KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

Version 1.8.21 for Kerbal Space Program 1.1.2

Released on 2016-05-28

• Fixed 1300t+ generator problem with Particle Reactor when Near Future Electrics is installed
• Increased D-He3 charged particle percentage to 94.5%
• Generator mass is now updated at real time when the attached reactor is being scaled in the VAB
• Increased Minimum percentage Thermalheat to 5% for Quantum Singularity Reactor
• Quantum Singularity Fuel modes only speed up particles and produce small amount of antimatter which is redistributed over all containers
• Magnetic Nozzle now requires Plasma Propulsion technology
• Thermal Electric Generator now requires Specialized Electrics and is upgraded with Advanced Nuclear Power
• Molten Salt and Particle Reactor minimum utilization depends on tech level, which will equalize lifespan between low and high tech versions

Edited May 28, 2016 by FreeThinker

[okder]

to power magneto inertial fusion engine best now is to use CANDLE TWR engine as reactor only(+generator), still comparing to existing one's http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/SPRING00/lecture35.pdf

it's too cool (23MW with ~0.4 mass with generator and radiators).

i.e. it's no low power reactors at all(smallest size of molten salt gives 35 mw with mk1, with > 1T weight, smallest magneto inertial fusion engine requires 1.7mw).

 

[raxo2222]

Why my atmospheric resource cofing for RSS wasn't added?

[Mine_Turtle]

I have a quick question: is thermal nozzle supposed to draw power from charged particles or only from thermal power of reactor?

[nezumi]

Thermal nozzles should be pulling /only/ from thermal power (which makes them ideal for early use with fission reactors, and your later fusion reactors can pair up nicely with the charged particle generator).

[FreeThinker]

Actually, thermal nozzles can use thermal heat and charged particles if they are available. Charged Particle are easily converted into heat  Just make them collide with something The reverse is not possible.

[SciMan]

I've noticed a problem with the balancing of the vacuum-optimized thermal engine (thermal ramjet nozzle), specifically when powered by reactors with high core temperature (fusion or antimatter). The problem is that it has HORRIBLE specific impulse ASL. This would be understandable if it was being fed by a reactor with a low core temperature such as a molten salt reactor, or a microwave thermal receiver, but not when it's hooked up to a fusion or antimatter reactor.

If you're using a very high-temperature reactor (fusion or antimatter) to power the thermal ramjet nozzle, the very high temperature that the engine's propellant reaches in the rocket nozzle's chamber should mean that the chamber pressure of the engine should also be very high.
This high pressure means that the specific impulse should not be affected very much by atmospheric pressure because the hot propellant gases are always at a much higher pressure than the outside atmosphere, even at the mouth of the rocket nozzle.
In terms of a rocket nozzle, the very high chamber pressure of a thermal rocket engine being powered from a fusion or antimatter reactor means that the nozzle is always "underexpanded" relative to atmospheric pressure and temperature.
This means that you could get more thrust and specific impulse out of a nozzle with a higher expansion ratio, but it also means you don't lose specific impulse at sea level compared to vacuum.
This explains why the thermal launch nozzle has lower specific impulse, but it also explains why the thermal ramjet nozzle should have higher sea-level specific impulse than it does (while probably not beating out the thermal launch nozzle's specific impulse until higher altitude).

There are two problems this creates. Firstly, craft that would otherwise have enough thrust and delta-V to go to and from orbit several times without refueling end up needing to have a huge booster under them to get them high enough that the thermal engine can take over.
I'm fairly certain this would be causing me no end of trouble if I wasn't using KJR, because "huge booster" usually means "very wobbly rocket" without KJR.

Secondly, what's the point of having the vacuum optimized thermal nozzle have an atmospheric mode, if it's atmospheric specific impulse is terrible AND it doesn't work at low speed? If you're not using RSS or RO or something like that, the benefits of an atmospheric mode on a vacuum-optimized rocket engine don't seem to make much sense.

The only solution I have to the first issue (that isn't a huge booster) is to use KIS to swap out the rocket nozzle after the thing reaches orbit, send it up mostly empty, and use Hydrazine propellant. I haven't tried this yet, as I'm able to build huge boosters that don't wobble apart (thanks, KJR).

A possible solution to that second issue (on Earth, Kerbin, and Laythe at least) is to add a "LF+IntakeAir" mode which has better ASL specific impulse, but only provides thrust at high-supersonic to hypersonic speeds.

 

The thermal launch nozzle has no performance issues that I'm aware of, but it does have a slight scaling issue. It shows up as too small compared to the "same diameter" (according to TweakScale) KS-25 which it takes its model from.
To be honest, I'm not sure if this is intentional or not.

