KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[GreeningGalaxy]

I like the idea of non-directly-attached thermal nozzles. Are you planning on adding decreased efficiency as the nozzle gets further from the reactor as a result of pipe loss, though?

Moderately unrelated:

I tried modifying the antimatter reactor to provide charged particles. It worked, in the sense that the reactor now does indeed produce charged particles and fill up its reservoir when activated, but the problem is that the Direct Conversion generators and magnetic nozzles refuse to accept the particles from it. I can't tell for sure, because both generators and nozzles appear to be hard-coded, but it might be some kind of reactor-type detection which is rejecting the antimatter reactor regardless of its charged particle production. I'll keep looking into it more, but if you have any idea how to edit the reactor detection on those, I'd appreciate help.

[Northstar1989]

1) wait, you have them not directly attached?

He's assuming the molten salt is getting pumped to the Thermal Turbojet over a distance. Which honestly, I'm not completely sure about being a realistic explanation for this (I mean, you *could* do it, but I'm not sure I'd want to fly in a plane that was blithely pumping highly radioactive sale right past my cockpit...)

However, there is a much better and more realistic explanation- real inline jet engines (including Thermal Turbojets) are never built with all their mass entirely at the rear like in KSP. Rather, they're built with the mass distributed out over the length of the vessel... So, it's entirely realistic to have the Thermal Turbojet's mass distributed over the length of the vessel (with most of this mass represented by the reactor, including things like the compressor and heat exchanger- the actual Thermal Turbojet nozzle is relatively light...), which is the effect allowing reactors to be located one part forward actually accomplishes...

FreeThinker, I didn't know this was actually possible in KSP-Interstellar (reactor detection over distance). I know you originally implemented this as an idea for making Molten Salt Reactors more useful, but I would encourage you with Thermal Turbojets at least (I don't know about with Thermal Rockets) to allow reactor-detection over a single intervening part for ALL reactors. This should allow a more realistic mass-distribution for our Thermal Turbojet powered planes, regardless of the reactor type used...

As for buffing up the Molten Salt Reactors, I would suggest implementing the ability to use them as a sort of garbage-disposal for nuclear waste that I suggested before by PM.

A recap: Molten Salt Reactors would gain the ability to burn Actinides and other nuclear wastes in exchange for a somewhat reduced ThermalPower production while in this fuel-mode (the same way as using Thorium leads to an *increase* in ThermalPower production).

This isn't exactly a new idea/feature for nuclear reactor even in real life- not only is it suggested/planned for some Molten Salt Reactors, it is already a feature of existing operational CANDU Heavy Water Reactors, with a development-timeline dating back to 1994...

http://www.candu.com/site/media/Parent/NEI%20article%20Jan%202014pdf.pdf

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/brat_fuel.htm

http://www.ccnr.org/advanced_fuel_cycles.html

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. I'd just like to give my thanks to the forum poster who first directed me towards CANDU Reactors many months ago. It sparked my interest in reactors that could actually burn (rather than simply reprocess) nuclear waste- thus both greatly simplifying the nuclear waste problem and simultaneously alleviating problems with the limited worldwide Uranium supply only being projected to last for about 35 more years at current demand and growth until very recently (new supplies were discovered in the past few years that extended out this estimate a bit further into the future...) This was what ultimately led me to learning that Molten Salt Reactors share this capability with Heavy Water Reactors already in use- the ability to run on spent nuclear fuel. If you're reading this, hopefully you know who you are (although I will go and try to dig up that poster's name later...)

[FreeThinker]

ability to use them as a sort of garbage-disposal for nuclear waste that I suggested before by PM.

A recap: Molten Salt Reactors would gain the ability to burn Actinides and other nuclear wastes in exchange for a somewhat reduced ThermalPower production while in this fuel-mode (the same way as using Thorium leads to an *increase* in ThermalPower production).

This isn't exactly a new idea/feature for nuclear reactor even in real life- not only is it suggested/planned for some Molten Salt Reactors, it is already a feature of existing operational CANDU Heavy Water Reactors, with a development-timeline dating back to 1994...

