Mods by Nertea - Singularity (For Galaxies Unbound) The parts pack will be updated quickly, releases will be *quick*. I will be available in the KSPI-E discord server and the Galaxies Unbound discord server, please @ Kepler (No spacing) to make suggestions for future changes. Special thanks to @Cyne for helping me with learning to texture models. [Some of the Parts include...] - Daedalus Inertial Confinement Fusion Drive (v.0.1.0) - Antimatter Catalyzed Fusion Drive (v.0.1.0) - Kugelblitz Drive (Black hole drive) (v.0.1.0) - Laser Core Antimatter Drive (v0.1.0) - Multi Mode Interstellar Afterburning fusion drive (v0.1.1) - Multi Mode SSTO Fusion Engine (v0.1.6) - TRIGA Core Static/Pulsed Trimodal Nuclear Thermal Rocket (0.1.7) - "Coaxial" SSTO Fusion Engine (0.1.7) And so much more as the mod updates! [SCREENSHOTS] [DOWNLOAD] Primary (SpaceDock): https://spacedock.info/mod/2674/Interstellar Technologies - A KSPI-E Expansion For Additional Bugfixes and all (Probably mostly for science mode and that) please contact me through Discord through the KSPI-E or the GU discord server. The mod uses the CC BY-NC-SA License.
  2. — post will self update; latest readme always on GitHub. most images are links — ZPE Propulsion (ZPEP) This is standalone expansion to my Rusty Star Rockets mod. It adds eleven (11) parts for new propulsion system: ZPE (Zero Point Energy) all with Rusty Star Shipyard aesthetics. It also adds new fuel resource: Quantum Fluctuations. For Kerbal Space Program. By zer0Kerbal, originally by GagaX adopted with express permission and brought to you by KerbSimpleCo Preamble by GagaX See More Localization Help Wanted Installation Directions Most recent releases only available via CurseForge/OverWolf Website/App Dependencies Pinned Dependencies: Rusty Star Shipyards (RSS)agent, flags, common files Kerbal Space Program Recommends by Rusty Star Shipyards (RSS) Rusty Star Rockets (RSR) Pirates of the Keribbean (PoK) Rusty Textures for Procedural Parts (RTP) ZPE Propulsion System (ZPE) Rusty Panels (RP) by Sooner266 Suggests list of other addons by zer0Kerbal Adjustable Mod Panel (KAMP) DRELite (DREL) Start the game. Watch the fiery death. Exception Detector (EXCD) Gimbal Trim (TRIM) GPO (Goo Pumps & Oils') Speed Pump (GPO) Kaboom! (BOOM) On Demand Fuel Cells (ODFC) Precise Maneuver (PM) SimpleLogistics! (SLOG) SimpleNotes! (NOTE) Supports Tags parts, config, science red box below is a link to forum post on how to get support Be Kind: Lithobrake, not jakebrake! Keep your Module Manager up to date Credits and Special Thanks GagaX for creating this glorious parts addon! see Attribution.md for more Legal Mumbo Jumbo (License provenance) How to support this and other great mods by zer0Kerbal Comment, click, like, share, up-vote, subscribe Connect with me Track progress: issues here and projects here along with The Short List
  3. TLDR: The behaviour of the J-404 "Panther" is wrong. This post details why I believe this is the case, and proposes solutions that could be readily implemented based on a few physical principles. 1) The adjustable nozzle behaviour when afterburner is on is incorrect, it should increase in area, not sit at minimum cross-section 2) The flames coming out of the engine when the afterburner is off make little-to-no sense. Let me preface this by saying that I have an experience on two different fronts. I have been playing KSP1 for around ten years now, and I have graduated with a degree in Aerospace Engineering, currently working on my MSc. in Aerospace power & propulsion at an unspecified Dutch university. I will not go into the absolute nuance of the problem and will leave a lot of study to the reader, as I don't want to overcomplicate KSP2 with little details that won't impact the gameplay or immersion. As I loved the first game, I want to make a post each week about a different topic on how we can make the jet engines and rocket engines in KSP2 more realistic. Any and all feedback is welcome, I am not infallible and will inevitably make a lot of mistakes. A lot of the theory is simplified so that it is more accessible. Today, I want to talk about the J-404 "panther", and the theory behind adjustable nozzles on afterburning engines. A) Introduction The engine seems to be modeled after a generic military low-bypass afterburning turbofan engine, such as the F-100 found on the F-16 and F-15 aircraft. This type of engine is equipped with an adjustable nozzle, that is, a nozzle that can expand or contract depending on the exact mode and conditions in which the engine is operating. This changes different cross-sectional areas of the nozzle, including the throat and the nozzle exit. In this specific case, we assume that the nozzle is purely convergent (although in reality the aft-most section diverges slightly, but this has little-to-no impact on the main point I will argue here), and that the nozzle exit and throat area are the same. Note: we will ignore the thrust vectoring for this exercise, and focus on just the concept of contracting and expanding the nozzle exit area. B) Problem (* refers to section D, Theory) 1) The expected behavior. The task of the nozzle on a jet engine is the acceleration of the flow to high velocity with minimum pressure losses, producing thrust. As the nozzle converges, the flow accelerates, the pressure decreases, so does the temperature and density. Assuming that the flow is choked at the throat (which it would be for this kind of engine), M=1 at the throat. This choking condition is crucial to the process, because it defines what happens when we increase or decrease thrust and/or add afterburning. When in a choked condition, increasing the pressure before the nozzle will NOT increase the mass flow. However, increasing thrust increases the mass flow through the engine, both in the injected fuel and in the air intake. The increase in thrust and hence mass flow has to be reflected then in the widening of the nozzle. If the nozzle stays at the same area, the pressure in the nozzle will increase, not however leading to a significant increase in thrust, because the mass flow is constant.* When afterburning, this issue becomes even more apparent, where the mass flow, temperature (and hence volume), of the gas increases. If the nozzle is fully contracted when the afterburner is switched on, it should begin rapidly expanding to allow for the increased mass flow, otherwise there will be nearly no increase in thrust. 