 

One final thought: Thermal nozzles that aren't connected to an active reactor should behave like Cold Gas Thrusters.
Think "office chair + CO₂ fire extinguisher".
No thermal power to the heat exchangers doesn't stop the propellant from coming out of the rocket nozzle, but the efficiency will be terrible (76s maximum theoretical ISP). A cold-gas thruster running on Nitrogen (pressurized gas, not liquid) in a vacuum can get 73s.
That might be useful data for the unpowered mode of the electric RCS blocks as well, now that I think about it.

Edited May 28, 2016 by SciMan

[Rushligh]

so, i've run into this strange problem where the thermal turbojet can't recognize any fuel source after it re-enters the atmosphere.

 

anyway, it seems that the thermal turbo jet won't recognize any intake resource if it's activated when the resource it's useing is depleated. I trued running it off liquid fuel as a test, and when it ran out, i switched to ATM and it said "deprived"

it will do the same if you exit the atmosphere (run out of ATM).

or with any other resource (im testing liquid nitrogen)

this is the sip im using; the mk2 shells on the side are hollow and full of reaction wheel/radiators. the thermal nozzles on the sides are for dissipating heat at the expense of ATM. also, it has a TONNE of air intakes.

[Rushligh]

UPDATE***

it seems to be a problem with the termal jet, that once it runs out of a say fuel source while activated, it will no longer recognize any fuel input regardless.

HOWEVER. if you have an engineer in your crew, and the craft lands (on some from of squad gear) that status will reset and the engine will work again.

i've tried this with only a pilot on crew and it WONT revert.

[Mine_Turtle]

I FIX EVERYTHING!! Or I hope so. 

Version 1.8.21* Bug fixes:

1. Fixed game crash when choosing new thermal nozzle propellants in VAB with QSR attached.
2. Changed QSR supported propellants types to use with thermal nozzle. QSR now supports all available propellants.
3. Fixed thermal nozzle not working after engine becomes inactive. (Thanks, @Rushligh)
4. Fixed thermal nozzle overheating with large fusion reactor.
5. Fixed fusion reactors supplying power with plasma ratio < 1.
6. Reworked thermal nozzle heat mechanic. Instead of setting heat directly(cooling and intakes heat), only heat production is affected. Heating parameters are still to be adjusted for game balance.
7. Changed starting reactor type on large fusion reactor upgrades. Parts are now functioning as proper fusion reactors.
8. Adjusted large fusion reactor and upgrades costs.
9. Fixed DRE patch not being applied.

New version can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzaLdTtFg_pieFBoOTVMTnhudkE

 

@FreeThinker Changed files and patch are here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzaLdTtFg_pidGhBUFJWczdLeGM Tell me if you disagree with some of my changes and they need further adjacement.

 

If there are still any problems or something else needs fixing, please, let me know.

[FreeThinker]

49 minutes ago, Mine_Turtle said:

I FIX EVERYTHING!! Or I hope so. 

Version 1.8.21* Bug fixes:

1. Fixed game crash when choosing new thermal nozzle propellants in VAB with QSR attached.
2. Changed QSR supported propellants types to use with thermal nozzle. QSR now supports all available propellants.
3. Fixed thermal nozzle not working after engine becomes inactive. (Thanks, @Rushligh)
4. Fixed thermal nozzle overheating with large fusion reactor.
5. Fixed fusion reactors supplying power with plasma ratio < 1.
6. Reworked thermal nozzle heat mechanic. Instead of setting heat directly(cooling and intakes heat), only heat production is affected. Heating parameters are still to be adjusted for game balance.
7. Changed starting reactor type on large fusion reactor upgrades. Parts are now functioning as proper fusion reactors.
8. Adjusted large fusion reactor and upgrades costs.
9. Fixed DRE patch not being applied.

New version can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzaLdTtFg_pieFBoOTVMTnhudkE

 

@FreeThinker Changed files and patch are here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzaLdTtFg_pidGhBUFJWczdLeGM Tell me if you disagree with some of my changes and they need further adjacement.

 

If there are still any problems or something else needs fixing, please, let me know.

This is realy great, but why not create a GitHub pull request which would allow me to easily compare all changes? On the other-hand, this allows me to easier remove all the noise

Edit: After Analysis I noticed the only real change is in InterstellarInitialConfinementReactor.cs where you moved the base,.OnStart call and altered the MaximumThermalPower / MaximumChargedPower  properties to take into account the plasma modifier. At first sight they look good changes!

Edit: I noticed some major changes in Thermal Nozzle Controller which are difficult to predict their effect . The question is how did you test?