Northstar

Ok, I can implement if you give me the numbers I can work with.

Give me

- the mix in % of Anticides Burning or Depleted Uranium Burning with UF4/ThF4,

- the Anticides/ Depleted Uranium Reactor Fuel definitions (UsagePerMW )

- the expected effect on Maximum Thermal Power and Temperature. (mix * NormalisedReactionRate)

- - - Updated - - -

I like the idea of non-directly-attached thermal nozzles. Are you planning on adding decreased efficiency as the nozzle gets further from the reactor as a result of pipe loss, though?

Yes, some efficency loss is probably required, how to implement it is the question. For the moment I think I will implement it as a flat -10%, perhaps later I can calculate the actual distance in meter and make it more precise.

- - - Updated - - -

I tried modifying the antimatter reactor to provide charged particles. It worked, in the sense that the reactor now does indeed produce charged particles and fill up its reservoir when activated, but the problem is that the Direct Conversion generators and magnetic nozzles refuse to accept the particles from it. I can't tell for sure, because both generators and nozzles appear to be hard-coded, but it might be some kind of reactor-type detection which is rejecting the antimatter reactor regardless of its charged particle production. I'll keep looking into it more, but if you have any idea how to edit the reactor detection on those, I'd appreciate help.

Very well. Most likely the Magnetic nozzle is not beeing connected to the Reactor because it's the wrong type.

[COLOR=#2b91af]List[/COLOR]<[COLOR=#2b91af]IChargedParticleSource[/COLOR]> source_list = part.attachNodes.Where(atn => atn.attachedPart != [COLOR=blue]null[/COLOR]).SelectMany(atn => atn.attachedPart.FindModulesImplementing<[COLOR=#2b91af]IChargedParticleSource[/COLOR]>()).ToList();
_attached_reactor = source_list.FirstOrDefault();

[COLOR=blue]class[/COLOR] [COLOR=#2b91af]FNAntimatterReactor[/COLOR] : [COLOR=#2b91af]InterstellarReactor[/COLOR] {}

As you can see, the code looks for parts that implement, IChargedParticleSource

However, the existing Antimater reactor does not implement IChargedParticleSource, therefore the magneticNoozle will never find the antimatter reactor.

Fortunatly, to make it work, we only need to implement the following interface:

[COLOR=blue]public[/COLOR] [COLOR=blue]interface[/COLOR] [COLOR=#2b91af]IChargedParticleSource[/COLOR] : [COLOR=#2b91af]IThermalSource[/COLOR]
{
    [COLOR=blue]float[/COLOR] MaximumChargedPower { [COLOR=blue]get[/COLOR]; }

    [COLOR=blue]float[/COLOR] ChargedParticleRatio { [COLOR=blue]get[/COLOR]; }

    [COLOR=blue]double[/COLOR] CurrentMeVPerChargedProduct { [COLOR=blue]get[/COLOR]; }
}

since MaximumChargedPower and ChargedParticleRatio are already implemented by InterstellarReactor class, we only need to implement CurrentMeVPerChargedProduct which is real easy

[COLOR=blue]class[/COLOR] [COLOR=#2b91af]FNAntimatterReactor[/COLOR] : [COLOR=#2b91af]InterstellarReactor[/COLOR], IChargedParticeSource
{[COLOR=blue]
public[/COLOR] [COLOR=blue]double[/COLOR] CurrentMeVPerChargedProduct { [COLOR=blue]get[/COLOR] { [COLOR=blue]return[/COLOR] current_fuel_mode != [COLOR=blue]null[/COLOR] ? current_fuel_mode.MeVPerChargedProduct : 0; } }
}

notice the MeVPerChargedProduct, it means you need to edit ReactorFuels.cfg and change the MeVPerChargedProduct value of antimatter

I will compile and release a version you can experiment with

Edited March 3, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

I would encourage you with Thermal Turbojets at least (I don't know about with Thermal Rockets) to allow reactor-detection over a single intervening part for ALL reactors. This should allow a more realistic mass-distribution for our Thermal Turbojet powered planes, regardless of the reactor type used...

