KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

FreeThinker · February 20, 2015

This is the development thread of KSP Interstellar Extended where new development can be discussed and new feature request can be made.

If you want to help or discus ideas about KSP Interstellar development, you can do it at our new Guilded Server (old: ~~KSP Interstellar Discord Server~~ )

For technical question or Mod support , please ask them in the KPIE Support thread

For release and related news, discuss them at KSPIE Release thread

Download any versions from Here

source code and media files: GitHub

If you appreciate what I create, please consider donating me a beer

you can make a donation by PayPal or support me by Patreon

Localization

KSP Interstellar Extended needs translators!

Localization files can be found here

Since KSPIE contains many are parts with their own set of custom partModules, the number of translation keys is very high for a single Mod

Chinese translations are already taken care of but all other localization are open

Future

Note that do not consider myself the person that have to determine the future of KSP Interstellar, it's just that nobody else seems to want to do it. I would be more than happy to share that responsibility. Anyone that actively want to develop KSPI is free to do it. It would appreciate it as it would allow me to focus more on advanced features I have ideas about. The simple truth is, KSPI is too big for a single developer. I don't have the time nor the skills to implement everything that it deserves. I'm especially frustrated about the lack of artist support. Many of KSPI models and effects look dated and ugly compared to more resent mods. There have been some artist and programmers offering their help but they often go AWOL after a short time. I'm not sure If I can keep it up myself indefinitely. I would prefer to create a team of developers that works on KSPI together. I guess that's the only way to ensure Interstellar Future.

Edited December 25, 2021 by FreeThinker
Links removed by moderator due to licensing violations

FreeThinker · February 20, 2015

Science Documents

Aneutronic Fusion Spacecraft Architecture

NASA Aluminium Engine Issues

Technical Prospects for Utilizing Extraterrestrial Propellants for Space Exploration

Usefull Links

Physics Forum

Idea sources

Orbital vector

Edited June 30, 2021 by FreeThinker

Absurdist · February 20, 2015

Post #552 from the previous thread seems like an oversight. The wiki lists the 2.5m and 3.75m fusion reactors as having deuterium and tritium.

https://github.com/FractalUK/KSPInterstellar/wiki/Reactors

FreeThinker · February 20, 2015

Post #552 from the previous thread seems like an oversight. The wiki lists the 2.5m and 3.75m fusion reactors as having deuterium and tritium.
https://github.com/FractalUK/KSPInterstellar/wiki/Reactors

Perhaps, but I think it has something to with storage, as deuterium needs to be stored at crystatic temperatures. Still a small amount would be usefull to allow easier construction.

I guess we have to create a new Wiki as well, any volunteers?

Edited February 20, 2015 by FreeThinker

Absurdist · February 20, 2015

I was mistaken about the thermal rocket nozzles in the tech tree. That wasn't in CTT, that's in "unofficial KSPI."

UnanimousCoward · February 20, 2015

Any chance of you converting this to use Regolith? It would be nice if all my mods were playing with the same ball, so to speak.

Or doesn't that fit with your vision for this (backwards-compatibility and all)?

I've considered having a look at doing it myself, but I'm guessing it's more complicated than just a few MM configs, which means it may well be beyond the limitations of my addled brain. :confused:

Edit: forgot to say thanks for taking this on board - I'm glad people like you are keeping great mods alive when their original creators vanish.

Edited February 20, 2015 by UnanimousCoward

Tabris · February 20, 2015

i second the Regolith conversion

FreeThinker · February 20, 2015

Any chance of you converting this to use Regolith? It would be nice if all my mods were playing with the same ball, so to speak.

I already partialy use Regolith. This reminds me to add it to the dependancies. But I guess you mean to replace ORS resource detection/extraction by Regolith

I don't have any real objections to switch to Regolith, but I do not understand how to implement it for resource collection/extraction.

Edited February 20, 2015 by FreeThinker

GreeningGalaxy · February 20, 2015

So, how exactly do you change the maximum Isp for thermal rockets? The option's not in the WarpPluginSettings.cfg file, and adding it doesn't seem to work - it makes MechJeb think the Isp is going to be higher, but doesn't actually let it go above 3,000 seconds in practice.

Tellion · February 20, 2015

I already partialy use Regolith. This reminds me to add it to the dependancies. But I guess you mean to replace ORS resource detection/extraction by Regolith
I don't have any real objections to switch to Regolith, but I do not understand how to implement it for resource collection/extraction.

+1 on regolith, documentation found here (hopefully up to date)

Northstar1989 · February 20, 2015

Why do people keep asking about using Regolith?

Let's be clear- the Karbonite/Regolith system is NOT well-adapted to some of the things KSP-Interstellar does. It has many important/useful features Regolith doesn't, like auto-adjusting the resource extraction rate based on resource-density (important for RealFuels compatibility). Under-the-hood ORS/CRP is a better, if more complex and harder to program with, system- it just needs a better interface for players to locate resource-deposits than it currently has.

It's good for SOME things- that's why the Extension Config currently uses BOTH ORS *AND* Regolith, one for normal resources and the other for Propulsive Fluid Accumulators. But Regloith does simply NOT do some things as well as ORS/CRP.

So, -1000 for Regolith since I've been helping to develop the Extension Config, and there are a lot of things we still have yet to do with it that wouldn't work properly with the Regolith system...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 20, 2015 by Northstar1989

Aero_Rising · February 20, 2015

Why do people keep asking about using Regolith?
Let's be clear- the Karbonite/Regolith system is NOT well-adapted to some of the things KSP-Interstellar does. It has many important/useful features Regolith doesn't, like auto-adjusting the resource extraction rate based on resource-density (important for RealFuels compatibility). Under-the-hood ORS/CRP is a better, if more complex and harder to program with, system- it just needs a better interface for players to locate resource-deposits than it currently has.
It's good for SOME things- that's why the Extension Config currently uses BOTH ORS *AND* Regolith, one for normal resources and the other for Propulsive Fluid Accumulators. But Regloith does simply NOT do some things as well as ORS/CRP.
So, -1000 for Regolith since I've been helping to develop the Extension Config, and there are a lot of things we still have yet to do with it that wouldn't work properly with the Regolith system...
Regards,
Northstar

Well considering that popular mods like Karbonite and ScanSat already have switched to it and most mods are switching to it it appears to be the system of the future. If there are limits you could talk to those developing Regolith about them. Also would help to not have to install both regolith and ORS to use interstellar because until the memory for KSP is more optimized everyone is looking to keep their total number of mods down to avoid crashes.

Ryds · February 20, 2015

+1 for regolith.

FreeThinker · February 20, 2015

Well considering that popular mods like Karbonite and ScanSat already have switched to it and most mods are switching to it it appears to be the system of the future. If there are limits you could talk to those developing Regolith about them. Also would help to not have to install both regolith and ORS to use interstellar because until the memory for KSP is more optimized everyone is looking to keep their total number of mods down to avoid crashes.

the amount of memory used by ORS or Regorth is insignifican compared to the resources required by a single part model or texture. ORS is only 43kB that's nothing, and it does not keep any significant amount of data in memory either. Edited February 20, 2015 by FreeThinker

Tellion · February 20, 2015

Why do people keep asking about using Regolith?

Because of interoperability and gameplay (Scansat, oh my god scansat) I guess. Nobody wants to deal with multiple interfaces (or none at all, looking at ORS/Scansat) when there is no apparent benefit from it. Also, the reason CRP was made in the first place was the plethora of resources floating about, which where all trying to be the same thing in essence (aquifier, water, lqdwater, h2o, etc)... Starting this again, if not in resource definitions then in frameworks, seems like a bad idea to me.

Let's be clear- the Karbonite/Regolith system is NOT well-adapted to some of the things KSP-Interstellar does. It has many important/useful features Regolith doesn't, like auto-adjusting the resource extraction rate based on resource-density (important for RealFuels compatibility). Under-the-hood ORS/CRP is a better, if more complex and harder to program with, system- it just needs a better interface for players to locate resource-deposits than it currently has.
It's good for SOME things- that's why the Extension Config currently uses BOTH ORS *AND* Regolith, one for normal resources and the other for Propulsive Fluid Accumulators. But Regolith does simply NOT do some things as well as ORS/CRP.

What do you mean with auto-adjusting extraction rates based on density? You have the ability for varied resource abundances and looking at a standard drill config, it also has an efficiency parameter - so you could vary rates based on what resource you are mining without issue. If you are having things like conservation of mass during resource conversion in mind, well the ratios can be calculated, again, without issue. Apart from that, as already suggested, if you feel some important feature is lacking in Regolith, consult with Roverdude, he surely knows best how to get certain results if the specifics are so very important...

So, -1000 for Regolith since I've been helping to develop the Extension Config, and there are a lot of things we still have yet to do with it that wouldn't work properly with the Regolith system...

What a wonderful way of dealing with other people's concerns^^

Northstar1989 · February 21, 2015

Because of interoperability and gameplay (Scansat, oh my god scansat) I guess. Nobody wants to deal with multiple interfaces (or none at all, looking at ORS/Scansat) when there is no apparent benefit from it. Also, the reason CRP was made in the first place was the plethora of resources floating about, which where all trying to be the same thing in essence (aquifier, water, lqdwater, h2o, etc)... Starting this again, if not in resource definitions then in frameworks, seems like a bad idea to me.

I'm aware of the desire to get ScanSat working with KSP-Interstellar, although some players (like myself) can't play with it due to its extensive RAM and CPU requirements... However, Regolith is simply not up to the task of some things accomplished by ORS in KSP-Interstellar...

What do you mean with auto-adjusting extraction rates based on density?

What I mean is, if you change the "resource" density of a resource in the configs (like we *currently* do with the KSP-Interstellar/RealFuels integration config- there is literally no other way to do it, since KSP-Interstellar's default resource-densities bear no relation whatsoever to reality in many cases...) then parts that extract that resource from the ground/air/etc. (like the KSP-Interstellar ISRU Refinery) will automatically adjust the units/minute they extract of that resource to harvest the resource at the same mass-extraction rate...

You have the ability for varied resource abundances and looking at a standard drill config, it also has an efficiency parameter - so you could vary rates based on what resource you are mining without issue.

I've played with Karbonite before, so I know what those terms mean. The resource abundance is essentially equivalent to the resource concentration *in the ground* in ORS/KSP-Interstellar. The "efficiency" parameter relates to how quickly that resource is extracted relative to the concentration/abundance, and as I understand it, is capped at 100%.