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Mine_Turtle]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

This is realy great, but why not create a GitHub pull request which would allow me to easily compare all changes? On the other-hand, this allows me to easier remove all the noise

Edit: After Analysis I noticed the only real change is in InterstellarInitialConfinementReactor.cs where you moved the base,.Onstart call and altered the MaximumThermalPower / MaximumChargedPower  properties to take into account the plasma modifier. At first sight they look good changes!

Edit: I noticed some major changes in Thermal Nozzle Controller which are difficult to predict their effect . The question is how did you test?

 

Changes with InterstellarInitialConfinementReactor.cs are connected with inheritance issues of C#. The InterstellarFusionReactor class from which confinement reactor is derived has those methods defined but they are never called. So I had to copy them, so that plasma ration is taken into account. As for base.OnStart the reason I moved it is to prevent parent class from overriding isEnabled variable.

As of changes in thermal nozzle, basically there are two things to look at: propellant switch and temperature calculation. QSR caused stackoverflow because propellants list index addressed more elements than there are in the list(recursive search is bad btw). As for temp, I have removed all sections assigning temp directly and moved proportion calculations to heatproduction part. I have also increased fuel flow tolerance, for some reason it was causing rapid temp increase(probably some calculation erros in ksp engine).

 

I assembled a test craft: pod section, reactor(QSR, AIM, AM, small/large fusion, molten salt) in VAB, thermal nozzle and launched it on launchpad. Then I checked if I can swap fuels, does reactor provide power when no energy present and if any kind of overheating occurs. I have also tested two more crafts in SPH: one with nuclear turbojet and one with AM reactor+nozzle. Then I flew then out of atmo and reenter and watched if temp was rising(tested with precoolers and without). Heatproduction might be set too low atm as without  precoolers engine overheats just slightly but that something I have to experiment more. However, previous mechanic caused nuclear turbojet to overheat beyond reason(I reported that).

 

No idea how to create pull request yet. I get access denied for some reason.  Done.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mine_Turtle

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, Mine_Turtle said:

1. Adjusted large fusion reactor and upgrades costs.@FreeThinker Changed files and patch are here: 

If there are still any problems or something else needs fixing, please, let me know.

Exactly why did you change the upgrade cost? Did you know that except for the first reactor, they are just placeholders in the tech tree, meaning they don't have any functional effect except part info?

Edited May 29, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

21 minutes ago, Mine_Turtle said:

Changes with InterstellarInitialConfinementReactor.cs are connected with inheritance issues of C#. The InterstellarFusionReactor class from which confinement reactor is derived has those methods defined but they are never called. So I had to copy them, so that plasma ration is taken into account. As for base.OnStart the reason I moved it is to prevent parent class from overriding isEnabled variable.

inheritance issues of C#?

I understand why you overiden MaximumThermalPower  and MaximumChargedPower  , but why also MaximumPower, which was already correctly derived from InterstellarReactor and MinimumPower which was already correctly derived from InterstellarFusionReactor.

Edited May 29, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Mine_Turtle]

2 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Exactly why did you change the upgrade cost? Did you know that except for the first reactor, they are just placeholders in the tech tree, meaning they don't have any functional effect except part info?

Except that ksp treats them as new parts and they are fully functional both in career and sandbox. So once you unlock them you have access to a better fusion reactor with power output and higher core temp. And since their cost is lower I have decided to readjust the costs: first fusion reactor is 1kk and on par with small fusion reactor, while second upgrade is 2kk and has better parameters.

Moreover, originally reactors had type 4 which made them nuclear but with superior parameters of fusion reactors. If they are placeholders it seems better to have properly working reactors and balanced in terms of money/power.

2 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

inheritance issues of C#?

I understand why you overiden MaximumThermalPower  and MaximumChargedPower  , but why also MaximumPower, which was already correctly derived from InterstellarReactor and MinimumPower which was already correctly derived from InterstellarFusionReactor.

Yes, inheritance issues. And it made quite frustrated at first, as I saw MaximumPower overriden in InterstellarFusionReactor. However, having done some test by printing messages in this method I realized that top parent method(InterstellarReactor) is called. That's why I had to do that. 

Basically, what I realized is: if you have 3 classes: A B C and inheritance B: A and C:B then if you call base.onFixedUpdate in C and this method is instantiated only in A then onFixedUpdate will call methods of A even if they are overriden in B. Makes sense, right?

[FreeThinker]

13 minutes ago, Mine_Turtle said:

Except that ksp treats them as new parts and they are fully functional both in career and sandbox. So once you unlock them you have access to a better fusion reactor with power output and higher core temp. And since their cost is lower I have decided to readjust the costs: first fusion reactor is 1kk and on par with small fusion reactor, while second upgrade is 2kk and has better parameters.

