KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[MrNukealizer]

That very strange, especaly if you look at the code in which the isLFO variable is not used at all! Just search on isLFO in the ThermalNozzleController.cs and you only find 2 entries, one for the definition and second for reading the propellant definition file. After that is is no longer used!

There are still (0.8.5) references to isLFO in FNNozzleController.cs and FNNozzleControllerFX.cs.

[FreeThinker]

There are still (0.8.5) references to isLFO in FNNozzleController.cs and FNNozzleControllerFX.cs.

Well those alre legacy part module which are no longer in use except if you play with an old save game that use the obsolete module. I left them for backward compatibility and code reference

[Northstar1989]

Don't you mean Aluminium?

The ability to store both Alumina and Aluminum in more places would be strongly desirable. At the very least we should have a MM patch so players using RealFuels or Modular Fuel Tanks can store it in the modular tank types that mod provides (or, to add a RealFuels tank type specifically to hold Alumina/Aluminum and other solid resources such as Lithium, as they are solid resources unlike most resources stored in the current RealFuels tank-types...)

- - - Updated - - -

Restored Thrust Multiplier Hydrolox to 2.222

Also, FreeThinker, why did you do this?

I can understand your wanting to change the performance of LFO, which is a made-up resource used by most players that we could give any performance we like, but I don't understand what your fixation is/was on changing HydroLOX. We already had good, physically accurate data on what the Thrust/MW should have been for HydroLOX reflected in the config, which you now replaced with an entirely arbitrary value that makes no physical sense...

The only players who use HydroLOX (as opposed to LFO) are those who have RealFuels installed. Such players (including myself) will want realistic performance rather than performance that is entirely unrelated to reality, so could we please restore this Thrust multiplier back to its previous value of 1.977 instead of 2.22?

It's true that with realistic values for Thrust/MW and ISP, Hydro/LOX is pretty much in all ways surpassed by Ammonia (which makes up for its slightly lower ISP and Thrust/MW with a higher density and thus reduced tank dry-mass requirements), but it's based on a pair of resources that are MUCH more prevalent in the solar system than Ammonia- the Water ice needed to produce HydroLOX shoudl be readily available on Vall, Dres, Eeloo, the Mun and Minmus- all places where the Nitrogen needed to produce Ammonia is not readily available.

Speaking of which, can we go and update the resource definitions to include widespread water-ice on Dres and Eeloo? As I already posted research on before, Ceres and Pluto (their real-world analogs) are pretty much made of water-ice: in fact they are both rock+ice planetoids with poor differentiation and water-ice that penetrates all the way to the core of these "planets" as well as making up much of the visible surface! Thus, they should both provide a virtually-inexhaustible supply of Water ice for use in ISRU both in KSP-I and in real life...

All we need for this is a file that maps the Water-ice deposits onto the surface of these planetoids (I'm guessing it should preferentially be found in the low-lying areas that receive a bit less sunlight, although not to the exclusion of highlands or ridge-lines...) Would anybody like to try their hand at drawing one of these up for Dres and Eeloo?

Regards,

Northstar

Edited April 2, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

Freethinker,

After we fix the Plasma Thrusters (which don't currently work, *at all*), we need to refocus on ISRU. I suggest we start with including more resources that can be harvested, and then move into including more ISRU reactions...

Once again, I recommend looking at THIS list I drew up. Except for the nuclear resources, and any abundances given for Jool/Jupiter (as I may or may not have badly mis-interpreted a table of planetary resource abundances on Jupiter when obtaining these) this list is entirely correct and accurate. Some of the more interesting additions we should make (all of which have basis/support in real life) include:

• Water-ice in the polar craters of Moho (like on Mercury- where we have better evidence of water-ice than on the Moon/Luna!)
  
