KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[okder]

interstellar liquid fuel tank when set in symmetry mode (mirror) is bugy (second one has more fuel (i.e. something adds another resource line)

[FreeThinker]

2 hours ago, okder said:

initial tri-alpha 1.825 gives 600 mj, pebble bed 1593mj (with same tech level), again it (tri-alpha) useless for raw propulsion

In terms of raw power, nuclear power is more powerful than fusion yes but there are also secondary consideration which are overall system mass and operational cost. Fusion energy , especially a-neutronic fusion has the big advantage that it produces much less wasteheat, requiring less radiators and therefore the overall system requires less mass. Secondly, the fusion engines can run on fuels that are much cheaper than the nuclear reactors and produce no or minimal nuclear waste and radiation.

Edited October 8, 2016 by FreeThinker

[okder]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

In terms of raw power, nuclear power is more powerful than fusion

hoped that omega still has better raw TWR than fission, but now that's changed (unless you have all techtree, then again omega would be better),

so you think that http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html

probably impossible for near feature (at least before antimatter initiated fusion)

(as lockheedmartin targets it for planes usage first), but in kspie looks like pebble bed is only not very high tech reactor for planes.

Edited October 8, 2016 by okder

[FreeThinker]

@okder The Basic truth is that it is a lot more easy to achieve fission than fusion. To achieve fission, you just need to reflect its own/bombard it external neutrons. The tricky part is to do it a controlled way. Fusion is a lot more difficult as you need to create pressure or high temperature for a significant amount of containment time, beside that fusion is inherently unstable as a consequence energy density is lower in contained fusion reactors. Only when it is allowed to fully ignite (like with the VISTA or DAEDALUS) it will have higher energy concentration than fission, but getting it into useful energy is a big challenge.

Edited October 8, 2016 by FreeThinker

[okder]

then may it would  be better to lower tech requirements for Antimatter Initiated Microfusion

(i mean low weight modification for just raw power and scramjet drive, not for very high isp)

and make it's initial TWR 30% better than pebble bed, i.e. antimatter would cost a lot of course ( https://www.quora.com/How-much-would-it-cost-to-produce-14-grams-of-antimatter-artificially-How-long ), but TWR sometime needed more (when reaching orbital speed),

because now it's paradox - use  mid 1960x (prototype) reactor for mid 21 century spaceplanes (i.e. almost antimatter by time/tech).

and of course scramjet should be available on RSS (i.e. at least up to 3000 m/s good thrust)

 

Edited October 8, 2016 by okder

[FreeThinker]

The problem is that the advanced reactor node is already overcrowded, also lowering it tech-node would upset the balance

instead I will  make the OMEGA reactor more interesting in another way. since its model is rather small in comparison to other reactor, I will reduce it's mass by 25% (from 8t to 6t). That should improve it thrust to weight value. I have already reduced it cost, it's now the cheapest fusion reactor.

Edit: I will also increase it initial power by 25%, and make it grow slower, together with the lower mass it should make it significantly more intresting

Edit2: I will also lower it core temperature to 2500K where it should be at anyway, this will lower Isp but improve thrust

Edited October 9, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

Uploaded a new version of pre alpha that contains some important fixes can be downloaded from Curse

KSPI-E 1.10.5

* Fixed Crash when using Electric engine inside atmosphere
* Updated KSPI VAB parts menu
* Cleaned several unnecessary  Log warnings
* Balance: reduce mass OMEGA reactor by 25%, increased initial power by 25% and decreased core temperature to 2500 K

 

 

[okder]

each of very indirectly attached TWO very small thermal turbojets gives 400 kn (sea level) thrust on 330 m/s, 1 ramjet directly attached (same radius as reactor) gives 430 kn of thrust at 1150 m/s 18 km height (kerbin), and much lesser with greater speed/height

=> ramjet (with tech 2  omega rector, normally sized (2,5m)) currently is worse than rapier.

if it would give 430 kn thrust up to 3000 m/s (with greater height obviously) on RSS it would be almost ok, but on 1150 m/s, it just too low speed for using with fusion reactor.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by okder

[Perzel]

I don't understand why the Particle Bed Reactor is better than the Omega Fusion reactor when it comes to TWR, despite the last one having more than twice the core temperature.

I built a testdevice with a 1,25m fusion reactor, themal generator, a liquid fuel tank and a thermal turbojet.

The turbojet provided 0 kN of thrust (with a threshhold of 75 kN), with the fusion reactor, but over 25 kN with the particle bed reactor. (And even that is not enough to get it anywhere.)

Edited October 9, 2016 by Perzel

[FreeThinker]

@Perzel you have to give me more technical details like in what game mode, propellant mode and researched techs. Both Ramjet and Turbojet power depend very much on researched Jet propulsion technologies.

