KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

Can we get a 100% Deuterium tank setup for the cryostat? Since tritium is breedable from lithium and Deuterium is only available from oceans I need more Deuterium storage than He3 or Tritium

Good Idea, and now that I think of it, I could also add a Advanced Fusion fuel mode: pure Deuterium mode which would fuse 2 Deuterium molecules. It would be less efficient but cheaper and more accesable

Edited April 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Thorbane]

Good Idea, and now that I think of it, I could also add a Advanced Fusion fuel mode: pure Deuterium mode which would fuse 2 Deuterium molecules. It would be less efficient but cheaper and more accesable

It has a higher energy barrier, meaning you spend more energy on containment and heating.

Also I found a bug with the generators and radiators. If the reactor is put offline they start a NaN cascade. Edit: I think I may have fixed it. Edit 2: Nope.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Thorbane

[FreeThinker]

It has a higher energy barrier, meaning you spend more energy on containment and heating.

Indeed but the same applies to Deuterium + Helium3 and Helium3 + Helium3 . I need to know the exact Lawson Criterions for every Fusion reaction, when I can apply it to the power requirements, This would make the the Advanced Fuel modes significanly harder to react while the Deuterium Tritium fusion would become easier.

- - - Updated - - -

Also I found a bug with the generators and radiators. If the reactor is put offline they start a NaN cascade. Edit: I think I may have fixed it. Edit 2: Nope.

Sounds like a divide by 0 somewhere. I need to know the exact conditions so I can reproduce the bug

[Yemo]

Thank you for the changes!

I noticed that the deployable microwave transceiver has the same mass as the non-deployable one and that there is only a very small difference between the masses of the Microwave Beamed Power Receiver and its smaller version.

For the future, do you plan on a cost rebalance?

The costs seem to be all over the place. For example radiators (inline and radial) have the same costs regardless of size, and some tanks are extremely expensive.

[FreeThinker]

Thank you for the changes!

I noticed that the deployable microwave transceiver has the same mass as the non-deployable one and that there is only a very small difference between the masses of the Microwave Beamed Power Receiver and its smaller version.

For the future, do you plan on a cost rebalance?

The costs seem to be all over the place. For example radiators (inline and radial) have the same costs regardless of size, and some tanks are extremely expensive.

Well, I'm all open for suggestions. I'm planning to take a critical look at microwave beamed power, I already have noticed some inconsistencies which need to addressed. Mass is one of them.

[Thorbane]

Indeed but the same applies to Deuterium + Helium3 and Helium3 + Helium3 . I need to know the exact Lawson Criterions for every Fusion reaction, when I can apply it to the power requirements, This would make the the Advanced Fuel modes significanly harder to react while the Deuterium Tritium fusion would become easier.

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds like a divide by 0 somewhere. I need to know the exact conditions so I can reproduce the bug

Let the waste heat on the radiators reach 0 and time warp. Edit: Actually you just need to turn off the reactor and time warp.

Edit 2: If I turn the generator(s) attached to the reactors off before warping things are OK. I'd hazard a guess that the bug is lurking in the generator code, it doesn't like being fed 0 power.

Then you get this odd view:

Edited April 21, 2015 by Thorbane

[FreeThinker]

Hopefully this should fix the problem and fix some power exploits

Version 0.9.3 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90

Released on 2015-04-21

• Added Power down sequence to Power generator which is activated when either the reactor or generator is deactivated
  
• Added pure Deuterium resource switch to Fusion fuel cryostat tank
  

Edited April 21, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Dazpoet]

Soon I will upload a full version

This will make my day

[FreeThinker]

Based on my own calculations, I made a draft for DD fusion mode.

REACTOR_FUEL_MODE
{
    name = FusionDD
    ReactorType = 8
    GUIName = Deuterium-Deuterium
    ChargedParticleRatio = 0.4
    Aneutronic = False
    NormalisedReactionRate = 0.24
    NormalisedPowerConsumption = 5.5
    MeVPerChargedProduct = 0.4885
    FUEL
    {
        name = LqdDeuterium
        FuelName = LqdDeuterium
        UsagePerMW = 4.51057971229448e-12
        Unit = l
    }
}

Could someone with good understanding of Fusion verify?