• Nitrogen and methane-ice common on Eeloo (like on Pluto)
  
• Water-ice covering between 30 and 70% of the surface of Dres and Eeloo (like Ceres and Pluto)
  
• Lithium deposits on Duna (Mars) and in oceans of Eve/Laythe (no real life counterpart as no water-oceans outside Earth)
  
• Methane in atmosphere of Laythe (Titan has atmospheric Methane and hydrocarbon-lakes)
  
• Fluorine on Eve (like Hydrogen Fluoride is found on Venus)
  
• Helium and Helium-3 in Munar regolith (like on Luna- Earth's moon)
  
• Ammonia-ice richly abundant in Laythe's soil (like on Titan- where makes up up to 50% of planetary mass) and oceans, and perhaps in liquid form in Eve's oceans (most plausible liquid for that temperature/pressure range)
  
• Trace amounts of Ammonia, Nitrogen, and Methane in atmosphere of Jool (like on Jupiter- although some of these are only found at very high pressures)
  

There's also the noble gasses we don't use in KSP-I yet (Neon and Krypton), but these aren't such a high priority unless we give Plasma Thrusters the ability to use them as propellant (which should be feasible, but requires some research to determine accurate Thrust/MW and ISP values...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited April 2, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

Also, a reminder, HERE is a link to a list of some of the ISRU reactions I suggest we include...

Regards,

Northstar

[FreeThinker]

Freethinker,

After we fix the Plasma Thrusters (which don't currently work, *at all*), we need to refocus on ISRU. I suggest we start with including more resources that can be harvested, and then move into including more ISRU reactions...

I don't understand why it doesn't work. I just tested it myself and it works as it should. Possibly some MM script is causing some trouble.

Edit: could you try to reproduce the issue?

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of which, can we go and update the resource definitions to include widespread water-ice on Dres and Eeloo?

Provide the resource file and I will include them

Edited April 3, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

@NorthStar1979

As you know, the Isp and thrust of Methane is too high for first generation reactors. We can calculate the Thrust Multiplier for a propellant for a specific Core Temperature more accurately. However, the reactors in KSPI vary by a large degree, with more advanced reactors having higher Core Temperature.

Fortunatly we can implement a variable Isp, depending on the CoreTemperature, BaseIsp, Minimum Decomposition Temperature, Maximum Decomposition Temperature and Decomposition Energy

With the following formula we can calculate the effective thrust-multiplier for any given set of parameters

ThrustMultiplier = sqrt( Min(1, (CoreTemperature - MinDecompositionTemp) / (MaxDecompositionTemp - MinDecompositionTemp)) * DecompositionEnergy / 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1

Now the question is at what temperature is this achieved and at what temperature is this started?

First let's assume that Methane at 3000K decompose at 10% of maximum and you expect a effective IspMultiplier of 0.477

Then if we assume 100% is achieved with 16500K and that it starts to decompose at 1500K

Now first let's verify our function:

sqrt( Min(1, (CoreTemp - MinDecompositionTemp) / (MaxDecompositionTemp - MinDecompositionTemp)) * DecompositionEnergy / 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1 =

sqrt( Min(1, (3000- 1500) / (16500-1500 )) * 19.895/ 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1 =

sqrt( Min(1, 1500 / 15000) * 19.895/ 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1 =

sqrt( 0.1 * 19.895 / 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1 =

sqrt( 0.122704 ) * 0.997 + 1 =

0.3503 * 0.997 + 1 = 1.3492

IspMultiplier = BaseIsp * ThrustMultipler = 0.354 * 1.3492 = 0.477

Now Let's predict the expected Isp with Methane with an un-upgraded GasCore reactor, which has a coreTemperature of 9635K

sqrt( Min(1, (CoreTemp - MinDecompositionTemp) / (MaxDecompositionTemp - MinDecompositionTemp)) * DecompositionEnergy / 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1 =

sqrt( Min(1, (9635- 1500) / (16500-1500 )) * 19.895/ 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1 =

sqrt(0.5423 * 19.895 / 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1 = 1.663

IspMultiplier = BaseIsp * ThrustMultipler = 0.354 * 1.663 = 0.5888

now Let's predict the expected Isp with Methane with an upgraded GasCore reactor, which has a coreTemperature of 15590K

sqrt( Min(1, (CoreTemp - MinDecompositionTemp) / (MaxDecompositionTemp - MinDecompositionTemp)) * DecompositionEnergy / 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1 =

sqrt( Min(1, (15590- 1500) / (16500-1500 )) * 19.895/ 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1 =

sqrt(0.9333 * 19.895 / 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1 = 2.045