1) Current behavior. The engine is that for the full range of thrust setting, in "cruise" mode, the engine nozzle doesn't change. As mentioned above, it is not ideal, but it would still run, just inefficiently. However, when the afterburner is switched on, the nozzle contracts to the smallest possible cross-section, and stays that way for the entire thrust range. This should be the other way around! Yes, when switching modes, contraction is understandable so that the correct conditions for the ignition of the afterburner are created, however once ignited, the engine nozzle should increase to maximum cross-section as thrust is increased. 2) The expected behavior. The combustion chamber is where the flame is contained when operating without afterburner, and it must be ensured that (almost) all combustion takes place here as to prevent damage to the turbine and other components. This doesn't depend on the thrust setting, flame is contained in the cc. (Not even the whole cc, just in the central-part of the chamber, near the front, where circulating flows "hold" the flame). 2) Current behavior. Flames are seen reaching several meters out of the engine without afterburner running. This makes little-to-no sense, as those flames would have to go from the combustion chamber, all the way through all the turbine stages, all the way through the nozzle, and then outside, and still be burning. Especially with methane, the combustion process taking this long is not realistic, unless you are dumping fuel like the F111. C) Solution 1) Without afterburner, the nozzle should expand slowly with increasing thrust. If applicable, you may want to implement the same for an increase in altitude, as the ambient pressure changes, the ideal pressure ratio changes, to achieve optimal thrust. This is a choice based on how advanced the engine is supposed to be. However, for the afterburner, the engine should be open at a maximum cross-section for the full thrust, and slowly decrease for lower thrust levels. Generally, the engine cross-section should be larger when the afterburner is operating. 2) There should not be any flames leaving the engine with the afterburner switched off. D) Theory / References Here I would like to expand on some of the arguments I have made in the text above, and most importantly link to the sources I have used in this text. The main source for the theory is Fundamentals of Aerodynamics - 6th Edition, by John Anderson. Specifically chapter 10 on compressible flow through nozzles, diffusers, and wind tunnels. Two topics are treated, first why we might want to adjust nozzle area, and second the idea of choked flow. The thrust of a jet engine can be simplified to an equation: Ftot = Fv + Fp where Fv = (Vj - V0) Fp = Ae (Pe - Pamb) The two above parts of the thrust are the thrust generated by the acceleration of the flow, and the difference in pressure, respectively. By taking the derivative of the total thrust equation, we will find that the maximum thrust, and hence the optimum operating point, is when the exit pressure and ambient pressure are equal, making the pressure thrust zero, but the exit velocity maximum (Fp=0, Fv=max). The exit pressure ratio is a function of many variables, most importantly the exit area of the nozzle. By increasing or decreasing the cross-sectional area we can vary the exit pressure, therefore ensuring that the engine is at most times operating at the desired design point, delivering the optimum performance. For a convergent-divergent nozzle where we can achieve a certain pressure upstream, then decrease the pressure towards the throat, and with further expansion decrease the pressure to ambient, this can be achieved, however in this case of the convergent-only nozzle, the exit pressure is equal to the pressure at the throat, and this is where the concept of choked flow has to be introduced. With relation to the equation of Fv, we can observe that to increase the thrust, we need to increase the mass flow and the jet exhaust velocity. To illustrate how mass flow behaves, we begin with a convergent nozzle where the pressure upstream and ambient are equal. In this case, the exhaust velocity and mass flow are both zero, as nothing is driving the flow to exit the nozzle. As the upstream pressure increases, so does the mass flow, but as we begin to approach M = 1 at the throat, the mass flow increase slows down, eventually staying at a constant value when M=1 is achieved. This is a called a choked flow, and any pressure increase beyond this point will not lead to mass flow increase. This is caused by the limit of convergent only nozzle, where M=1 is the maximum achievable. By comparison, in convergent-divergent nozzles, the expansion can continue further in the divergent section, driving the flow to supersonic speeds. It is left as an exercise to the reader as to why this is the case. As mass flow follows = density * velocity * Area and M=1, where M = velocity / sqrt( gam * R * T) for a constant velocity locked by the M=1, mass flow can only increase by increasing the Area, or increasing the density. One might argue that the velocity increases because of increasing temperature T in the flow with the afterburner running, which is true, however also the density decreases in that situation. Observing that M=1 is the condition with maximum mass flow and velocity, and hence thrust, we can safely assume the nozzle will be choked for the purposes of achieving maximum thrust. Then, when the afterburner is ignited, multiple things happen: a) The fuel flow to the engine is increased significantly (increased mass flow) b) the temperature of the flow increases c) the volume of the flow increases (as density decreases). Then the engine has to deal with a decreased density flow with very high temperatures. The pressure is assumed constant over an afterburner. For the same velocity and area of the nozzle, but significantly decreased density, the mass flow through the engine will decrease, actually decreasing the thrust produced. As the mass flow on the nozzle-side decreases, the flow upstream in the engine will have to react, and the overall mass flow into the engine will also decrease accordingly. To prevent this, the nozzle should be open to the increased volume of gas. Lastly, illustrations of the problematic behaviors are shown in the images bellow, beginning with the flames leaving the engine when afterburner is not running, and then ending with the nozzle being at maximum contraction for the afterburner. I look forward to your comments and discussion on this topic. ~VM Appendix A: Images P.S.: To not be just critical, the shock diamonds look incredible and I am really excited about the expansion of the exhaust gasses with increasing altitude, I will return to some of those topics in the future for sure.
