KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[raxo2222]

16 minutes ago, Profit- said:

KSP gets interesting.... Giant meteor 2016!

Lets make KSP Interstellar great again! Just need small loan of 1 000 000 kerbal dollars ;^)

[Nansuchao]

Sincerely I don't believe in that part of relativity. It's an extreme situation caused from an extreme application of some equations in reality limited to something very little. Actually you see everyday billions of lightray traveling at the speed of light (really?), but the universe is still there.

[Kenken244]

the nice thing about science is that it doesn't care whether or not you believe in it

[Nansuchao]

1 hour ago, Kenken244 said:

the nice thing about science is that it doesn't care whether or not you believe in it

I didn't meant THAT way.

 

The Daedalus engine is a beast!!!! 

I had a failure with the reactor ( not enough fusion resources), but after 23 days of acceleration the probe was already near the orbit of Neptune, in Stock Size Solar System.

[FreeThinker]

8 hours ago, Nansuchao said:

The Daedalus engine is a beast!!!! 

I had a failure with the reactor ( not enough fusion resources), but after 23 days of acceleration the probe was already near the orbit of Neptune, in Stock Size Solar System.

In my experience the easiest if you power the Daedalus by a MCF engine running in D-He3 mode, that way you don't have worry about running out of fuel

Edited July 27, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

12 hours ago, SymbolicFrank said:

Things like NERVA / DOMBO / pebble bed / salt water / Orion / plasma drive / ion drive / inertial fusion / VISTA certainly could work, but most of the others require magnetic containment (and often impossible materials as well, like with a nuclear lightbulb). VASIMIR is certainly one of the worst in that respect.

Why would VASIMIR be the worst in this respect?

[FreeThinker]

On 26-7-2016 at 6:54 PM, SymbolicFrank said:

If someone can think of some sexy drive or reactor, doesn't mean that it is actually build-able. Publishing a design doesn't magically make it work. They might say they're just unobtainium instead of handwavium, but requiring magnetic containment isn't helping their case, IMO.

Well KSPI-E is a hard Science Mod which tries to capture the difficulties with extre technologies. Example are Gas Core Reactor inability to operate under gravity, The Magnetic Confinement Reactor large size and low initial Q factor. I tried to give every reactor and engine an edge, the fun is for the player to find out the best mix of technologies to accomplies

Edited July 28, 2016 by FreeThinker

[SymbolicFrank]

10 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Why would VASIMIR be the worst in this respect?

Well, both magnetic containment and nozzle for plasma, with both protons and electrons and a temperature of 1 million K. And depending on which design you take, fusion. It's designed like an open-cycle tokamak.

[123nick]

thanks for the update fixing the daedalus engine @FreeThinker  

Also, @FreeThinker , @Jso  says that your realpluime configs are set up wrong and are causing bugs with all engines that use hotrockets, : 

On 7/16/2016 at 8:13 PM, Jso said:

The OctoSat and WarpPlugin mods have incorrect configs for their plumes. The mod authors need to change the lines that read @PART[XYZ]:FOR[RealPlume]:NEEDS[SmokeScreen] to read @PART[XYZ]:NEEDS[RealPlume,SmokeScreen] instead.

 

 

[FreeThinker]

33 minutes ago, 123nick said:

thanks for the update fixing the daedalus engine @FreeThinker  

Also, @FreeThinker , @Jso  says that your realpluime configs are set up wrong and are causing bugs with all engines that use hotrockets, : 

 

Thanks, I will have it fixed, by the way, I still need a good RealPlume fx fix for the Daedalus . You you care to make one? It should look something like this:

[123nick]

Just now, FreeThinker said:

Thanks, I will have it fixed, by the way, I still need a good RealPlume fx fix for the Daedalus . You you care to make one? It should look something like this:

im sorry, i dont know how too make FX effects. im just telling you about the MM configs, because apparently the bug affects ALL engines with realplume or hot rockets.