BOTH these parameters need to continue to exist in some form in KSP-Interstellar, regardless of whether it uses Regolith or ORS for the majority of its In-Situ-Resource-Utilization needs. HOWEVER, an *ADDITIONAL* calculation needs to be performed that corrects extraction-rates based on config changes to the resource-density. KSP-Interstellar automatically does this with ORS (so if I change "LiquidFuel" into "LqdHydrogen", for instance, the extraction-rate remains the same on a kg/minute basis, even though I have decreased the resource-density more than 500-fold!)

Don't get me wrong, it is POSSIBLE to separately calculate a new base extraction-rate for the resource, or simply multiply the abundance 500x fold or what-not using Regolith, but doing so would be much more complex and much trickier (with a lot more potential to screw up) than the system that currently exists with ORS. Given these difficulties, it seems it would be *MUCH* easier to try and figure out how to get ORS to work with ScanSat, than to try and code around Regolith's clumsy responses to changes in resource-density...

If you are having things like conservation of mass during resource conversion in mind, well the ratios can be calculated, again, without issue. Apart from that, as already suggested, if you feel some important feature is lacking in Regolith, consult with Roverdude, he surely knows best how to get certain results if the specifics are so very important...

That's the thing. We would have to change conversion-ratios and/or consult with Roverdude for *EVERY SINGLE CHANGE* we make to replace a resource-density if we switched over to Regolith. With ORS, it's much simpler, you just give it a mass:ratio (say, electrolysis of Water produces 88.88% Oxygen and 11.11% Hydrogen by mass) and it automatically adjusts resource-consumption based on *any possible change* you could ever make to resource-densities at a later point. *WITHOUT* a ModuleManager patch.

ORS makes it MUCH simpler to tweak densities, create cross-mod compatibility, or even just re-name a resource (it keeps a catalog of the "name" for each resource type, i.e. there is a "Water resource name" which could be "Water" or "LqdWater" or "Liquid Water" and they would all be functionally-identical with a simple MM patch to change the name in that catalog...) than does Reglolith.

Don't get me wrong, I love Regolith- it has its place/purpose, and some things it does better than ORS- and that's why we use it for the Propulsive Fluid Accumulators, for instance- because it already had some very nice code fro scooping resources from the edge of an atmosphere while in time-warp. But it simply is *NOT* up to meeting the bulk of the needs of KSP-Interstellar, which is the mod Fractal_UK coded ORS around in the first place...

What a wonderful way of dealing with other people's concerns^^

It was meant to be humorous. Sorry if it came across a little dickish... Trust me- it's all in good fun, I value your input Tellion.

Regards,

Northstar

Northstar1989 · February 21, 2015

This is a re-post from the KSP-Interstellar 0.90 port maintenance thread, to help us start migrating the conversation here from there:

Northstar: Did you calculate ISP/Thrust figures for Water in a thermal nozzle? I'm curious.

Water (H₂O) has 9 times the Molecular Weight of Hydrogen: so it's ISP should be approximately 1/3rd that of Liquid Hydrogen- corresponding to an ISP multiplier of 0.33 based purely on Molecular Weight. HOWEVER, water also engages in Hydrogen Bonding- which reduces its ISP relative to Molecular Weight even further (because a given amount of heat-injection won't raise its temperature as high, leading to lower Exhaust Velocity), so a more accurate value would be around 0.25-0.28

However, it is CURRENTLY set at 0.4714 instead. I'm not sure why this is- most of Fractal_UK's other ISP multiplier selections are accurate to the molecular weight and physical/chemical properties...

The same effect is observed for Ammonia, which also engages in Hydrogen Bonding, and has an ISP multiplier of 0.6503 instead of the expected value of 0.342 based on molecular weight, or 0.30-0.32 after accounting for Hydrogen Bonding.

My guess is Fractal_UK used a higher ISP multiplier to account for the reduced thrust observed with Water and Ammonia relative to the expected Thrust/MW based on their molecular weight (in fact, he gives this explanation on the KSP-I wiki). HOWEVER, what Fractal_UK did NOT seem to grasp is that the lost Thrust *DOES NOT* show up as a higher ISP/Exhaust Velocity. Water and Ammonia are just poor NTR fuels to use, period.

The only advantages of Water/Ammonia is that, due to their Hydrogen Bonding, they are HIGHLY storable. As in, at the ambient temperatures of space both will *FREEZE* into a SOLID rather than attempt to boil-off into a vapor like LH₂ or LOX... However, boil-off is not currently modeled in KSP-Interstellar (it *IS* in RealFuels, however, and indeed neither fuel experiences boil-off with that mod installed, unlike Hydro/LOX...)

Thanks for catching that EMPeror? I assume that's why you asked me to calculate the proper ISP for Water...

@FreeThinker

The ISP multipliers of Water and Ammonia need to be reduced to the following values:

Water: 0.33

Ammonia: 0.342

Also, there needs to be a *NEGATIVE* (less than 1) Thrust-modifier on both Water and Ammonia that *REDUCES* their EFFECTIVE ISP to 0.28 and 0.30, respectively.

Here are the appropriate Thrust modifiers to attain that:

Water: 0.900

Ammonia: 0.875

So, Water should produce only 90% of the expected Thrust for its Molecular Weight and ISP, and Ammonia only 87.5%.

Regards,

Northstar

Also, Freethinker, you asked about LF/O mix before.

I want to make sure you correctly understand, the Thrust-increase of 200% is *RELATIVE TO HYDROGEN ALONE*.

Here are appropriate Thrust/ISP values for a LANTR fuel-mode, drawn DIRECTLY from the table on page 7 of the report you linked to:

LH₂/LOX ISP multiplier: 0.6289 (so, an ISP 62.89% of Hydrogen with a given reactor temperature and nozzle-size)

LH₂/LOX Thrust Multiplier: 3.1444 (314.44% Thrust relative to Hydrogen)

# EDIT: Initial calculations for the ISP multiplier were too low, because I divided 566/1000 instead of 566/900 to determine the relative-ISP of LANTR fuel-mode. *PLEASE* use the new value of 0.6289 above.

So, if a NTR in LH₂-mode produces a Vacuum Thrust of 1.15 kN/MW at a Vauum ISP of 1150 seconds... (this is *approximately* the correct value at a reactor temperature of 3000 K, with a Vacuum-nozzle attached, and what we have been balancing the Sethlans family of reactors to with equal-diameter Thermal Rocket Nozzles)

Then it should produce 3.62 kN/MW of Vacuum Thrust at a Vacuum ISP of 732.22 seconds when using LH₂/LOX.

Another issues to be aware of- LANTR DOES *NOT* OPERATE AT STOICHIOMETRIC RATIOS FOR LH₂/LOX COMBUSTION!

According to the first report on LANTR you linked, the fuel mass-ratio at the *HIGHEST* LOX-injection ratio (where you get a full 314.4% increase in Thrust relative to LH₂ alone) is only 1:4, *not* the 1:8 stoichiometric ratio, or the 1:6 fuel-ratio you would see with a typical Hydrolox chemical rocket engine.

Seeing this, the fuel-ratio RealFuels/KSP-I needs to be changed *SIGNIFICANTLY*. The fuel/ox ratio is stock KSP-I is currently 10:11, clearly to match the existing rocket-fuel mix, and I wouldn't recommend changing this as it will make things too difficult on new players. HOWEVER, RealFuels seeks to match real-world fuel mixtures and performance whenever possible (this is basically the entire purpose of that mod), so the current RealFuels Hydro/LOX fuel-mode ModuleManager patch needs to be changed as follows...

Here is the current code, found in the "RealFuelsFix" config now included with KSP-Interstellar Extension Config:


@BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Hydrolox]:FINAL:NEEDS[RealFuels]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    @guiName = Hydrolox
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = LqdHydrogen
        @ratio = 0.73
    }
    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.27
        @DrawGauge = False
    }
}

Now *HERE* is what the code NEEDS to be changed to:


@BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT[Hydrolox]:FINAL:NEEDS[RealFuels]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    @guiName = Hydrolox
    @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
    {
        @name = LqdHydrogen
        @ratio = 0.80
    }
    @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
    {
        @name = LqdOxygen
        @ratio = 0.20
        @DrawGauge = False
    }
}

You'll notice that the LANTR fuel-mode causes thermal rockets to now burn significantly more Hydrogen-rich. Which is GREAT for Propulsive Fluid Accumulators around Jool, but bad for the size of your spacecraft in RealFuels... (due to Hydrogen's *VERY* low fuel-density)

I'll also try and re-post this on the new thread for the KSP-Interstellar Extension Config, as we start to migrate more discussion to over there...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 21, 2015 by Northstar1989

Northstar1989 · February 21, 2015

FreeThinker,

So, a minor issue I stumbled across recently- Duna has *very* small amounts of Oxygen it its atmosphere (0.13% abundance).


ATMOSPHERIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION
{
	name = DunaOxygen
	guiName = Oxygen
	celestialBodyName = Duna
	resourceName = Oxidizer
	abundance = 0.0013
}

Yet it's not currently possible to scoop it with a Propulsive Fluid Accumulator (while simultaneously scooping Carbon Dioxide) in RealFuels, as there is no config change of Oxidizer --> LqdOxygen. Since there currently no way to obtain Oxygen directly from the CO2 resource, the ability to scoop this residual Oxygen could prove *very* important...

