[1.12.x] Near Future Technologies (September 6)

[The-Doctor]

Can you mine to refuel the nuclear reactors?

[DStaal]

12 minutes ago, The-Doctor said:

Can you mine to refuel the nuclear reactors?

Yes.  There's a part that will extract trace amounts of nuclear fuel from Ore - or there are some other mods that can mine Uranite, and refine it.

[Wyzard]

2 hours ago, The-Doctor said:

Can you mine to refuel the nuclear reactors?

To clarify what @DStaal said (since I've submitted a few patches related to the NFE/MKS nuclear integration):

• If you use MKS, you have to produce nuclear fuel the MKS way: mine Uraninite and put it in a Tundra nuclear fuel processor to produce EnrichedUranium.
• Otherwise, Near Future Electrical's "Whirlijig Nuclear Reprocessor" can produce EnrichedUranium from Ore.  (With MKS installed, this is disabled, so the Whirlijig can only be used to reprocess DepletedFuel.)

[Streetwind]

7 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Not as many big ones, though. Not many 3.75m tanks, for instance. And nothing like the big round LH2 tank.

Back in the day I used to be able to put together some ships using nuclear reactors and VASIMR engines and really big hydrogen tanks that had many thousands of m/s dV. Now it's not so easy.

I can make spacecraft that have "many thousands of m/s dV" using only a single 1.25m tank. I'm sure you know that well, you've been around the game long enough It all depends on the amount of payload you want to haul. And even then, just stack more tanks? Unless 10 additional parts on a 200-300 part craft break your performance that much, building large tank bundles doesn't even look half bad (IMHO).

I mean, it's not that I'm against having 3.75m tanks or anything. But I've never felt like I couldn't live without them either. Admittedly argon can get a bit tricky at times due to the volumes required to get a lot of reaction mass, but having larger tanks wouldn't make you need less volume. Only a handful parts fewer.

[mikegarrison]

56 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

I can make spacecraft that have "many thousands of m/s dV" using only a single 1.25m tank. I'm sure you know that well, you've been around the game long enough It all depends on the amount of payload you want to haul. And even then, just stack more tanks? Unless 10 additional parts on a 200-300 part craft break your performance that much, building large tank bundles doesn't even look half bad (IMHO).

I mean, it's not that I'm against having 3.75m tanks or anything. But I've never felt like I couldn't live without them either. Admittedly argon can get a bit tricky at times due to the volumes required to get a lot of reaction mass, but having larger tanks wouldn't make you need less volume. Only a handful parts fewer.

It kind of sounds like you think I was attacking you or something. I wasn't. It just would be nice, that's all. Among other things, if you have a ship that is mainly a 3.75m stack, but you don't have any available 3.75m tanks, it causes issues. Not unsolvable issues, but issues.

[Streetwind]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

It kind of sounds like you think I was attacking you or something. I wasn't. It just would be nice, that's all. Among other things, if you have a ship that is mainly a 3.75m stack, but you don't have any available 3.75m tanks, it causes issues. Not unsolvable issues, but issues.

I try to use smiley faces to disarm my words, since text-based communication often doesn't let you convey stuff like tone of voice. Apologies if it didn't work. I did not feel attacked by you.

Even with 3.75m tanks though, you would still need to adapter down for specific reactors, for batteries and capacitors, and for all of the engines as well. Near Future as a whole has almost no 3.75m parts... actually, no. Scratch that. There are new extra-large trusses in NF Construction now, nearly forgot those. Do they come with tanks? Construction is the one sub-pack I rarely use myself.

[eLDude]

Thanks for the update. first thought on your new lv-95-6 "why 0 dV?" - ok now using monoprop. i like it! much safer, maybe Jeb complains about

- can we expect a lv-95-12 coz there is lot of space for another six engines

- i totally like the new, clean design of your engines. no more yellow black striped attach thingi, do all engines get rid of that at some point?