  4. Tripropellant engines are theoretically the most efficient chemical rockets in existence. Rocketdyne made an engine in the 1960s that used gaseous hydrogen, liquid fluorine and liquid lithium that resulted in incredible 542 Isp. But they are not free of problems, obviously. Heating lithium to become liquid is not exactly easy, and storing and injecting solid grains into a combustion chamber would be extremely problematic (if not impossible due to backfiring). There are two types of tripropellant engines: Sequential burning A sequential firing rocket would be something like a half-stage, only difference is that nothing is thrown away - you change the fuel mid-flight. Let's call an engine by the name KS-325. KS-325 is RP-1 and LH2 compatible engine and LOX as an oxidizer. It is possible to switch between LH2 and RP-1 mid-flight. At launch, RP-1 will be the fuel used, as its higher density only offers advantages for first stages. When RP-1 ends, it will burn hydrogen, being better for upper stages. All this while using the exact same engine. This offers obvious advantages for an SSTO. if the KS-325 has an extendable nozzle, this would probably be one of the best engines for an SSTO with chemical engines. However, it still has disadvantages... The rocket would have to be insanely tall to store all the Hydrogen, RP-1 and the insane amount of LOX it would need. The only new part that would need to be added would be the engine, since hydrogen tanks are already confirmed (Nerv and NERV-US will use them) and RP-1/LOX will obviously be added. This is the most likely one that would be added to the game, considering there are multiple engines that already have mode switches (e.g Panther jet engine). and NERV-US operates in a very similar way, only needed changes will the fuels, performance and model of a NERV-US Simultaneous burning Basically it's injecting a third fuel into the combustion chamber. The hydrogen-fluor-lithium engine mentioned at the beginning is this type of engine. This type of motor can theoretically achieve very high efficiencies, but as theory is not reality, injecting room temperature solids or high temperature liquids is not exactly viable. And making an engine that injects two "normal" fuels would have no advantage compared to sequential injection engines. There are several other problems that will certainly not be simulated in KSP, such as how to maintain the necessary high temperature. One suggestion of mine would be to use rubidium instead of lithium, which has a much lower melting point, only 39°C. It would be much more realistic, but I don't know if it would be highly efficient - after all, this combination has never been tested. The biggest problem with adding these engine to KSP would be having to create new parts. Things that difficult development should be avoided unless it's really worth it. That's why I suggest that only the engine that burns sequentially be added, since only one new engine would need to be added, and the "programming" of this engine has already been done even in KSP1, with the RAPIER, so overall it would only need to be added a new model, and a change in resource used. So that's it, I'll probably write another thread about my ideas on the science & spaceflight topic, where I can write the scientific part (my favorite) more deeply. so yeah, see you guys later. Any criticism of this idea is welcome, I want to know my problems
  5. Cargo Accelerators Maxim 24: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a big gun. This mod aims to provide mass driver parts (gigantic coil and maybe even rail guns) and control aids that can propel engine-less unmanned cargo vessels with high acceleration to effectively perform precise orbital maneuvers with enough dV to go from, say, LKO to the Mun. And with careful planning even beyond. With the help of mods like MechJeb and TCA it should be possible to organize a network of accelerators and decelerators (still not present) for moving cargo around the system cheaply and easily. So far it provides a single part - Orbital Accelerator It is a massive resizable coil accelerator with extendable barrel (up to ~1.5km) so heavy that I don't know any way of putting it to orbit aside from building it there or using the orbit editor (F12). It has its own powerful reaction wheels and RCS thrusters that are capable to reorient it in space; and enough tanks capacity to store fuel for recoil compensation. It also has dedicated UI that allows it to connect to the payload, read its maneuver node and either execute it by turning the right way and firing at precise moment with precise final delta-V; or tell you that it can't do it for various reasons. The model still lacks textures and most colliders, as it is used to develop and test functionality rather than play. But it's enough to get a hand on things and toy with the concept. Demonstrations https://gfycat.com/welcomecolossalfiddlercrab https://gfycat.com/infamousleadingjumpingbean Future plans In-orbit construction of barrel extension segments by kerbal engineers from EC and Material Kits + Specialized Parts Proper model for Orbital Accelerator Orbital Decelerator -- a counterpart that should, in theory, catch the payload on the other end of the trajectory and decelerate it. Needs further investigation. Ground-based Accelerator -- an accelerator that can be positioned on the ground and launch engine-less cargo straight to orbit. Needs further investigation. Download So far only from GitHub: https://github.com/allista/CargoAccelerators/releases/latest SpaceDock and CKAN will come when it's playable enough to be out from alpha
  6. the mod aims to archive a system whre you dont have to fokus on fuel that much. if you like flying like in the TV series the expanse. but dont like to cheat fuel either. making it an scifi mod adds a system where you have to burn Exotic Fuel(1) in a Ractor(2) to produce Reactor Power(3), the ammount of power generated determines how many and wath size of exhaust (engines(4)) you can use so you have somewhere in your craft an heavy, expensive and hot reactor. and on the craft exhaust points. PROS: get everywhere in a singe stage fast CONS: heat: your reactor need coolig. or you get heavy efficency deficits (heat mechanics are still tweaking) high cost (you can build right from the start. if you can afford itl) heavy it also has mainly vanilla parts designs. because i dont know how to model and animate (except one solar panel from another mod), iam hiring if you can model me some. Parts Reactors: The heart of the vessel. produces the energy needed to propell it. very hot and expensive Exhaust: exhaust points for the reactor energy. high thrust, small and high ISP Storage Unit A modular storage unit. that can change its storagy type. even in flyght! Solar Sail A enormus structure that generates a little ammount of reactorpower. not enough to propell the vessel.. but with capacitors you maybe dont need fuel anymore on long journes Factory A part that converts ore in exotic fuel. Compact fly assistant: rovemate and avionics hub in a tiny box Short Build Explanation first you need to choose your reactor. the reactor determines the amount and size of exhaust you can use (1 smal reactor can support 2 nano exhaust. or 0.5 small exhaust) you have to deal with the heat too. then you can place your desired exhaust points. you can attach them everywhere!. last you need some exotic fuel storage. put the modular storage unit in our craft, and configure it to the wanted resource DEPENCIES B9 Part switch *1 "Exotic Fuel (EF)": cost 32 per unit (liquid fuel is 0,8), only used in the reactor to Produce Reactor Power. the fuel is 20 times "better" then liquid fuel *2 "Reactor": uses exotic fuel to make reactor power. that is then used by engines or RCS blocks, comes in small, medium and large (0,6m, 1,25m 2,5m) *3 "Reactor Power (RP)": generated by reactors or very very little by solar sails. can be stored in configurable storages or directly used in rcs blocks and engines *4 "Engines" extra engines that use reactor power to propell the vessel. 3 in total + RCS the larger the engine: more reactor power needed. but even a 0.5. they have an extreme thrust contacte me here if you have questions or something: or if you want to help me to make the mod more fleshed out Lyzz#2142 (Discord) DOWNLOAD https://spacedock.info/mod/3011/VM Vollmetall Alternative Propulsion System SCREENSHOTS LICENSE: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International This license requires that reusers give credit to the creator. It allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, for noncommercial purposes only. If others modify or adapt the material, they must license the modified material under identical terms.