I suggest adding the following code to the RealFuelsFix file:


    @ATMOSPHERIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[DunaOxygen] 
    {
        resourceName = LqdOxygen
    }

Ideally this should go at the end of the current list of Atmosphere Resource Pack changes, like so:


@ATMOSPHERIC_RESOURCE_PACK_DEFINITION[InterstellarAtmosphericPack]:FINAL:NEEDS[RealFuels]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{

    @ATMOSPHERIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[KerbinOxygen]
    {
        resourceName = LqdOxygen
    }
    @ATMOSPHERIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[KerbinHydrogen]
    {
        resourceName = LqdHydrogen
    }
    @ATMOSPHERIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[JoolHydrogen]
    {
        resourceName = LqdHydrogen
    }
    @ATMOSPHERIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[LaytheOxygen] 
    {
        resourceName = LqdOxygen
    }
    @ATMOSPHERIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[DunaOxygen] 
    {
        resourceName = LqdOxygen
    }
}

Also, we need to get ISRU reactions to convert CO₂ --> O₂ eventually. The *BEST* reactions for this are:

CO₂ Electrolysis: CO₂ --> C (solid) + O₂

Reverse Water Gas Shift Reaction + Water Electrolysis: 2 CO₂ + 2 H₂ --> 2 CO + 2 H₂O --> 2 CO + 2 H₂ + O₂

In both cases, you would have a waste-product you simply dump overboard: Graphite with the CO₂ Electrolysis reaction, and Carbon Monoxide with the Reverse Water Gas Shift Reaction... ALTHOUGH, it should be mentioned that Carbon Monoxide is itself a potentially useful gas- it can be used to manufacture Kerosene via the Fischer-Tropsch Process in combination with Hydrogen, and can be combusted with Oxygen for a VERY low-ISP chemical rocket (around 180-200 seconds ISP, if my memory serves correctly) for suborbital hops around Mars/Duna...

Both ISRU reactions can *EASILY* be selectively carried out in Mars-like conditions with relatively light/compact (space-grade) refineries, and are in fact currently being developed/researched (the primary engineering challenge is in gathering CO2 from the Martian atmosphere in the first place, as it is so thin- luckily Duna's atmosphere is MUCH thicker...) for fuel-production and life-support reasons on future Mars missions...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 21, 2015 by Northstar1989

Northstar1989 · February 21, 2015

FreeThinker,

Also, I decided to go and write up some specific fixes for the ISRU refineries so that they will now have RealFuels modular fuel-tanks, which will be insulated (and solve the current boil-off issue with the tanks *not* being insulated).

This will allow players to select BEFORE launching a rocket what types of resources they want to give their ISRU refinery storage for- which is a complaint Dreadicon and some other players made to me in the past (that they couldn't customize their refinery for the usages they had planned for it). Going to Dres, for instance? No need for a Water tank- but adding lots of UF₄ storage would be nice!

The following code should also be added to the "RealFuelsFix" file:


@PART[FNRefinery]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		volume = 1750
		type = Cryogenic
	}
}
@PART[FNInlineRefinery]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		volume = 1750
		type = Cryogenic
	}
}
@PART[FNInlineRefineryLarge]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		volume = 11000
		type = Cryogenic
	}
}

The volumes for each have been *PRECISELY* determined to match the RealFuels convention of multiplying existing stock tank capacity by 5 (as the RealFuels resources are MUCH less dense, and stock parts typically only have about 1/5th the capacity they should have in liters...)

Regards,

Northstar

Northstar1989 · February 21, 2015

OK, so took a look at the performance of the Thermal Turbojets, now that we're more or less done with the Thermal Rockets. Here's what I got for a basic Runway test:

So, we get 124.8 kN of Thrust for 187.5 MW of ThermalPower at an ISP of 136.1 seconds...

That equates to 0.6656 kN/MW, which is *FAR* too low...

OK, so now let's plug this into the equations we already know to get the CORRECT Thrust/MW so we can adjust it...

First of all, we need a standard to adjust to. Luckily, we already have this: the expected vacuum behavior of the Timberwind Nuclear Thermal Rockets in vacuum. These produce a bit under 1 kN/MW (our version produces a bit more Thrust/MW in vacuum, due to having nozzles that are optimized for Vacuum usage when the same diameter as the reactor...)

Thermal Tubojets, however, unlike Thermal Rockets, get their best Thrust/MW performance at an atmospheric pressure of about 0.3 atm in KSP. Their ISP is 2500 at this altitude according to the currently-used Thermal Turbojet atmosphere-curve:


	atmosphereCurve
 	{
		key = 0 1200
		key = 0.3 2500
		key = 1 800
 	}

However at pressures of 1 atm or above, they get only 800 seconds ISP (our ISP is even lower because KSP-I then adjusts this # for reactor temperature- I have NO IDEA what reactor temperature the curve was first generated for, and I don't care enough to run the calculations necessary to find out...)

So, our Thrust/MW and ISP should theoretically be (2500/800) = 3.125 times higher at optimal atmospheric pressure, which is what we should adjust our calculations to, or else we'll end up making our TTJ's *MUCH* too powerful when attempting to buff them to realistic values to match the Thermal Rockets... (currently, they are far too weak compared to the Thermal Rockets)

That means, our OPTIMAL Thrust/MW is *CURRENTLY* 2.08 kn/MW (which is still too low for the ISP of 425.3125 seconds under optimal conditions with this reactor...) However it's worth noting the Thermal Turbojet will NEVER perform at this level because it will also lose Thrust to its VelocityCurve as it flies faster...


	velocityCurve
	{
		key = 0 1 0 0
		key = 400 0.8 0 0
		key = 800 0.9 0 0
		key = 1700 0 0 0
	}

In fact, as you can see, when traveling at 1700 m/s (just under Mach 5) with our current VelocityCurve, our Thermal Turbojet will produce NO THRUST WHATSOEVER.

Which is actually perfectly realistic- in fact this about the maximum possible speed an advanced air-breathing engine like SABRE can operate at...

Anyways, so now that I've explained the caveats and limitations of why it will be impossible to see performance this good in practice, let's see what we can't do to bring the *theoretical* optimal performance for our Thermal Turbojet (at an ambient pressure of 30.3975 kPa and an airspeed of ZERO) up to where it should be...

OK, so the first equations we need here are the following:

Thurst = Mass Flow Rate * Specific Impulse * g

E = 1/2 * m * v²

and, derived from these equations:

Isp₁/Isp₂ = SqRt (m₂/m₁)

That is, the total mass of atmosphere our Thermal Turbojet is acting on, compared to a Thermal Rocket (or Thermal Turbojet) at higher Specific Impulse will be the square-root of the ratio of the TTJ's ISP to the higher-ISP Thermal Rocket/Turbojet's ISP...

It's worth noting that unlike with a Thermal Rocket, where the Mass Flow Rate is typically increased by using a denser propellant, a Thermal Turbojet simply grabs more atmosphere with its intakes to provide additional Thrust, provided more atmosphere is available through the intakes... In this aspect, hotter nuclear reactors will allow higher-altitude flight because they can achieve the same Thrust with significantly less airflow...

Anyways, first of all, using our OPTIMAL ISP of 425.3125 seconds...

1000/425.3125 = SqRt (m₂/m₁) --> m₂/m₁ = 5.529

So, our Thermal Turbojet will have 5.529 times the Mass Flow Rate of a Timberwind NTR in vacuum. Or, approximately, a 1.25 meter Sethlans using Hydrogen in Vacuum at an ISP of 1150 seconds (since we set the extra ISP to come from higher Thrust at the same Mass Flow Rate, in keeping with the higher Vacuum ISP coming from the nozzle...) That could be useful to note for later- since it might help us confirm the Thermal Turbojet is working correctly with the new performance values we give it...

OK, now what about Thrust? We need an equation for Thrust that compares it to a NTR at 1000 seconds ISP as well...

Thrust = Mass Flow Rate * ISP * g

Thrust_TTJ/Thrust_NTR = 5.529 * (425.3125 seconds/1000 seconds) * 9.80665 = 23.0575

Note that "g" is "standard gravity"- the nominal gravitational acceleration of an object in vacuum near the surface of the Earth, and is inherently tied up in our calculation due to the convention of expressing Specific Impulse in seconds instead of as Effective Exhaust Velocity (in m/s)...

OK, so anyways, we know that our Thermal Turbojet should produce 23.0575 times the Thrust of a theoretical 187.5 MW NTR with an ISP of 1000 seconds... Which is just a 1/4th scale version of the "Timberwind 75" Nuclear Thermal Rocket (and this is why I choose to standardize performance against the "Timberwind 75" design specs as much as possible earlier in development- so we could refer back to this real/known number as much as possible for later development...)

We know the expected Vacuum Thrust for our theoretical reference Nuclear Thermal Rocket, then- 1/4th the Vacuum Thrust of the Timberwind 75, or (735.5 / 4) = 183.875 kN

So, we can calculate the expected *OPTIMAL* Thrust of our Thermal Turbojet:

23.0575 * (735.5 / 4) = 4239.70 kN

Seems rather high, doesn't it? But remember, we only get this performance under OPTIMAL conditions. How do we do at sea-level at a standstill?

(4239.7) * (800/2500) = 1356.7 kN

That's a little more reasonable (a bit over 6 times the Thrust of a comparable NTR in vacuum- which is expected, as Thermal Turbojets get *MUCH* better Thrust/MW than Thermal Rockets due to their higher Mass Flow Rate...) Note that when in flight, we'll *quickly* start to lose even more Thrust at high altitude due to the Velocity Curve, and we'll still produce ZERO Thrust at an airspeed of 1700 m/s...

Anyways, how are we doing for Thrust/MW now?

Sea-Level Performance: 7.24 kN/MW

OPTIMAL Performance: 22.61 kN/MW

Seems about right given that Thermal Turbojets are *SUPPOSED TO* get much higher Thrust/MW than Thermal Rockets...

The Thrust *is* rather high, but keep in mind that our reactor is HUGE and *EXTREMELY* POWERFUL for a Thermal Turbojet- the one designed for the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Project was a 2.5 MW reactor that operated at 1133.15 degrees Kelvin. IF it had actually been used in-flight instead of just carried up as a dummy, it could have produced 56.53 kN of Thrust at optimal conditions at the same Exhaust Velocity as our reactor here (or, more likely given the lower operating temperature, even MORE Thrust at a *lower* Exhaust Velocity) for a reactor that would have weighed less than 100 kg if it were built to the same Power/mass ratios as the Timberwind 75...

Also, remember, it's going to take some *INSANE* air-hogging to get enough Intake Area to run a Thermal Turbojet that powerful at full-thrust, even at sea-level. Forget about running in at full-thrust at high-altitude...

Back to the main topic, and sorry for the tangents... Here is a comparison between our CURRENT sea-level performance (standstill, on the runway) and the CORRECT sea-level performance:

CURRENT Sea-Level Performance: 0.6656 kN/MW

CORRECT Sea-Level Performance: 7.24 kN/MW

Which means, we need to multiply the Thrust/MW of the Thermal Turbojet parts by (7.24/0.6656) = 10.8774

Also, I saw that "MaxThrust" is currently only set too 300 kN for both the 1.25 meter and 2.5 meter Thermal Turbojets in their part confisg (although that value *MIGHT* be overwritten by KSP-Interstellar, because I'm fairly sure I've seen much higher Thrust values coming from Thermal Turbojets already...) Still, it might be necessary to up-rate the part's MaxThrust value by 10.8874 times its current value as well (to 3263 kN), if that has any actual significance, to maintain the original balance...