I agree, heated air should be easily transported through stacks. For the moment, I will allow Thermal Turbojet to connect to any Reactor with one stacked part in between.

I'm thinking about making it available for thermal noozles as well, only some reactors will better at it than others (HeatTransportaionLoss). Molten Salt Reactor for example should suffer lower HeatTransportaionLoss, since they can use their molten salt as an effective method to transport thermal heat. Other reactors, which do not have this medium, will rely on convection which heat efficency drop faster over distance.

Edited March 3, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Carlo]

Hi all guys! Ty for your amazing job here! anyway, I'm having a lot of troubles with kspi parts... There are parts that are listed in the tech tree but are not in the VAB-SPH (atmo scooop, atm intake, maybe others that I've not seen yet). I tryed a sandbox run to see if it was a tech tree problem, but they are not usable neither in that mode. Tried to reinstall with a "just KSPI extended" version of ksp, but i had the same problem. I tried to watch out the files in the warpplugin directory, but i'm a total noob of modding and have no idea of what the problem here could be. Hope someone have a solution for this! Ciao a tutti!

[FreeThinker]

Hi all guys! Ty for your amazing job here! anyway, I'm having a lot of troubles with kspi parts... There are parts that are listed in the tech tree but are not in the VAB-SPH (atmo scooop, atm intake, maybe others that I've not seen yet). I tryed a sandbox run to see if it was a tech tree problem, but they are not usable neither in that mode. Tried to reinstall with a "just KSPI extended" version of ksp, but i had the same problem. I tried to watch out the files in the warpplugin directory, but i'm a total noob of modding and have no idea of what the problem here could be. Hope someone have a solution for this! Ciao a tutti!

Most likely you are using multiple techtrees, they can mess up the availability of parts real bad. Please only use one at the time, I advice the CTT since I put most efford in it in balancing it.

Edited March 3, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Carlo]

I'm using a fresh and new install as I said in the last post. no other tech trees.

For the atm Intake i resolved the problem changing the .cfg file, the line "category" was "none". I changed it in "Aero" and now it works (it appears in VAB-SPH and i can actually use it).

I'll try to understand if the others "not showing in VAB" parts have the same problem in the .cfg file

ps. anyway great job with the Community tech tree integration ^^ that makes the whole thing much deeper

Edited March 3, 2015 by Carlo

[Northstar1989]

Yes, some efficency loss is probably required, how to implement it is the question. For the moment I think I will implement it as a flat -10%, perhaps later I can calculate the actual distance in meter and make it more precise.

I hope not with Thermal Turbojets- this is one of the few parts that realistically wouldn't have all its mass concentrated at the rear of the plane...

Hybrid Turbojets do present a problem though- Thermal Rockets should have very high distance-losses to efficiency, if they accept ThermalPower over a distance at all- but Thermal Turbojets shouldn't have any problem with being built into the length of a plane without suffering much if any distance-losses, as it's the airflow and compressor that are built forward (a compressor is far heavier than just an air-intake, and is the biggest source of weight in jet engines), not the heat-exchangers... (probably only on the order of 1-2% total losses should occur for most Thermal Turbojet using designs under 20 meters in length)

Regards,

Northstar

[smart013]

I'm using a fresh and new install as I said in the last post. no other tech trees.

For the atm Intake i resolved the problem changing the .cfg file, the line "category" was "none". I changed it in "Aero" and now it works (it appears in VAB-SPH and i can actually use it).

I'll try to understand if the others "not showing in VAB" parts have the same problem in the .cfg file

ps. anyway great job with the Community tech tree integration ^^ that makes the whole thing much deeper

Same problem here i think. Using only one techtree, everything worked fine, than i updated solely KSPI Extended files to 0-7-12 and now there is no "3.75 Fusion Reactor" in the VAB anymore, only a "Large Fusion Reactor". And when i scale it to 3.75 via tweakscale it doesnt work anymore correctly with the vista engine. The Reactors in old VAB Files (and the vessels in orbit) still work as expected.

