KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[raxo2222]

5 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

A gas compresser will be included in the LqdHe3 storage tank and probably in some small Universal storage device.

Helium or Helium4 would be indeed a good candidate for resource, but it is not an absolute requirment yet as there is no need for Helium Mining, for Helium3 there is.

Note that in the next version, Helium3 can be mined from  atmosphereless moons and planets.The closer they are to the sun the more Helium3 can be found Permant shadowed location (craters or pits) also help. This will give some great incentive to start a mining colony on  Moho, which is closest to the sun,

  Hide contents

Especialy in the deep nothern pit.

 

Or on Mercury/around Venus when playing RSS. But moon will be easiest to arrive place to mine He3.

[FreeThinker]

4 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

Or on Mercury/around Venus when playing RSS. But moon will be easiest to arrive place to mine He3.

True, but you will soon find out that one of the main problems of Helium Mining is that it comes down to scale an big numbers.

The universe has the Evil tendacy that the best stuff is hardest to find . In the case of helium 3 this is certainly true,

The Moon will be good enough for powering Fusion Reactors, but once you want to go interstellar, you need to scale up by a large order of magnitude. We are talking in hudreds of tons.

Edited June 20, 2016 by FreeThinker

[VaporTrail]

Getting back into KSP and KSPI, and seem to be having an issue with MechJeb and Plasma Thrusters. I have a 12GW microwave reactor farm feeding a six relay array in Kerbin orbit, and I have a test article using the sphere receiver, an inline radiator, two medium graphite deployable radiators, a couple of gigantor solar panels and a plasma thruster (using mono-prop for boost to orbit). The test article makes it to orbital altitude under MechJeb but when it comes time to circularize, MechJeb just sits there and lets the node pass. I can make orbit manually, but when I try to use MechJeb to circularize (maneuver planner) for closer to perfect orbit... same thing, MechJeb just sits there. The nav-ball has a (I guess) accurate burn time and time to node displayed but there's no response from MechJeb. I haven't had an issue with conventional engines under MechJeb control. 

Is this a known issue, or am I doing or expecting something incorrectly? 

[Liquid5n0w]

4 hours ago, VaporTrail said:

Getting back into KSP and KSPI, and seem to be having an issue with MechJeb and Plasma Thrusters. I have a 12GW microwave reactor farm feeding a six relay array in Kerbin orbit, and I have a test article using the sphere receiver, an inline radiator, two medium graphite deployable radiators, a couple of gigantor solar panels and a plasma thruster (using mono-prop for boost to orbit). The test article makes it to orbital altitude under MechJeb but when it comes time to circularize, MechJeb just sits there and lets the node pass. I can make orbit manually, but when I try to use MechJeb to circularize (maneuver planner) for closer to perfect orbit... same thing, MechJeb just sits there. The nav-ball has a (I guess) accurate burn time and time to node displayed but there's no response from MechJeb. I haven't had an issue with conventional engines under MechJeb control. 

Is this a known issue, or am I doing or expecting something incorrectly? 

I have this problem as well, it use to do burns just started them very late, but now it doesn't even move the throttle.

[Nansuchao]

4 hours ago, VaporTrail said:

Getting back into KSP and KSPI, and seem to be having an issue with MechJeb and Plasma Thrusters. I have a 12GW microwave reactor farm feeding a six relay array in Kerbin orbit, and I have a test article using the sphere receiver, an inline radiator, two medium graphite deployable radiators, a couple of gigantor solar panels and a plasma thruster (using mono-prop for boost to orbit). The test article makes it to orbital altitude under MechJeb but when it comes time to circularize, MechJeb just sits there and lets the node pass. I can make orbit manually, but when I try to use MechJeb to circularize (maneuver planner) for closer to perfect orbit... same thing, MechJeb just sits there. The nav-ball has a (I guess) accurate burn time and time to node displayed but there's no response from MechJeb. I haven't had an issue with conventional engines under MechJeb control. 

Is this a known issue, or am I doing or expecting something incorrectly? 

 

3 minutes ago, Liquid5n0w said:

I have this problem as well, it use to do burns just started them very late, but now it doesn't even move the throttle.