Summary/Conclusions:

- Thermal Turbojets currently have *MUCH* too low a Thrust/MW rating compared to realistic values, and are not as competitive with current Thermal Rockets in-game as a result (their Thrust/MW is actually currently *inferior* to a Thermal Rocket- when it should be MUCH higher due to their low Exhaust Velocity).

- Thermal Turbojets were PREVIOUSLY competitive with Thermal Rockets, but the buffs of Thermal Rockets to match real-world performance specs have made them inferior. A buff is required to match real-world performance specs and make them competitive again.

- Thermal Turbojet Thrust/MW should be multiplied by 10.8774 in order to match real-world values and return competitiveness.

- Thermal Turbojet Maximum Thrust values should probably also be up-rated by a comparable amount to retain original balance.

- Thermal Turbojets have low ISP (and thus require large amounts of Intake Air for their Thrust), operate poorly at high altitudes, and can only operate up to a MAXIMUM speed of around Mach 5- so this will *NOT* make for free ascents to orbit, *ESPECIALLY* when playing with RealSolarSystem

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 21, 2015 by Northstar1989

FreeThinker · February 21, 2015

LH₂/LOX ISP multiplier: 0.6289 (so, an ISP 62.89% of Hydrogen with a given reactor temperature and nozzle-size)
LH₂/LOX Thrust Multiplier: 3.1444 (314.44% Thrust relative to Hydrogen)

Alright, this means the trustMultiplier for 3.144* 0.6289 = 1.977 seems pretty close to Fractals original 2.2222

- - - Updated - - -

Also, there needs to be a *NEGATIVE* (less than 1) Thrust-modifier on both Water and Ammonia that *REDUCES* their EFFECTIVE ISP to 0.28 and 0.30, respectively.
Here are the appropriate Thrust modifiers to attain that:
Water: 0.900
Ammonia: 0.875

Ok I think I will add thrustMultiplier setting to EnginePropellants. This way we no longer needs a LFO modifier because it can be configured for every propellant (or mix). Could you also investigate other propellants have thrustMultiplier different form 1.

Also, arent' you mixing up Ammonia with Methane?

[TABLE=class: prettytable floatleft]
[TR]
[TH=colspan: 2]Solid Core NTR 3200Ã‚Â° K[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH=colspan: 2][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Exhaust velocity (H₂)[/TH]
[TD]8,093 m/s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Exhaust velocity (CH₄)[/TH]
[TD]6,318 m/s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Exhaust velocity (NH₃)[/TH]
[TD]5,101 m/s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Exhaust velocity (H₂O)[/TH]
[TD]4,042 m/s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Exhaust velocity (CO₂)[/TH]
[TD]3,306 m/s[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Exhaust velocity (CO or N₂)[/TH]
[TD]2,649 m/s[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Ammonia is nice because it breaks down into gases (Hydrogen and Nitrogen). Methane is nasty because it breaks down into Hydrogen and Carbon, the latter tends to clog the reactor with soot deposits. Water is most unhelpful since it doesn't break down much at all.

Edited February 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

FreeThinker · February 21, 2015

Behold the power of Atom!

A single 1.25 Partle Reactor lauches a rocket 47 ton with and 2 external LFO (Liquid Fuel + Oxidiser) tanks

Lauches in LFO mode generating 510 kN

Nearly in orbit it drops it 2 LFO it used to get in space. Now we have 3 full 2.5 Liquid Hydrogen Tanks left to travel anywhere we want!

Notice that I do no longer use the LFO multiplier, every propellant thrust can now modified with the thrustMultiplier (default to 1)

I'm starting wonder why aren't we using Nuclear Engines when they are clearly so powerful. Is it just the fear of the capital N or something else?

Edited February 22, 2015 by FreeThinker

Northstar1989 · February 21, 2015

Also, arent' you mixing up Ammonia with Methane?

Nope. Look at the Exhaust Velocity of Ammonia in that table. It's much lower than Methane, despite having a nearly-identical Molecular MAss

More thoughts to come later.

Regards,

Northstar

FreeThinker · February 21, 2015

KSP Interstellar Extended is a plugin for Kerbal Space Program, designed to encourage bootstrapping toward ever more advanced levels of technology as well as utilizing In-Situ resources to expand the reach of Kerbal civilization. KSP Interstellar Extended aims to continue in Fractals original KSPI vision in providing a realistic road to the stars. Players will first gain access to contemporary technologies that have not been widely applied to real space programs such as nuclear reactors, electrical generators and thermal rockets. By continuing down the CTT tech tree and performing more research, these parts can be upgraded and later surpassed by novel new technologies such as fusion and even antimatter power. We attempt to portray both the tremendous power of these technologies as well as their drawbacks, including the tremendous difficulty of obtaining resources like antimatter and the difficulties associated with storing it safely. The goal being to reward players who develop advanced infrastructure on other planets with new, novel and powerful technologies capable of helping Kerbals explore planets in new and exciting ways. The principal goal of KSP Interstellar is to expand Kerbal Space Program with interesting technologies and to provide a logical and compelling technological progression beginning with technologies that could have been available in the 1970s/1980s, then technologies that could be available within the next few years, progressing to technologies that may not be available for many decades, all the way out to speculative technologies that are physically reasonably but may or may not ever be realizable in practice.

This mod supports the Community Tech Tree

all licensing info can be found in second post

Current version: 1.6.8 can be Downloaded at Here

Download & Installation Instructions

step 1: remove any existing KSPI installation (GameData\WarpPlugin folder)
step 2: install TweakScale
step 3: download KSPI-E and put the GameData in your KSP Folder
step 4: (Optional but highly recommended) install KSP Filter Extensions.

For those that want to build advanced MK2 Space Planes powered by KSPI-E technology, ABZB has created MK2 KSPI Extension Mod, which requires Mk2 Expansion. More KSPI-E integration mods can be found in here

Documentation

KSPI is one of the most sophisticated mods for KSP. To help you get started, you can make use of the following resources:

KSPI-E Beginers Guide

KSPI-E Wiki (dated but mostly still relevant)

Main Features KSPI Extended includes new improvements and fixes from which the following are the key features:

Improved realism of thrust/ISP of NTR/ Plasma Thrusters in the atmosphere.
Improved realism and diversity reactors
Improved realism and diversity Propellants
Improved realism and diversity Fuel Modes for Fission, Fusion and Antimatter
Improved realism and diversity Microwave Power transmission
Improved realism and performance Propulsion Engine

KSPI-E add support fo the following mods

Reactors There are now 5 nuclear engines and 5 distinct Nuclear Reactors, and 4 types of fusion reactor, each with the own characteristic behavior, excelling in a particular way (and therefore most fit for certain applications)

- NEVERA/LATERN This is the first nuclear engine available

- Molten Salt reactors Molten are the first high electric power nuclear reactor available KSPI, they excel in reliable long lifetime electric power generation using Uranium. It has an specialised customised integrated thermal electric generator which save space and mass. Another advantage is that the heat from the reactor can be transported effectively to other modules thanks to Molten Salt transport medium. (mass exp 1.42)

- Particle Bed reactors become available a bit later than Molter Salt reactor but thanks to their significantly lower mass they are the first nuclear reactor with can provide a Trust to Weight ratio higher as 1, meaning it can be used as first stage or second stage rocket engine. Although Particle reactors are ideal for providing high thrust, when used for power generation, they suffer from heat throttling, meaning the reactor will automatically produce less heat output when heat is building up. Alhough reactor uses a transferable fuel source, due to is inefficient fuel usage, it is not suitable for long term power production

- BUMBO reacors becomes avialbe with experiment nuclear propulsion. It's essentialy as big dumb NERVA on steriods. It's one of the most powerfull reactors available, but it cannot be refueled like a Pebble Bed but it does not have any safety features which prevent it from melt down.

- Gas Core reactors excel in generating high amounts electric power with and High ISP from Thermal Nozzles. Compared to the particle Bed, thanks to their high temperature, they allow electric generator to produce more power and thermal thrusters to operate at higher ISP. Their core temperature and thermal output and temperature can be improved when using thorium, but will last not as long as Uranium.

- Dusty Plasma reactors improves over Particle Bed Reactor. When they first become available, they are less powerful as particle bed reactor, but it's the first reactor capable of generating charged particles. The generated charged particles are efficiently transported on your vessel using magnetic confinements and can be used for either Very High Isp propulsion in magnetic nozzle or directly converted into energy with Direct Conversion Power Generator.

- Magnetic Confinement Fusion (MCF) Reactor start to become a avaialble with Fusion Power. The reactor are Big and Bulky and require a fixed amount of power to operate. The Amount of power required depends on the type of fusion reaction and unlocked fusion technology. MCF r is most suitable for high efficient power production or High Isp propulsion

- Fusion reactors excel in High Isp in both thermal nozzles as magnetic nozzles.