Any ideas how to fix it? Again, all i changed was the updated files from Interstellar Extended.

[FreeThinker]

I hope not with Thermal Turbojets- this is one of the few parts that realistically wouldn't have all its mass concentrated at the rear of the plane...

Hybrid Turbojets do present a problem though- Thermal Rockets should have very high distance-losses to efficiency, if they accept ThermalPower over a distance at all- but Thermal Turbojets shouldn't have any problem with being built into the length of a plane without suffering much if any distance-losses, as it's the airflow and compressor that are built forward (a compressor is far heavier than just an air-intake, and is the biggest source of weight in jet engines), not the heat-exchangers... (probably only on the order of 1-2% total losses should occur for most Thermal Turbojet using designs under 20 meters in length)

Well Idealy we would need a seperate part, but for convenience sake we going to assume it's part the reactor. For AirMode, we going to assume transportation is 100% efficient while thermal heat for FuelMode depends on the reactor type. Molten Salt definatly has an edge here, I'm not sure yet how much.

So it's going to be a design choice between better balance and less FuelMode poweroutput or more power output but more FuelMode power.

Regarding Molten Salt reactor, I think their ability to transport Molten Salt should allow them to chain link, allowing them to act like a single reactor. For example, stack 4 Molten Salt reactors together and they will act like a single reactor that is 4 times as powerfull.

Choices make life intresting, don't they?

Edited March 3, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Carlo]

Another problem is with the RCS bug (RCS acting randomly without any input), it happens even with the vanilla game, but this mod seems to enhance this problem (let's say that 1 launch on 5 is affected). I'm not sure it is mod related, just guessing.

p.s. if someone have a solution for this, or the "disappearing parts" problem, you are welcome ^^

[GreeningGalaxy]

I managed to make my own implementation of charged-particle-powered magnetic nozzles:

It's not seamless, it probably isn't true to how magnetic nozzles would actually behave given ~350 gigawatts of charged particles (the thrust would be lower and the Isp higher, I believe), but it does work, it does provide substantial Isp (42000 seconds) at quite reasonable thrust (1570 kN), and it didn't take more than a little config editing to make.

If you're interested in testing it out, I'll make it available here.

Please note:

-You need two new parts, a special antimatter reactor and a special magnetic nozzle. No new models are used, of course, so RAM usage will be unchanged, but it will add yet another reactor and engine to your part list.

-Direct Conversion generators don't work with the charged-particle antimatter reactor (but thermoelectric generators still work fine and at full power). This appears to be hardcoded behavior and is not something I can change with simple config edits.

-Normal magnetic nozzles will not work with the special antimatter reactor.

-Regular reactors (which produce charged particles) may work with the special magnetic nozzle to some extent, but since the nozzle just draws power and charged particles as propellants, its performance will be a little wonky and potentially unbalanced. Use at own risk.

-I haven't changed the antimatter consumption rate at all. The reactor is still using 15 milligrams per second, which is a shade too much.^[1]

Installing it is rather complicated, but not too hard if you're used to moving modules around and installing new config files.

Step 1:

Copy this module:

REACTOR_FUEL_MODE
{
	name = ParticleAntimatter
	ReactorType = 256
	GUIName = ChargedPionAntimatter
	ChargedParticleRatio = 0.80
	Aneutronic = True
	NormalisedReactionRate = 1.0
	NormalisedPowerConsumption = 1.0
	FUEL
	{
		name = Antimatter
		FuelName = Antimatter
		UsagePerMW = 1.1111111111e-14
		Unit = mg
	}
}

Open the ReactorFuels.cfg file under WarpPlugin/Resources/ReactorFuels.cfg and paste this module on a new line at the end.

This will enable use of a reactor mode that uses antimatter and creates charged particles.