IspMultiplier = BaseIsp * ThrustMultipler = 0.354 * 2.045 = 0,724

now Let's predict the expected Isp with Methane with an upgraded fusion reactor, which has a coreTemperature of 23078K

sqrt( Min(1, (CoreTemp - MinDecompositionTemp) / (MaxDecompositionTemp - MinDecompositionTemp)) * DecompositionEnergy / 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1 =

sqrt( Min(1, (23078- 1500) / (16500-1500 )) * 19.895 / 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1 =

sqrt(1 * 19.895 / 16.2137) * 0.997 + 1 =

sqrt(1,227) * 0.997 + 1 = 2.104

IspMultiplier = BaseIsp * ThrustMultipler = 0.354 * 2.104 = 0.745

Note this 0.745, is very close to my earlier calculation of the Isp of Methane Based on data found on the Atomic Rockets, still how to explain the small difference?

Note from a balance perspective these numbers and calculation look very good. It will mean that the propellant Hydrolox (with thrust multiplier 1.978) will initially be superior with first generation nuclear engines (which does not require high temperature), while more advanced high core temperature reactors will favor Ammonia and Methane (which need high temperature to decompose). As a bonus, it will also allow us to give Salt Core reactors (with the higher CoreTemperature) a small but significant Isp/Thrust bonus compared to Pebble Bed Reactor (with a lower core temperature). This means that Pebble Bed Reactor will remain the highest thrust performer (especial with Hydrolox) while the Salt Core reactor can use propellants like Ammonia with significantly higher ISP.

Now we have to define the BaseIsp, MinDecompositionTemp, MaxDecompositionTemp, DecompositionEnergy for every propellant.

- BaseIsp is easy to calculate using AtomNumber,

- DecompositionEnergy is something that we need to calculate

- MinDecompositionTemp, MaxDecompositionTemp should initially be estimated based on real data

Edited April 4, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Northstar1989]

@FreeThinker

Haven't had time to take a look at that code/explanation yet (will get to it), but it seems we have other issues with existing systems not working right yet as well:

This Propulsive Fluid Accumulator may *SEEM* to be working correctly, but notice the resource-name. "Nitrogen", not "LqdNitrogen". The quantity of LqdNitrogen already in the tanks was launched from the ground to allow the PFA to use its plasma thrusters to position into a properly low circular orbit for collection. No new LqdNitrogen was accumulated after more than 5 days unloaded in an appropriate orbit (for RSS 6.4x, where the atmosphere begins at 91 km) and with a 18 MW reactor (and attached generator at 20% efficiency) powering the Atmospheric Scoop...

Could we get this working so that the Atmosphere Scoop stops trying to collect RealFuels "Nitrogen" when no tanks for it are present, and starts collecting the usable KSP-I "LqdNitrogen" instead?

Regards,

Northstar

Edited April 4, 2015 by Northstar1989

[FreeThinker]

[h=2]Version 0.8.6 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90[/h] Released on 2015-04-04

• Fix: Thermal Nozzle/Turbojet Switch Button is visible again
  
• Methane/LiquidFuel/Kathane Isp and thrust multiplier depend on Core Temperature of attached reactor
  
• Soot Factor depends of pyrolysis percentage
  

- - - Updated - - -

Could we get this working so that the Atmosphere Scoop stops trying to collect RealFuels "Nitrogen" when no tanks for it are present, and starts collecting the usable KSP-I "LqdNitrogen" instead?

Note that LqdNitrogen isn't in KSPI yet LiquidNitrogen is, LqdNitrogen integration was planned for KSPI 1.0 when CRP 1.0 is released. But since no one is using LiquidNitrogen, I might as well change it already

[FreeThinker]

Haven't had time to take a look at that code/explanation yet (will get to it)

Could you please provide me with DecompositionEnergy (= Gibbs Free Energy / molar mass ) of Ammonia, Hydrazine, Water, CO2 and Methalox

Edited April 4, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Thorbane]

I'm having a minor issue with the plasma thrusters. They display Flameout: LiquidFuel Deprived when they're throttled to 0, and this confuses everything that displays delta-v or max thrust and anything that relies on knowing it, like mechjeb's maneuver node execution feature. Which is extremely useful for the the 3 hour burns one can end up with using plasma thrusters.