Edited April 22, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Northstar1989]

OK, a few quick notes on the EnginePropellants file in the latest version:

- The temperatures at which CO2 starts breaking down at a noticeable rate in a thermal rocket is still too low. It should be 5000-7000 K, not 3200-7000 K.

- We need some way for CO2 to only deposit soot at very high temperatures (above 5000 K). Below 3200 K it actually tends to CLEAR soot out of the rocket (between 3200 and 5000 K it deposits it- but at a rate so slow as to not be noticeable in the timeframe of a thermal rocket...)

- There are duplicate entries of some fuels. I'm not just talking alternative names of the same thing or the obsolete and new versions of some fuels- some fuels are actually listed twice with EXACTLY the same name and data (as in "LqdNitrogen" and then "LqdNitrogen" again a little later...)

Gotta get to work now.

Regards,

Northstar

[FreeThinker]

There are duplicate entries of some fuels. I'm not just talking alternative names of the same thing or the obsolete and new versions of some fuels- some fuels are actually listed twice with EXACTLY the same name and data (as in "LqdNitrogen" and then "LqdNitrogen" again a little later...)

Weird, I could only find LqdNitrogen once. Are you sure you use the latest version?

On another note I would like to define the Hydrogen-Oxygen fuel mode where you use the exact amount of resource produced by Water electrolysis. Although less efficient as Hydrolox Mode, it would be Ideal if you need maximum thrust and don't want to waste any resources produced from water electrolysis.

BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT
{
    name = LH2/LOx
    guiName = LH2/LOx
    ispMultiplier = 0.5
    thrustMultiplier = 2
    sootFactor = 0
    PROPELLANT
    {
        name = LqdHydrogen
        ratio = 0.668988
        DrawGauge = True
    }
    PROPELLANT
    {
        name = LqdOxygen
        ratio = 0.330122
        DrawGauge = True
    }
}

Since, this mode uses more Oxygen, the effective Isp will probably be lower

Now I need to know what the exact Isp and Thrust to expect

Edited April 22, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

- The temperatures at which CO2 starts breaking down at a noticeable rate in a thermal rocket is still too low. It should be 5000-7000 K, not 3200-7000 K.

I think I can fix this by making the temperature curve steeper, that way, it's soot effect will be very low at 3200K and only start to become significant at 5000K

[Thorbane]

The InterstellarFuelSwitch module does not properly scale the amount contained using tweakscale. It appears to at first, but after reloading or switchiing tank types it reverts to the base volume.

[ABZB]

The InterstellarFuelSwitch module does not properly scale the amount contained using tweakscale. It appears to at first, but after reloading or switchiing tank types it reverts to the base volume.

I think this is because tweakscale is only scaling the resource volume. the tweakscale config [the one in the warpplugin folder] needs to have the following lines added to scale the volume and mass multipliers:

TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
{
	name = InsterstellarFuelSwitch
	volumeMultiplier = 3
	massMultiplier = 2.5 // not sure if these numbers are what are desired for balance and realsim in the end (this is volume as cube, mass as 'square and a half' (like the other interstellar part mass scalings)
}

[FreeThinker]

TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
{
    name = InsterstellarFuelSwitch
    volumeMultiplier = 3
    massMultiplier = 2.5 // not sure if these numbers are what are desired for balance and realsim in the end (this is volume as cube, mass as 'square and a half' (like the other interstellar part mass scalings)
}

Crap, I already made the exact same tweakscaleexponent (including 2.5 massMultiplier) , but it does not appear to be in the download. I will upload the fix in the next release

Edited April 22, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Thorbane]

I think this is because tweakscale is only scaling the resource volume. the tweakscale config [the one in the warpplugin folder] needs to have the following lines added to scale the volume and mass multipliers:

TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
{
	name = InsterstellarFuelSwitch
	volumeMultiplier = 3
	massMultiplier = 2.5 // not sure if these numbers are what are desired for balance and realsim in the end (this is volume as cube, mass as 'square and a half' (like the other interstellar part mass scalings)
}

That appears to have fixed it. Thank you.

