KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[ss8913]

Freethinker - 1.5.9 actually made the TTJ performance *worse* than in 1.5.8 - see my previous post. My VTOL plane won't get off the ground now at all under any amount of thrust. Exact same design that could get barely in the sky with 100% on 1.5.8, and in previous versions had no trouble. Also there's still a problem with how max/current thrust is being reported to other mods. As before, works fine in hydrazine mode, only a problem in atmosphere mode.

[FreeThinker]

Freethinker - 1.5.9 actually made the TTJ performance *worse* than in 1.5.8 - see my previous post. My VTOL plane won't get off the ground now at all under any amount of thrust. Exact same design that could get barely in the sky with 100% on 1.5.8, and in previous versions had no trouble. Also there's still a problem with how max/current thrust is being reported to other mods. As before, works fine in hydrazine mode, only a problem in atmosphere mode.

I guess I need to tweak that curve a little better at low mach but the main improvement should be noticable at high mach. Notice the turbojet performance still depends for a large amount on airflow. They are very powerfull in allowing airplanes to fly on nothing but air and heat. VTOL requires very powerfull air compression, I intend to make the turbojet compressor tech gradualy more powerfull with reseached aircraft tech

[ss8913]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting I do here. .. I have 4 shock cone intakes feeding the craft but when doing vtol, airflow is a bit limited for obvious reasons

[FreeThinker]

EXactly how did you managed to use this as a VTOL engine?

[Profit-]

I made a Hexaborane container for the P-boron fusion since I think that there is one missing.

It looks a bit shady but anyone is welcome to use it (even freethinker =) . Just drop it into your parts of your warp plugin folder.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22126744/RVHexbor.zip

[FreeThinker]

+1 Thanks, this will be usefull. I will add it to the parts list.

Edited October 2, 2015 by FreeThinker

[The Pav]

The good news is that there is a way to get rid of actinides in a fission reactor that I know works.

The KSPI science lab and the KSPI ISRU units both have options for "Nuclear Reprocessing".

This is a lossy process that turns Actinides into fresh EnrichedUranium.

One science lab and/or ISRU should be able to keep your fission reactor from building up actinides.

If you have a fission reactor and ISRU as parts of the same vessel, running on top of a Uranium deposit on the Mun, it should be capable of running pretty much indefinitely.

If you have a reactor that's full of Actinides, you can revive it by connecting it to any vessel that has a KSPI generator and ISRU or science lab.

Hope that helps you guys that are still in the early parts of the Nuclear Power tech tree nodes.

I've been trying this over and over and it just does nothing. Can anyone help? I can not get either type of ISRU to reprocess nuclear fuel to remove actinides. Nothing happens at all. I've asked this a few times and never got a response. If it doesn't work, someone please let me know that.

Edited October 2, 2015 by The Pav

[Bishop149]

FreeThinker, do you maintain any kind of gallery for showcasing designs made utilizing Interstellar Extended?

I made this a while back, after such a thing was suggested:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/134414-KSP-I-Craft-showcase

It hasn't proven popular . . . .

[The Pav]

I made this a while back, after such a thing was suggested:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/134414-KSP-I-Craft-showcase

It hasn't proven popular . . . .

I just posted a couple images there and will continue to do so... if I have anything worth posting that is.

[okder]

I guess I need to tweak that curve a little better at low mach but the main improvement should be noticeable at high mach. Notice the turbojet performance still depends for a large amount on airflow. They are very powerful in allowing airplanes to fly on nothing but air and heat. VTOL requires very powerful air compression, I intend to make the turbojet compressor tech gradual more powerful with researched aircraft tech

none detected - thrust still very low at 900m/s, so it's not possible to get any near orbital speeds on kerbol/Eve,

but is easy possible with ATTILA (Even with same inertial containment fusion reactor), and ATTILA do use more atmospheric input for it (worse ISP)

yea on 300 m/s ATTILA performance is worse now, but it does not matter, as >800m/s required for high atmosphere, and 0m/s on takeoff (in both cases ATTILA much outperform turbojet).

Edited October 2, 2015 by okder

[FreeThinker]

Did it ever occured to you the ATTILA and atmpospheric scoops performance are overpowered?, it's efficiency is actualy to high. I was optimistic and gave the performance of a arjet at 85%. However the ATILLA also ionises it's propellant, which varies between 50-80% So it effective efficency is somewhere closer between 42-70% . The atmospheric scoop are kind of optimistic as well, as they are assumed to be 100% efficent and therefore produce no waste heat at all. This will change in the future. I think if you take these future realsim balances into account, the turbojet become much more compatitive.

Edited October 2, 2015 by FreeThinker

[okder]

yes i understand that ATTILA with atmosphere overpowered(with atmospheric intake !not scoops!), so it could be fixed also.

but it's better also to evaluate stock and mk2 expansion top highspeed air engines. (i think it easy to approximate how much energy is producing while fuel is burning, that energy is replaced as electrical/thermal reactor input, propellant is too easy approximated), i think they more powerful (but that does not mean they are realistic).

there is a problem that currently in KSPIe are low tier (early accessible in career) (atomic fission) atmospheric jets, but no (since 1.5.) high tier (which should be in end of career) atmospheric jet (if you exclude ATTILA).

i mean that for balance purposes you should compare top turbo/ram jet with ATTILA, when using magnetic containment fusion (in best energy mode) or antimatter reactor.

part of problem also that at the end of career warp drive (for star travel, powered with !antimatter!) is available and no jet engine to get off from atmosphere on EVE.