  7. V0.8.0 (Southern Cross Plays Softly in the Distance) Welcome to the Prakasa Aeroworks Release Thread Freshly imported from an interstellar race with no Prime Directive, Prakasa is a pack aimed at aircraft and spaceplanes, namely with the objective of filling the 2.5 meter void between the diminutive Mk2 and massive Mk3. The parts are themed towards a somewhat more distant future than stock, offering greater interior space and a cleaner, spaceship-er aesthetic. The focus is on pods and associated IVAs, but propulsion, utility, and aerodynamic parts are included/being developed as well. Propulsive balance favors large, heavy parts with a lot of power behind them for the sake of aesthetically pleasing lines/aerodynamic viability/framerate over engine clusters. Since dual-threading seems to be the way of things around here and I've grown confident in my drive to continue this project, I thought it time for a proper release thread. Stick around for releases and comments. For development progress, suggestions, et cetera, please see the breathtakingly similar development thread over here. With a proper place for released material it should be a bit more development-y from here on out. Key Features: Lots of pods across all form factors (save 0.625), ALL featuring complete IVAs for maximum comfy. I've lost count exactly how many, and don't feel like counting them up. SCRAMjets and nuclear turbines a variety of form factors Ion engines for 1.25 and 2.5 form factors, with generators to support them Comfy Crew Cabins and Science Modules so you can literally stare into space while burning many hours working on stellar spectrographs Engine design suited to minimizing part count (powerful, versatile, heavy, physically large engines) Custom Engine Effects Futurist A E S T H E T I C My very own fuselage profile with associated adapters Big crew cabins with fuel included Tenuous story canon that probably nobody cares about except me A great cross section of my progress from sucking to being decent Image Album: Reviews: (A pretty old one, but it'll do) Current Features: -Seven 2.5m pods with IVAs -Three 1.25m pods with IVA -Two Mk3 pods with IVA -One Mk2 pod with IVA -1.25m SCRAMjet -1.25m Ion Engine -2.5m Ion Engine -1.25m Fuel Tanks -2.5m Fuel Tanks -1.25m Hybrid Nuclear Turbojet -2.5m Hybrid Nuclear Turbojet -1.25m Intake -2.5m Intake -1.25m Generator -2.5m Generator -2.5m Hybrid SCRAMjet -MK2 Three Function Engine -2.5m Structural engine housing for 1.25m engines -2.5m Passenger Cabin with windows mounted high to allow for center mounted wings. -2.5m Science module THAT DOES SCIENCE! Future Plans: -A set of 2.5m tanks so as not to require the use of standard rocket tanks, which often don't look quite right on aircraft (Done) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -More aerodynamic and structural components -Random pods that strike my fancy or are requested -A bit more in the propulsion department, mostly large, heavy, multipurpose/multimode engines to save myself/everyone else lots of clustering. -Possibly Wings? -Some kind of price balancing? Input on that would be greatly appreciated; I rarely play Career. I know Sadhak, Kalpan, and to some extent Dekhana are lagging behind the quality of the others. The Asima series represents a great deal of improvement on my part, as well as settling on a particular style. I've been working on bringing those first two up to date, but due to that new experience, a bunch of problems I didn't realize were problems the first time around are keeping me from making it happen as of yet. For those of you who like the first two I will make it happen, though if there's real demand for it I might figure it out sooner. Sadhak is due to be completely overhauled to the Nireksha/Naga standard. Kalpan will probably also have to be remade from scratch. Changelog: 0.1 - Initial Release (Sadhak, Kalpan) 0.2 - Added Dekhana and Asima S1 0.3 - Added Asima S2 and SCRAMjet, patched Asima. Both versions of Asima now have togglable lighting. Uploaded to Curse following the heat death of *. 0.4 - Added Bhatak Naga, Nireksha, 2.5m Passenger Cabin, 2.5m SCRAMjet, 2.5m engine housing. Patched Asima S2 to match texture styling on other added parts. Fixed a few flavor text spelling errors. 0.4.5 - Added Ankhen, Fuel Tanks, Ion Engines, Generator 0.5.0 - Added Akashe, Sabhee Viaktar, Sashakt and Dohan Kshay hybrid nuclear turbojets, Vatavar + Vaayu Intakes, Science module THAT DOES NOTHING 0.6.0 - Added Dhyana, Raksha, Made the science module do stuff 0.7.0 - Added Jalakag and the MK2 Engine Notes: RPM required for full IVA functionality This mod is primarily wish-fulfillment on my end (having sprung from a Laythe flying boat project for which I couldn't find a suitable pod) but if you've recommendations, I'm happy to hear them. Download (Things are cooperating in 1.1): Curse (0.4) (it works if you really want the .4 version from curse for some reason) Github (Coming Soon) SpaceDock (0.8.0) Special Thanks: Squad for texture references K.Yeon for pointing me in the right directions Lots of people in my horrifying normals thread, and various others for helping me build some semblance of non-cluelessness. Your aid is much appreciated. EDIT: I've heard that downloading via CKAN can result in receiving the 0.2 version, which was the last one released on *. Since * is dead I'm not sure how to get to it to fix it. Barring that, the direct downloads from curse and spacedock are fine. License: This work is Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
  8. After finding these articles I was wondering if the Devs knew about this. They did say they were planning on adding realistic engines to the game and this, while very difficult to build, could be an amazing way to do interstellar travel. https://interestingengineering.com/a-faster-than-light-warp-drive-powered-spaceship-may-be-possible https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a32449240/nasa-warp-drive-space-time/ https://www.sciencealert.com/how-feasible-is-a-warp-drive-here-s-the-science For those of you who didn't read it: A bubble of Space-Time is created, you sit in the bubble, the bubble shoots through the space-time fabric, you can travel at ridiculous speeds and it technically isn't faster than the speed of light.
  9. You're looking to, or you've already downloaded @Nertea's shiny, shiny things so the air filters on your Laythe base keep filtering, or so the cryogenic fuel in your Eeloo probe doesn't escape. But how do you use these exactly? How do you balance the reactors, engines, radiators and overall dry mass to get decent TWR, consistent burns and keep the reactors in their prime too? Here is all the introductory info you need to get you going. Topics will be added over time so don't worry too much about things missing from this post. Glossary Reactor + Engine Balance Reactor + Radiator Balance Reactor Longevity Reactor Control Capacitors Capacitor Control (Soon) Fuel Performance Argon Xenon Refueling Lithium Reactor + Engine Balance When picking a reactor, watch its Fission Generator > Power Generated value and Fission Reactor > Required Cooling value. When picking an ion engine watch its Propellants > EC consumption and you'll find that this consumption will tend to be exact to the output of a given reactor and that there are several more such pairings begging for you to notice them. Reactor + Radiator Balance Once you can keep in mind how much the Fission Reactor > Required Cooling of a given reactor is, it should be easy enough to look at the stock radiators and add or multiply their Radiator Specs > Core Heat xFer values. Once your total exceeds the reactor's Required Cooling value that's it, that's how many of that radiator you need. This is a good setup: 400kW from 2x large static radiator > 300kW from 1x Garnet. Also, never forget that static radiators must be attached directly to the reactor or its parent part or else. I don't need to install a radiator mod to show how to balance a reactor with them, but I would need to install one because stock radiators do have their limitations, and "options" are especially important for ion-powered vehicles that dare to pass through an