KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[Andi K.]

1 minute ago, FreeThinker said:

Oh, you want to use the huge dishes to act as communication transmitters, that would certainly work as well , even though that was not their main intended purpose. Their beam would be extremely narrow, but that is ideal for transmission from extra solar systems to earth. I will add them as secondary functions.

Yes, exactly. Thanks.

[Andu]

Hi (im new to kspi ) and got a little bit of a problem, none of the transmitters work except for Microwave Rectenna witch i read in a post that somehow it dose work, they dont have a "button" to transmit (again except for Microwave Rectenna ), i can assign the transmit command to a action group but it dosent seem to work. if screenshots might help ill post but my net speed is bad

Anyway my KSP version 1.2.0.1586 and Ksp Interstellar Extended version 1.10.12 (tryed 1.10.11 and 1.10.10 too)

[SciMan]

@Andu

Do you have a beam generator part directly connected to your antenna (or mirror)? That's the most common problem that I know of.

Beam generators include the Gyrotron (microwave beam), Diode Laser (IR beam), and Free Electron Laser (UV beam).

There are many antennas and mirrors. As far as I know, they all say which type of beam generator they work with in the part description. Some of them currently even work with any kind of beam generator.

 

@FreeThinker

Have you considered adding an Optical Rectenna? These would mostly be upgrades to the microwave rectenna that allow it to receive infrared or UV light.

As far as balancing, the IR rectenna upgrade would unlock 1 tier later than the diode laser, and the UV rectenna would unlock 1 tier later than the FEL, (nanotechnology is hard).

The Georgia Institute of Technology successfully demonstrated a working Optical Rectenna in the lab in 2015. Very much sci, not sci-fi. Still an advanced future technology as we haven't figured out how to make them on a commercially useful scale yet.

[FreeThinker]

4 hours ago, SciMan said:

 

@FreeThinker

Have you considered adding an Optical Rectenna? These would mostly be upgrades to the microwave rectenna that allow it to receive infrared or UV light.

As far as balancing, the IR rectenna upgrade would unlock 1 tier later than the diode laser, and the UV rectenna would unlock 1 tier later than the FEL, (nanotechnology is hard).

The Georgia Institute of Technology successfully demonstrated a working Optical Rectenna in the lab in 2015. Very much sci, not sci-fi. Still an advanced future technology as we haven't figured out how to make them on a commercially useful scale yet.

Yes, but I'm currently a  bit struggling with their placement, I initially had them scheduled to be both receiver and transmitting, but it seems to me they aren't ideally suited for transmission but rather efficient , converting microwave or infrared beams into electric current. Regarding upgrade, it is a novel idea but would the rectenna be able to receive both microwave and optical wavelength efficiently?

Edited October 23, 2016 by FreeThinker

[SciMan]

26 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Yes, I'm currently a  bit struggling with their placement, I initially had them scheduled to be both receiver and transmitting, but seems to me they aren't idealy suited for transmission but rather efficient ,microwave or infrared receival. Regarding upgrade, it is a novel idea but would the rectenna be able to receive both microwave and optical wavelength efficiently?

No reason they couldn't fit a bunch of optical rectennas in between the microwave rectennas.

There's a big difference in the size of the features for the two different kinds of rectennas, it's sort of like grass growing under a dead tree, but replace the tree with a microwave rectenna and replace the grass with optical rectennas.

I agree that they should all be receivers only and not transmitters. For transmission using a similar form factor you'd want Phased Arrays.

It's theoretically possible to build an Optical Phased Array, but it is massively more complex than a rectenna and as far as I know we haven't figured out how to construct them yet. The problems are mostly because everything is so small and fast. The transistors have to be tiny, the antennas have to be roughly the same size as those of an optical rectenna, and the timing, phasing, and frequency of the signal going to each antenna element is critical. For example, we don't even have a transistor that can switch at IR frequencies, let alone visible or UV. Making a diode that can switch at those frequencies is an important first step, but we're still nowhere near it yet IRL.