(i.e. for interstellar travel is used antimatter but for atmosphere acceleration is better to use liquid fuel burnup power(with oxidizer from atmosphere), because no engine to link with antimatter reactor with good performance)

Edited October 2, 2015 by okder

[LastStarDust]

The question is, is the lag issue fixed for you now?

For me is fixed. Many thanks

[ss8913]

EXactly how did you managed to use this as a VTOL engine?

I've been doing it for years. Take an additional antimatter reactor, attach a turbojet, rotate it vertical, and put it at the com. Repeat if more thrust is needed. Has worked really well until now. Pretty much every craft I have uses this design.

Are you saying that the current turbojet performance is intentional? What about the fact that it's reporting it's thrust values incorrectly to other mods in atmospheric mode? Seems like something is still awry here.

[FreeThinker]

For me is fixed. Many thanks

+1 For answering the main question

[etmoonshade]

So here's a bug - my DUMBO reactor disappeared from my game o.o Not exactly sure where it went, but I have the tech level, and it says it's on the tech tree, just not on my part list. Any clues?

I have a similar problem with the molten salt reactor (not the large one.)

Digging around in the configs showed that it was set to a science level of "none." I set it to what it used to be (same as the large one) - but it's still not on the part list. I'm about to go dig in my persistence file, remove the entry, and repurchase it to see if that knocks something loose. I'll post an update if it does, but this is still a bug, generally speaking.

[silversliver]

The question is, is the lag issue fixed for you now?

For me has never been a problem, I don't know if I'm lucky or don't have some mods with a strange behaviour.(Even if I have a lot of mods actually)

[SciMan]

-snip-* I feel silly asking this, but where is the Hexa-borate storage for the P-Boron Fusion mode with the reactors? Anyone know?

The "pancake" Interstellar Fuel Tank has options for storing Hexaborane, LqdDeuterium, and Lithium, IIRC. All of these are useful for Fusion reactors, but they're at the very end of the fuel list (faster to get to them by clicking "previous" instead of "next").

AFAIK that's also the only tank in the mod that can store Hexaborane. Of course it would be nice if there were more.

Of course I haven't upgraded my copy of KSPI-Extended in a while so that may have changed, but I don't think it should have.

Edited October 2, 2015 by SciMan

[Cosmonauth]

The question is, is the lag issue fixed for you now?

Running smooth and fine =)

[ABZB]

The "pancake" Interstellar Fuel Tank has options for storing Hexaborane, LqdDeuterium, and Lithium, IIRC. All of these are useful for Fusion reactors, but they're at the very end of the fuel list (faster to get to them by clicking "previous" instead of "next").

AFAIK that's also the only tank in the mod that can store Hexaborane. Of course it would be nice if there were more.

Of course I haven't upgraded my copy of KSPI-Extended in a while so that may have changed, but I don't think it should have.

The tanks my patch adds have a HexoBorane option. As of 8.3.something, It is stored cryogenically, optimizing storage density for a small energy cost (only needs to get to minus thirty-something C, IIRC).

[FreeThinker]

The tanks my patch adds have a HexoBorane option. As of 8.3.something, It is stored cryogenically, optimizing storage density for a small energy cost (only needs to get to minus thirty-something C, IIRC).

I introduced the resource HexoBorane because it allows me to store Boron in a very convenient way, at room temperature. You don't need any cryogenic cooling to store it.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course I haven't upgraded my copy of KSPI-Extended in a while so that may have changed, but I don't think it should have.

Seriously, How much Boron are you going to use for fusion. You need to use Fusion at full power for a long time before you run out.

[Psitticine]

Sorry for the lag in reporting this (work got crazy this week) but the latest also fixed the issues I was reporting with the DUMBO + thermal generator. Very smooth and lag-free now!

[etmoonshade]

So here's a bug - my DUMBO reactor disappeared from my game o.o Not exactly sure where it went, but I have the tech level, and it says it's on the tech tree, just not on my part list. Any clues?

I have a similar problem with the molten salt reactor (not the large one.)

Digging around in the configs showed that it was set to a science level of "none." I set it to what it used to be (same as the large one) - but it's still not on the part list. I'm about to go dig in my persistence file, remove the entry, and repurchase it to see if that knocks something loose. I'll post an update if it does, but this is still a bug, generally speaking.

Looks like removing the tech entry from the persistence file and starting KSP back up did NOT fix the issue; seems like this is a legit bug. Note, when installing the new version of KSP-I, I did remove the old WarpPlugin folder (as per the instructions) and add the new one. I did the same for the InterstellarFuelSwitch folder, which was also complaining about needing an update.

[FreeThinker]

I have a similar problem with the molten salt reactor (not the large one.)