[Raptor9]

@Nertea, I just wanna say that the latest NF Spacecraft is awesome!  I like those SD aerodynamic engine pods, very sleek.  I can see them making their way onto an ascent vehicle of some sort.  I hadn't messed with NF Construction very much recently, but when I started looking through it yesterday, I was amazed.  The amount of options you have with all the different configurations is awesome!

Quick question though, and I apologize if this has been answered already; but what was your inspiration for the Mk4-1 pod?  Looks like an orbital command capsule, landing can, station module all rolled into one.

[DStaal]

3 hours ago, Streetwind said:

I try to use smiley faces to disarm my words, since text-based communication often doesn't let you convey stuff like tone of voice. Apologies if it didn't work. I did not feel attacked by you.

Even with 3.75m tanks though, you would still need to adapter down for specific reactors, for batteries and capacitors, and for all of the engines as well. Near Future as a whole has almost no 3.75m parts... actually, no. Scratch that. There are new extra-large trusses in NF Construction now, nearly forgot those. Do they come with tanks? Construction is the one sub-pack I rarely use myself.

They don't directly - but the open trusses are great for holding 2.5m and 1.25m tanks in a 3.75m stack.

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

@Nertea, I just wanna say that the latest NF Spacecraft is awesome!  I like those SD aerodynamic engine pods, very sleek.  I can see them making their way onto an ascent vehicle of some sort.  I hadn't messed with NF Construction very much recently, but when I started looking through it yesterday, I was amazed.  The amount of options you have with all the different configurations is awesome!

Quick question though, and I apologize if this has been answered already; but what was your inspiration for the Mk4-1 pod?  Looks like an orbital command capsule, landing can, station module all rolled into one.

I have found with a few tests that it gets near to over-heating if used as a re-entry vehicle with a 2.5m ablative heat shield. It survived direct re-entry from Munar orbit, but the temperature warning bar was deep red and just about topped out. It was very aerodynamically stable, though.

I would be scared to try to re-enter directly from the Mun if I had a save that I cared much about. Re-entering from low Kerbin orbit was pretty safe. The capsule got a little warm, but the indicator never got past orange and into the red.

[Raptor9]

I apologize, I might've used the wrong wording on my question.  What I meant to ask was if there was a real-world (or fictional) design or concept that the Mk4-1 was based on?

[Zhetaan]

@Nertea:

First off, I like the new engines!  I noticed the little tweaks to the thrust and atmosphere curves versus the old versions and look forward to finding all the new (and old) places where I can use these.  The way I see it is this:  we started with only one stock ion engine, and look at all of the new and interesting things you've done with that line of technology.  I anticipate the same thing with these mono engines, too.  I admit that I'm going to miss the T95, but on the other hand, I think I was getting a little too accustomed to the idea that one engine was always the right answer for all of my light lander probes, so I probably won't miss it for long.  Nice work!

Second off,  I wanted to let you know that the link to the NF Spacecraft issue-tracker/source actually links to the screenshot gallery.

 

[Nertea]

17 at 6:36 PM, tsaven said:

Are there plans for more Ion engines in larger sizes?  Right now it only seems to be 0.625m units, which is sending my part counts through the roof for larger Ion ships.

No there are not. see there's a couple problems with larger ion engines:

1. Fundamentally the technology that powers gridded and Hall thrusters doesn't scale up well, so making a single large engine doesn't accurately represent things
2. As such, any larger ion engine ends up being a cluster, which is fundamentally no interesting to model 
3. In addition, there are several types of technology implemented. Building a cluster means choosing a engine type to cluster... so what do I cluster? HI-SNAPs? AFTERs? Gyro-Ones? Twos? Clustering any one type leaves big holes

There is really one potential option, which is to take things in the direction of the other 2.5m models. The PIT, the MPDT, and the future revised VASIMR are all sci-fi derived models. If I do large gridded or Hall engines I'm likely to take that route and make something inspired by a scifi thing. 

On 2/5/2017 at 1:23 AM, mikegarrison said:

That raises an issue -- with all the (relatively) new kinds of reaction masses, the tank options are rather limited. Lots of tank options for Lqd Hyd and Xenon, but fewer for the others.