Step 2:

Copy/paste this into a text file:

PART
{
name = AntimatterReactor375cp
module = Part
author = Fractal

mesh = model.mu
rescaleFactor = 1.5

node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.2665, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -1.2665, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
node_attach = 0.0, 0.0, 1.4, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 1

cost = 150000
category = Utility
subcategory = 0
title = 3.75m Charged Pion Antimatter Reactor
manufacturer = Zefram Kerman's Warp Supplies Co.
description = A plasma core antimatter reactor.

attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0

TechRequired = experimentalRocketry
entryCost = 90000000
mass = 54
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.3
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 6
breakingForce = 1500
breakingTorque = 1500
maxTemp = 3600


MODULE
{
	name = FNAntimatterReactor
	ReactorTemp = 22922
	PowerOutput = 135000
	originalName = Gas Core
	upgradedName = Plasma Core
	upgradedReactorTemp = 646146
	upgradedPowerOutput = 405000
	upgradeCost = 180
	upgradeTechReq = interstellarTechUHEPhysics
	animName = e5
	radius = 3.75
	consumeGlobal = true
	reactorType = 256
	fuelEfficiency = 0.3
	upgradedFuelEfficiency = 0.3
}
RESOURCE
{
	name = ThermalPower
	amount = 0
	maxAmount = 405000
}
RESOURCE
{
	name = ChargedParticles
	amount = 0
	maxAmount = 405000
}
RESOURCE
{
	name = WasteHeat
	amount = 0
	maxAmount = 1350000
}
}

Save it as "AntimatterReactorCharged.cfg" and place it in your GameData folder under WarpPlugin/Parts/Electrical/AntimatterReactors/[AntimatterReactorCharged.cfg goes here]

This is the antimatter reactor that generates charged particles.

Step 3:

Copy/paste this into a text file:

PART
{
name = KSPIMagneticNozzle4
module = Part
author = Fractal

MODEL
{
        model = WarpPlugin/Parts/Engines/MagneticNozzle/MagneticNozzle
	rotation = 0,0,180
	scale = 1.875,2.1,1.875
}

node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.505, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.93, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2

fx_exhaustFlame_blue = 0.0, -0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, running
fx_exhaustLight_blue = 0.0, -0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, running
fx_exhaustSparks_flameout = 0.0, -0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, flameout

TechRequired = ionPropulsion
entryCost = 14000
cost = 78000
category = Engine
subcategory = 0
title = 3.75m Charged Pion Magnetic Nozzle
manufacturer = Ionic Protonic Electronics
description = This is an updated version of the magnetic nozzle, which is designed for higher power antimatter engines. Instead of being designed for simple alpha particles or fission fragments, this engine can deflect the powerful flux of charged pions emanating from a large antimatter reactor.
attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0

// --- standard part parameters ---
mass = 6
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.2
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 7
breakingForce = 200
breakingTorque = 200
maxTemp = 3600

EFFECTS
{
  running_closed
  {
    AUDIO
    {
      channel = Ship
      clip = sound_rocket_spurts
      volume = 0.0 0.0
      volume = 1.0 0.1
      pitch = 0.0 0.2
      pitch = 1.0 1.0
      loop = true
    }
    MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE
    {
      modelName = WarpPlugin/FX/interstellarChargedExhaust
      transformName = thrustTransform
      emission = 0.0 0.0
      emission = 0.05 0.0
      emission = 0.075 0.25
      emission = 1.0 1.25
      speed = 0.0 0.5
      speed = 1.0 1.2
    }
  }
  engage
  {
  }
  flameout
  {
    PREFAB_PARTICLE
    {
      prefabName = fx_exhaustSparks_flameout_2
      transformName = smokePoint
      oneShot = true
    }
    AUDIO
    {
      channel = Ship
      clip = sound_explosion_low
      volume = 1.0
      pitch = 2.0
      loop = false
    }
  }
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleEnginesFX
	engineID = ClosedCycle
	runningEffectName = running_closed
	thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform
	exhaustDamage = True
	ignitionThreshold = 0.1
	minThrust = 0
	maxThrust = 1574
	heatProduction = 350
	fxOffset = 0, 0, 0.25
	PROPELLANT
	{
	 	name = LiquidFuel
        	ratio = 0.76
		DrawGauge = True
	}
	PROPELLANT
	{
                name = ChargedParticles
                ratio = 320000
        }
        PROPELLANT
        {
                name = Megajoules
                ratio = 55000
        }
	atmosphereCurve
 	{
   	 key = 0 42000
  	 key = 1 42000
 	}

}

}

Save it as "part4.cfg" and place it in your GameData folder under WarpPlugin/Parts/Engines/MagneticNozzle/[part4.cfg goes here]

This is the special magnetic nozzle for the antimatter reactor.