atmosphere with their reactors running. Reactor Longevity Don't get swept away with the power of a nuclear reactor that you decide to or completely forget to put an RTG or solar panel on your craft. Always include an alternate means of power generation so that the probe core can be kept alive and that you don't waste the reactor's nuclear fuel Enriched Uranium between the last orbital maneuver and the next. In flight there is the danger of the reactor overheating and the loss of core health (separate from core life). Core Health is expressed as a percentage and iirc, once health is lost, total output becomes capped and it can eventually meltdown and become dead and useless (I don't know if it explodes, haha). Core Life is the amount of time you get depending on how full it is with Enriched Uranium and what the output cap is. The output cap is controllable via a slider in the NF Reactor toolbar panel between 0 and full EC/s rate, technically allowing the reactor to run for decades or centuries as an oversized RTG. Reactor Control The final thing about nuclear reactors is, of course, how to operate them directly, especially from the snazzy NF GUI app. Look for this in your KSP toolbar once you have Near Future Electric installed and a nuclear reactor on the active vessel. (It does not show in Map View.) Every proper nuclear reactor mod out there should integrate into Near Future and can be controlled through it, and that makes life good. Such mods (that I know of) include USI Core and Mk2 + Mk3 Stockalike Expansion but exclude KSP Interstellar which changes all nuclear devices in its own way. Do not expect this to control any radiators associated with a reactor. Those must be toggled separately. The UI Elements are as follows: The radio (circle) button under a reactor name is the main switch and lights up when toggled on. The thermometer (with two checkpoint markers) respectively indicate the thermal range, the peak operating temperature, and the overload/shutdown temperature. The number will always be the temperature at a given moment. The three symbolic items above the thermometer represent kilowatt output (not necessary to most of us), the ElectricCharge output (most important) and Core Life (very important). When a reactor is on it will show you the duration in years instead of "Reactor Offline". Basic Controls is the output control slider (at 100% by default) which lets you finely control the ElectricCharge output. Accordingly, the kW, EC and Core Life values over the thermometer will change. Most of us don't need to click Advanced Controls. I didn't, so I don't even know what that looks like. This screenshot features the 2.5m USI device with its context window open and the NF control window. Note that in both GUI its output slider is set to 25%. Both windows have their distinct advantages, but NF's window shows you what matters right now, and for all your reactors if you have more than one, removing the need to pin all your reactors' context windows if you ever have to access them all at once. You do not want to end up like this! In the odd chance that you visit an infernal planet and decide that solar panels were not necessary...or they are present but useless at the time, make sure to never leave things on that will guzzle the current. In this case I had a life support device on and the ship's radiators were maxed out, causing them to fail to cool the reactor, which in turn led to the reactor gradually overheating, losing output efficiency, and nearing its overheat/shutdown temperature. If it reaches its shutdown temperature and does not receive cooling, it will remain super-heated and its Core Health (the percentage status of the core, not the output duration bit) will start to fall, meaning it's decaying and it will become a metal brick. As long as it is hot it will decay. If there's a separate power source able to feed the radiators and cool the reactor down, the decay will stop. Jebediah! Capacitors As @Supercheese mentions below (which helps me a lot in do this part, so thanks muchly ) installing capacitors instead of a reactor can save cost and weight and increase deltaV by quite a lot. As shown in the first picture, you get 8x the amount of StoredCharge to ElectricCharge for the same mass and volume of the part. Each part here weighs 0.25 tons but one quarter-ton of capacitor shines brightly against 2 whole dark tons of normal battery. (Stock 2.5m batteries featured here) While that is a great thing, they have their disadvantages. They are not a 2-way street like batteries and cannot be used out of while they're charging. A capacitor can be paused from charging (and when charging it will feed from everything that produces or stores ElectricCharge) but it cannot be paused while discharging (in doing so it will feed everything that stores or consumes ElectricCharge). You can control* the discharge rate of a capacitor in the VAB and in flight at the Near Future Capacitor toolbar button. As shown in the second picture: because the visible ion engine consumes 1999 EC/s I set the discharge rate to just over that to feed the engine and any vital systems. Unfortunately, as far as I know, you must manually discharge capacitors in series to feed your engines. If you discharge them all at once that's quite literally wasting tons of power. * There are certain lower limits to the discharge rate depending on a capacitor's size which will occasionally force you to add an engine or else waste a portion of the released power. Even if for some reason you end up stacking a reactor's weight or more in capacitors (and heavy, heavy solar panels...) on a craft, you're still saving more than just cost. You're avoiding the troubles of nuclear fuel and reactors themselves if you're still skeptical about the things, but you'll remain at the mercy of solar panel efficiency if you're operating very far from a star. The next thing to consider is how many capacitors set at a given discharge rate will afford a consistent engine burn up to a desired maximum length. The reference formula to measure by is very simple: Total StoredCharge / Discharge Rate = Maximum burn time in seconds. Fuel Performance If you're a nut for fuel performance, then here are a few opening stats including engine sizes to help weigh Near Future's propellants in your mind before you read about them below. Argon Engines 1 ~ 54.55 kN, 2800 ~ 5500 Isp 0.6m, 1.25m, 2.5m Xenon Engines 1.4 kN, 4000 Isp (Stock Dawn engine) 2.3 ~ 5.6 kN, 6500 ~ 19300 Isp (Added engines) 0.6m only VASIMR Engines (can halve their Isp for nearly triple thrust, no change in propellant consumption) Xenon mode: 4 ~ 68 kN, 6000 ~ 7000 Isp Argon mode: 2.5 ~ 44 kN, 8500 ~ 9500 Isp 0.6m, 1.25m, 2.5m Lithium Engines 46 ~ 237 kN, 2900 ~ 3800 Isp 0.6m, 1.25m, 2.5m Argon I personally prefer ArgonGas over XenonGas because it's more abundant in-game (as it is irl) than Xenon and is hence easier to harvest from Duna and other planets with atmosphere. Here I modify a probe that was never meant to go far from wherever it's deployed, to (almost) be able to cross SOI. Almost = not enough fuel but there's plenty, plenty room to fix that. Adding a radial Argon tank (or 4) and changing the Garnet to its TopNode subtype so I can attach things to its other end. Xenon Here's a Xenon-powered Duna probe I launched soon before KSP 1.2.0 was even announced. This is 6 tons, 1 TWR in low Mun orbit iirc, and 11km's dV! The Garnet reactor underneath has 2x Radiator Panel (edge), the straight ones with 150kW cooling power directly attached and they're exactly enough (300kW together) to keep it at/within its limits (300kW). The particular Xenon engines on this one have been deprecated so I can't explore them now. Refueling There are two mods I know of that supply a means not just to use Argon or Xenon, but to replenish your tanks. The first is Karbonite, part of USI. Its low-altitude atmosphere scoops come in 1.25m and 2.5m size. They have very poor intake values since they are firstly filter type devices, and they operate better the faster you're moving and the thicker the atmosphere. Strap some of these, a karbonite power cell and a USI kontainer (for Argon) or a stock Xenon tank