IMO you should get the microwave rectenna, a parabolic dish microwave antenna, and the Gyrotron all in the same node. Then you should get the microwave phased arrays at the next tech level. Or split out the microwave rectenna out to a tech node between the gyrotron/parabolic antenna and the phased array.
But that's only if you want to follow the way it happened in real life. IRL microwave phased arrays have only recently become practical (only 4th generation and later fighter jets have been able to use microwave radar with a phased array antenna). Meanwhile the only reason we haven't constructed microwave rectennas IRL is that we aren't using microwave beamed power over long distances (like space solar power plants or something like that).

IRL phased arrays don't make a lot of sense for power transmission unless you're sending power to a bunch of low-orbit satellites or something like that where the beam aiming direction changes quickly. Other than that kind of situation a transmitter connected to a traditional parabolic antenna will have lower overall losses (less circuitry between the transmitter and the transmitting antenna). Receiving with a microwave rectenna is probably the most efficient unless you're using the microwave beam for thermal power.

Edited October 23, 2016 by SciMan

[FreeThinker]

2 hours ago, SciMan said:

No reason they couldn't fit a bunch of optical rectennas in between the microwave rectennas.

There's a big difference in the size of the features for the two different kinds of rectennas, it's sort of like grass growing under a dead tree, but replace the tree with a microwave rectenna and replace the grass with optical rectennas.

Sorry, it's still not clear to me, can you or not combine them effectively? I assumed they don't ... because the trees would create shadows on the grass ...

Edited October 23, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Andu]

10 hours ago, SciMan said:

@Andu

Do you have a beam generator part directly connected to your antenna (or mirror)? That's the most common problem that I know of.

Beam generators include the Gyrotron (microwave beam), Diode Laser (IR beam), and Free Electron Laser (UV beam).

There are many antennas and mirrors. As far as I know, they all say which type of beam generator they work with in the part description. Some of them currently even work with any kind of beam generator.

 

@FreeThinker

Have you considered adding an Optical Rectenna? These would mostly be upgrades to the microwave rectenna that allow it to receive infrared or UV light.

As far as balancing, the IR rectenna upgrade would unlock 1 tier later than the diode laser, and the UV rectenna would unlock 1 tier later than the FEL, (nanotechnology is hard).

The Georgia Institute of Technology successfully demonstrated a working Optical Rectenna in the lab in 2015. Very much sci, not sci-fi. Still an advanced future technology as we haven't figured out how to make them on a commercially useful scale yet.

Ya apparently that was the problem, sorry but none of the tutorial videos i saw had a beam emitter included, seems to kindof work now, still new to it , if there is a "up to date" tutorial please let me know cause some parts dont have discriptions like what works whit what. (btw a idea, maybe the developer could show the links of satelites like the com network links that appear on the map, just different colors, just a suggestion, im pretty sure he\she has alot on their plate whit this awsome mod)

[raxo2222]

What is max distance for beam network energy transmission before beam gets too dispersed?

I know I should use UV light and as big receivers as possible.

 

[COL.R.Neville]

dont feel like the lone ranger andu i had the same problem. didnt add a beam generator to any of my stuff either. 

[Watercooled]

I'm sure there's plenty of people that have done that. The tutorials on the Web are outdated and the part interactions are not really clear in most cases. The devs are working on updated part descriptions but they are more focused right now on getting everything running smoothly and playing fair with other mods I think. 

[FreeThinker]

13 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

What is max distance for beam network energy transmission before beam gets too dispersed?

I know I should use UV light and as big receivers as possible.

 

Well it kind of depends of the scale that you play and untended usage. If you main goal is high power propulsion,  but don't expect longer range than mars/venus. Preferably, you use a  Transmitter both in Earth/Kerbin orbit and a transmitter at destination planet, assisting in beamed power Hoffman transfers. On the other hand, if you want solar arrays to be effective afer Mars, Beamed power potentially replace solar power by beamed power all the way to Saturn

Edited October 23, 2016 by FreeThinker

[SpaceMouse]

 

So, i more or less completed the reactor. I think i'm going to repurpose my 'turbos' as (reactor) pumps and give it more normal looking generators. If @FreeThinker still has any interest, I can throw some magnetic coils around the reactor for this crazy magnetically contained fission. I might also do some modifications to make it a Thorium-fueled molten salt reactor. Because there don't seem to be any people have done for KSP..
Updated picture.