Step 4:

Copy this module:

@PART[KSPIMagneticNozzle4]:AFTER[WarpPlugin]
{
    @MODEL,0
    {
        @scale = 2.5,2.1,2.5
    }
    @node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.205, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.75, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
}

Open the KSPI_scale_fixes.cfg file under WarpPlugin/KSPI_scale_fixes.cfg and paste this module on a new line at the end.

This extends the scale correction for the other magnetic nozzles to the new part as well.

That's it! If all went well, you should have a magnetic nozzle antimatter engine in your KSPI.

^[1]I did some further poking around with the antimatter usage stuff. As it turns out, Fractal assumed the antimatter reactors would only have a 30% efficiency or so, which I suppose I can't really argue with. Assuming the real-world value for the speed of light, though, the reactors are still using too much antimatter, because it's only counting the energy of the antimatter's mass alone in the reaction, not both it and the mass of the normal matter it's reacting with (which would ordinarily be half of the energy released). This means the efficiency is more like 15%. It would be trivial to either double the efficiency value for the reactors or simply halve the UsagePerMegawatt number in the reactor mode config, but I haven't bothered with that just yet.

If you like, you can change the UsagePerMW= line in ReactorFuels.cfg for the antimatter modules (this one as well as the existing one) to 5.5555555555555e-15 instead of 1.111111111111e-14 to fix it yourself.

Edited March 3, 2015 by GreeningGalaxy

[FreeThinker]

Impressive, you directly feed from a blind reactor by feeding from its idle charged particle production. But the engine and the reactor are not connected, causing you to waste a lot of antimatter. You have to disable it manualy, or you going to lose all antimatter. It's not exactly something that you want to forget

Edited March 3, 2015 by FreeThinker

[GreeningGalaxy]

Impressive, you directly feed from a blind reactor by feeding from its idle charged particle production. But the engine and the reactor are not connectied, causing you to waste a lot of antimatter.

Actually, no. The reactor's not idling (Antimatter reactors have no lower limit on power, and thus do not have an idle power other than what's needed), it's running at 100% to compensate for the fact that 324000 units of charged particles are being sucked out of its reservoir by the magnetic nozzle every second.

Of course, when that picture was taken, the bugged config was causing the reactor to draw twice as much antimatter as one would expect for its declared 30% efficiency, but that happens no matter what setup you use for the reactor. If you use my edit in the footnote to fix antimatter consumption rate, it doesn't do that.

Edited March 3, 2015 by GreeningGalaxy

[FreeThinker]

I uploaded 0.7.15 which can be download from KerbalStuff

Changelog 0.7.15:

• Thermal Noozle/TurboJet can use any Reactor one part further, allowing more balanced vessels. Depending on they type of propellant and Reactor Type, maximum trust is reduced by thermal Transportation efficiency. Jet propellants are not affected by distance. Molten Salt reactor only suffer a 10%% penalty. All other reactors suffer 30% penalty
  
• modifed CTT: TurboJet now available with improvedNuclearPropulsion and upgrade to hybrid thermal rocket with advanced Nuclear Propulsion
  
• Antimatter reactors are now capable of operating as Charged Particle Reactor (need changes in Antimatter definition)
  

Edited March 3, 2015 by FreeThinker

[GreeningGalaxy]

One problem that's been noticed is that radiators become heavy far too quickly as their size increases. I don't know how to fix tweakscale/freescale for this, but I can always do what I do know how to do: Make more parts.

Running that giant antimatter engine (and thus a reactor on full power) requires some truly staggering waste heat radiation, so I've made a 1.5x-scale radiator part with realistic^[1] mass and radiator area for its size.