to your airplane and fly around (if you have the patience or an autopilot mod). Have the scoops filter karbonite too to feed the power cell and even better, feed some karbonite jet engines so you can infinitely fly and refuel faster.... Or you know, spam them on a landed craft and do the timewarp disco. (Forgive me for mentioning so much karbonite.) Then there's Near Future, of course. It provides the AIReS Atmospheric Sounder (Science category) and the M-2 Cryogenic Gas Separator (Utility category) for harvesting Argon and Xenon. The AIReS is a scanner and both parts only work in atmosphere. Unlike karbonite's scoops, the M-2's performance is not influenced by whether it's moving, and it consumes between 12 and 24 EC/s, or 12 + 24 depending on which gas, or both, you're processing. Lithium The story isn't very different for lithium-fueled crafts, except that Lithium, being a solid material is much denser than Argon and Xenon and that makes it better for crewed ion vessels. TWR is much better at the cost of Isp, and empowers heavy landers and even enables Duna SSTOs. I've made Argon-fueled SSTOs (in KSP 1.1.3) but those required very, very tedious mixing and matching of USI and NFT's reactors, karbonite scoops (to refuel themselves), and engines for sufficient dV and TWR. I don't know if it's still possible now. I haven't been at this kind of thing since KSP 1.2 arrived. Sometime perhaps I will post examples of a perfected ion-powered SSTO. Near Future Propulsion adds Lithium modules to the stock drills and stock ISRU (and the ISRU of Kerbal Planetary Base System if also installed). Here we have an Augustus-capable Lithium SSTO prototype. Since I always have Galileo's Planet Pack installed, I have KER set to Augustus, a moon, and it compares as follows: Augustus: 0.35g, 65km atmo, 350km radius. Duna: ........0.30g, 50km atmo, 320km radius. The Garnet reactors have just enough cooling and this Lithium engine pairs it perfectly for EC flow. The 3 tons of Ore simulates precious cargo like LS resources. Full or empty, though, this craft can make it (however, it's not aerodynamically sound). When devising a Lithium-driven vessel and want to make your engine setup controllable, make sure to add this to your procedure: Setup the reactor on its own stack and if possible, attach all the needed radiators to it. Attach its complement engine and if necessary, nerf the engine so it doesn't drain more EC than is produced (this is only necessary for the huge engines). Take that stack now and multiply it with symmetry until you get a satisfying number for TWR. This only really matters if you want to land or launch in atmosphere. With the prototype craft below, 2x is not enough and 4x is even better. But this isn't always the case. Diminishing returns are hard to avoid or control, especially when the payload fraction goes up from here. Here's a mothership I launched from Minmus. It doesn't claim to be an SSTO but it had about 6km/s dV fully loaded and had some LFO and roughly 1.2km/s for its VTOL mode and a tiny chemical rocketed lander. it was rated for operation with the surface gravity of Vall which is greater than that of Mun. It also contained 3x Near Future's 8 ton Prometheus reactor and 6x 1.25m Lithium engines.
  10. The quest for fusion power has been a long one. Sadly it seems that fusion is doomed to be decades away for quite some time. However, fission reactors are a well understood technology. Indeed, fission reactions are much easier to initiate than fusion reactions - fission requires interactions between heavy nuclei and neutrons whereas fusion requires light nuclei to overcome the electrostatic barrier between them. So fission is easier to initiate. However current conventional fission reactors - while efficient and better suited for baseload power than other low emission concepts - are quite expensive. They also produce waste and don't burn much of their fuel sources. Not to mention they require processed fuel that requires larger concentrations of U-235 than natural uranium. So I started thinking. What if we took Inertial Confinement Fusion drivers and used fission fuels instead? Assuming we also used a suitable neutron source, it's likely possible to use natural uranium or even natural thorium by employing fast neutrons. This could lead to more economical fuels than conventional fission reactors. It should be possible to get fairly large burnup rates for the fuel as well, so less waste could be produced per unit of energy than conventional nuclear reactors and less fuel would be required. Such reactors would also be safer than conventional nuclear reactors - meltdowns are completely impossible since a very small amount of fuel is reacting at any instant and the reactions only occur if the driver is operating. It could also be possible to have higher power densities than conventional reactors, so smaller facilities would be required and less shielding mass would be needed. Of course this depends on the size of the facility for the driver but the actual reactor itself could be much smaller. Such reactors could also be more thermodynamically efficient by combining conventional heat engine technology with MHD technology. And compared to fusion inertial confinement fission seems to be more achievable. So it could be more economical, safer, more efficient, lower waste production, and smaller than conventional reactors for a given power output. And compared to fusion such reactors could be possible much earlier. And it could lead to the development of more efficient drivers that could make inertial confinement fusion more practical. Or hybrid systems that use fission to initiate a fusion reaction could be possible. Now for some applications. The first one is obvious - baseload electricity. If such technology is more economical than current reactors it could be competitive with other energy sources as well. If developed as a small modular reactor it could be deployed quite rapidly. The second one may be less obvious but still important, though less likely: propulsion for cargo and container ships. Ocean shipping is responsible for quite a large percentage of pollutants and a decent percentage of GHG emissions, and those emissions are expected to grow substantially over time. And of course the one we're all probably more interested in: space propulsion. This can be done using nuclear pulse propulsion or nuclear electric propulsion. If the power density can be made high enough then nuclear-electric systems may be capable of interplanetary missions with reasonable mass ratios. And of course nuclear pulse propulsion could do the same. Such a system would probably be similar to Mini-Mag Orion but without the Z-Pinch system and without the need for other components that limit the performance of the Mini-Mag Orion system (such as the conductive elements needed for the Z-Pinch). So fast transfers to the outer planets would be possible with manned missions. I can't find much literature on this concept - mostly because the words "inertial confinement" are associated with fusion. But it could work with fission. And it seems that it could have some serious advantages over conventional nuclear reactors. Thoughts?
  11. Aerospike Industries Had enough of boring old nozzles? Want to have great efficiency? Then this mod is for you! In development, just a simple mod aiming to provide more Aerospike propulsion to the game. Not really balanced yet or textured. Current parts: "Mtirala" Hybrid fuel booster To-do: Texturing More engines/boosters Balancing Download: SpaceDock https://spacedock.info/mod/2291/Aerospike Industries License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
  12. KSP desperately needs larger (1.875 and 2.5 meter) jets, to bring down part and engine-count for players who build really large spaceplanes (since they take so long to get to orbit, the only way to do them, IMHO). I would like to request a modder build a simple mod with stock-alike 1.875 and 2.5 meter jet engines. The objective, eventually, would be to hopefully get SQUAD to work with that modder to make the engines Stock. So focusing on doing a really, really good job with just a few parts would be preferable.