Edited October 24, 2016 by SpaceMouse

[SciMan]

7 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Sorry, it's still not clear to me, can you or not combine them effectively? I assumed they don't ... because the trees would create shadows on the grass ...

I meant that you should be able to combine them effectively. I just meant it like "packing small stuff in the gaps between big stuff".
Also, I intentionally chose "dead tree", as a dead tree has no leaves to cast a shadow, just like a rectenna array being basically flat means that there isn't anything to cast a shadow.

The analogy was meant to refer to the size of the antenna elements used, and a type of "packing problem" where you have objects of two sizes, not the fact that a tree casts a shadow.

@SpaceMouse

Would that "magnetically confined fission reactor" be a Plasma Core fission reactor? IMO it would have to be, otherwise the magnetic fields wouldn't be able to "grab" the fission fuel.

Obviously this means it would have to have a higher core temperature than the Gas Core fission reactor (plasma = hot enough to be ionized). This reactor's core temperature might be in the 75-100k range and output a large amount of charged particles.

There are 3 main advantages I can see to this kind of reactor over a fusion reactor:

1. The magnetic confinement means that you can easily negate the buoyancy effects that plague Gas Core reactors.
2. The plasma doesn't have to be compressed to react, meaning the containment field magnets use a lot less power than those of a fusion reactor. At a guess, a plasma-core fission reactor would use 5-25 Megawatts per Gigawatt of nameplate output power. Ex: 1GW plasma core fission reactor needs 5-25 MW maintenance, 2GW reactor needs 10-50MW maintenance power, 5GW reactor needs 25-125MW maintenance power, etc.
3. Fission fuel is relatively common compared to fusion fuels on rocky bodies of the solar system that have no atmosphere (Moho, Gilly, Mun/Minmus, Duna, Ike, and one other I can't remember Dres in the stock solar system.)

I'm seeing this kind of reactor dominating the late-game inner solar system (Moho to Dres) because of the relative ease of mining Uranium and/or Thorium, high core temperature, and low maintenance power requirements.

Meanwhile, fusion reactors would be the power source of choice in the outer solar system due to the ease of scooping fusion fuel from the atmosphere of Jool (or other gas giants if planet packs are installed).

Warp drive ships would likely remain fusion or antimatter powered because of the ease of access to Jool, and the high power required to run a warp drive (particularly with the large vessel mass required to use a warp drive).

[SpaceMouse]

4 hours ago, SciMan said:

Would that "magnetically confined fission reactor" be a Plasma Core fission reactor? IMO it would have to be, otherwise the magnetic fields wouldn't be able to "grab" the fission fuel.

Obviously this means it would have to have a higher core temperature than the Gas Core fission reactor (plasma = hot enough to be ionized). This reactor's core temperature might be in the 75-100k range and output a large amount of charged particles.

There are 3 main advantages I can see to this kind of reactor over a fusion reactor:

1. The magnetic confinement means that you can easily negate the buoyancy effects that plague Gas Core reactors.
2. The plasma doesn't have to be compressed to react, meaning the containment field magnets use a lot less power than those of a fusion reactor. At a guess, a plasma-core fission reactor would use 5-25 Megawatts per Gigawatt of nameplate output power. Ex: 1GW plasma core fission reactor needs 5-25 MW maintenance, 2GW reactor needs 10-50MW maintenance power, 5GW reactor needs 25-125MW maintenance power, etc.
3. Fission fuel is relatively common compared to fusion fuels on rocky bodies of the solar system that have no atmosphere (Moho, Gilly, Mun/Minmus, Duna, Ike, and one other I can't remember Dres in the stock solar system.)

I'm seeing this kind of reactor dominating the late-game inner solar system (Moho to Dres) because of the relative ease of mining Uranium and/or Thorium, high core temperature, and low maintenance power requirements.

Meanwhile, fusion reactors would be the power source of choice in the outer solar system due to the ease of scooping fusion fuel from the atmosphere of Jool (or other gas giants if planet packs are installed).

Warp drive ships would likely remain fusion or antimatter powered because of the ease of access to Jool, and the high power required to run a warp drive (particularly with the large vessel mass required to use a warp drive).