[ABZB]

I am about to upload an update to the star-trek style engines on kerbalstuff - I saw that you (Freethinker) has a CTT patch for it in the KSPI download. All the engines are now available as just the nacelles, so there are new partnames. if you want to leave that patch with KSPI (i think that is better, so if the KSPI techtree changes, only one place needs to be changed) the new patch would be as follows:

//** Simian Engines Patch ***
@PART[Simian_MagneticNozzle,Leo-Simian_MagneticNozzle]:NEEDS[StarLionIndustries]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
	@TechRequired = advNuclearPropulsion
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		!PROPELLANT[LiquidNitrogen]{}
		!PROPELLANT[Nitrogen]{}
		!PROPELLANT[LqdHydrogen]{} //this is the current 'default' fuel
		PROPELLANT
		{
			name = LiquidFuel
			ratio = 1.0
			DrawGauge = True
		}
	}
}
@PART[Simian_Arcjet,Leo-Simian_Arcjet]:NEEDS[StarLionIndustries]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
	@TechRequired = advIonPropulsion
}
@PART[Simian_MPD,Leo-Simian_MPD]:NEEDS[StarLionIndustries]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
	@TechRequired = plasmaPropulsion
	@MODULE[ElectricEngineControllerFX]
	{
		@upgradeTechReq = ultraHighEnergyPhysics
	}
}
@PART[Simian_ThermalJet,Leo-Simian_ThermalJet]:NEEDS[StarLionIndustries]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
	@TechRequired = improvedNuclearPropulsion
	@MODULE[ThermalNozzleController]
	{
		@upgradeTechReq = advNuclearPropulsion
	}
}
@PART[Simian_Vista,Leo-Simian_Vista]:NEEDS[StarLionIndustries]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
	@TechRequired = fusionRockets
}

[Nansuchao]

FreeThinker please delete some PM, your mailbox is full

[Thorbane]

I think this is because tweakscale is only scaling the resource volume. the tweakscale config [the one in the warpplugin folder] needs to have the following lines added to scale the volume and mass multipliers:

TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS
{
	name = InsterstellarFuelSwitch
	volumeMultiplier = 3
	massMultiplier = 2.5 // not sure if these numbers are what are desired for balance and realsim in the end (this is volume as cube, mass as 'square and a half' (like the other interstellar part mass scalings)
}

That appears to have fixed it. Thank you.

[FreeThinker]

[h=2]Version 0.9.4 for Kerbal Space Program 0.90[/h] Released on 2015-04-22

• Fixed TweakScale Scaling for Interstellar Fuel Tanks
  
• Fixes Deuterium Cryostat Tank resources
  
• Added Deuterium-Deuterium Fusion Fuel Mode
  
• Added Tank Name Display for Switchable Tanks
  
• Added Water to Interstellar Fuel Tanks
  
• Added LH2-Lox Tank configuration to Interstellar Fuel Tanks
  
• Updated Simian Engines
  

[Northstar1989]

Weird, I could only find LqdNitrogen once. Are you sure you use the latest version?

Erghh, I think I reported the wrong one. It was LqdCO2 that was duplicated (there are two identical "LqdCO2" entries as well as a "LiquidCO2" entry and a "LiquidCO2Cleaning" entry).

On another note I would like to define the Hydrogen-Oxygen fuel mode where you use the exact amount of resource produced by Water electrolysis. Although less efficient as Hydrolox Mode, it would be Ideal if you need maximum thrust and don't want to waste any resources produced from water electrolysis.