 

Mechjeb isn't able to manage the throttle of Interstellar Extended engines, due to the variable thrust/ISP. For the earliest in tech tree engines it usually begins the burn a little late, for the others is not good at all. It's better to do the burn manually, maybe using "Better Burn Time" or KER to have more precise burn time.

[Liquid5n0w]

Just now, Nansuchao said:

 

 

Mechjeb isn't able to manage the throttle of Interstellar Extended engines, due to the variable thrust/ISP. For the earliest in tech tree engines it usually begins the burn a little late, for the others is not good at all. It's better to do the burn manually, maybe using "Better Burn Time" or KER to have more precise burn time.

But the plasma thruster doesn't have variable ISP?  

And KER doesn't calculate unless the engine is throttled, otherwise it gives 0 dV and 0 thrust.

[Nansuchao]

47 minutes ago, Liquid5n0w said:

But the plasma thruster doesn't have variable ISP?  

And KER doesn't calculate unless the engine is throttled, otherwise it gives 0 dV and 0 thrust.

It actually has, it change about the propellant. I know about the Ker issues, MechJeb is better from that point of view.

[Bishop149]

@FreeThinkerTwo small issues to report, I haven't upgraded to the latest version yet so apologies if you've already squished them.

1) I've noticed the dry mass of the interstellar tanks changing when I switch resource. Now I raised this a long time back and was told it was intended, this led to a minor exploit where you could launch with empty Hydrogen tanks (the lightest) and then switch and fill them with something else keeping the low mass tank. I dunno if it was intended to close this exploit but now switching resources for the interstellar tanks changes their dry mass in flight, previously the change in mass on switch only occurred in the VAB/SPH.

Its more that a little odd (to me at least) to be able to change the mass of a vessel by many tons in fight simply by switching what a tank holds? I quite liked it the way it was, it made far more sense, but if that minor exploit needs closing I'd suggest just disabling the switching once launched. Perhaps have a special (heavy) tank that allows switching in flight? 

2) I think there is a mistake in the "Graphite Radiator Folding Medium", it's Wasteheat (Max.) appears to be set at 3,000, by contrast the same value for the Small version is 20,000. It looks to me like a decimal point has been misplaced.

[FreeThinker]

54 minutes ago, Bishop149 said:

@FreeThinkerTwo small issues to report, I haven't upgraded to the latest version yet so apologies if you've already squished them.

1) I've noticed the dry mass of the interstellar tanks changing when I switch resource. Now I raised this a long time back and was told it was intended, this led to a minor exploit where you could launch with empty Hydrogen tanks (the lightest) and then switch and fill them with something else keeping the low mass tank. I dunno if it was intended to close this exploit but now switching resources for the interstellar tanks changes their dry mass in flight, previously the change in mass on switch only occurred in the VAB/SPH.

Its more that a little odd (to me at least) to be able to change the mass of a vessel by many tons in fight simply by switching what a tank holds? I quite liked it the way it was, it made far more sense, but if that minor exploit needs closing I'd suggest just disabling the switching once launched. Perhaps have a special (heavy) tank that allows switching in flight? 

2) I think there is a mistake in the "Graphite Radiator Folding Medium", it's Wasteheat (Max.) appears to be set at 3,000, by contrast the same value for the Small version is 20,000. It looks to me like a decimal point has been misplaced.

Issue 1 should have been raised in the IFS threat. but your are right it should be fixed already, as this was it's original intention and functionality

Issue 2 isn't realy an issue as radiator WasteHeat resource is dynamicly set at statup based on the mass of the radiator. At worst it will confuse people that try to look in the files. The same applies to surface area. I do try to match them

Edited June 21, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Bishop149]

7 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Issue 2 isn't realy an issue as radiator WasteHeat resource is dynamicly set at statup based on the mass of the radiator. At worst it will confuse people that try to look in the files. The same applies to surface area. I do try to match

Ah I see, yep such confusion is what happened to here! I just noticed it in the info in the VAB and thought it was odd.