Eh, admittedly i'm not a expert in the differences of reactor types. @FreeThinker mentioned a slight modification for this capacity, although based on the last few hours of google and wikipedia, I'd say... probably.

Although I'm having a tough time finding a diagram of how i would have to modify it to look like it functions appropriately.

I've also have plans for a (normal) Tokamak and was toying with the idea of a Stellarator, although those are so complicated i'll probably just stick with the Tokamak. Eventually.

Please excuse my ignorance to bleeding-edge nuclear physics.

Edited October 24, 2016 by SpaceMouse

[SciMan]

First off, realizing you don't know something is a strength. "I know one thing: that I know nothing" -Socrates (according to Plato's account at least).
Not acting like you know something that you don't actually know is a good thing.

To be honest I didn't really use any bleeding-edge particle physics to figure out that a fission reactor that uses magnetic confinement must be a plasma-core reactor.

Non-polar gases like UF6 can't be contained by magnetic fields because they're not ionized. Plasma can be contained by magnetic fields because it is ionized (by definition). Therefore any nuclear fission reactor that uses magnets as part of the fuel containment scheme must be operating at plasma temperatures.

[FreeThinker]

11 hours ago, SpaceMouse said:

 

So, i more or less completed the reactor. I think i'm going to repurpose my 'turbos' as (reactor) pumps and give it more normal looking generators. If @FreeThinker still has any interest, I can throw some magnetic coils around the reactor for this crazy magnetically contained fission. I might also do some modifications to make it a Thorium-fueled molten salt reactor. Because there don't seem to be any people have done for KSP..
Updated picture.

I still would like to see on what this gaseous fission reactor design is based on. Although I'm no expert, I though the shape of the reactor, of a gas core needs to like a ball, not a sausage, to create a good vortex ...

[FreeThinker]

On 23-10-2016 at 10:58 AM, SciMan said:

IMO you should get the microwave rectenna, a parabolic dish microwave antenna, and the Gyrotron all in the same node. Then you should get the microwave phased arrays at the next tech level. Or split out the microwave rectenna out to a tech node between the gyrotron/parabolic antenna and the phased array.

But that's only if you want to follow the way it happened in real life. IRL microwave phased arrays have only recently become practical (only 4th generation and later fighter jets have been able to use microwave radar with a phased array antenna). Meanwhile the only reason we haven't constructed microwave rectennas IRL is that we aren't using microwave beamed power over long distances (like space solar power plants or something like that).

IRL phased arrays don't make a lot of sense for power transmission unless you're sending power to a bunch of low-orbit satellites or something like that where the beam aiming direction changes quickly. Other than that kind of situation a transmitter connected to a traditional parabolic antenna will have lower overall losses (less circuitry between the transmitter and the transmitting antenna). Receiving with a microwave rectenna is probably the most efficient unless you're using the microwave beam for thermal power.

Well, the problem is that I have to balance current KSPI beamed framework limitations (which don't have upgrade capability yet) with Historical Technical reality.

But after taking your advice/ criticism under advice (for now) I have create the technology organization:

1. First generation beamed power tech  :  Gyrotron Microwave Generator, Microwave Transducers (Transmitter),  Thermal Power receivers, First Gen Laser (IR Laser Turret with integrated Diode), Microwave Rectenna
2. Second generation beamed power tech : Diode Laser Generator, IR Laser Transmitter,  Phased Array Technology (with microwave relay capability),  ThermophotovoltaicReceiver,  SolarPhotovoltaicReceiver, First Gen UV Laser Transmitter ( with integrated Beam generator),
3. Third generation beamed power tech: Free Electron Laser Generator,  Medium & Large Dishes with integrated Optical Rectenna, Microwave/IR Rectenna (high efficiency IR Power conversion), and IR & UV Light Relay Mirrors

For a gameplay perspective, every technode will gradually unlock more efficient and longer distance beamed power transmission. The first technode unlocks only the most basic technologies, limiting effectiveness to low earth/kerbin/orbits, the second generation allows you to construction of Microwave networks and limited Photovoltaic beamed  power while the last technode finally unlocks the most advanced technologies which allow you to create very advanced high power beamed power networks.