 

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, SymbolicFrank said:

Well, both magnetic containment and nozzle for plasma, with both protons and electrons and a temperature of 1 million K. And depending on which design you take, fusion. It's designed like an open-cycle tokamak.

mmm, I  wasn't aware this was such an isue. I though the Vasimir is a well established concept engine current under developed by NASA

[SymbolicFrank]

27 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

mmm, I  wasn't aware this was such an isue. I though the Vasimir is a well established concept engine current under developed by NASA

The first part, creating the plasma, is being tested. Which could be used as a rocket engine by itself. But all the other stages require a massive power plant, superconductors and magnetic fields of multiple Tesla's, while the third stage also uses a kind of microwave oven to flash-heat the plasma to 1 MK, and hopefully have some fusion occur. And all of that in at most a few seconds, depending on the size of the design.

But yes, the funding and marketing are top-notch.

[Winebars]

On 26. 7. 2016 at 0:00 PM, FreeThinker said:

Hey, for anyone playing KSPI-E,

I would like to know what do you think about the new mechanics, engines and reactors that recently has been added.

I would like to know of any imbalances or problems you encountered which should be addresed.

So I played a bit of KSPI science career in recent times.

Bugs:

• Closed cycle gas core engine (lightbulb) generates insane amounts of electrical power (well above its thermal power) when connected to a thermal generator.
• All warp engines throw exceptions in VAB
• Tokamak reactor (the original one without generator) doesn't have  defaultly set up proper fuel (D-T). I was confused for some time why the reactor doesn't work, then I noticed there is no fuel.

Possible/small bugs:

• The new colliding beam fusion reactor and magnetized target fusion reactor aren't listed in the filter extensions menus
• Colliding beam fusion reactor doesn't work with the thermal generator
• IR telescope doesn't need helium for cooling anymore (well I tried it last in 0.25 or so) and its menus are all confusing and don't seem to work properly
• Nuclear ramjet lacks texture, but that may have something to do with me using Ven's stock revamp.

Perceived imbalances

• I can hardly see any reason to use the new colliding beam reactor over dusty plasma reactor at same tech tier except its slick looks. Dusty plasma reactor generates about twice as much electric power per reactor+radiator mass from charged particles alone. I guess it's because p-B fusion has excrementsty Q so maybe Lithium fusion modes alleviate that problem, but I haven't tested that.
• Solid core rocket (KSPI NERVA) is better at electrical power generated per mass than molten salt reactor (even thorium) at all tiers.
• At the 1500 sci tech tier. The only advantage of MCF reactor over magnetized targed fusion at the same tier is that it can run magnetic nozzle. MTF generates more electrical power per reactor mass and has higher core temp for thermal rockets. It gets better next tier with upgraded charged particles generator and/or D-He3 fusion
• I can't help myself but I feel closed cycle gas core rocket is still pretty damn overpowered: It absolutely outclasses any other engine at its tier in all respects. Even later on I would think twice before replacing it with other engines mostly because the fusion engines don't have all that much higher ISP to justify its use apart from high energy transfers to Jool and such. Lightbulb has silly TWR so you can land with it pretty much anywhere and burns any sort of liquid (or gas you liquify) you stumble upon on basically any celestial body.

[raxo2222]

@FreeThinker I noticed, that Kerbalism had old parts in separate download.

What about removing all unused parts from this mod and making them as separate mod download? It could be named KSPIE Legacy Parts or something.

[Kenken244]

magnetic confinement of a plasma is certainly not an iffy concept. It is used all around the world in experimental fusion reactors. it is rather difficult, granted, because the hydrodynamics of plasma are not well understood, but the proof of concept is there. given that most of those engines are unlocked after fusion technology is matured, it seems reasonable for magnetic confinement to be used in them. 

though, I do agree with your earlier post about chemical rockets needing some attention. currently, there is not much to help you launch these huge reactors and engines into orbit cheaply, without having to resort to reusable launchers with nuclear engines. this roadmap from NASA has a lot of good information, about chemical rockets and some of the technologies already in this mod, as well as a couple that I haven't seen discussed in here anywhere. I posted this a few pages back, but I don't know if anyone saw it.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2015_nasa_technology_roadmaps_ta_2_in-space_propulsion_final.pdf

[SymbolicFrank]

To explain it a bit more: you can have two kinds of electromagnetic force: polarized and dielectric. Polarized is your normal magnet: it has two poles and either attracts matter that is the opposite charge, or repels matter with the same charge. Dielectric only works on magnetic insulators, or neutral matter at very high energy levels.