[Aghanim]

So I have multiple questions after I haven't played KSP and KSPI for a long time:

1. Is it normal that thermal turbojet cannot use hydrolox or methalox as propellant? As far as I remember it used to be that it is possible for them to use it

2. How do I cool thermal turbojets? I have installed 2 SABRE S Precooler and MechJeb overheat protection still kicks in at high altitude and high speed

[FreeThinker]

 

7 minutes ago, Aghanim said:

So I have multiple questions after I haven't played KSP and KSPI for a long time:

1. Is it normal that thermal turbojet cannot use hydrolox or methalox as propellant? As far as I remember it used to be that it is possible for them to use it

2. How do I cool thermal turbojets? I have installed 2 SABRE S Precooler and MechJeb overheat protection still kicks in at high altitude and high speed

1.  Fuel modes are unlocked as more Nuclear Propulsion technologies are reseached. In general the best/exotic performance fuel modes get unlocked later. A detailed table can be found on the OP

2. Turbojet need Precoolers when traveling at high speed, but the amount of precoolers must match with the number of intakes (radial intakes count for half). Some engines like the nuclear Turbojet have build in preecooler.

Edited June 21, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Aghanim]

Just now, FreeThinker said:

 

1 : Fuel modes are unlocked as more Nuclear Propulsion technologies are reseached. In general the best/ advanced fuel modes get unlocked later

2 Turbojet are cooled with Precoolers, but the amount of precooler must match with the number of intakes (radial intakes count for half)

1 : I play in sandbox mode and there is no hydrolox or kerolox mode

2 :  My plane uses 4 adjustable ramp intake with 2 SABRE precoolers and this happens:

 

[FreeThinker]

6 minutes ago, Aghanim said:

1 : I play in sandbox mode and there is no hydrolox or kerolox mode

2 :  My plane uses 4 adjustable ramp intake with 2 SABRE precoolers and this happens:

 

1: Weird, this might be a bug. could anyone confirm?

2 This might be caused by ModuleSabreHeating, please replace with a different precooler

[VaporTrail]

Currently testing a solar sat. Trying to follow the wiki for solar sats. Having heating issues getting below ~750,000,000 km SMA (hyperedit for testing purposes). 200% Tweakscaled Gigantors, otherwise stock, overheat (despite two large graphite deployable radiators in shadow, behind the panels). Waste Heat for the entire sat stays at or near zero, as expected, but below 750 Mm SMA the gigantors tend to just overheat and explode. Best performance out of the sat was in the 60-70 MW range, as measured by beamed power from the microwave transmitter, which was in line with the rule of thumb prediction from the thermal helper (~0.36 AU, ~35MW heat production). 

From testing, it appears that tweaking the scale of the Gigantors has no effect on the heat experienced (100% scale panels seem to overheat just as much as 200%, no more, no less) or power generated (I had a 100% scale panel producing 9MW power while a 200% scale on the same arm with same 100% exposure produced 4MW). 

This isn't my first attempt at doing this...

Spoiler

... but my last attempt (pictured above) was so long ago that quite a bit has changed with stock KSP, much less KSPI(Ex)... and I'm wondering if a solar powersat is still a viable concept without resorting to additional mods for more robust solar panels. If it is, could someone point me in the direction of where they think I may be going wrong, please?

[raxo2222]

3 minutes ago, VaporTrail said:

Currently testing a solar sat. Trying to follow the wiki for solar sats. Having heating issues getting below ~750,000,000 km SMA (hyperedit for testing purposes). 200% Tweakscaled Gigantors, otherwise stock, overheat (despite two large graphite deployable radiators in shadow, behind the panels). Waste Heat for the entire sat stays at or near zero, as expected, but below 750 Mm SMA the gigantors tend to just overheat and explode. Best performance out of the sat was in the 60-70 MW range, as measured by beamed power from the microwave transmitter, which was in line with the rule of thumb prediction from the thermal helper (~0.36 AU, ~35MW heat production). 

From testing, it appears that tweaking the scale of the Gigantors has no effect on the heat experienced (100% scale panels seem to overheat just as much as 200%, no more, no less) or power generated (I had a 100% scale panel producing 9MW power while a 200% scale on the same arm with same 100% exposure produced 4MW). 