BASIC_NTR_PROPELLANT
{
    name = LH2/LOx
    guiName = LH2/LOx
    ispMultiplier = 0.5
    thrustMultiplier = 2
    sootFactor = 0
    PROPELLANT
    {
        name = LqdHydrogen
        ratio = 0.668988
        DrawGauge = True
    }
    PROPELLANT
    {
        name = LqdOxygen
        ratio = 0.330122
        DrawGauge = True
    }
}

Since, this mode uses more Oxygen, the effective Isp will probably be lower

Now I need to know what the exact Isp and Thrust to expect

I know combusting Hydro/LOX in the stoichiometric ratio may seem appealing, but it simply won't work in a thermal rocket. The ratio we currently use is already near the maximum LOX-injection you can have with LANTR- much more and the extra LOX fails to receive exposure to Hydrogen (due to the surface the reaction occurs along only being the inside of the rocket nozzle and necessarily incomplete-mixing) and simply sits there, likely building up as a cryogenic liquid on the inside of the rocket nozzle (the energy it takes to heat a liter of LOX is so much greater than the thermal energy stored in the small amount of exhaust that comes in contact with it that much of it will probably remain liquid) and eventually sloughing off in liquid form- producing no additional thrust whatsoever...

In short, you *COULD* add more LOX to the reaction, but it would produce almost no additional thrust at all. Much better to simply carry some extra Hydrogen in pure form (with cryogenic cooling) or in the form of Ammonia (which is actually a denser storage-medium for Hydrogen than Water- and has the advantage of also producing Nitrogen, which makes an *excellent* electric propellant for final stages or a thermal propellant for landers...)

The Nitrogen from Ammonia-electroylsis can not only be used to burn the surplus LOX from Water-electroylsis: it also can be saved and use as a feedstock to produce hypergolic fuels (*cough* if we ever get around to focusing on expanding ISRU) when you get somewhere like Duna where Carbon and Hydrogen are plentiful (MMH and UDMH are composed of nothing but Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen), but Nitrogen is almost nonexistent... Or barring that, Nitrogen also can be used as an RCS propellant in real life and with RealFuels installed (if you install the RealFuels "ModuleRCSFX" module...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited April 23, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

Also, I've said this before, but the decomposition-temperature values are still off for CO2 and Water...

More appropriate values would be:

CO₂: 5000-7000 K (also, CO₂ acts to CLEAN soot below 3200K- the temperature at which you currently have it start decomposing)

Water: 2200-4200 K (currently it is 2000-4200K, but even using a Gaussian curve 2000 K is still far too low to start the curve at...)

In the case of Carbon Dioxide, decomposition starts occurring at far lower temperatures, but it's not until you get around 5000 K that the decomposition-times start being measured in seconds, and not minutes or hours...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited April 23, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

@FreeThinker

Two more things I noticed when I loaded up the game tonight and from examining the config files:

-The Atmospheric Scoop now scoops "LqdNitrogen" instead of "LiquidNitrogen" but the RealFuels tanks still hold "LiquidNitrogen" (they normally don't hold either- they only hold cryogenic Nitrogen thanks to the "RealFuelsFix" file we have under resources...) The RealFuelsFix file needs to be updated so that the RealFuels tanks now hold "LqdNitrogen" instead of "LiquidNitrogen".

- You REALLY need to look at the power-requirements for the interstellar "flex-tanks". Currently, according to the config, they require the same amount of electrical power for every given fuel-type, despite each fuel-type having a separate entry for power-requirement that could be easily customized. The lower the boiling-point of a propellant the higher its power-requirement should be, and vise-versa.

Also, the boiling-temperatures you set for CO2 and CO are flat-out wrong. I think the error came from how you converted Celsius to Kelvin, although I really have no sure idea why your values are so far off... The CORRECT boiling-temperatures in Kelvin are:

LqdCO: 81.65 K (-191.5 C)

LqdCO2: 220 K (just under -53 C, assuming moderate pressurization of the CO2 to about 6 or 7 atm- which MUST ALWAYS be pressurized to at least 5.10 atm of pressure to remain as a liquid)

You currently have 191.5 for Carbon Monoxide (which I can only assume came from an improper unit-conversion from -191.5 C to Kelvin...) and 194.7 for CO2 (which I have no idea where you got that number- that's FAR too cold a boiling-point for CO2...)