  13. So it looks like we're getting a few new engine types in KSP 2. My analysis is that we'll get Orion drive; atmo and vacuum rated metallic H, the Daedalus ICF, and the torchdrive we see in the trailer. It appears to be performing a brachistochrone deceleration burn, Expanse-style. I think the tech progression will be roughly Orion>Metallic H>Daedalus>Torchdrive; though it would be interesting if they are alternatives to each other on the tech tree. This would force a strategic decision on which branch to pursue short-term. Also can't wait to see colonies and stock clouds! Any thoughts on the new propulsion types? Anything I missed?
  14. Assume a rocket is standing on the ground with mass = 1000 kg, and near the top of rocket we apply a force of 100 N for say 1 sec,now assume that this is sufficient to tip rocket over/start tipping over. If the rocket is mid air and accelerating at 30 m/s^2, then likewise how much force would be required to tilt it pi/180 rad or change its trajectory by some degree, please neglect the change of mass due to consumption of fuel because the value calculated with this assumption is going to be a a value higher than required, so that is not an issue. Will the force required mid air be the same as the force required on the ground with no acceleration ?
  15. The propellants in KSP: Liquid Fuel, Oxidizer. (Sorry Monopropellant, you are for another discussion). The classics, designed to be unambiguous. However, the KSP community has always tried to put a definition on them. Liquid Fuel was easy - liquid hydrogen. It can run as a high efficiency vacuum engine, or as a jet engine along sea level. As a first stage or in a NERVA. Liquid Hydrogen checked all boxes. Oxidizer, on the other hand, has stayed in debate if not given up on. Liquid Oxygen feels like a good candidate, but fails in one area: hypergolic-ness (Okay, that’s the dumbest way to say that). What I mean is that to keep with KSP’s engine style of instant ignition and many starts and stops, the propellants probably have to hypergolic. (If you aren’t a rocket nerd, that means they ignite instantly upon contact). Unfortunately Oxidizers that are hypergolic are quite rare, and almost all of them only are with fuels like hydrazine. But then I found one: (really a family of propellants, but I settled on one.) fluorine or one of its chemical siblings, chlorine trifluoride. These are hypergolic with pretty much anything (It doesn’t care if it’s liquid hydrogen or flippin concrete!) Also, with proper treatment, ClF3 can be stored in tanks made of many different metals. It even has a high ISP! Why isn’t this miracle propellant being used? Well it turns out that government officials don’t like exhausts of hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid in the air. Kerbals? They love going to space more than anything! Who cares? Even in the original KSP, there is a green goo on the launchpad. Guess what is a yellowish-green? ClF*. All in all, a real propellant that has the magical aspects of oxidizer: Instant ignition and good efficiency. Why not? flamma est ubi? *Of course it isn’t ClF3! The concrete would be on fire!
  16. I have been trying to create a mod and made this: New! The super-boosters 1 & 2 are the latest way to get into space without more than the bare essentials. Ridiculously overpowered and ridiculously overpriced the super-boosters are the latest way to get into space-with a price. Comes in rockomax and 1.25 sizes. They are on 1.2 and uses lv-t30 config with extra power. It is my first mod and 3D creation so it is rather shoddytm . I want support from the community, so don't be afraid to criticize. Anyone who can help me with part attachment node offset will be greatly thanked. I am happy to announce that I am in partnership with @Benjamin Kerman.(Thanks Ben o7.) Github: https://github.com/BenjaminCronin/SuperBoosters Licence: MIT Thanks to @Vjrcr , @steedcrugeon , @JPLRepo , @SpaceMouse , @tg626 , @Gamax19 @Benjamin Kerman, @TMasterson5 Owen Maley. To Harry Maley- My Rocketing cousin
  17. I think I mentioned this back in 2013, but there wasn't much science behind the concept. Basically I propose an inline rocket engine (nozzle). It's an upside-down inline aerospike (only noticed that after functionally modeling it) that let's you stack tanks or other engines directly behind it. Back in the day IIRC we didn't have radial thrusters yet, so I realize that three years later the utility is a little lost, BUT, I still think it's interesting that it may actually work, and may potentially be used to reduce surface drag. In any case, it would have helped with regular staging in lieu of the abominable asparagus staging that is so common nowadays. This idea was motivated by the concept of aerodynamic skin effects (IDK what they're actually called, I'm just a pretend engineer) Well anyways, let me share with you my findings, and you can let me know what y'all think: the nozzle: now to validate this thing a little I ran a couple sims. here's a 2d prototype: and here's the thing in 3d. although I think the 2d cross section is more useful. The boundry conditions here are all the walls at 1atm pressure, and the spigots in the engine shovel 1kg/s of air through the engine. Color is temperature. Now in the 2d pic we almost see an airstream that stays under sqrt(x). that would mean that the efficiency on these things (given the right geometry) could be really good! What I really didn't expect to find was this low pressure area/hourglass air density around the nozzle. that surprised me, but it's possible that I set up the boundaries wrong. (not a real scientist). So I was wondering if y'all had any opinions on the concept, or if someone was willing to independently verify this. you think this type of engine would be a nice addon for ksp? PS: a name for this thing would also be nice, if it doesn't already exist.
  18. dear community, as discussed here first images of following mod 'Rocket Factory' : STS - AIAKOS 1 - Space Transport System projectstatus : work in progress. get AiKOS Project album on IMGUR view album on IMGUR and here
  19. Remember the fusion rocket concept I posted a couple months ago? It turns out the company responsible behind it is also developing what the thread is named after - ELF thruster, for short. Here's a couple papers. In a nutshell (as far as I can understand), the thruster turns whatever propellant it was fed (water and simulated Martian atmosphere was tested) into a blob of field-reversed configuration plasmoid, then accelerating it with magnetic coils. If this works, we may have what could be a revolutionary engine for aircraft - an electric jet engine without moving parts. Still needs some way to power it, though. So, what do you guys think?
  20. Dear KSP Kommunity, i have just published my second release. - the follow mod of 'Rocket Factory' - AIAKOS 1 - Space Launch System < this project is currently on hold > HD Trailer coming soon ! stay cool cheers ! Mod Focus : - a complete Space Launch System for Interplanetary Exploration and Adventures. - Specials : real Rocket Engine & SRB sounds ! sound sources : Ariane V boosters, nasa Delta-v and many more.. mixed, looped and specally provided for KSP Moding requirements. prerequisites : - few parts of Mod 'Rocket Factory' a detailed information about development history can be found here in the development thread.
  21. My first mod, an EM drive. No external dependencies, no-frills thingy that is more of a curiosity than a game-changer, due to 0.1kN of thrust (vs Dawn's 2.0), higher EC consumption, serious heat production, and a bit higher mass and price. But primarily, the thrust. Maybe, just maybe you could use it on Gilly to keep yourself pushed to the surface? Download here. The model is a "brass&copper" recolor of stock Ion drive, and it's available in the same research node.