This isn't my first attempt at doing this...

  Hide contents

... but my last attempt (pictured above) was so long ago that quite a bit has changed with stock KSP, much less KSPI(Ex)... and I'm wondering if a solar powersat is still a viable concept without resorting to additional mods for more robust solar panels. If it is, could someone point me in the direction of where they think I may be going wrong, please?

This is vanilla change, happened in 1.0 or so.

Now sun is actually hot - enable thermal debug mode to see energy flow numbers.

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

1: Weird, this might be a bug. could anyone confirm?

 

Only big thermal engine named Thermal Launch Engine supports afterburner modes.

Thermal Turbojet/Ramjet seem to be unable to use fuel+oxidizer combination.

[Liquid5n0w]

4 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

This is vanilla change, happened in 1.0 or so.

Now sun is actually hot - enable thermal debug mode to see energy flow numbers.

Isn't there an issue where the rads aren't cooling stock heat but only waste heat?  I thought it was resolved with the latest update though.

[FreeThinker]

14 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

This is vanilla change, happened in 1.0 or so.

Now sun is actually hot - enable thermal debug mode to see energy flow numbers.

Indeed, the trick would be to position radiator facing away from the sun and if possible and functional  use a large shadow shiled.to prevent the radiators from absorbing radiation heat.

It will be intresting to see if you can find a good solution.

Note I have some idea for a special purpose umbrella radiator which is gold plated on the top and  black underneath.It would be able to radiate heat (at 50% ) but not absorbe heat..

Edited June 21, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

16 hours ago, Liquid5n0w said:

Isn't there an issue where the rads aren't cooling stock heat but only waste heat?  I thought it was resolved with the latest update though.

Only for folded radiators. For static radiators radiators  you still have to manually activate them as the require power

Edited June 22, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Planet Destroyer]

Can i download it for 1.1.1? Cause I can't update to 1.1.2.

[Liquid5n0w]

6 hours ago, Planet Destroyer said:

Can i download it for 1.1.1? Cause I can't update to 1.1.2.

I would put your effort into updating to 1.1.2 because very soon 1.1.3 is coming and you really want that update.

EDIT: 1.1.3 is now out, I would use that very soon once the first set of mod updates arrives.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Liquid5n0w

[FreeThinker]

4 hours ago, Liquid5n0w said:

I would put your effort into updating to 1.1.2 because very soon 1.1.3 is coming and you really want that update.

EDIT: 1.1.3 is now out, I would use that very soon once the first set of mod updates arrives.

Indeed, that is a good fix patch, and no compilation issues when recompiling 

[EnigmaG]

On 18.6.2016 at 6:13 PM, EnigmaG said:

Here a mostly antested version for procedual ore tanks:

  Reveal hidden contents

\GameData\WarpPlugin\Patches\OreTanksFix.cfg

@PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[Ore],!MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[FSfuelSwitch],!MODULE[B9PartSwitch],!MODULE[TankContentSwitcher],!MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],!MODULE[ModuleEngines],!MODULE[ModuleResourceConverter],!MODULE[ModuleResourceHarvester],!MODULE[ModuleAnalysisResource]]:NEEDS[InterstellarFuelSwitch&!SMURFF]:FOR[InterstellarFuelSwitch]
{
	%totalCap = #$RESOURCE[Ore]/maxAmount$
	
	%masswore = #$%totalCap$
	@masswore /= #$mass$
	@masswore /= 100 


	%masswalu = 0.398
	@masswalu *= #$masswore$
	
	
	%masswalum = 0.277
	@masswalum *= #$masswore$

	%masswbor = 0.246
	@masswbor *= #$masswore$

	
	
	MODULE
	{
		name = InterstellarFuelSwitch
		tankSwitchNames = Ore;Alumina;Aluminium;Boron
		resourceGui = Ore;Alumina;Aluminium;Boron
		resourceNames = Ore;Alumina;Aluminium;Boron
		resourceAmounts = #$../totalCap$;$../totalCap$;$../totalCap$;$../totalCap$
		hasGUI = true
		availableInFlight = true
		availableInEditor = true
		tankResourceMassDivider = #$../masswore$;$../masswalu$;$../masswalum$;$../masswbor$
		