I would disagree. There's a full set of Argon tanks to the same level as stock (or better). There's a pretty good set of lithium tanks, could use some improvements in that there's no 0.625m models (see this issue). I don't do 3.75m tanks unless there's a really solid reason, like bulky fuel (LH2) or 3.75m engines. 

17 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

And also, yeah, why not Octogirder tanks for all the NFP fuels? Just no time to make them?

It's always wise to consult the issue list. 

On 2/5/2017 at 6:31 AM, WildLynx said:

New crew pod IVA is WIP or I have some RPM or prop install problems? Not a single switch or screen there...

There should be stock props. I don't do RPM IVA's anymore though. 

14 hours ago, MemeBeam said:

Could this mod get more support for kerbalism, such as radiation coming from reactors, possible malfunctions that require highly skilled engineersto fix to make them more unique and less care free on long missions. Love the mod btw

My policy is that mods that make considerable modifications to the stock game and balance need to handle their own changes. Hence, Kerbalism should handle Kerbalism features. 

6 hours ago, eLDude said:

- can we expect a lv-95-12 coz there is lot of space for another six engines

- i totally like the new, clean design of your engines. no more yellow black striped attach thingi, do all engines get rid of that at some point?

I happen to like the black and yellow stripes, but I chose not to put them on these ones to add some artistic differentiation for the monoprop engines.

5 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

@Nertea, I just wanna say that the latest NF Spacecraft is awesome!  I like those SD aerodynamic engine pods, very sleek.  I can see them making their way onto an ascent vehicle of some sort.  I hadn't messed with NF Construction very much recently, but when I started looking through it yesterday, I was amazed.  The amount of options you have with all the different configurations is awesome!

Quick question though, and I apologize if this has been answered already; but what was your inspiration for the Mk4-1 pod?  Looks like an orbital command capsule, landing can, station module all rolled into one.

Glad you like - I found the engine pods lying around, I'd made them a long time ago but never finished them. Patched them up and shipped them.

The pod is inspired by the Mars Excursion Module design, which is, in a sense, part orbital capsule, part lander and part living space :). 

1 hour ago, Zhetaan said:

First off, I like the new engines!  I noticed the little tweaks to the thrust and atmosphere curves versus the old versions and look forward to finding all the new (and old) places where I can use these.  The way I see it is this:  we started with only one stock ion engine, and look at all of the new and interesting things you've done with that line of technology.  I anticipate the same thing with these mono engines, too.  I admit that I'm going to miss the T95, but on the other hand, I think I was getting a little too accustomed to the idea that one engine was always the right answer for all of my light lander probes, so I probably won't miss it for long.  Nice work!

Second off,  I wanted to let you know that the link to the NF Spacecraft issue-tracker/source actually links to the screenshot gallery.

That was one of the reasons behind the switch, the old engines were pretty much good at everything. That's problematic. 

[mikegarrison]

Ohhhh.

I had even experimented with the new monoprop engines, but I hadn't quite realized they aren't "new" engines. You took my favorite kerolox vacuum engine clusters and redid them as monoprop engines.

I did notice you had an "extras" patch that makes them (or is it "keeps them"?) kerolox.

I'll have to think about what to do, because I play with some other mods that had already given me a different set of options for monoprop landing engines.

[SpaceMouse]

Thanks Nerta  for the update! Like the new command pod and engines!

[Nertea]

On 2/5/2017 at 6:31 AM, WildLynx said:

New crew pod IVA is WIP or I have some RPM or prop install problems? Not a single switch or screen there...

Oh I am so mad right now. The last time I ran the IVA exporter it somehow overwrote the entire nice stock prop layout I did with nothingness. Great. So that will probably be fixed in 2-5 months, when I recover from IVA-related PTSD.

[mikegarrison]

27 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Oh I am so mad right now. The last time I ran the IVA exporter it somehow overwrote the entire nice stock prop layout I did with nothingness. Great. So that will probably be fixed in 2-5 months, when I recover from IVA-related PTSD.

I wondered a little about that.