Copy this to a text file, name it "radiator3.cfg" and drop it into WarpPlugin/Parts/Electrical/HeatRadiator/:

PART
{
// --- general parameters ---
name = radiator3
module = Part
author = zzz

// --- asset parameters ---
mesh = model.mu
rescaleFactor = 6

// --- node definitions ---
// definition format is Position X, Position Y, Position Z, Up X, Up Y, Up Z
node_attach = 0.06, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0

// --- editor parameters ---
TechRequired = largeElectrics
entryCost = 14500
cost = 300
category = Utility
subcategory = 0
title = Giant Heat Radiator
manufacturer = Boltzkerman Co.
description = A really gigantic heat radiator, for those really powerful vessels. Radiates heat into space via the Stefan-Boltzkerman law.
// attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision
attachRules = 0,1,0,0,1

// --- standard part parameters ---
mass = 7.2
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.2
angularDrag = 1
crashTolerance = 8
breakingForce = 2000
breakingTorque = 2000
maxTemp = 3200

MODULE
{
	name = FNRadiator
	animName = a1
	radiatorTemp = 1350
	radiatorArea = 3600
	originalName = Mo Li Heat Pipe
	upgradeCost = 15
	upgradedName = Graphene Radiator
	upgradedRadiatorTemp = 3500
	upgradeTechReq = experimentalElectrics
}

RESOURCE
{
	name = WasteHeat
	amount = 0
	maxAmount = 720000
}


}

If you want to be able to tweakscale this radiator too, add this module to Warp_TweakScale.cfg under GameData/TweakScale/:

@PART[radiator3] // Giant Heat Radiator
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = surface
	}
}

^[1]This config assumes that radiator thickness doesn't increase as you make them bigger. This would be true to real life, but not so for KSP/Tweakscale, which does increase thickness. If you don't like this, you can always increase the mass to 10 tons.

Edited March 4, 2015 by GreeningGalaxy

[ABZB]

One problem that's been noticed is that radiators become heavy far too quickly as their size increases. I don't know how to fix tweakscale/freescale for this, but I can always do what I do know how to do: Make more parts.

Running that giant antimatter engine (and thus a reactor on full power) requires some truly staggering waste heat radiation, so I've made a 1.5x-scale radiator part with realistic^[1] mass and radiator area for its size.

The wing-parts have that module that lets you adjust the mass (and strength of the part along with it) - I am not sure if that is stock or FAR (I think FAR?), now that I think about it... Either way, a similar thing might be implementable here - at the very least, the delta-wing-shaped large flat radiator could be given a proper FAR wing-module, which would presumably implement that too?

[GreeningGalaxy]

The wing-parts have that module that lets you adjust the mass (and strength of the part along with it) - I am not sure if that is stock or FAR (I think FAR?), now that I think about it... Either way, a similar thing might be implementable here - at the very least, the delta-wing-shaped large flat radiator could be given a proper FAR wing-module, which would presumably implement that too?

I actually tried it out myself some, and it looks to me like the radiator mass scaling issue was isolated to one person's install - I couldn't reproduce it. Guess my big radiator isn't super useful, then.

Now that you mention it, though, Procedural Wings-style radiators could be awesome. Probably would be quite hard to implement, especially if they're folding, but now I kind of wonder how hard it would be to give the radiator module with realistic area scaling to a pwing....

[FreeThinker]

Exactly how do you expect them the radiator to scale? From my understand, by default all part scale with exponent 2.5 while the heatSurface only grows with exponent 2. I can make both mass and heat surface scale with exponent 2 if you want.

Regarding the location of Foldable Radiatiors in the CTT I'm not sure yet.

Basicly I can put them in one of 3 subgroups.

- Nuclear technology is where they are currenly located in because they are only usefull in combination with nuclear reactor. The disadvantage is that it allows you to ignore Rocketry technology, the main parts are substituted by KSPI parts

- Electric technology is where they used to be in the original KSPI, but radiators seem to have little to do with Electric technology and is already used for several parts and tech upgrades.

- Rocket technology focuses on a gradualy building larger generic rocket parts, which in the end radiator are. A nice advantage is that it forces you to also invest if Rocketry if you want to use large radiators

[GreeningGalaxy]

Exactly how do you expect them the radiator to scale? From my understand, by default all part scale with exponent 2.5 while the heatSurface only grows with exponent 2. I can make both mass and heat surface scale with exponent 2 if you want.

Regarding the location of Foldable Radiatiors in the CTT I'm not sure yet.

Basicly I can put them in one of 3 subgroups.

- Nuclear technology is where they are currenly located in because they are only usefull in combination with nuclear reactor. The disadvantage is that it allows you to ignore Rocketry technology, the main parts are substituted by KSPI parts

- Electric technology is where they used to be in the original KSPI, but radiators seem to have little to do with Electric technology and is already used for several parts and tech upgrades.

- Rocket technology focuses on a gradualy building larger generic rocket parts, which in the end radiator are. A nice advantage is that it forces you to also invest if Rocketry if you want to use large radiators

I think the radiator scaling is, for the most part, okay. We just had an isolated problem in which the scale exponent apparently got messed up somehow. Please disregard my previous posts and my radiator config; that's not actually necessary.

[FreeThinker]

I think the radiator scaling is, for the most part, okay. We just had an isolated problem in which the scale exponent apparently got messed up somehow. Please disregard my previous posts and my radiator config; that's not actually necessary.

In my objective plan to fully spoort tweakscale, I was planning to support Radiadors anyway. The stand alone parts seem to suggest weight should grow with surfice area. equal to it's heat output. I'm not sure this realistic. What do you think would be realistic?

[somewhatcasual]

Radiators are one of my biggest issues with designing crafts with power requirements. I wish there were heavy duty options other than the triangular one. It doesn't always fit together nicely in function or aesthetic. Animated ones are even better. I figure at some point this will be sorted.

[GreeningGalaxy]

In my objective plan to fully spoort tweakscale, I was planning to support Radiadors anyway. The stand alone parts seem to suggest weight should grow with surfice area. equal to it's heat output. I'm not sure this realistic. What do you think would be realistic?

It makes sense to scale weight with surface area on radiators, mainly because there's no point in making them thicker, only broader and longer. The models scale volumetrically, yes, but that's probably not now it would work in real life. The current scaling factors seem to result in very slightly heavier radiators than one would expect for area scaling alone, but this can be explained away by supposing that the large mounting armature is contributing to the weight at large sizes, and it would make sense to scale that volumetrically, at least to a point.

I'll look into it more, but it looks rather like the tweakscale configs are more or less fine as is.

[FreeThinker]

Radiators are one of my biggest issues with designing crafts with power requirements. I wish there were heavy duty options other than the triangular one. It doesn't always fit together nicely in function or aesthetic. Animated ones are even better. I figure at some point this will be sorted.

Well I wish a moddeler would help me create it, I don't have any model skills and I don't have the time to learn it.

What would be cool if we have a part that would fit inside a cargobay and unfold a large radiator after the cargobay opened

Alternatively one option I'm thinking about is adding some MM script which adds radiators to stock wing parts. Also any SSTO part could have build radiators in it's skin.

Edited March 5, 2015 by FreeThinker

[somewhatcasual]

When I was making a craft for my own use, radiators were on my to do as well as trying to add radiator modules to wings and what not. After like 8-12 custom parts I ended up not finishing due to time restraints and mods dependencies not updating with that stretch of rapid squad updates. I was tempted to dive back down the rabbit hole and start modeling again to fix this but then I thought that I'd never play if I started again. I did see an image someone posted of a cool looking radiator part that is similar to ones on the iss. No one responded/knew which mod it came from when I asked. Are there any pictures/designs of real radiators that could be incorporated into this game/mod that have yet to be made? I have to admit that I am ignorant about reactor/cooling designs IRL.

The post that had the image I mentioned:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/91706-0-90-Freight-Transport-Technologies-v0-3-1-2014-12-24?p=1519856&viewfull=1#post1519856