  22. *points to the title* Now there's a combination of words I never expected to see... or at least not in a serious context! But a company called Tethers Unlimited is quite serious about it. They've built a hydrolox thruster for microsatellites - main propulsion for large cubesats, or attitude thrusters for slightly larger craft. However, it doesn't carry cryogenic liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. No, it carries plain old de-ionized water. And it will use electricity from the satellite's solar panels to electrolyse that water, creating oxygen and hydrogen which is then injected into the combustion chamber. The main idea behind it is that small satellites that ride as secondary payloads often struggle to find rideshares if they carry propulsion, because those propulsion systems and the fuel they contain pose risks to the primary payload (or to other secondaries). These risks need to be insured, which costs insurance money, and mitigated, which costs development money. But a spacecraft carrying water needs neither of those two, because the propellant is "non-toxic, non-explosive, and unpressurized". It's also dirt cheap, and (in a future scenario) can be easily replenished by ISRU in space. So much for the theory, but in practice? The system may launch into space for the first time as early as 12 months from now. It's been test fired plenty of times on the ground. (Source) What do you guys think? Hydrolox has the potential for the best specific impulse by a wide margin among the chemical propellants typically used today, and removing the need to carry the low density, hard cryogenic LH2/LO2 bipropellant instantly removes its biggest drawback. But how much extra dry mass and volume does the electrolysis equipment require? How much effort does it take to consistently draw the right amount of liquid from an unpressurized tank in zero gravity? How much electrolysis power can a cubesat's solar arrays provide - will that be enough gas to build sufficient combustion chamber pressure and temperature to actually get the nice, high Isp? Or is the system ultimately no better than a common hydrazine thruster, and its only advantage is the propellant safety? And what about comparing other options for solar electric supported propulsion, such as electrothermal rockets (resistojets)?
  23. http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/18/nasa-origami-solar-panels/ I was going to add this to a pre-existing thread that would have been perfect for this topic, but for some reason moderator locked it, if said moderator feels the urge to unlock the thread, then please merge this post with that thread.
  24. DESCRIPTION: This is standalone expansion to my Rusty Star Rockets mod. It adds parts for new propulsion system: ZPE (Zero Point Energy) propulsion system It also adds new fuel resource: Quantum Fluctuations. ZPE propulsion system works like this: 1. Quantum Fluctuations are generated in Quantum Fluctuations Extractor (QFE) 2. Quantum Fluctuations are stored in Uncertainty Containment Chamber (UCC) 3. ZPE engine uses Quantum Fluctuations and electricity to create thrust. Since Quantum fluctuations are generated constantly by QFE, this is sort of infinite fuel mod, but it is somewhat justified by ZPE propulsion concept. Nevertheless, i wouldn't dare call this mod near future or even very realistic. But it could be fun. Especially because of funky particle effects and custom engine sounds. All parts are on the very top of tech tree, on additional experimental nodes, and are VERY expensive. SCREENS: Changelog: Instalation: 1. dump RSR_ZPE to GameData folder 2. have fun! Legal stuff: ZPE Propulsion System by GagaX is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
  25. Hi! I have been much idle time, but I'm back and I'm back with a new idea: more nuclear propulsion. Justification of more nuclear propulsion: In Kerbal no evidence of the existence of a cold war, nuclear testing and non nuclear proliferation treaty; and also the only life there are those green people living in the rocket base, so no problem with nuclear contamination. (forever alone) The atomic propulsion that I suggest: - Nuclear thermic engine (update): Now make use of only hydrogen (more down) instead fuel and oxidizer. - Radioisotope engine: A little engine similar to ionic engine, little more heavy, that make use of hydrogen (instead xenon) and not requires electricity. - Atomic bulb: A big powerful engine that make use of hydrogen and little of uranium (more down), and produces electricity. - Nuclear liquid uranium engine: A medium powerful engine that make use of hydrogen and uranium. - Nuclear gas uranium engine: A big very powerful engine that make use of hydrogen and lots of uranium. - Uranium bubble: A medium very powerful engine that make use of only uranium (need a new animation to represent ioniced uranium bubble), and lots of electricity. - Nuclear pulse engine: A very big and very powerful engine that make use of 0,8 to 25 kilotons range nuclear detonations to propelling (need a new animation to represent engine move and nuclear explosions), make use of nuclear nukes (there is of different types, mass and power). - Advanced nuclear pulse engine: A extremely big and powerful engine that make use of 25 kilotons to megaton range nuclear detonations. - Polywell nuclear thermic engine: A little-medium engine that make use of a controlled fusion reactor to heat up hydrogen (make use of only hydrogen), and produces much electricity. - Antimatter injection thermic engine: A little-medium engine that make use of very low amounts of antimatter to heat up hydrogen (make use of hydrogen and antimatter), and produces much electricity. Fuels and materials to propulsion: - Liquid hydrogen: in containers of similar size to "fuel-oxidant" containers (any size). - Uranium: in little and shorts containers. - Antimatter: in little and shorts heavy containers, with reinforced texture, these containers consumes a lots of electricity to contain the antimatter, if there is no electricity, it will explode. - Nukes (very expensive, care): of various types, in very width and shorts containers: - 0,8 kt (60 units) - 2 kt (30 units) - 5 kt (20 units) - 10kt (10 units) - 25 kt (5 units) - 50 kt (3 units) - 100 kt (1 unit) of various types, in very width and large containers: - 25 kt (30 units) - 50 kt (20 units) - 100 kt (10 units) - 250 kt (5 units) - 500 kt (3 units) - Megaton (1 unit) Utilities: - Big radioisotope battery. - Nuclear isomer battery: like classic radioisotope battery, but with more intensity, less duration and rechargeable. - Nuclear power reactor (produces a lots of energy, consumes uranium). - Polywell power reactor (produces more energy than fission nuclear, consumes hydrogen and requires big quantity of energy to start). Technology tree: After nuclear node (thermal nuclear engine): - Add: little and medium hydrogen containers/tanks After nuclear node (thermal nuclear engine): - Advanced nuclear node: nuclear power reactor, big radioisotope battery, radioisotope engine, little uranium container/tank, big hydrogen containers/tanks. After advanced nuclear node: - More advanced nuclear node: atomic bulb, gas nuclear thermal engine, liquid nuclear thermal engine, medium uranium container/tank. - Basic nuclear fusion: polywell power reactor, isomer battery. After more advanced nuclear node: - Kiloton: nuclear pulse engine, little nukes containers, uranium bubble. After basic nuclear fusion node: - Advanced nuclear fusion: polywell engine. - Antimatter: antimatter containers, antimatter injection engine. After kiloton node: - Megaton: advanced nuclear pulse engine, big nukes containers.
  • Create New...