Digging around in the configs showed that it was set to a science level of "none." I set it to what it used to be (same as the large one) - but it's still not on the part list. I'm about to go dig in my persistence file, remove the entry, and repurchase it to see if that knocks something loose. I'll post an update if it does, but this is still a bug, generally speaking.

It's not a bug, the old small Molten Salt reactor which runs on Uranium Oxide is being phased out, for a 2.5m version that runs on the original Hexafloride, which can be transferred and processed much easier.

[SciMan]

-snip-

Seriously, How much Boron are you going to use for fusion. You need to use Fusion at full power for a long time before you run out.

Agreed you don't need "a lot" of Hexaborane, but you do need more than the reactor itself can store.

A single Interstellar Fuel Tank X2 of the same diameter as the reactor provides enough Hexaborane that you don't have to worry about running out for quite a long time.

My thought was that some users might want different SHAPED tanks, even if they don't have a different capacity.

Reasons for this would be mostly aesthetics (looks), but someone might also want to use retrofit a preexisting fusion powered craft to enable it to use hexaborane fusion.

By the way, is there a way to acquire Hexaborane without launching it from Kerbin? If there isn't, perhaps it could be gotten from certain asteroids and/or the surface of Dres? Gives another reason to go to those places. I still think we need more reasons to go to Dres, and having certain bodies be the best/only non-Kerbin source of certain resources is IMO the best way to drive players to go to those bodies.

One final thought:

I think it would be worth it to switch the whole KSPI ISRU system over to using the stock converters. Here's a list of advantages and disadvantages I have come up with.

Disadvantages:

- Would require editing the config files on 3 parts (probably not a big deal since many engines have been added without too much hassle).

- Power tracking might be more difficult in the MegaJoule Power Manager window in flight.

Advantages:

- Helps fix many of the resource flow problems with things like nuclear reprocessing and such.

- Allows using more than one reaction at the same time per KSPI ISRU part.

- Can be made to run off of MegaJoule power (just like it does now).

- Reduces the amount of code that the addon maker needs to watch for bugs (stock code replacing mod code = bugs in ISRU are now either config file errors or bugs in Squad's code).

Fun fact:

The stock ISRU system is probably a (distant) relative of the KSPI ISRU system.

KSPI had part of its code split off into ORSX, which RoverDude used to make the original Karbonite system.

The original Karbonite code was developed into the Regolith system, which became the codebase used for most/all ISRU mods RoverDude was making at the time (Karbonite, K+, ART, etc.)

KSP devs hired RoverDude to make the stock ISRU system.

Most of the stock ISRU system is a close derivative of Regolith.

It's not a bug, the old small Molten Salt reactor which runs on Uranium Oxide is being phased out, for a 2.5m version that runs on the original Hexafloride, which can be transferred and processed much easier.

Hopefully we'll still have at least some kind of reactor which can scale to 0.625m diameter. Being able to add those to ships as a backup power source is really really handy.

EDIT:

Anyone else notice that at highest time warp (x100k) antimatter collection with an antimatter powered ship doesn't exactly work like it should?

I was piloting an antimatter powered ship in exactly 9Mm circular 0deg orbit of Jool, and the ship has enough antimatter collectors that it will show that it's collecting more antimatter than the reactor is consuming when not in time warp.

In any time warp except for x100k, I can watch the antimatter amount in the resource panel (and in the reactor control interface) and tell that I'm still collecting antimatter.

However, when I go to x100k, the antimatter flow rate will become "mostly" positive. There are times that the amount of antimatter in the containment will drop by ~5-10% of the tank's capacity. Reducing time warp will return the game to expected behavior, but it forced me to wait 10x longer IRL thru a 100+ day stay in that orbit to fill up on antimatter.

EDIT 2:

Before I forget the reason I checked this thread again in the first place, is there any possibility of extremely advanced power reactions being added?

I have two specific reactions I'm thinking of.

Proton-Proton fusion mode for the fusion reactors, and "Matter-Energy conversion" mode for the antimatter reactors.

Both of these fuel modes would consume standard propellant-grade LqdHydrogen as the sole fuel.

Because these reactions are so advanced, they would unlock similarly to the warp drive, and at at the same tech node.

Unlocking the tech node would only unlock the ability to retrofit reactors to use these advanced fusion modes, and the retrofit would cost additional science points.

Proton-Proton fusion would (proportionally) require the most power of any fusion mode to keep the reaction going, and would likely produce similar power levels to Hexaborane fusion. All power would be in the form of Charged Particles, and it would be aneutronic.

Matter-energy conversion mode wouldn't produce any more power than Antimatter mode, produce 100% of its power as Charged Particles, and would have zero byproducts just like Antimatter does.

The intended primary advantage of these extremely advanced reactor operation modes would be that they only require LqdHydrogen fuel, therefore greatly simplifying logistics for a player that has a fully-unlocked tech tree.

(maybe they're OP, but I've seen plenty of games that only unlock the cheats menu once you beat them, and fully unlocking the tech tree is the closest thing KSP has to "beating the game" in stock form).

Edited October 2, 2015 by SciMan