Normal matter exists in multiple forms: solid, liquid, gaseous and plasma. The main difference between plasma and the others is, that when it becomes a plasma, some or all of the electrons are forcibly stripped off the atoms. For light atoms, that means that it consists of both positively charged nuclei, as well as negatively charged electrons. All together in a hot cloud.

Ions are atoms that have less or more electrons than protons, which gives them an electric charge and allows magnets to move them. But when you heat them up enough, they turn into a plasma as well.

 

The problem is, that for a power plant or rocket engine, you want highly energetic atoms. Which means: separate particles or a plasma. Single protons (or anti-protons), or alpha particles (helium nuclei) are perfect for that. And when you remove all the electrons, you can manipulate them by electromagnetic force.

 

Or, can you? Because, while a mostly one-dimensional movement (acceleration) is easy and a two-dimensional movement is really hard, a three-dimensional movement (or, containment) would require a computer that monitors all particles and changes the containment field constantly and at extremely high speed to keep them in. Which quantum mechanics says is impossible.

 

So, essentially, when I read "magnetic containment" or "magnetic nozzle" and they're not talking two of them, one for stripped nuclei and another for the electrons, I read it like "impregnable force field" and my bullshit detector is triggered.

 

An exception is a magnetic mirror or bottle, where the nuclei are kept frozen.

Edited July 27, 2016 by SymbolicFrank

[FreeThinker]

50 minutes ago, Winebars said:

Perceived imbalances

• I can hardly see any reason to use the new colliding beam reactor over dusty plasma reactor at same tech tier except its slick looks. Dusty plasma reactor generates about twice as much electric power per reactor+radiator mass from charged particles alone. I guess it's because p-B fusion has excrementsty Q so maybe Lithium fusion modes alleviate that problem, but I haven't tested that.
• Solid core rocket (KSPI NERVA) is better at electrical power generated per mass than molten salt reactor (even thorium) at all tiers.
• At the 1500 sci tech tier. The only advantage of MCF reactor over magnetized targed fusion at the same tier is that it can run magnetic nozzle. MTF generates more electrical power per reactor mass and has higher core temp for thermal rockets. It gets better next tier with upgraded charged particles generator and/or D-He3 fusion
• I can't help myself but I feel closed cycle gas core rocket is still pretty damn overpowered: It absolutely outclasses any other engine at its tier in all respects. Even later on I would think twice before replacing it with other engines mostly because the fusion engines don't have all that much higher ISP to justify its use apart from high energy transfers to Jool and such. Lightbulb has silly TWR so you can land with it pretty much anywhere and burns any sort of liquid (or gas you liquify) you stumble upon on basically any celestial body.

Question, do the imbalances  apply to sandbox or campaign? Are you aware that the power of a reactor depends of the amount of research conducted? All fusion reactor star of with quite low power densities, but this improves when more reseach is done in fusion technologies.

Also Note that maximum power output isn't everything , endurance, lifetime and fuel cost are also important considerations.

[SymbolicFrank]

Another issue is, like with VASIMIR, that while you really want to be able to use a massive power plant and something like microwave heating of the propellant, those electromagnetic waves interfere with the electromagnetic confinement or acceleration you need to keep that extremely hot plasma from vaporizing your space ship.

[Winebars]

3 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Question, do the imbalances  apply to sandbox or campaign? Are you aware that the power of a reactor depends of the amount of research conducted? All fusion reactor star of with quite low power densities, but this improves when more reseach is done in fusion technologies.

Also Note that maximum power output isn't everything , endurance, lifetime and fuel cost are also important considerations.

 

It's campaign (well, science mode), I would say it's OK in sandbox although I haven't played sandbox very thoroughly.

I'm currently unlocking last of the 1500 science nodes. Although MTF isn't very powerful, it's still a very interesting alternative to the particle bed reactor for spaceplanes, eve shuttles, Kerbin SOI orbiters and landers and all that jazz, so MTF is OK.