[FreeThinker]

I'm having a minor issue with the plasma thrusters. They display Flameout: LiquidFuel Deprived when they're throttled to 0, and this confuses everything that displays delta-v or max thrust and anything that relies on knowing it, like mechjeb's maneuver node execution feature. Which is extremely useful for the the 3 hour burns one can end up with using plasma thrusters.

http://i.imgur.com/xAeB1BZ.png

Understand that an accurate estimation is very hard to implement due to all the variables involved (overheating, multiple power usages, heat throttling) but I might give you an thrust estimation based on last achieved maximum thrust. Hopefully this should work.

Edited April 4, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Northstar1989]

Could you please provide me with DecompositionEnergy (= Gibbs Free Energy / molar mass ) of Ammonia, Hydrazine, Water, CO2 and Methalox

I already provided values for Ammonia and Hydrazine (no time now, but I can go back and re-post these later: but it might be simpler for you to search the thread for them). Water and CO2 do not spontaneously decompose at the temperature ranges of a fission reactor- they actually *absorb* energy when they decompose, and an electric current is required to force those reactions to happen.

By decomposition energy of Meth/LOX, I assume you mean the energy of combustion when Methane burns with LOX?

Also, good catch about the Nitrogen-naming. It will break existing vessels (including the PFA I just launched to orbit you saw a screenshot of before) to re-name the resources though, so could you hold off until 1.0 and the release of CRP 2.0 with it (when most saves will break anyways). In the meantime, can we get it so the Propulsive Fluid Accumulators scoop "LiquidNitrogen" properly instead of "Nitrogen"?

Regards,

Northstar

Edited April 4, 2015 by Northstar1989

[FreeThinker]

I'm having a minor issue with the plasma thrusters. They display Flameout: LiquidFuel Deprived when they're throttled to 0, and this confuses everything that displays delta-v or max thrust and anything that relies on knowing it, like mechjeb's maneuver node execution feature. Which is extremely useful for the the 3 hour burns one can end up with using plasma thrusters.

http://i.imgur.com/xAeB1BZ.png

Version 0.8.7 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90

Released on 2015-04-04

• Fixed issue with Plasma Thruster not having an ISP and maximum thrust when Throttle is set to 0
  
• Fixed Megajoule Battery: Limited Megajoule buffer to Reactor Power and TimeWarp
  
• Balanced ParticleBed Reactors by Proportionally reduced Core Temperature, ThermalPower and Mass
  

[Albman]

I have an issue with this Mod + Ferram Aerospace Research. The thing is that when I use magnetic noozle they don`t work, the just show in the context menu of the engine:

Thrust: 1E-09 Kn

Fuel flow: 0.0000

I don´t if I should seek for help in the FAR release thread or in this one?

Thanks for your patience!

[FreeThinker]

I have an issue with this Mod + Ferram Aerospace Research. The thing is that when I use magnetic noozle they don`t work, the just show in the context menu of the engine:

Thrust: 1E-09 Kn

Fuel flow: 0.0000

I don´t if I should seek for help in the FAR release thread or in this one?

Thanks for your patience!

As far as I know, FAR has no effect on KSPI-E. I use FAR all the time and does not effect it negatively.

You have to give me more before I can help you. What did you do to test it? because in order to have a working magnetic nozzle, the are several requirements:

1 Significant amount of Magnetic Propellant, currently this is LiquidFuel, LiquidHydrogen (with NFT-P) or LqdHydrogen (with RealFuels)

2 Fuel storage can reach magnetic nozzle, either by stack or fuel lines

3 Connected to reactor which can produce charge particles, either directly, indirectly by stack, or radially

4 A power generator to produce enough megawatt to confine the charge particles magnetically

5 enough radiators to cool the power generator

6 Use the Magnetic nozzle high up in the atmosphere or in space

If any of the above conditions is not met, your magnetic nozzle will not function

Edited April 6, 2015 by FreeThinker

[MrNukealizer]

As far as I know, FAR has no effect on KSPI-E. I use FAR all the time and does not effect it negatively.