The only thing I would say is that I like being able to see other Kerbals from IVA, and a lot of the seats in the new module look straight at what are now blank walls with a few little windows. But maybe if/when you restore the gauges and decorative stuff that will be more interesting.

[HoveringKiller]

So, for some reason I became unfollowed, and missed the Mk4 release, so I'm here to praise it now.

 

OMG YES! It solves one of my main issues with crew transportation in space! I did have the MK3-9 on top of the PPD-1, but this just looks so much more elegant. And interesting to see how the monoprop engines work. Never really used them much in the past, but I may do that now. Would the be good for jumps to and from minmus, as that's mainly what I use rockets for anyways. May make a shuttle for between my space station and my interplanetary ship when it's home. So many possibilities!

[Drew Kerman]

On 2/5/2017 at 10:06 PM, MemeBeam said:

Could this mod get more support for kerbalism, such as radiation coming from reactors, possible malfunctions that require highly skilled engineersto fix to make them more unique and less care free on long missions. Love the mod btw

Pretty sure Kerbalism already has a NFE patch that adds radiation. Check the download. If it's not there, then check the mod's Wiki. It is very well-done and will show you how to write a patch file that can add radiation.

[JadeOfMaar]

@Drew Kerman There's a patch but it only applies an antenna condition to one command pod in NF Spacecraft. Maybe something can be done with Nertea's Radioactive Decay mod (whose thread may also have been deleted).

 

[Drew Kerman]

1 hour ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@Drew Kerman There's a patch but it only applies an antenna condition to one command pod in NF Spacecraft. Maybe something can be done with Nertea's Radioactive Decay mod (whose thread may also have been deleted).

 

Ok so I know there's something for atomic radiation so I checked again and @MemeBeam I was sort of right. There's a patch for Kerbal Atomics, which is Nertea's dedicated atomic engine mod. That could be a jumping off point for anyone wanting to do something similar for Near Future reactors

[Nertea]

I recovered some part of the IVA contents, so there's that.

Looks like I'm behind a few versions for all packs in CRP and B9PartSwitch dependencies, so expect a minor update relatively soon to resolve this and fix a few problems. 

[Psycho_zs]

I wonder if monoprop engines can have Isp on par with kerolox engines.

BTW, the kerolox patch does not replace monoprop in engines' embedded tanks.

[Nertea]

Mostly minor fixes and dependency updates, but some new stuff in NF:C.

NF Propulsion 0.8.4

• Updated B9PartSwitch to 1.7.1
• Updated CRP to 0.6.6
• Fixed download link in .version file
• Fixed missing manufacturer for PPT RCS block

NF Electrical 0.8.4

• Update B9PartSwitch to 1.7.1
• Updated CRP to 0.6.6
• Fixed download link in .version file
• Fixed costs of nuclear fuel containers
• Fixed a rogue logging spam
• Fixed a null reference exception when starting a reactor for the first time

NF Construction 0.7.4

• Updated B9PartSwitch to 1.7.1
• Fixed download link in .version file
• Added Lithium, Argon, LqdHydrogen, LqdHydrogen/Oxidizer tanks to tank-containing trusses. Only enabled if CRP is installed
• Added cryo cooling abilities to tank-containing trusses. Only enabled if CRP and CryoTanks are installed
• Fixed extraneous subtype node definitions on crewed octo-truss parts
• Fixed angle of 30 degree node in angled truss piece

NF Spacecraft 0.6.2

• Updated B9PartSwitch to 1.7.1
• Tweaked orbital engine FX
• Fixed thrust angle deviation on LV-601-4 and LV-85-6 engines
• Fixed overly large engine temperature tolerances
• Fixed botched normal map names for a few parts
• Extras/LFO patch now converts orbital engine integrated tanks to LF/O as well

[SpaceMouse]

@Nertea, this is probably a dumb question but, is there some trick I'm not aware of to get RCS modules to use different thrustTransforms based on the intended direction of travel? I tried doing one a while ago but i could never get the part to use anymore than the first one. I tried mimicing the stock layout but couldnt get it to work. Thanks.