The thing is MCF is just marginally better at power generation than molten salt reactors at this level (and more expensive) AND it's useless as a thermal rocket reactor because of its huge minimal 5m radius, you also get barely any charged particles from it so it's not very useful as a magnetic nozzle reactor as well. So I just can't see any use for it until you unlock advanced fusion so you can burn D-He3, which is a totally different situation. I think it maybe should be able to fill at least some niche to sort of justify its position in the techtree (perhaps let it burn D-He3 from the spot without the tech upgrade?).

Now let us compare Solid Core Engine mk.3 + Solid State Generator and Molten Salt mk4. splitting ThF4:

	Thermal power	Mass with generator	Core temperature	100% load fuel lifetime
Solid core Rocket (1.25 m)	375 MJ	2.51 t	2509 K	177 days
Molten ThF4 reactor (1.725 m)	388 MJ	3.47 t	2000 K	2 y 5.13 days

• So Solid core gives us 149 MJ per tonne, Molten salt 112 MJ per tonne.
• Solid core doesn't need as much radiator area for the same efficiency as molten salt because of its higher core temperature. You can also get rid of excess wasteheat by running something through the nozzle.
• Under full load, molten salt reactor does last significantly longer than Solid core rocket (I have yet to figure how many kerbal days does a kerbal year have ) BUT when idle, Solid core lats much longer (ca 484 year vs 33 year).

So in conclusion Solid core is better in every situation except for very very long burns, running ISRU refinery for many days. Solid core is cheaper than a molten salt reactor and as a bonus you get a pretty good thermal rocket with an afterburner in the package. Solid core rocket is a better: general utility generator, outer solar system power source, electrical engine power generator, arguably uW network generator because of its price if you don't mind more frequent maintenance.

Something similar is the issue of unupgraded Colliding beam. Dusty plasma is just (much) better in every respect, you just can't downscale it, you can even pump fuel around so endurance isn't much of an issue and embrittlement is still fairly low. So unupgraded 3aF reactors only use is if you can't fit (don't have yet) dusty plasma onto your craft because of size and possibly mass if your craft is very lightweight. Although this may be issue of dusty plasma being too good, not 3aF being too bad. It's a good complement to MTF for electric engines. It's only that dusty plasma is better at both thermal rockets and electric engines and both techs cost 2000. The other thing is you get D-T vista with advanced fusion, so people may incline to unlock advanced fusion first

Edited July 27, 2016 by Winebars

[SyzygyΣE]

Good day everyone. I have an issue to report.

I have encountered a problem regarding ModuleManager and RO that seems to be related to Interstellar. During the loading of patches while starting the game, text that reads the following is shown:

1 error related to GameData/RealismOverhaul/RealismOverhaul_Global_Config.cfg

I have already sought out @blowfish over at the RO development thread. What does this have to do with Interstellar? Well, he said that the KSP Interstellar part "Microwave Transmitter" has a solar panel module without a charge rate defined, and that is the cause of this error message. Is this how the transmitter is meant to be?

I have attached my Player.log file below. Just a quick note, the file size of the log is big enough to split it into two parts. I tried to save them as a single file but I didn't know how. So instead now I have Player.log part 1 and Player.log part 2. The split is not perfect. There is some overlap. Regardless though, the information is all in there. If someone can inform me how I can combine them into one file and not let this overlap be a problem, that would be appreciated too.

Links
    | Player.log part 1
    | Player.log part 2

Thanks for your time.

Edited July 28, 2016 by SyzygyΣE

[FreeThinker]

9 hours ago, Winebars said:

The thing is MCF is just marginally better at power generation than molten salt reactors at this level (and more expensive) AND it's useless as a thermal rocket reactor because of its huge minimal 5m radius, you also get barely any charged particles from it so it's not very useful as a magnetic nozzle reactor as well. So I just can't see any use for it until you unlock advanced fusion so you can burn D-He3, which is a totally different situation. I think it maybe should be able to fill at least some niche to sort of justify its position in the techtree (perhaps let it burn D-He3 from the spot without the tech upgrade?).