...

I think his point was that it was producing no thrust due to being in too dense of atmosphere.

If that's not intended behavior, it's probably caused by Near Future Propulsion rather than FAR.

[FreeThinker]

I think his point was that it was producing no thrust due to being in too dense of atmosphere.

If that's not intended behavior, it's probably caused by Near Future Propulsion rather than FAR.

Well, still FAR would have no effect engine functionality, it relies on stock atmosphere.

[FreeThinker]

[h=2]Version 0.8.8 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90[/h] Released on 2015-04-05

• Stabilized Megawatt buffer storage with multiple reactors and when switching time warp
  
• Increased Transportation efficiency of Salt Core reactor to 95%
  
• Transportation efficiency now affect 1/3 of Electric Generator Efficiency
  

[Northstar1989]

Hi Freethinker,

I've seen a lot of updates/fixes lately, but nothing about fixing the resource-naming issue with Propulsive Fluid Accumulators...

Are you planning on fixing this soon? The current code prevents me from using them effectively to collect Nitrogen for propelling nuclear-electric missions to Duna and beyond... (where I plan to deploy another Propulsive Fluid Accumulator to collect LiquidCO2 for the return trip- I assume I won't run into any issues with PFA's there as well? Or with performing the Sabatier Reaction on-orbit using LiquidCO2 and LqdHydrogen stored aboard a refinery vessel?)

Also, will I find that my Propulsive Fluid Accumulator tries to accumulate "Oxidizer" instead of "LqdOxygen"? Or is that fixed for players using RealFuels?

Regards,

Northstar

Edited April 5, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Albman]

Well, here is a screenshot of what happens

[MrNukealizer]

Well, here is a screenshot of what happens

https://i.imgur.com/kTpSZkD.jpg

Yes, that's normal at sea level. Get higher in the atmosphere or in space and it will work.

[FreeThinker]

In the meantime, can we get it so the Propulsive Fluid Accumulators scoop "LiquidNitrogen" properly instead of "Nitrogen"?

Know that in the WarpPlufinSettings the NitrogenResourceName is already set to LiquidNitrogen and the RealFuelsFix does not alter it. However the Nitrogen resource it accumulates and displays is defined in the Atmospheric Resource Definition in the ORSReourcePack. What seem to be missing is a mapping between Interstellar Nitrogen to ORS Nitrogen. The same hold for other resources like LqdHydrogen. I will fix it

- - - Updated - - -

Well, here is a screenshot of what happens

https://i.imgur.com/kTpSZkD.jpg

Lol, This remind me to hide all the debugging data

[Albman]

Yes, that's normal at sea level. Get higher in the atmosphere or in space and it will work.

Thanks for your time!

[Yemo]

Hey,

I remember a message from you about your modified firespitter fuel switch, but could not find it anymore.

With the next SETI version I will drop the dependencies on procedural parts to give players an option to avoid the tweakscale/proceduralparts bug while I m still looking for an appropriate workaround. This should also make SETI a more viable choice for existing KSPI extended games (but I need one in-between version to properly make the CKAN changes and test for issues).

Also twitch streamer igor_perusco has offered to provide firespitter fuel switch configs for spaceplane parts, which I thought about using as an experiment/stop gap until an automatic version could be developed.

With that background, I would like to further develop the fuelswitch from firespitter and interstellar and try to implement something of an automatic MM statement, which could allow for the support of other fuel tanks without manually writing each config. My intitial attempts failed, but I decided to start from scratch and try to incorporate your interstellar options as well as possibly adding new ones. Of course the results (if it works) will be made available.

Unfortunately I did not find the source code of your interstellar fuel switch and wanted to ask you for it/its location.

Thank you very much,

Yemo

Edited April 6, 2015 by Yemo