KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[Targus]

4 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

Exactly what part did you use? What version of KSPI was loaded?

Thermal receiver on 1.21.9.4 for KSP 1.7.1 

[FreeThinker]

1 minute ago, Targus said:

Thermal receiver on 1.21.9.4 for KSP 1.7.1 

Why not use the latest version?

[Targus]

1 minute ago, FreeThinker said:

Why not use the latest version?

I'll try 

[FreeThinker]

Guess what this means?

Edited July 19, 2019 by FreeThinker

[TheRag]

 

3 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Guess what this means?

Anti-gravity drives? I am assuming that you can provide thrust by redirecting gravity through a warp field.

[FreeThinker]

On 7/20/2019 at 2:03 AM, TheRag said:

 

Anti-gravity drives? I am assuming that you can provide thrust by redirecting gravity through a warp field.

Close but it has nothing to do with the warp field. Simply put antigravity is a property of Exotic Matter, the more Exotic matter present in your warp coils, the more antigravity will be experienced. You can control it with the slider or simple ignore it and use charge button like you used to in order to prepare for warp.

Notice how Exotic matter is filled by half, generating 9.7459 m/s2 which is he same as the experienced Gravity Acceleration

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by FreeThinker

[Raptor22]

Is there any way to create a part that acts like the heat sinks in Elite Dangerous - one that you could dump your waste heat into and eject overboard?

Since waste heat is considered a resource, wouldn't it technically be possible to transfer like any other resource? I don't think that it would be cheaty, as the E:D heat sinks work by dumping heat-saturated coolant into the heat sink and then ejecting it overboard. While radiators in a vacuum must use radiation to get rid of heat, ejecting a heat sink filled with hot coolant allows for convection/conduction to occur, which should allow for a greater transfer of heat than radiation.

It would be a very handy thing to have in emergencies: if your ship is overheating and about to explode, you can dump your waste heat into a heat sink and eject it. While it wouldn't help if there's a critical design flaw (such as not having enough radiators to sustain the ship at idle), if there's ever a heat emergency resulting from environmental factors, such as passing too close to a star, atmospheric entry, or a really long burn/warp jump, it could make all of the difference. I'd rather lose a heat sink than lose a ship.

[Kharn]

What about a part that creates a geothermal heat pump when you use it on a suitable surface, the animation drills down into the surface, then it expends a working fluid or gas you brought along in your tanks to charge the system, using the temperature difference of the heat source vs the subsurface temperature. But, bring the wrong fluid/gas and it freezes or liquefies so the system doesn't work. So water would be amazing in certain Earth biomes but do very poorly anywhere else. Xenon wouldn't transfer as much heat and costs a ton more, but would run just about anywhere, etc.

[OOM]

On 6/27/2019 at 11:23 PM, FreeThinker said:

В следующем выпуске KSPIE будут обновлены Kerbalsim Emiter всех радиоактивных излучателей.

Например, поэтапный запас NERVA дает около 0,028 рад / ч.

И когда на полной мощности он генерирует около 72 рад / час

это примерно в 4000 раз больше радиации при снижении. Я не уверен, является ли это чрезмерным или нет. Я открыт для любых советов

Это может показаться много, но есть методы движения, которые производят гораздо больше излучения для экипажа (как газовое ядро открытого цикла, продукты деления которого очень радиоактивны)

Но мне интересно, есть ли какой-нибудь верхний предел для количества радиации, которое заставит Кербалов в Кербальсиме умереть немедленно.

How can NERVA be radioactive if you can use Plutonium-238, which is easy to shield?

Edited August 8, 2019 by OOM
Added translation

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, OOM said:

How can NERVA be radioactive if you can use Plutonium-238, which is easy to shield?

good point, your not supposed to be able to select Plutonium-238 which is only usefull in a RTG or as a fuel in Fission Fusion Reactor. Instead you should be able to Select Uranium 233 which is more powerfull but more radioactive than U 235

Edited August 8, 2019 by FreeThinker

[Cruss]

Hi! I've been enjoying ksp IE in combination with rescale!, far and a whole bunch of other mods.

But I've been having an issue with some stock engines and engines belonging to the mk2 stockalike expansion part pack, namely, airbreathing engines overheat, critically, at mach 4. Even above 30km altitude.

I've been nosing around in various config files and when i came to warppluginsettings, I noticed how ksp IE makes a lot of changes to thermal mechanics.

I'm not using deadly reentry. Any thoughts? 