It's true that MFC initialy is weaker than the Dusty plasma, this is intended. Still MFC main advantage compaired to the dusty plasma is the energy storage density and cost of the reactor fuel, which is effectively lithium that is converted to Tritium before it can then be used for Fusion energy production with Deteurium..

It's true the Dusty Plasma is good for it's tech level, still it has some Features which prevent it from beeing the best in all situation.

For one, they are large, second their fuel is expansive, thirdly less energy dense than fusion fuel. fourth, they still consume significant amount fuel even while not operational. and last, they do not upgrade with higher tech. I Still agree something must be done to make them more balanced in comparison with other techs.

Edited July 28, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

9 hours ago, Winebars said:

Now let us compare Solid Core Engine mk.3 + Solid State Generator and Molten Salt mk4. splitting ThF4:

	Thermal power	Mass with generator	Core temperature	100% load fuel lifetime
Solid core Rocket (1.25 m)	375 MJ	2.51 t	2509 K	177 days
Molten ThF4 reactor (1.725 m)	388 MJ	3.47 t	2000 K	2 y 5.13 days

• So Solid core gives us 149 MJ per tonne, Molten salt 112 MJ per tonne.
• Solid core doesn't need as much radiator area for the same efficiency as molten salt because of its higher core temperature. You can also get rid of excess wasteheat by running something through the nozzle.
• Under full load, molten salt reactor does last significantly longer than Solid core rocket (I have yet to figure how many kerbal days does a kerbal year have ) BUT when idle, Solid core lats much longer (ca 484 year vs 33 year).

So in conclusion Solid core is better in every situation except for very very long burns, running ISRU refinery for many days. Solid core is cheaper than a molten salt reactor and as a bonus you get a pretty good thermal rocket with an afterburner in the package. Solid core rocket is a better: general utility generator, outer solar system power source, electrical engine power generator, arguably uW network generator because of its price if you don't mind more frequent maintenance.

You made some good points  (especialy redarding costs) in your comparison between Solid Core and Molten Salt reaactor, but it isn't the whole picture. One major issue that isn't taken into consideration is fuel poison resistance. Any nuclear process creates anticies, which will absorb neutrons causing the overal power of the reactor to become lower. This poisoning is so severe that most reactor will only burn 4% of their fuel before they must be refueled. THis happens faster when less fuel volume is available.

The Solid Core Reactor has only a very small amount of  fuel which quickly get poisoned while the molten salt reactor has a much larger volume, allowing it to provide power not only longer but also at higher level. Also note with Nuclear Fuel technology, allows the Molten Salt reactor to operate into Uranium Burnup mod, which will reduce power output but any nasty anticies will be removes, keeping power output stable. Still I agree with your overal conclusion of the Solid core being a better deal than the Molten Salt, so I will take stept to balance it

Edited July 28, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

4 hours ago, SyzygyΣE said:

Good day everyone. I have an issue to report.

I have encountered a problem regarding ModuleManager and RO that seems to be related to Interstellar. During the loading of patches while starting the game, text that reads the following is shown:

1 error related to GameData/RealismOverhaul/RealismOverhaul_Global_Config.cfg

I have already sought out @blowfish over at the RO development thread. What does this have to do with Interstellar? Well, he said that the KSP Interstellar part "Microwave Transmitter" has a solar panel module without a charge rate defined, and that is the cause of this error message. Is this how the transmitter is meant to be?

I have attached my Player.log file below. Just a quick note, the file size of the log is big enough to split it into two parts. I tried to save them as a single file but I didn't know how. So instead now I have Player.log part 1 and Player.log part 2. The split is not perfect. There is some overlap. Regardless though, the information is all in there. If someone can inform me how I can combine them into one file and not let this overlap be a problem, that would be appreciated too.

Links
    | Player.log part 1
    | Player.log part 2

Thanks for your time.

Would adding a charge rate of chargeRate = 0 be sufficient?

Edited July 28, 2016 by FreeThinker

[SyzygyΣE]

10 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Would adding a charge rate of chargeRate = 0 be sufficient?

I'm not certain which file I should change though. I can seem to find where the transmitter is. Does the log say anything about its whereabouts?