- AIM reactors produce slight less power than Fusion but the make up for it being only half in weight of Fusion Reactors and don't require external power to start

- Antimatter reactors heavy, expensive, but incredible powerful, the only real problem is collecting significant amount of Antimatter. They produce up to 80% Charged Particles which can be used by magnetic nozzle to create a large amount thrust an high Isp [TABLE=class: grid, width: 1400]

**Reactors**
Reactor Family (2.5m)	Reactor Cost	Unlock Technology	Primary Upgrade Technology	Secondary Upgrade Technology	Core Temp. (Kelvin)	thermal ISP (s)	Max Power (GW)	thrust thermal (kN)	Empty Mass (t)	Max Fuel mass (t)	Build In Nozzle	Base Power Req (MW)	Thermal Propulsion Efficiency	Thermal Power Efficiency	Charged Power Efficiency	Heat Trans Effic	Min Util.	Leaks Product	Fuel can be pumped	Magnetic Nozzle Efficiency / ISP (s)	Special	Electric Power (KW)	Tritium Breeding
Nuclear Candle	5,000	Nuclear Propulsion	Nuclear Power	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	1730 2076 2491	873.66	0.0100 0.0150 0.0225	2.33	0.15	0.05	thermal		100%	0%		10%	100%	no	no	no	0.625m Build In Radiator	50	no
Nuclear Turbojet	10,000	Nuclear Propulsion	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	Efficient Nuclear Propulsion	1764 / 2000 / 2267	882 / 900s 1000s	0.400 0.600 0.900	102 / 136 / 171	6	0.03	thermal		100%	n.a		n.a	0.1%	no	no	no		50+50	no
Nuclear Ramjet	15,000	Nuclear Propulsion	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	Efficient Nuclear Propulsion	1764 / 2000 / 2267	882 / 900s 1000s	0.600 0.900 1.350	102 / 136 / 171	8	0.03	thermal		100%	80% (1)		80%	0.1%	no	no	no	Build In Air intake	50	no
NERVA/ LATERN / CERMENT	25,000	Nuclear Propulsion	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	Efficient Nuclear Propulsion	2123.64 2229.82 2341.31	967.742 991.64 1016.13	1.33 / 2.00 / 3.00	267.64 / 369.37 509.79	12	0.1	thermal		100%	80% (1)		80%	0.1%	no	no	no	Oxygen Afterburner	80+80	no
Molten Salt	50,000	Nuclear Power	Nuclear Fuel Systems	Improved Nuclear Power	1100.0 1555.6 2200.0	696.49s 828.26s 984.99s	0.500 0.866 1.500	147 / 174 / 206	8	2	none		100%	100%		95%	10%	no	partially	no	Recycling with Lab	Built In ThermalGenerator	yes
Pebble Bed	100,000	Improved Nuclear Power	High Energy Nuclear Power		1451 / 2000 / 2800	800s / 939s 1111s	4.0 / 6.0	1020 / 1302 / 1823	6	1	none	100%	100%		80%	4%	no	yes	no	Heat Throttling		50
DUMBO	150,000	Experimental Nuclear Propulsion	Exotic Nuclear Propulsion		1600 / 2500	840s / 1050s	8.5 / 12	1137 1760 / 2719	12	0.37	none		100%	80% (1)		60%	0.1%	yes	no	no			no
Nuclear Lightbulb	200,000	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	High Efficient Nuclear Propulsion	Experimental Nuclear Propulsion	7890 / 9862.5 / 12328 /	1865.34 2085.51 2331.66	3.375 4.375 5.671	368.00 427.83 496.03	16	0.1	thermal		100%	40% (1)	n.a.	n.a.	2%	no	yes	no		50 + 50	no
Open Cycle Gas Core	300,000	Experimental Nuclear Propulsion	Exotic Nuclear Propulsion		25000 / 50000	3320 / 4696	2.00 / 4.00	154.62 / 247.39	4	0.04	none	20 MW (*)	100%	30% (1)		90%	20%	yes	yes	no	Buoyancy effects		no
Dusty Plasma Bed	400,000	Experimental Nuclear Propulsion	Exotic Nuclear Propulsion		4100	1344s	2.00 / 4.00		9	0,065	none	40 MW (*)	60%	60% (2)	46%	80%	40%	yes	yes	45% 52700 - 527000			yes
Open Field Magnetic Confinement	(*) 600,000	Fusion	Advanced Fusion	Exotic Fusion	n.a.	3500s - 35000s	5.0 / 10.0 / 20.0		20		magnetic	500 MW	n.a	100%	n.a	n.a.	0%	yes		80% 6,509 - 35.000	3.75m size Variable propellants		yes
Closed Field Magnetic Confinement	800,000	Fusion	Advanced Fusion	Exotic Fusion	7000 / 10500 / 15750	1757s / 2152s / 2635s	4.0 / 6.0 / 9.0		12		none	400.0 / 266.6 / 177.7	60%	100%	100%	80%	0%	no	yes	60% 15.000 - 1.500.000	3.75m size Fuel Recycling		yes
Magneto Inertial Fusion	1,000,000	Advanced Fusion	Exotic Fusion Reactions	Unified Field Theory	60000	5140s	4 / 8 / 16		6		none	4MW - 40 MW	100%	30%.	none	0%	0%	yes	yes	20%	Lithium propellent required		50%
VISTA	1.200,000	Fusion Rockets	Advanced Fusion	Exotic Fusion Reactions	n.a.	n.a.	114 / 228 / 456	15-75(5) 30-300(10) 60-1200(20)	12		magnetic	125-625 125-1250 125-2500	n.a.	n.a.	none	n.a	0%	yes	yes	15.500 - 27.200	Kills Nearby Kerbals		no
Antimatter Initiated Microfusion	1,500,000	Exotic Fusion Reactions	Antimatter Power	Unified Field Theory	n.a.	n.a	8 / 12 / 18		6		none		n.a.	n.a.		n.a	0%	yes	yes	13.500s - 61.000	95% Charged Particles		no
AntiMatter	3,000,000	Antimatter Power	Ultra High Energy Physics	Unified Field Theory	180000	8909s	46.875 / 75.0 / 120		16		none		100%	100%		80%	0%	yes	yes	yes	Total fuel Annihilation		no

(1) requires Improved Nuclear Power (2) requires Fusion Power (3) requires Fusion Rocketry (*) Not implemented

Reactor Family - This field describes the technology behind the reactor. The technologies used in KSPI are based closely on real life reactors or scientific theories. You can use regular Wiki/Google searches to find out more about the real life counterparts.

Unlock Technology/Upgrade Technologies - Reactors are high tech equipment that is not available to Kerbals right away and must be unlocked through the tech tree. Reactors also have the ability to be upgraded to provide increased capabilities when the prerequisite upgrade technologies are researched. The numbers in the Core Temp, max ISP thermal, max Power, and thermal thrust show the base values as well as the upgraded values split by a '/'. For example the Molten Salt produces .612 GW of power when it is first unlocked but after researching the technology 'Nuclear Fuel Systems' the output increases to .856 GW of power.

Reactor Cost - This is the cost of the reactor at the 2.5 M size, the cost of the reactor can also be greatly impacted by the cost of the fuel the reactor uses. Fuels like Uranium can actually be more expensive than the reactor itself! Due to the complex nature of reactors, smaller sized reactors can have the same cost as larger reactors, cost and performance are not necessarily related.

Core Temperature (Kelvin) - This is operating temperature of the reactor. Reactors with a higher core temperature typically allow for higher ISP (Specific Impulse) values than cooler reactors which can be seen by comparing the Molten Salt and Gas Core reactors. A higher temperature reactor also plays a factor in the fuel selection process since higher core temperatures allow fuels to go through a thermal decomposition process which provides more thrust for a given fuel. The power output of the Dusty Plasma and Pebble Bed reactors is dependent on the core temperature of the reactor, as the temperature increases the power output will also decrease. These reactors are also passively safe since their power output will decrease with increased core temperatures, but as a side effect they are not very good at producing electric power since all WasteHeat needs to be expelled from the vessel using radiators.

Max ISP thermal - This describes the reactors maximum ISP it is based directly on core temperature. As the core temperature increases through new reactor technology or fuel modes, the ISP will also increase. Fuel selection and Reactor technology also play a major role in the ISP of a propulsion system.

Max Power (GW) - This describes the maximum power output in terms of heat generated. The heat is used by KSPI systems to generate thrust or power. Also note that it is affected by Reactor Technology upgrades.

Thermal Thrust(GW) - The thermal thrust is the maximum amount of thrust a reactor can generate when combined with a thermal engine. The engines section shows the method in which it uses to generate thrust and engines with the 'Thermal' identifier use this value. Thrust has a direct correlation with Isp and Power, In general, the higher the isp, the lower the thrust.

Empty Mass (t) - This is the mass or weight of the reactor when no fuel is present.

Max Fuel mass (t) - This describes the maximum amount of fuel that can be held in the reactor in terms of weight. For Molten Salt reactors this also determines how fast the reactor will become poisoned by Anticides. Even though only a fraction of the nuclear fuel is used, it can become effectively useless due to Anticides buildup which prevent Fission from happening.

Base Power Req - This value describes the amount of energy required to start and maintain a fusion reaction. This only applies to fusion based reactors. More advanced fusion reactions require increased amounts of power to start and sustain the reaction. Note that the amount of required power can be higher than the amount of produced power if you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have sufficient electric generators (both Thermal and Direct energy converters). This is covered in more detail in the reactor fuel section. Electric Energy technology or Wasteheat processing reduces the need for thermoelectric power generators.

Thermal Propulsion Efficiency - The thermal efficiency determines how efficient a thermal reactor is at converting energy into thrust. Lower values here will mean the reactor will produce less thrust for its provided power (GW).

Thermal Power Efficiency - This value describes how efficiently a power generator uses the provided power (GW). Lower values indicate a less efficient conversion and increased WasteHeat production.

Heat Transfer Effectiveness - This is the efficiency of heat transfer from a reactor to other parts. Some reactors are much more efficient at transferring heat due to the type of reaction materials used. This is relevant for engines which are not required to be connected directly to the Reactor. For every part the energy has to pass through some efficiency is lost. The final efficiency penalty is simply the sum of all parts (except the first one) it passes through. An exception to this is the non-androgynous docking port, which are optimized for thermal transfer.

Minimum Utilization - The minimum utilization shows the lowest operating state for a reactor. If the reactor shows 10% minimum utilization then it can provide anywhere from 10% to 100% of the reactors output scaling depending on requested power.

Leaks Product - [Feature not yet implemented] If a reactor shows that it leaks product, then the products of the resulting nuclear cannot be recovered and is said to be leaking. You will see a decreased mass of the reactor products over time.

Fuel can be pumped - This explains if reactor fuel can be transferred from other parts of the ship while the reactor is operating.

Can use Magnetic Nozzle - This explains if the reactor is capable of producing charged particles. Charged particles are a product of some types of nuclear reactions and can be used as propellant to provide thrust when paired with a magnetic nozzle. The highly energetic charged particles can also be efficiently converted into electrical power user direct energy converter. Note that charged particles propulsion provide very high Isp and an often overlooked advantage is that the Magnetic Nozzles reduces WasteHeat and that charged particles can be transferred throughout the vessel without loss (except for 1% power cost).