Note that in the future I want beam power technologies to be fully upgradable (like the reactors), making them gradualy more efficient, this also allows me to move the large parabolic dishes to introduced at a lower tech, but with lower initial trassmit and recieval efficiencies ..

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

18 hours ago, Andu said:

Ya apparently that was the problem, sorry but none of the tutorial videos i saw had a beam emitter included, seems to kindof work now, still new to it , if there is a "up to date" tutorial please let me know cause some parts dont have discriptions like what works whit what. (btw a idea, maybe the developer could show the links of satelites like the com network links that appear on the map, just different colors, just a suggestion, im pretty sure he\she has alot on their plate whit this awsome mod)

Yes I'm aware of the probem, next update I want to addres at least the lack of part description, Besides that I can say new tutorials are currently in development.

[SpaceMouse]

8 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

I still would like to see on what this gaseous fission reactor design is based on. Although I'm no expert, I though the shape of the reactor, of a gas core needs to like a ball, not a sausage, to create a good vortex ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-cooled_fast_reactor

The layout is mostly based on this diagram, with a few tweaks. A sphere reactor with magnets surrounding is easy though. No control- rod assembly i assume? 

[FreeThinker]

43 minutes ago, SpaceMouse said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-cooled_fast_reactor

The layout is mostly based on this diagram, with a few tweaks. A sphere reactor with magnets surrounding is easy though. No control- rod assembly i assume? 

Ah, I see now that we confused the Gaseous Fission Reactor (where the fuel is in a gaseous state) with a Gas cooled fast reactor (which core is still solid) and only the coolant is in a gas state. They are completely different. But still potentially quite interesting as it solves the missing link between NERVA and Molten Salt Reactor

Edited October 24, 2016 by FreeThinker

[SpaceMouse]

1 hour ago, FreeThinker said:

Ah, I see now that we confused the Gaseous Fission Reactor (where the fuel is in a gaseous state) with a Gas cooled fast reactor (which core is still solid) and only the coolant is in a gas state. They are completely different. But still potentially quite interesting as it solves the missing link between NERVA and Molten Salt Reactor

I kind of designed it before researching molten salt reactors, although it seems most of the differences between reactor types are the various shapes (at least as far as 3D goes) and those are easy changes.

The thought occurs to me, would you like a new exchanger/ generator part? I've pretty much modeled all of it already, wouldn't be hard for me to export it separately. Is it going to be a issue the my part is all one piece? Made sense when i was modeling it. Heh.

[FreeThinker]

59 minutes ago, SpaceMouse said:

The thought occurs to me, would you like a new exchanger/ generator part? I've pretty much modeled all of it already, wouldn't be hard for me to export it separately. Is it going to be a issue the my part is all one piece? Made sense when i was modeling it. Heh.

Yes certainly. Technically what we are missing is a Magnetohydrodynamic generator. It allows heated gas/plasma with very high  temperatures to be converted into energy.

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by FreeThinker

[arcimist]

Hi, i'm new to interstellar extended and i'm having problems to get my microwave phased array transceiver to transmit power. I've launched it into orbit, i've tried putting it adjacent to a generator, adjacent to a computer core, the reactors i've tried are molten salt reactor, antimatter initiated fusion reactor. i only get the options to teceive or relay power

[FreeThinker]

45 minutes ago, arcimist said:

Hi, i'm new to interstellar extended and i'm having problems to get my microwave phased array transceiver to transmit power. I've launched it into orbit, i've tried putting it adjacent to a generator, adjacent to a computer core, the reactors i've tried are molten salt reactor, antimatter initiated fusion reactor. i only get the options to teceive or relay power

In order to transmit power with a phased array, you need to connect it with a Microwave Beam Producer, a.k.a  Gyrotron

Edited October 24, 2016 by FreeThinker

[arcimist]

31 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

In order to transmit power with a phased array, you need to connect it with a Microwave Beam Producer, a.k.a  Gyrotron

Thank you, i read through some other posts and figured it out thank you for the help though i'm used to the old interstellar

Edited October 24, 2016 by arcimist