Regards,

Northstar

[FreeThinker]

-The Atmospheric Scoop now scoops "LqdNitrogen" instead of "LiquidNitrogen" but the RealFuels tanks still hold "LiquidNitrogen" (they normally don't hold either- they only hold cryogenic Nitrogen thanks to the "RealFuelsFix" file we have under resources...) The RealFuelsFix file needs to be updated so that the RealFuels tanks now hold "LqdNitrogen" instead of "LiquidNitrogen".

Will do

- - - Updated - - -

- You REALLY need to look at the power-requirements for the interstellar "flex-tanks". Currently, according to the config, they require the same amount of electrical power for every given fuel-type, despite each fuel-type having a separate entry for power-requirement that could be easily customized. The lower the boiling-point of a propellant the higher its power-requirement should be, and vise-versa.

No need to, The listed power requirement is the Base Power requirment, but the effective power requirement is calculated based on base power requirement (at 0 Celcius) resource boilingpoint and ambient temperature. When it is cold enough, power for some resource, will stop completely. The Boiloff is calculated based on Power shortage, boilingpoint, ambient temperature and and fuel tank constant. All calculation are liniear.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, the boiling-temperatures you set for CO2 and CO are flat-out wrong. I think the error came from how you converted Celsius to Kelvin, although I really have no sure idea why your values are so far off... The CORRECT boiling-temperatures in Kelvin are:

LqdCO: 81.65 K (-191.5 C)

LqdCO2: 220 K (just under -53 C, assuming moderate pressurization of the CO2 to about 6 or 7 atm- which MUST ALWAYS be pressurized to at least 5.10 atm of pressure to remain as a liquid)

You currently have 191.5 for Carbon Monoxide (which I can only assume came from an improper unit-conversion from -191.5 C to Kelvin...) and 194.7 for CO2 (which I have no idea where you got that number- that's FAR too cold a boiling-point for CO2...)

I must have mixed Kelvin and Celsius up. Thanks you for you corrections.

Edited April 23, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

The Nitrogen from Ammonia-electroylsis can not only be used to burn the surplus LOX from Water-electroylsis:

Intresting, how can nitrogen help me get rid of the excess Liquid Oxygen? Perhaps we can use our excess Oxygen it other ways also. What about using Oxygen as an afterburner for Ammonia/Hydrazine? Would that work?

- - - Updated - - -

(*cough* if we ever get around to focusing on expanding ISRU) when you get somewhere like Duna where Carbon and Hydrogen are plentiful (MMH and UDMH are composed of nothing but Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen),

For ISRU I'm planning something different. The problem is that all these chemical processes create a lot of duplicate code which is error prone. Instead I want to make it modular, like our Propellant definitions. Basicly you configure the input resources, output resources and some modifiers (volume, power requirements, atmospheric usage, etc). That way, anyone with some basic understanding of chemical processes, can create any ISRU proces definition they can think off. For I care you can create an definition for any obscure realFuels chemical ever invented. I don't want to get bothered by the details

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I've said this before, but the decomposition-temperature values are still off for CO2 and Water...

More appropriate values would be:

CO₂: 5000-7000 K (also, CO₂ acts to CLEAN soot below 3200K- the temperature at which you currently have it start decomposing)

Water: 2200-4200 K (currently it is 2000-4200K, but even using a Gaussian curve 2000 K is still far too low to start the curve at...)

In the case of Carbon Dioxide, decomposition starts occurring at far lower temperatures, but it's not until you get around 5000 K that the decomposition-times start being measured in seconds, and not minutes or hours...

Regards,

Northstar

Perhaps I can fix these issues If I expose a few more variables which allows you to tweak the curve. THat way you can make it at close to reality as you like.

Edit: I got a better sollution. I will provide you the ability to tweak the temperature ratio precisely using a floatcurve. It will be your Job to provide the nodes. You can use a unity floatcurve editor to create the nodes

Edited April 23, 2015 by FreeThinker