Heat Throttling - The heat throttling of a reactor simply means that when the reactor temperature increases the power output decreases. Additional radiators can be used to offset the loss of power due to increased reactor core temperature. Thermal and Magnetic nozzles also reduce WasteHeat buildup, allowing heat throttled reactors to perform at maximum capacity.

Buoyancy Effects - This describes the reactors ability to provide thrust while under acceleration. The reactor buoyancy effect will decrease the power output when the reactor is subjected to G-forces.

Tritium Breeding - This is a process that allows the reactor to produce Tritium which is used in a fusion reactor. Tritium breeding requires a compatible reactor as well as a supply of Lithium and a tank to store the Tritium which is created from the free neutrons. Tritium is the 3rd most valuable fuel in KSPI and is one of the required fuels to power the Vista Engine. Tritium will decay into Helium 3, which is the second most valuable resource in KSPI and can be used for efficient aneutronic Fusion.

Reactor Fuel Modes This is an overview off all fuel modes and there effects on performance

**Reactor Fuel Modes**
Fuel Mode	Type	Reactors	Tech Requirement	Requires Science Lab	Core Temp Modifier	Power Multiplier	Fuel Efficiency	Power Requirement Multiplier	Fuel	Products	Charged Particles Ratio	Brems-strahlung	Neutron Energy Ratio
Uranium Oxide	Fission	NERVA / JUMBO	Nuclear Propulsion	no	100%	1	85%	n.a.	EnrichedUranium	DepletedUranium **	0	n.a	2%
Uranium Hexafloride	Fission	Molten Salt / Gas Core	Nuclear Power	no	100%	1	15%	n.a.	UF6	DepletedFuel	0	n.a	2%
Uranium Fuel Cycle **	Fission	Molten Salt	Nuclear Fuel Systems	yes	80%	0.8	80%	n.a.	UF6	80%DepletedFuel + 10%Plutonium 10%DepletedUranium	0	n.a	2%
MOX Plutonium Burnup **	Fission	Molten Salt	Nuclear Fuel Systems	yes	115%	0.9%	30%	n.a.	7%Plutonium+ 93%Anticides	DepletedFuel	0	n.a	1%
Thorium	Fission	Molten Salt	Nuclear Power	no	138%	1.38	15%	n.a.	ThoriumTetraflouride	Anticides	0	n.a	2%
Thorium Fuel Cycle **	Fission	Molten Salt	Nuclear Fuel Systems	yes	69%	0.69	99%	n.a.	ThoriumTetraflouride + Anticides	96%DepletedFuel + 2%Anticides + 2%Plutonium	0	n.a	2%
Uranium Nitride Pellet	Fission	Pebble Bed	Nuclear Fuel Systems	no	100%	n.a.	5%	n.a.	UraniumNitride	DepletedFuel	0	n.a	2%
Uranium Nitride Nanoparticle	Fission	Dusty Plasma	High Energy Nuclear Power	no	100%	n.a.	97%	n.a.	UraniumNitride	DepletedFuel	83.5% * 0.46	n.a	2%
D-T Fusion	Fusion	MCF / ICF *	Fusion	no	100%	1	99%	1x	LqdDeteurium + LqdTritium	Helium4	20%	n.a	80%
D-He3 Fusion	Fusion	MCF / ICF *	Fusion **	no	141%	1.04	97%	2.000x	LqdDeteurium + LqdHe3	Helium4 + Hydrogen	95%	15.9%	5%
p-B11 Fusion	Fusion	MCF / ICF *	Advanced Fusion	no	186%	0.494	70%	3.46	Hexaborane	Helium4 + Hydrogen	99.9%	63.7%	0.1%
T-T Fusion	Fusion	MCF / ICF *	Advanced Fusion	no	200%	0.642	95%	4x	LqdTritium	Helium4	20%	25%	80%
D-D Fusion	Fusion	MCF / ICF *	Advanced Fusion	no	211%	0.717	95%	4.472x	LqdDeteurium	Helium4	41.8%	25%	66%
Helium3 Catalyzed D-D Fusion	Fusion	MCF *	Advanced Fusion	yes	211%	0.693	95%	4.472x	LqdDeteurium	Helium4 + Tritium	49%	25%	46.2%
Tritium Catalyzed D-D Fusion	Fusion	MCF *	Advanced Fusion	yes	211%	0.610	95%	4.472x	LqdDeteurium	Helium4 + Helium3	29%	25%	94.5%
D-Li6 Fusion	Fusion	MCF / ICF *	Exotic Fusion Reactions	no	224%	1.27	60%	5.66	LqdDeteurium + Lithium	Helium4	90%	82.6%	10%
p-Li6 Fusion	Fusion	MCF *	Exotic Fusion Reactions	yes	238%	0.227	60%	5	LqdHydrogen + Lithium	Helium4 + Helium3	99.9%	82.6%	0.1%
He3-He3 Fusion	Fusion	MCF / ICF *	Exotic Fusion Reactions	no	265%	0.73	80%	6.3x	LqdHe3	Helium4 + Hydrogen	100%	40.8%	0%
p-D Fusion **	Fusion	MCF	Unified Field Theory	yes	283%	0.31	50%	8x	LqdHydrogen + LqdDeteurium	Helium3	0%	0%	0%
p-N15 Fusion **	Fusion	MCF	Unified Field Theory	yes	300%	0.284	99%	9	LqdHydrogen + LqdNitrogen	Helium4 + Carbon	100%	0%	0%
Microfusion	Fussion-Fision Hybid	AIM	Exotic Fusion Reactions	n.a.	100%	1	97%	n.a.	Deuterium & LqdHe3 UraniumNitride & AntiMatter	Helium4 + Hydrogen + DepletedFuel	95%	15.9%	5%
AntiMatter	AntiMatter	Antimatter	Antimatter Power	n.a.	100%	1	22%	n.a.	AntiMatter	none	80%		0%

* MCF = magnetic confinement Fusion, ICF = Inertial Confinement Fusion ** not implemented yet.

Type - This field describes the technology behind the engine. The technologies used in KSPI are based closely on real life engines or scientific theories. Note the distinction between Thermal and Magnetic. Thermal engines have limited Isp but benefit from thermal decomposition, giving it extra thrust and improved Isp. Magnetic engines first need to Ionize the propellant. Some engines like the Vasimr and Atilla engine use a combination of the 2 techniques.

Method- This describes the engine's power input used to generate thrust. Engines can use Thermal (GW) power from a reactor, magnetic types use charged particles, quantum vacuum uses the vacuum of space to produce thrust and Fusion uses an internal fusion reaction to produce thrust.

ISP (LqdHydrogen)- This section shows the ISP (fuel efficiency) an engine produces when using LqdHydrogen as the propellant. Different types of propellants can provide different thrust values in an engine which is covered in more detail the Propellants section. Efficiency - The efficiency of an engine is how much of the thermal power (GW) is used to produce thrust and the remainder is expunged as Waste Heat. A low efficiency engine may require additional radiators to radiate the heat into the surrounding environment. The efficiency of electric engines is highly dependant on the efficiency of the propellant used.

Variable ISP - In KSPI some engines can have a variable ISP when operating. The ISP of an engine decreases as it produces more thrust. Higher thrust values also decrease the energy conversion efficiency.

Gimbal - This describes if the engine has gimbal capability. Gimbaled engines can use thrust vectoring to control the attitude of a vessel. Note that RCS engines do not gimbal but are linked with KSP RCS system.

Functions in Atmosphere - This is another self-describing value which explains if the engine can produce thrust when in an Atmosphere. Some engines rely on the vacuum of space or other methods to produce thrust and cannot be used in an Atmospheric environment. Many of the thrusters in KSPI are affected by static pressure. Which means the engine has to overcome the pressure of the atmosphere before producing usable thrust. Static pressure can be overcome by using a higher thrust propellant or by using a smaller nozzle.

Propellant- The propellant section explains which propellants are compatible with a given engine. Note that some engines can be upgraded to allow for additional propellants than is initially unlocked.

Electric Power Need - This section explains if Electrical Power (measured in MegaJoules) is required for the engine to operate. Engines can require partial or full electric power, as well as mixed types that also use charged particles. Some engines like the RistoJet RCS, will switch to unpowered mode when insufficient power is available. These engines can therefore be used without KSPI reactors.

Special- The special column covers any extra information about an engine that does not fit into a specific category on the chart.

Thermal Thrust Bonus - This describes an engines ability to produce extra thrust depending on the propellant used. The temperature of the thermal engine also plays a factor on the thermal thrust bonus when factoring in thermal decomposition of a fuel. (More below in the Propellants section)

WasteHeat effect- This explains how much Waste Heat is generated when firing a particular engine. Engines can both consume WasteHeat as well as produce WasteHeat depending on the engine technology used.

Operating cost - This gives a general overview of the operating cost of running a engine. Electric engines are more expensive than thermal engines, since thermal engines have require less radiators. Vista Engines are very expensive to operate due to their high rate of consumption of Tritium.

Generators Generators are electricity production parts in the KSPI mod. Generators come in 2 different types and function differently. Generators in KSPI generate both electric charge and MegaJoules. Generators must be directly connected to a reactor to generate electricity and can only use power from one reactorGenerator at a time. Radiators are required by the Generator to expel WasteHeat and will not function without them.

Thermal Generators - These generators convert thermal power from a reactor into electrical power and waste heat. Their efficiency determines what percentage of that thermal power is converted into electricity. The rest becomes waste heat. Typical thermal generators in space use closed cycleBrayton gas turbines. For traditional molten salt-based fission reactors, this type of generator gives a maximum theoretical efficiency of 31%. Upgrading the electric generators changes them from Brayton Cycle Turbines to a KTEC Solid State Generator heat engine with no moving parts - this ups the theoretical efficiency to 60%!
Charged Particle Generators - This type of generator produces power directly from the use of charged particles which are created in great quantities by fusion reactors. Charged particle generators have much higher efficiencies than their thermal counterparts. These generators will produce varying amounts of power depending on the reactor and fuel modes used

The Thermal Generator and Charged Particle generators can both be used at the same time on reactors that produce both charged particles and thermal power. This maximizes power potential and lower your utilization and therefore minimise WasteHeat production and reactor fuel consumption.