Game version is 1.7.3

 

[OOM]

 

Do you plan to expand the range of "classic" nuclear reactors? For example: Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) (e.g. RBMK-1000) Liquid Metal Liquid Reactor (LMFR)

[FreeThinker]

17 hours ago, OOM said:

 

Do you plan to expand the range of "classic" nuclear reactors? For example: Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) (e.g. RBMK-1000) Liquid Metal Liquid Reactor (LMFR)

Boiling Water Reactor are simply not suitable for space, much too low temperature and heavy. The  Liquid Metal Liquid Reactor  concept looks much more intresting, especialy with lead as the coolant which  signifinaly reduces gamma radiation.

Edited August 9, 2019 by FreeThinker

[OOM]

I plan to do a realistic interstellar mission as soon as this comes out:

Spoiler

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/187033-wip-real-exoplanets/&tab=comments#comment-3648881

First of all, I will try to make a very accurate version of Daedalus (I think, even make a video). But after that I would like to make another ship - Longshot. The problem is that there are no such parts in the mod (especially the cylindrical fuel tanks that D-He3 can carry). Can you add similar details to the KSP-I to build this ship in the future?

Edited August 12, 2019 by OOM

[Nertea]

Hey @FreeThinker I've been notified of something that is happening with KSPI and CryoTanks that breaks CT. It has to do with this patch file, which is using an unsupported configuration for ModuleCryoTank

Effectively all BOILOFFCONFIG blocks should be condensed into one instance of ModuleCryoTank. This performs much better and avoids the problems that have been reported. I will work on a solution to ensure that multiple instances of the module on a single part are supported, but this will involve config changes as well and doesn't have a firm ETA.

This does mean that only one CoolingCost is available for all fuels (hence the name SimpleBoiloff, haha). I will also work towards supporting different costs for different fuels. 

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, Nertea said:

Hey @FreeThinker I've been notified of something that is happening with KSPI and CryoTanks that breaks CT. It has to do with this patch file, which is using an unsupported configuration for ModuleCryoTank

Effectively all BOILOFFCONFIG blocks should be condensed into one instance of ModuleCryoTank. This performs much better and avoids the problems that have been reported. I will work on a solution to ensure that multiple instances of the module on a single part are supported, but this will involve config changes as well and doesn't have a firm ETA.

This does mean that only one CoolingCost is available for all fuels (hence the name SimpleBoiloff, haha). I will also work towards supporting different costs for different fuels. 

Ok, in the mean time I simply remove all instances of ModuleCryoTank  and replace them by FNModuleCryostat , KSPI on cryo module which has always worked.

[Nertea]

Yeah, I'd think that you'd want to use your own module at that point anyways - finer control. 

[MaxPeck]

[REDACTED]

Edited August 18, 2019 by MaxPeck

[FreeThinker]

I would like to add Halo Drive Capability to KSPIE Beamed power transmitters and add black holes to exiting star packs to create an interstellar highway

 

Basicly you would have to navigate near the vacinity of black hole and then start Halo Drive Model program which will shoot a continious laser around the black hole after which you use it to push the vessel to high speed.

It als sounds something I could realize but but I'm going to need so some help understanding the match how this exactly works

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.03423.pdf

Edited August 21, 2019 by FreeThinker

[Aghanim]

On 7/23/2019 at 7:53 AM, Raptor22 said:

Is there any way to create a part that acts like the heat sinks in Elite Dangerous - one that you could dump your waste heat into and eject overboard?

Since waste heat is considered a resource, wouldn't it technically be possible to transfer like any other resource? I don't think that it would be cheaty, as the E:D heat sinks work by dumping heat-saturated coolant into the heat sink and then ejecting it overboard. While radiators in a vacuum must use radiation to get rid of heat, ejecting a heat sink filled with hot coolant allows for convection/conduction to occur, which should allow for a greater transfer of heat than radiation.

It would be a very handy thing to have in emergencies: if your ship is overheating and about to explode, you can dump your waste heat into a heat sink and eject it. While it wouldn't help if there's a critical design flaw (such as not having enough radiators to sustain the ship at idle), if there's ever a heat emergency resulting from environmental factors, such as passing too close to a star, atmospheric entry, or a really long burn/warp jump, it could make all of the difference. I'd rather lose a heat sink than lose a ship.

Coincidentally I just thought about this, at least when I was thinking about KSP2 (we really should port this to KSP2, currently I don't think vanilla KSP2 interstellar techs are as deep as KSPI).

I'm thinking that we can make a small rocket nozzle, like RCS thruster size, that uses any liquid propellant and waste heat to vaporize that propellant. The heat rejection rate will be mass flow rate * (heat of vaporization +  specific heat capacity * (radiator temp - propellant boiling point)), and flow rate is proportional to nozzle diameter.

I want to try to code this

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, Aghanim said:

Coincidentally I just thought about this, at least when I was thinking about KSP2 (we really should port this to KSP2, currently I don't think vanilla KSP2 interstellar techs are as deep as KSPI).

I'm thinking that we can make a small rocket nozzle, like RCS thruster size, that uses any liquid propellant and waste heat to vaporize that propellant. The heat rejection rate will be mass flow rate * (heat of vaporization +  specific heat capacity * (radiator temp - propellant boiling point)), and flow rate is proportional to nozzle diameter.

I want to try to code this

Intresting concept . DO notice that RCS control with variable thrust tend to confuse the SAS, which assumes RCS thust if constant, that why for the Electric RCS controller, I only very the Isp, not the thrust.

[Aghanim]

@FreeThinker For now I won't try to implement any thrust, it can be handwaved in game by saying that the cooling nozzle ejects on 4 opposing sides. I noticed that in the resource definition file there is coolingFactor, what is that for? I don't find any mention of it in the support forum page

[FreeThinker]

6 minutes ago, Aghanim said:

@FreeThinker For now I won't try to implement any thrust, it can be handwaved in game by saying that the cooling nozzle ejects on 4 opposing sides. I noticed that in the resource definition file there is coolingFactor, what is that for? I don't find any mention of it in the support forum page

Well the idea is that using cryogenic propellant will cool the nozzle better than non cryogenic cooler propellant. It has an effect of the amount of (stock) heat and wasteheat produces, giving them an edge where heat becomes criticla, like with thermal antimatter reactors. It is assumed the propellant first flows though the nozzle, preventing it from overheating. This also compensates for the lower flow rate compaired to non cryo propellants, which tend to have higher flow.

Edited August 22, 2019 by FreeThinker

[Aghanim]

@FreeThinker The code is actually already there in ThermalNozzleController.cs:

                // act as open cycle cooler
                if (isOpenCycleCooler)
                {
                    var wasteheatRatio = getResourceBarRatio(ResourceManager.FNRESOURCE_WASTEHEAT);
                    fuelFlowForCooling = currentMassFlow;
                    consumeFNResourcePerSecond(40 * wasteheatRatio * wasteheatRatio * fuelFlowForCooling, ResourceManager.FNRESOURCE_WASTEHEAT);
                }

Currently thermal engines need to be connected to a heat source like reactor to run, if we can modify it to be able to run without being connected to a heat source but make it run without thrust then we have our open cycle cooler

Edit: Found it:

if (AttachedReactor == null) { if (myAttachedEngine.isOperational && currentThrottle > 0) { //myAttachedEngine.Events["Shutdown"].Invoke(); myAttachedEngine.Shutdown(); ScreenMessages.PostScreenMessage("Engine Shutdown: No reactor attached!", 5.0f, ScreenMessageStyle.UPPER_CENTER); } myAttachedEngine.CLAMP = 0; myAttachedEngine.flameoutBar = float.MaxValue; vessel.ctrlState.mainThrottle = 0; maxFuelFlowOnEngine = 1e-10f; myAttachedEngine.maxFuelFlow = maxFuelFlowOnEngine; return; }

Edited August 22, 2019 by Aghanim

[FreeThinker]

18 minutes ago, Aghanim said:

@FreeThinker The code is actually already there in ThermalNozzleController.cs:

                // act as open cycle cooler
                if (isOpenCycleCooler)
                {
                    var wasteheatRatio = getResourceBarRatio(ResourceManager.FNRESOURCE_WASTEHEAT);
                    fuelFlowForCooling = currentMassFlow;
                    consumeFNResourcePerSecond(40 * wasteheatRatio * wasteheatRatio * fuelFlowForCooling, ResourceManager.FNRESOURCE_WASTEHEAT);
                }

Currently thermal engines need to be connected to a heat source like reactor to run, if we can modify it to be able to run without being connected to a heat source but make it run without thrust then we have our open cycle cooler

Well the main reason this was a requirement was to prevent weird effects like a nozzle consuming heat while the reactor delivering the thermal heat would be on the other side of the vessel. For washeat this is less problematic and could technically be implemented like the Electric RCS where Megajoules consumption is replaced by Wasteheat and its Max isp would  modified by the current Radiator Temperature.

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by FreeThinker