Moreover, originally reactors had type 4 which made them nuclear but with superior parameters of fusion reactors. If they are placeholders it seems better to have properly working reactors and balanced in terms of money/power.

Lol, this is something new, I always use filter extensions and here only parts that have a valid category are shown. Perhaps they are visible in none filtered views, which would indeed make them accessible which is not my intention.

1 hour ago, Mine_Turtle said:

1. @RushlighChanged QSR supported propellants types to use with thermal nozzle. QSR now supports all available propellants.

 

 

Notice I planned to make them eventually available, but after the planned gravitational effects on performance are implemented. Giving thermal engine full access to SQR power would be highly over powered

Edited May 29, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Mine_Turtle]

15 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Lol, this is something new, I always use filter extensions and here only parts that have a valid category are shown. Perhaps they are visible in none filtered views, which would indeed make them accessible which is not my intention.

Indeed they are present in electrical tab, not in KSPI tab. But still parts are there so I have decided to "fix" them.

Two better ways to correct his:

1) Increase part cost to very high amount, so they are not buyable in career, as well as decrease power so the part is useless.

2) Remove part altogether. Move it outside GameData folder so it is physically not present in the game, until it is properly working.

15 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Notice I planned to make them eventually available, but after the planned gravitational effects on performance are implemented. Giving thermal engine full access to SQR power would be highly over powered

I understand that, but even without these options QSR can still work with thermal nozzle in atmo mode. So, I'd rather accept this change for testing purposes. If player has access to QSR this means he also has other means of propulsion other than thermal nozzle: warp and vista with higher isp.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mine_Turtle

[FreeThinker]

12 minutes ago, Mine_Turtle said:

I understand that, but even without these options QSR can still work with thermal nozzle in atmo mode. So, I'd rather accept this change for testing purposes. If player has access to QSR this means he also has other means of propulsion other than thermal nozzle: warp and vista with higher isp.

Well as long as thermalPropulsionEfficiency = 0, players should not be able to generate any effective thermal thrust

21 minutes ago, Mine_Turtle said:

Indeed they are present in electrical tab, not in KSPI tab. But still parts are there so I have decided to "fix" them.

Two better ways to correct his:

1) Increase part cost to very high amount, so they are not buyable in career, as well as decrease power so the part is useless.

2) Remove part altogether. Move it outside GameData folder so it is physically not present in the game, until it is properly working.

Mmm, I guess that means I have to make sure that every part is either need to be technically correct or useless

[FreeThinker]

The following update is made possible by @Mine_Turtle:

Version 1.8.22 for Kerbal Space Program 1.1.2

Released on 2016-05-29

• Fixed Molten Salt Reactor & Particle Reactor minimum utilization
• Fixed game crash when choosing new thermal nozzle propellants in VAB with QSR attached. (credits Mine Turtle)
• Fixed thermal nozzle not working after engine becomes inactive. (thanks to @Rushligh)
• Fixed thermal nozzle overheating with large fusion reactor. (credits Mine Turtle)
• Fixed fusion reactors supplying power with plasma ratio < 1. (credits Mine Turtle)
• Reworked thermal nozzle heat mechanic. Instead of setting heat directly(cooling and intakes heat), only heat production is affected. Heating parameters are still to be adjusted for game balance. (credits Mine Turtle)
• Changed starting reactor type on large fusion reactor upgrades. Parts are now functioning as proper fusion reactors. (credits Mine Turtle)
• Fixed DRE patch not being applied. (credits Mine Turtle)

[nablabla]

hi,

what wrong?

(underneath the radiator there is a nuclear reactor directly connected to the thermal ramjet nozzle)

i dont expect it to fly, its the first time i test kspie, but there should be some thrust, right?

[FreeThinker]

I suggest you switch to atmospheric mode as nozzle is mend either as a ram jet in atmospheric mode or lightweight vacuum nozzle in space.

Your reactor is simply not strong enough to overcome the static pressure at sea level with this nozzle

Edited May 29, 2016 by FreeThinker

[nablabla]

athmospheric mode gives me only 0.4kn

[FreeThinker]

44 minutes ago, nablabla said:

athmospheric mode gives me only 0.4kn

Yes the trust is realy bad when you start at the start of the runway but it will become higher as you speed up. It is advice you use a secondary propulsion when taking off or use the thermal turbojet

One Idea is to use solid rocket booster like with project pluto

Edited May 29, 2016 by FreeThinker

[nablabla]

its still gives me less then 3kn when flying with 300m/s

[FreeThinker]

7 minutes ago, nablabla said:

its still gives me less then 3kn when flying with 300m/s

mmm, that indeed disappointing it should be at 30% thrust at that , what version are you using?