Radiators Radiators are used in KSPI to expel excess WasteHeat from a vessel. WasteHeat is produced by reactors, generators, microwave receivers and solar panels and will build up over time. Once WasteHeat builds up in a vessel to 95% capacity than reactors, solar panels and microwave receivers will automatically power down. If WasteHeat is allowed to reach 100% then the parts may start being destroyed from too much heat. Non retractable solar panels are exempt from the WasteHeat mechanic. The Thermal Helper addon included with the KSPI installation can be used to estimate a reactorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s WasteHeat output. The values in the addon will dynamically update depending on the connected components. The Thermal helper is only accessible from the VAB/SPH.

**Radiators**
Name	Unlocking Technology	Foldable	Mass	Resize Scaling Factor	Radiator Area	Temperature	Special
Inline Radiator				3			Build in Reaction Reaction Wheel
Small Flat Radiator	Heat Management Systems	no		2		1600 / 3500	Physicsless
Foldable Heat Radiator	Heat Management Systems	yes	0.8	2.25	400 / 680	1600 / 3500	Contains Folding automation technology
Large Flat Radiator	Specialized Heat Management	no		2		1600 / 3500	Can be used for landing stability

Availability KSPI parts and upgrades with CTT technodes:

Nuclear Power: small Molten Salt reactor

Large Scale Nuclear Power:
small and large upgraded Molten Salt reactors (upgraded)

small Particle reactors (0.625m, 1.25m, 1.875m) and large Particle reactors (2.5m, 3.25m)

[*]Improved Nuclear Propulsion:

Thermal Rocket Nozzles (all sizes)

Thermal TurboJets (all sizes)

[*]High Energy Nuclear Power:

Gas Core reactor and Dusty Plasma reactors and

Molten Salt and Particle reactors----> Mk2 Molten Salt / Particle reactors

[*]Advanced Nuclear Propulsion:

Magnetic nozzles

Thermal TurboJets ----> hybrid thermal rockets

[*]Fusion Power: Dusty Plasma / Gas Core Reactor --> Upgraded Dusty Plasma

[*]Meta Materials: All Radiators: Mo Li Heat Pipe ----> Graphene Radiator

[*]Ultra High Energy Physics: Antimatter reactor --> Upgraded Anti Matter Reactor

[*]Exotic Reactions: Tokama Fusion Reactor -> Upgraded Tokama Fusion Reactor


Propellant	Unlock Technology	Chemical	Thermal ISP multiplier	EngineThrust Multiplier	Thermal Decomposition	Full Decomposition Energy	Soot Effect	Toxic	Thermal / Electric Propellant	Average Density	ISRU
Liquid Hydrogen	Nuclear Propulsion	H2	1	1			-0.01		Both	--	++
Methane	Efficient Nuclear Propulsion	CH4	0.3503 - 0.78	1 - 1.6	1000K - 3200K	19.895	0.25		Both	+	+/-
Hydrazine	Experimental Nuclear Propulsion	N2H4	0.744	1.4			-0.01	yes	Both	++	-
Helium	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	He	0.7	1			0		Electric	-	+
LiquidFuel	Nuclear Propulsion	?	0.744	1			0 *		Both	++	--
Ammonia	Efficient Nuclear Propulsion	NH3	0.63	1.4			-0.01		Both	+	-
Hydogen - Fluorine *	Exotic Nuclear Propulsion	H2 + F2	0.7	2.2			0		Thermal afterburner	+/-	-
Hydrolox (Hydrogen + Oxygen)	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	H2 + 02	0.63	2			-0.01		Thermal afterburner	--	+/-
Methalox (Methane + Oxygen)	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	CH4 + 02	0.25 - 0.55 ?	1 - 2	1000K - 3200K ?	19.895 ?	0.1		Thermal afterburner	+	+
LOX (Liquid Fuel + Oxidizer)	Improved Nuclear Propulsion		0.417	1			0		Thermal afterburner	++	++
Water	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	H2O	0.3333 - 0.4714	1.2071	2000K - 4200K	2.574	-2.5		Both	++	+
Kerosine	Improved Nuclear Propulsion		0.21888 - 0.42477	1.459	1000K - 3200K	12.305	0.4		Both	+	++
Liquid Carbondioxide	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	CO2	0.2132 - 0.4085	1.459	3200K - 7000K	12.305	-2.5 - 0.33		Both	+/-	+/-
Liquid CarbonMonoxide	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	CO	0.3273 - ?	?	4000K - 10000K	6.1525	0.5		Both	+/-	-
Liquid Nitrogen	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	N2	0.3273				-0.01		Both	++	+/-

* Not implemented

ISRU scoop: KSPI offers the ability to scoop gas directly from the atmosphere (or just above it) into resources which can be used for propulsion or ISRU refinery processes. The rate at which you can collect depends on the density and abundance of a gas. Note that you can also collect resource just above the atmosphere and that light gasses as Hydrogen and Helium gradually become more abundant the higher you get

**ISRU scoop**
Planet/Mun	Ar	CO2	N2	H20	02	NH3	CH4	He	He3	H2	D	Ne
Eve	1%	62%	37%
Kerbin	1%	0.035	78%	2%	21%		0.002	0.005		0.0005		0.018
Duna	1.7%	96%			1.3%
Acleptus	1.5%	48%	39%	1%	10.5%
Jool						0.2%	0.3%	9.7%	0.0137%	89.8%	0.000137%
Laythe		0.6%	79.4%	2%	18.6%
Sarnus				0.1%		0.012%	0.4%	3%	0.03%	96%
Ulrum								15%	0.15%
Neidon								13%	0.13%	85%

ISRU Refinery: The ISRU Refinery allows you to process resources into other resources

**ISRU Refinery**
Process	Required Resources	Resource Products	*Tech Level ()**
Ammonia Electrolysis	LqdAmmonia	LqdHydrogen + LqdNitrogen	1
Water electrolysis	Water	LqdHydrogen + LqdOxygen	1
CO2 Electrolysis	LqdCO	LqdCO + LqdOxygen	1
*Methane Pyrolysis ()**	Methane	LqdHydrogen + Carbon	1
Water Gas Shift	Water + LqdCO	LqdHydrogen + LqdCO2	2
Reverse Water Gas Shift	LqdHydrogen + LqdCO2	Water + LqdCO	2
Sabatier Process	LqdHydrogen + LqdCO2	Methane + LqdOxygen	2
Antraquinonene Process	LqdHydroden + LqdOxygen	HTP (Hydrogen Peroxide)	2
Haber Proces	LqdHydrogen + LqdNitrogen	LqdAmmonia	3
Peroxide Process	LqdAmmonia + HTP	Hydraine + LqdOxygen	3

(*) not implmentented yet

**Interstella Fuel Tanks**
Title	Technology	Volume (Liter)	Bonus	Mass (mT)	Boiloff Exposure	Power Req (kW)	Breaking Force	Special
IFT X48	High Performance Fuel Systems	48000	15%	6	28000	70	250
IFT X24	High Performance Fuel Systems	24000	12%	3	16000	45	250
IFT X16	Advanced Fuel Systems	16000	8%	2	14000	35	200
IFT X12	High Performance Fuel Systems	12000		1.5	10000	25	200	NoseCone
IFT X8	Advanced Fuel Systems	8000	5%	1	8000	20	200
IFT X10	Large Volume Containment	11000		0.8	8000	20	50	Radial
IFT X2	High Performance Fuel Systems	2000		0.25	2000	5	190

space

RCS: From left to right: Corner ResistoJet RCS, 5 way ResistoJet RCS , Retractable 5 way Resitojet RCS , Retractable 5 way Resitojet RCS (Curved), Linear Arjcet RCS, Arcjet RCS Tank

Engines:

Interstellar offers 11 different type of engines, each with their own advantages and disadvantages.

Thermal Nozzle is the first engine available. They directly use the thermal heat generated by the reactor to heat-up propellant. The Advantage is that this is very efficient, as minimum amount of power is lost, and many propellants can be used. The disadvantage is that Isp, which is lower than other form of propulsion, it dependent and the core temperature of the reactor and used propellant. On the plus side many propellants can be used and thermal nozzles benefits for the energy released by decomposition when propellant are subjected to high temperature. This means propellant like Ammonia and Hydrazine give a significant bonus to thrust and Isp. Although it offers you you to use many resources as an propellant, it might be wise to avoid propellant that contain carbon, as they tend to to produce clog the heat eachanges with soot, which lowers your maximum thrust and causing overheating. For optimal efficiency, connect a thermal nozzle directly to an reactor, but if desired you can put other parts between the thermal nozzle and reactor at the cost of lower efficiency.

Thermal Turbojet becomes available at the same time as thermal nozzle. Their advantage is that they allow high amount of propulsion, without any propellant, that is they use the air as an propellant. This means you can save a lot of mass on propellant. The downside is that it only function inside an atmosphere, on the plus side, this includes any atmosphere, even those without any oxygen. Do note that in order to travel fast though the atmosphere, you need precoolers to cool the compressed air to a temperature that prevent the turbojet from overheating.

Arcjet are the first electric engines offered by Interstellar. Instead of thermal heat, they use electric power to heat a propellant to high temperature. The advantage is that you can use any non oxidizing propellants and enjoy the same decomposition propulsion bonus. One of the big disadvantage is that electric propulsion is less efficient as a lot of power is lost by converting the power into electric power and then convert into heat again. This is compensated by its ability control it's trust at the cost of Isp and the ability to use multiple reactors to power the same set of engines. Arjcets can be connected any where on you vessel, just make sure it is fed with desired propellant, and the reactor has access to radiator to lose its waste heat. [TABLE=class: grid, width: 1600]