	}  
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[Ore],!MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[FSfuelSwitch],!MODULE[B9PartSwitch],!MODULE[TankContentSwitcher],!MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],!MODULE[ModuleEngines],!MODULE[ModuleResourceConverter],!MODULE[ModuleResourceHarvester],!MODULE[ModuleAnalysisResource]]:NEEDS[InterstellarFuelSwitch&SMURFF]:FOR[InterstellarFuelSwitch]
{
	%totalCap = #$RESOURCE[Ore]/maxAmount$
	
	%masswore = #$%totalCap$
	@masswore /= #$mass$
	@masswore /= 30


	%masswalu = 0.398
	@masswalu *= #$masswore$
	
	
	%masswalum = 0.277
	@masswalum *= #$masswore$

	%masswbor = 0.246
	@masswbor *= #$masswore$

	
	
	MODULE
	{
		name = InterstellarFuelSwitch
		tankSwitchNames = Ore;Alumina;Aluminium;Boron
		resourceGui = Ore;Alumina;Aluminium;Boron
		resourceNames = Ore;Alumina;Aluminium;Boron
		resourceAmounts = #$../totalCap$;$../totalCap$;$../totalCap$;$../totalCap$
		hasGUI = true
		availableInFlight = true
		availableInEditor = true
		tankResourceMassDivider = #$../masswore$;$../masswalu$;$../masswalum$;$../masswbor$
		
	}  
}


@PART[proceduralTankOre]:NEEDS[InterstellarFuelSwitch&ProceduralParts&!SMURFF]:FOR[InterstellarFuelSwitch]

{	
		
		!MODULE[TankContentSwitcher]{}

		MODULE
		{
		name = TankContentSwitcher
		useVolume = true
		


		TANK_TYPE_OPTION 
		{
			name = Ore
			// This is the dry mass of the tank per kL of volume.
			dryDensity = 0.17
			RESOURCE 
			{
				name = Ore
				unitsPerKL = 139.664
			}
		}

		TANK_TYPE_OPTION 
		{
			name = Alumina
			// This is the dry mass of the tank per kL of volume.
			dryDensity = 0.17
			RESOURCE 
			{
				name = Alumina
				unitsPerKL = 139.664
			}
		}

		
		TANK_TYPE_OPTION 
		{
			name = Aluminium
			// This is the dry mass of the tank per kL of volume.
			dryDensity = 0.17
			RESOURCE 
			{
				name = Aluminium
				unitsPerKL = 139.664
			}
		}

		TANK_TYPE_OPTION 
		{
			name = Boron
			// This is the dry mass of the tank per kL of volume.
			dryDensity = 0.17
			RESOURCE 
			{
				name = Boron
				unitsPerKL = 139.664
			}
		}
		



	}



}

 

 

 

 

 

So my testing have not revealed any problems.

For in flight switching of the procedual ore tank i don´t see a  way to realize it.

For  uranium and lithium i don´t think the ore-tank is the right container, i imagine to store the other stuff as a powder. Lithium i only know it stored in oil.  For uranium does it get critical on its  one or need it a heavy water for it?

[Liquid5n0w]

2 minutes ago, EnigmaG said:

So my testing have not revealed any problems.

For in flight switching of the procedual ore tank i don´t see a  way to realize it.

For  uranium and lithium i don´t think the ore-tank is the right container, i imagine to store the other stuff as a powder. Lithium i only know it stored in oil.  For uranium does it get critical on its  one or need it a heavy water for it?

Uranium needs a moderator to start a chain reaction, you can't just put a bunch of uranium together and get a reaction going, you need something to slow down the neutrons emitted.

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, EnigmaG said:

So my testing have not revealed any problems.

For in flight switching of the procedual ore tank i don´t see a  way to realize it.

For  uranium and lithium i don´t think the ore-tank is the right container, i imagine to store the other stuff as a powder. Lithium i only know it stored in oil.  For uranium does it get critical on its  one or need it a heavy water for it?

Lithium need special storage requirments ? What would the mass fraction be?