[okder]

thermal turbojet in upper atmosphere having same bug as (fixed) ATTILA (when propellant switching) and forming null thrust,  actually that bug mostly fatally influence only on renderer, physics continue pretty well.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by okder

[okder]

another bug in log messages

[ERR 22:44:50.680] Module FNResourceScanner threw during OnUpdate: System.MissingMethodException: Method not found: 'MapView.get_MapIsEnabled'.
  at OpenResourceSystem.ORSResourceScanner.OnUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at Part.ModulesOnUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

 

[FreeThinker]

2 minutes ago, okder said:

another bug in log messages

[ERR 22:44:50.680] Module FNResourceScanner threw during OnUpdate: System.MissingMethodException: Method not found: 'MapView.get_MapIsEnabled'.
  at OpenResourceSystem.ORSResourceScanner.OnUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at Part.ModulesOnUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

 

I have seen this bug as well but is disappeared after removing some other mods.

We must try to figure out when this error  is created.

[Perzel]

@FreeThinker

I'm playing in science mode, the thermal turbojet was in Liquid Fuel mode. I researched the techs in the KSPI "branch" up to Fusion Rockets and Fusion Power and the jet techs up to Hypersonic Flight.

I didn't research Subsonic Flight, Efficent Flight Systems and Specialized Flight Systems, as they are empty in my tech tree. I guess there are other mods that use them.

 

The rocket contains a 1,25m drone core, a 1,25m liquid fuel tank, 4 radial radiators, the thermal generator, one of the two above mentioned reactors and the thermal turbojet.

 

 

[FreeThinker]

31 minutes ago, Perzel said:

I didn't research Subsonic Flight, Efficent Flight Systems and Specialized Flight Systems, as they are empty in my tech tree. I guess there are other mods that use them.

mm, the upgrades for engines efficiency are unlocked with the following technodes:

	JetUpgradeTech0 = highAltitudeFlight
	JetUpgradeTech1 = hypersonicFlight
	JetUpgradeTech2 = aerospaceTech
	JetUpgradeTech3 = expAircraftEngines

The more of these node are unlocked, the better these jet engine will be able to operate at higher and lower speeds.

The reactor technology only determine the reactor raw power, the jet engine determine their efficiency at specific speeds, the effect can be quite dramatic. perhaps this needs to be balanced better

Edited October 9, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Perzel]

6 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

mm, the upgrades for engines efficiency are unlocked with the following technodes:

	JetUpgradeTech0 = highAltitudeFlight
	JetUpgradeTech1 = hypersonicFlight
	JetUpgradeTech2 = aerospaceTech
	JetUpgradeTech3 = expAircraftEngines

The more of these node are unlocked, the better these engine will be able to operate at higher speeds.

The reactor technology only determine the reactor raw power, the jet engine determine their efficiency at specific speeds.

Is it the thermal power of the reactor that determins the thrust ans ISP of the engine, or the core temperature? That would at least explain why the particle bed reactor is better.

But it doesn't explain why the fusion reactor delivered 0 thrust. The reactor control window tells me that the reactor is 100% active. But somehow there doesn't seem to be enough power. I checked it with the thermal launch nozzle and the thermal ramjet nozzle. Neither of the produced any significant power with liquid fuel.

And where can I check the upgrade stage of my reactors?

 

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, Perzel said:

Is it the thermal power of the reactor that determins the thrust ans ISP of the engine, or the core temperature? That would at least explain why the particle bed reactor is better.

The core temperature combined with the raw power determines both Isp and thrust (combined with raw output power). The higher the core temperature, the higher the Isp but lower the the thrust. High Isp becomes imported at higher altitudes where high Isp allows it to operate on less atmosphere and there allowing it to achieve higher speed and height. The disadvantage of a high Isp is that it result in less power on lower atmospheric height.

1 hour ago, Perzel said:

But it doesn't explain why the fusion reactor delivered 0 thrust. The reactor control window tells me that the reactor is 100% active. But somehow there doesn't seem to be enough power. I checked it with the thermal launch nozzle and the thermal ramjet nozzle. Neither of the produced any significant power with liquid fuel.

Well both turbojet and ramjet are hybrid engines (which mean they have some compromises), their main purpose is atmospheric flight. It can operate in propellant mode, but this mode is mend when operating at high altitude or in space. At sea level, the static pressure of the atmospheric is a lot higher, possibly even higher than the thrust generated. When launching from sea level, it is advised to use the launch nozzle, which also have much higher maneuverability.

Edited October 9, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Sresk]

13 minutes ago, Perzel said:

Is it the thermal power of the reactor that determins the thrust ans ISP of the engine, or the core temperature? That would at least explain why the particle bed reactor is better.

But it doesn't explain why the fusion reactor delivered 0 thrust. The reactor control window tells me that the reactor is 100% active. But somehow there doesn't seem to be enough power. I checked it with the thermal launch nozzle and the thermal ramjet nozzle. Neither of the produced any significant power with liquid fuel.

And where can I check the upgrade stage of my reactors?

 

I haven't been able to get any sort of reasonable performance out of any of the engines when connected to any reactor, the reactors are just too heavy. I just beam power and use the thermal receiver.

[FreeThinker]

34 minutes ago, Perzel said:

And where can I check the upgrade stage of my reactors?

I agree, it's not very clear at what level an engine/reactor  is upgraded, I intend to improve this soon.

19 minutes ago, Sresk said:

I haven't been able to get any sort of reasonable performance out of any of the engines when connected to any reactor, the reactors are just too heavy. I just beam power and use the thermal receiver.

Well all reactors, engines and nozzles have specific purposes, some are mend for launches, others for space or in between.

Edited October 9, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Perzel]

21 minutes ago, Sresk said:

I haven't been able to get any sort of reasonable performance out of any of the engines when connected to any reactor, the reactors are just too heavy. I just beam power and use the thermal receiver.

Speaking of beamed power. Does the angle of the reciever to the transmitter matter? Or is there an up-to-date guide on how to use it? The table on the first page is quite confusing for me.

[okder]

0.375m VERY indirectly connected thermal turbojet alone having same (max) thrust as 2.5m directly connected thermal ramjet (powered by same reactor at their optimal speed, 350 m/s for turbojet, 750 m/s for ramjet) 600 kN

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by okder

[FreeThinker]

2 minutes ago, okder said:

0.375m VERY indirectly connected thermal turbojet alone having same (max) thrust as 2.5m directly connected thermal ramjet (powered by same reactor at their optimal speed, 350 m/s for turbojet, 750 m/s for ramjet) 600 kN

Please post a screenshot

[okder]

38 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Please post a screenshot

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XNXFnZ3liM3ZqRjA

also if multiple reactors available and multiple thermal engines used then fusion sustain energy not always guaranteed (thermal engines use that energy)

because of such bug i can't use support reactor, as engines on 100% steals it's thermal power, and then stand still position (equal power generated and spend) main reactor only on 80% usage : https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XSmQwYkZNdkFSUU0

Edited October 9, 2016 by okder

[FreeThinker]

@okder

Alright, there are a few things to consider here.

A: there are 4 parts in between then from which 1 counts for 25% of normal. Total power reduction = 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.95 = 0.4864

B: the sum of surface area bottom nozzles does not match reactor nozzle, which will cause you to lose a lot of power.  To fix it add more nozzles. Let's say your your reactor is a 1.25m reactor, than you need 4 x 0.625 nozzle to match with the 1.25m reactor for maximum thermal efficiency (4 x 0.625 x 0.625 = 1.25 x 1.25)

Edited October 9, 2016 by FreeThinker

[okder]

first bug (first screenshot https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XNXFnZ3liM3ZqRjA ) is about too overpowered very small nozzle only one nozzle active and gives only 15% less thrust than big nozzle near reactor (reactor 2.5m)

second bug ( https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XSmQwYkZNdkFSUU0 ) - incorrect thermal power distribution (when 2 reactors, small one for providing sustain fields energy for itself and larger one, latter supposed to be used ONLY for thrusters, but thrusters uses both, and so main reactor can't be used up to 100% (18% energy is lost) (or it's sustains field will disappear)

third bug if i enable that small engine with configuration when 2 reactors available, then it connects to support reactor, loses most power (that's ok)

and OVERHEATS!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0rgcOJPK_8XbXB0QUt0MDFhcjA

(overheat part blownup currently disabled for testing purposes)

p.s. another balance problem initial 1.25 tri-alpha gives only 20mj energy (states like 166 raw), which is much lesser than you can get from 1.25 omega with thermal converter, i think new tech boost should be much lower (now 5 times for tri-alpha, i.e. initial RAW is 5 times less than with complete tech tree, it probably like 20 times difference in clean electrical output ), and initial power output large

 

more about second bug (power distribution problems):

i.e. 18% of big reactor output lost in configuration 2.5 + 1.25 omega, 100% lost in config 2.5 omega + 1.25 tri-alpha (just not enough electrical output)

30% lost in config 2.5 omega  + 1.25 pebble bed (depends on radiators though)

and only 4.7% lost (on power sustenance, 100% thrust is working i.e. no bug in this case) for only one 2.5  omega reactor, well we have unexpected winner, 1 reactor is better than 2 :).

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by okder