**Engines**
Type	Technology	Method	ISP (LqdHydrogen)	Efficiency	Variable ISP	Gimbal manouverability	Functions in Atmosphere	Functions in Vacuum	Propellant	Electric Power Need	Jet Engine	Special	Thermal Thrust Bonus	Wasteheat effect	Operating Cost
Nuclear Turbojet	Nuclear Propulsion	Thermal	203s 2000s	125%	no	very high	full	no	Atmospheric Air	none	Turbojet	build in precooler & build in reactor	no	Consumes	very low
Nuclear Ramjet	Nuclear Propulsion	Thermal	203s 2000s	125%	no	high	full	no	Atmospheric Air	none	Ramjet	build in precooler and air intake	no	Consumes	very low
Thermal Launch Nozzle	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	Thermal	813s- 8000s	100%	no	high	partial	yes	any NTR propellant + Oxygen as afterburner	none		Can overheat when clogged	full	Consumes	low
Thermal Ramjet Nozzle	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	Thermal	813s- 8000s	100%	no	average	partial	yes and includes ramjet mode		none	Ramjet	Can overheat when clogged	full	Consumes	low
Thermal Turbojet	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	Thermal	813s- 8000s	100%	no	high	partial with propellant thermal, full in jet mode	yes	Atmospheric Air or NTR propellant	none	Turbojet	Can overheat when clogged	full	Consumes	very low
5 way Resistojet RCS	Ion Propulsion	Thermal	272s (cold) / 544s (heated)	80%	partial	RCS	partial	yes	Any propellant	partial		Cannot use oxidizing propellants	full	High	low
*VTOL Resistojet ()**	Ion Propulsion	Thermal	1000s	80%	no	high	yes	yes	Any propellant	yes		Cannot use oxidizing propellants	full	Low	average
Linear Arcjet RCS	Advanced Ion Propulsion	Thermal	272s (cold) / 2000s (heated)	52%	no	RCS	partial	yes	Any propellant	partial		Cannot use oxidizing propellants	full	High	average
ATILA	Advanced Ion Propulsion	Magnetic/ Thermal	2854s - 5704s (*)	50-80%	yes	average	partial	yes	Any propellant	yes		Cannot use oxidizing propellants	partial	Average	average
MPD	Plasma Propulsion	Magnetic	11213s	ionisation efficency	no	average	partial	yes	Any propellant	yes		Efficency depend on propellant	no	Average	average
VASMIR	Advanced Electromagnetic Systems	Magnetic / Thermal	2956s - 29,969s	30-60%	yes	low	partial	yes	Any gas/ liquid propellant	yes		Efficency depend on Isp	partial	High	average
Quantum Vacuum Thruster	Specialized Plasma Generation	Quantum Vacuum	not applicable	10%	no	low	yes	yes	vacuum plasma from nothing	yes		reactionless propulsion	no	Very High	high
Magnetic Nozzle	Efficient Nuclear Propulsion	Charged Particles/ Magnetic	12.000 - 1.200.000	100%	yes	none	no	yes	LqdHydrogen + Charged Particles	low, 1% charged power		Requires charged particles	no	Consumes	average
VISTA	Fusion Rocketry	Fusion	15.500 - 27.200	> 10000%	limited	low	no	yes	LqdHydrogen + LqdDeuterium + LqdTritium	up to 2.5 GW		Deadly radiation and Safety Features	n.a.	Extreme	very high
*DEADLUS ICFE drive ()**	Advanced Fusion	Fusion	1.000.000	> 10000%	none	none	no	yes	LqdDeuterium + LqdHelium3	up to 5 GW		Aneutronic	n.a.	high	extreme

(*) not yet implemented

Note that do not consider myself the person that have to determine the future of KSPI, it's just that nobody else seems to want to do it. I would be more than happy to share that responsibility. Anyone that actively want to develop KSPI is free to do it. It would appreciate it as it would allow me to focus more on advanced features I have ideas about. Also notice I haven't had the time yet to play a serious KSP 1.0 campaign yet. But now my hands are full just making KSPI-E functional again. I think KSPI could develop into something much better. The simply truth is, KSPI is too big for a single developer. I don't have the time nor the skills to implement everything that it deserves. I'm especially frustrated about the lack of artist support. Many of KSPI models and effects look dated and ugly compared to more resent mods. There have been some artist and programmers offering their help but they often go AWOL after a short time. I'm not sure If I can keep it up myself indefinably. I would prefer to create a team of developers that works on KSPI together. I guess that's the only way to ensure KSPI Future

Edited February 24, 2016 by FreeThinker

FreeThinker · February 21, 2015

Reactor Family (2.5m)	Reactor Cost	Unlock Technology	Primary Upgrade Technology	Secondary Upgrade Technology	Third Upgrade Technology	Core Temp. (Kelvin)	thermal ISP (s)	Max Power (GW)	thrust thermal (kN)	Empty Mass (t)	Max Fuel mass (t)	Build In Nozzle	Base Power Req (MW)	Thermal Propulsion Efficiency	Thermal Power Efficiency	Charged Power Efficiency	Heat Trans Effic	Min Util.	Leaks Product	Fuel transfer and Efficency	Magnetic Nozzle Efficiency / ISP (s)	Special	Electric Power (KW)	Tritium Breeding
Reactors
Nuclear Candle	5,000	Nuclear Propulsion	Nuclear Power	Improved Nuclear Propulsion		1730 2076 2491	873.66	0.0100 0.0150 0.0225	2.33	0.15 t	0.05	thermal		100%	0%		10%	100%	no	no	no	0.625m Build In Radiator	50	no
Nuclear Turbojet	10,000	Nuclear Propulsion	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	Efficient Nuclear Propulsion		1764 / 2000 / 2267	882 / 900s 1000s	0.400 0.600 0.900	102 / 136 / 171	6 t	0.03	thermal		100%	n.a		n.a	0.1%	no	no	no		50+50	no
Nuclear Ramjet	15,000	Nuclear Propulsion	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	Efficient Nuclear Propulsion		1764 / 2000 / 2267	882 / 900s 1000s	0.600 0.900 1.350	102 / 136 / 171	8 t	0.03	thermal		100%	80% (1)		80%	0.1%	no	no	no	Build In Air intake	50	no
Sollid Core	25,000	Nuclear Propulsion	Improved Nuclear Propulsion	Efficient Nuclear Propulsion	Experimental Nuclear Propulsion	2000 / 2240 / 2508.8 / 2809.9 / 3147	982.19 1075.93 1178.62	1.33 / 2.00 / 3.00 / 4.5 / 6.75	267.64 / 369.37 509.79	12 t	0.1	thermal		100%	80% (1)		80%	0.1%	no	no	no	requires 10 sec for full Throtle	80+80	no
Molten Salt	100,000	Nuclear Power	Nuclear Fuel Systems	Improved Nuclear Power		1100.0 1555.6 2200.0	696.49s 828.26s 984.99s	0.500 0.866 1.500	147 / 174 / 206	8 t	6t molten salt	none		100%	100%		95%	10%	no	no	no	Recycling with Lab	Built In ThermalGenerator	yes
Pebble Bed	150,000	Improved Nuclear Power	High Energy Nuclear Power	Experimental Nuclear Propulsion	Exotic Nuclear Propulsion	1451 / 2000 / 2800	800s / 939s 1111s	1.77 / 2.66 / 4 / 6	1020 / 1302 / 1823	8 t	1t pebbles	none	100%	100%		80%	4%	no	yes	pumped	no	Heat Throttling	50
Nuclear Lightbulb	250,000	Efficient Nuclear Propulsion	Experimental Nuclear Propulsion	Exotic Nuclear Propulsion		7890 / 12562 / 20000 /	1865s / 2354s / 2970s	2.3 / 3.45 / 5.175	368.00 427.83 496.03	16 t	0.1t U235	thermal		100%	40% (1)	n.a.	n.a.	2%	no	pumped	no	Limited to non oxidizing propellants	50 + 50	no
Open Cycle Gas Core	300,000	Experimental Nuclear Propulsion	Exotic Nuclear Propulsion			25124 / 50247	3328s / 4707s	3 / 4.5	154.62 / 247.39	9 t	0.04 U	none		100%	40% (1)		90%	20%	yes	1-100% depending on gravity	no	Buoyancy effects		no
Dusty Plasma Bed	400,000	Experimental Nuclear Propulsion	Exotic Nuclear Propulsion			4100	1344s	2.00 / 3.00		12 t	0,065	none		60%	60% (2)	46%	80%	40%	yes	pumped	45% 52700 - 527000			yes
Closed Field Magnetic Confinement	800,000	Fusion	Advanced Fusion	Exotic Fusion	Unified Field Theory	2500	1050	2.66 / 4 / 6 / 9 / 13.5		18 t	3t Li	none	Q10 / Q20 / Q40 / Q80 / Q120	n.a.	100%	100%	80%	0%	no	pumped 100%	60% 15.000 - 1.500.000	3.75m size Fuel Recycling		yes
Magneto Inertial Confinement Rocket	500,000	Fusion Rocketry	Advanced Fusion	Exotic Fusion	Unified Field Theory	180.000 K	3770s / 5200s / 6500s	1.33 / 2.0 / 3.0 / 4.5 / 6.75		6 t		thermal	Q150 / Q200 / Q266 /	100% lithium only	none .	none	0%	0%	yes	pumped 30% / 40% /53%	20%	propellant limited to Lithium or Aluminum		50%
Tokamak	800,000	Advanced Fusion	Exotic Fusion	Unified Field Theory	Ultra High Energy Physics	315.000 K	Li: 6800s H2: 11800s	4 / 6 / 9 / 13.5		24 t	3t Li	thermal	Q20 / Q40 / Q80 / Q120	Li: 100% H2: %CP	100%	100%	n.a.	0%	yes	pumped 100%	80%	3.75m		yes
Crossfire Fusion Reactor		Advanced Fusion	Exotic Fusion	Unified Field Theory		2500	1050s	1 / 1.5 / 2.0					100 / 150 / 200									Use	build in direct conversion
VISTA	1.200,000	Exotic Fusion	Unified Field Theory	Ultra High Energy Physics		n.a.	n.a.	28.125 / 112.5 / 450	15-75(5) 30-300(10) 60-1200(20)	12 t		magnetic	Q45.6 / Q91.2 / Q182.4	n.a.	none .	none	n.a	0%	yes	pumped	15.500 - 27.200	Kills Nearby Kerbals		no
DAEDALUS ICFE drive	1.500.000	Exotic Fusion Reactions	Unified Field Theory	Ultra High Energy Physics		n.a.	n.a	200 / 300 / 450
Antimatter Initiated Microfusion	2.000,000	Antimatter Power	Antimatter Power	Unified Field Theory		n.a.	n.a	8 / 12 / 18		6 t		none		n.a.	n.a.		n.a	0%	yes	pumped	13.500s - 61.000	95% Charged Particles		no
AntiMatter	3,000,000	Antimatter Power	Ultra High Energy Physics	Unified Field Theory		100000K 150000K 220000K	6641s / 8133s / 9850s	20 / 30 / 45		16 t		none		100%	100%		80%	0%	yes	pumped	yes	Total fuel Annihilation		no

Edited May 3, 2016 by FreeThinker

KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation