KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

i only mean that first page states that Helium3 Catalyzed D-D Fusion specifically should produce tritium (not only neutrons for additional surplus), but actually tritium production is (much) lower than some other reactions.

Yes, that's correct. Helium3 Catalyzed D-D Fusion means you filter the tritium ash from D-D fusion to be used elsewhere, for example for D-T Fusion in Vista Engine

[SciMan]

SORRY, meant to say *Nitrogen*. The ISRUs can extract ammonia, but I have no way to scan for it from orbit, so unless I get really lucky and find some on the surface, I have no off-world source of nitrogen... I need some kind of part that can scan for ammonia, since the ISRU can extract it. Water I can already scan for with SCANSat.

AFAIK, Kerbin, Eve, and Laythe have significant amounts of Nitrogen. You can use an Atmospheric Scoop to get these. Additionally, I think Laythe's oceans have Ammonia in them. If not, Nitrogen and Hydrogen should make Ammonia via Haber process, IIRC. At least they did in previous versions. And if you have hydrogen and oxygen, you should be able to make HTP.

In other words, Laythe has everything you need to make Hydrazine and/or Monoprop.

Laythe also has Lithium in the oceans, IIRC. With that and Deuterium from Jool, you can run D-Li6 fusion.

D-Li6 fusion is IMO better than He3-He3 fusion. It's cheaper to start off with, Aneutronic, MORE powerful than any other fusion reaction, and only spits out ChargedParticles, which means higher generator efficiency. I can't see a downside to this, other than the fact that it might require higher tech in the reactors.

TBH, I consider D-Li6 to be a superior fusion fuel in every way, compared to He3-He3.

Every fusion powered ship that I use is powered by an ICF reactor running D-Li6 fusion, with one or two 0.625m fission reactors to provide jumpstart power if required.

@FreeThinker,

Speaking of Lithium and it's uses:

I have a problem with Lithium being able to be used by VASIMR and Plasma Thrusters.

The problem is that I don't ever intentionally use Lithium for those engines.

However, when I carry it for Tritium feed-stock or for use by a fusion reactor running D-Li6, and that ship has a VASIMR or plasma thruster, I'm only one mistake in fuel choices away from a dead probe.

I already know the solution for this. Treat Lithium tanks like Water tanks, by giving Lithium tanks the same "Is Propellant = true/false" button on the right-click menu.

[ss8913]

What I'm getting at with the N2 is that the ISRU has a mode to "extract LqdAmmonia" but I don't know where this resource can be found - am I not supposed to be able to use the ISRU like that? It seems to think it can be used like that.

EDIT: Is this an unimplemented artifact from the original KSPI? The ISRU Wiki for it definitely claims that extracting ammonia directly from the ground with the ISRU extractor is a thing. I just don't see that it's [still] implemented in KSPIE? Please advise

Edited September 8, 2015 by ss8913
found ammonia extraction on the fractalUK wiki page

[FreeThinker]

I already know the solution for this. Treat Lithium tanks like Water tanks, by giving Lithium tanks the same "Is Propellant = true/false" button on the right-click menu.

Yes, Lithium fuel control is on my todo short list. It's a recurring issue during my test as well

Edited September 8, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Sahadara]

Is anyone here who's qualified willing to create a KSPI - USI resource compatibility patch? Such that all the resources of KSPI can be sources through USI systems, and resources meant to be the same thing are merged?

[herman]

Can someone lay out the process for removing actinides from a reactor, and how to fix reactor embrittlement?

Apologies if this is somewhere else in the thread, I can't find it.

[SciMan]

What I'm getting at with the N2 is that the ISRU has a mode to "extract LqdAmmonia" but I don't know where this resource can be found - am I not supposed to be able to use the ISRU like that? It seems to think it can be used like that.

EDIT: Is this an unimplemented artifact from the original KSPI? The ISRU Wiki for it definitely claims that extracting ammonia directly from the ground with the ISRU extractor is a thing. I just don't see that it's [still] implemented in KSPIE? Please advise

I found a few planets that have Ammonia by looking thru WarpPlugin/PlanetResourceData/oceanicresourcedefinitions.cfg.

According to that file, Laythe is the only Stock planet that has an entry for Ammonia.

Slate and Tekto (from the Outer Planets Mod) also have entries for Ammonia.

EDIT: Just looked at the info for Slate, apparently it has no atmosphere or ocean. Unsure why it has a config for oceanic resources. I don't use any planet packs, so IDK what's going on there.

This means that you should be able to use the ISRU's "extract LqdAmmonia" mode while SPLASHED DOWN in Laythe's oceans.

If you have OPM, you can do the same thing on Slate and Tekto.

If this doesnt work, look for a problem with resources not being able to flow correctly on the vessel.

I also looked in WarpPlugin/PlanetResourceData/atmosphericresourcedefinitions.cfg.

I found a few entries for Ammonia there as well. All the atmospheric resources will require an atmospheric scoop to collect them.

According to the file, here's the planets that have Ammonia in their atmospheres:

Stock: Jool.

Real Solar System (RSS): Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.

Outer Planets Mod (OPM): Sarnus, Urlum, Neidon.

Once again, Ocean resources require the vessel to be splashed down in the ocean, and atmospheric resources require use of an Atmospheric Scoop.

Also, I doubt you'll even get a (-0.01) on the resource display without using timewarp, because the collection rates are just so slow. If it's working, you will see the display show (-0.00). This means you are getting something but it's not being collected at a large enough rate to be rounded up to 0.01. If you were actually getting nothing, the rate display would just show (0).

Hope that was able to clear some things up for you.

Can someone lay out the process for removing actinides from a reactor, and how to fix reactor embrittlement?

Apologies if this is somewhere else in the thread, I can't find it.

Unfortunately there's no way to fix reactor embrittlement that I know of, short of replacing the entire reactor.

This is why you should always try to use an Aneutronic fusion mode, because they don't have any neutrons to contribute to reactor embrittlement. One of the downsides is that the aneutronic fusion modes only produce Charged Particles, and no Thermal Power. This is more efficient overall, but it means you can't use Thermal nozzles or Thermal Turbojets.

There are 3 aneutronic fusion modes available:

He3-He3 (available from the start, fuel is expensive, average power). ~75% as powerful as D-T fusion.

p-11B (Mid-tier tech, Cheap fuel, fuel is not cryogenic, low power) ~25% as powerful as D-T fusion.

D-Li6 (High tech, Cheap fuel, high power) ~125% as powerful as D-T fusion. (!)

The good news is that there is a way to get rid of actinides in a fission reactor that I know works.

The KSPI science lab and the KSPI ISRU units both have options for "Nuclear Reprocessing".

This is a lossy process that turns Actinides into fresh EnrichedUranium.

One science lab and/or ISRU should be able to keep your fission reactor from building up actinides.

If you have a fission reactor and ISRU as parts of the same vessel, running on top of a Uranium deposit on the Mun, it should be capable of running pretty much indefinitely.

If you have a reactor that's full of Actinides, you can revive it by connecting it to any vessel that has a KSPI generator and ISRU or science lab.

Hope that helps you guys that are still in the early parts of the Nuclear Power tech tree nodes.

Edited September 9, 2015 by SciMan

[herman]

The good news is that there is a way to get rid of actinides in a fission reactor that I know works.

The KSPI science lab and the KSPI ISRU units both have options for "Nuclear Reprocessing".

This is a lossy process that turns Actinides into fresh EnrichedUranium.

One science lab and/or ISRU should be able to keep your fission reactor from building up actinides.

If you have a fission reactor and ISRU as parts of the same vessel, running on top of a Uranium deposit on the Mun, it should be capable of running pretty much indefinitely.

If you have a reactor that's full of Actinides, you can revive it by connecting it to any vessel that has a KSPI generator and ISRU or science lab.

You're my hero. I had everything except the right kind of power. When I'm through my first KSPI playthrough I may need to make a set of reference designs for noobs like me .

[Kantas]

I have a question regarding the Fusion reactors.

I built a space plane, using the Inertial COnfinement reactors. They have been upgraded through the tech tree, and the ship was launched after I researched the tech.

I have two of the reactors on my space plane, and one of them is showing a core temperature of 14225K and the other lists 20776K.

I have them both connected to 1.25M thermal turbojets. When i have the turbo jets throttled up, one side is giving me significantly more thrust than the other side. I cannot figure out why one core temp would be so much lower than the other

any help would be appreciated thanks.

[FreeThinker]

Is anyone here who's qualified willing to create a KSPI - USI resource compatibility patch? Such that all the resources of KSPI can be sources through USI systems, and resources meant to be the same thing are merged?

Could you eleborate exactly what change you are looking for, then perhaps I might create a patch.

- - - Updated - - -

I have two of the reactors on my space plane, and one of them is showing a core temperature of 14225K and the other lists 20776K.

Are they both running in the same fuel mode? Fusion Fuel Mode also alters the core temperature

[okder]

Yes, that's correct. Helium3 Catalyzed D-D Fusion means you filter the tritium ash from D-D fusion to be used elsewhere, for example for D-T Fusion in Vista Engine

i again repeat that practically it's not working. i.e. tritium production is lower than many others reactions, but according to first page it should be larger.

something tells me that is bug.

[Profit-]

@freethinker

I like super-capacitors that slowly drain charge, but may I suggest this instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_energy_storage

PS. we just discovered a superconductor that works at -70 degrees Celsius this week from what I remember. Keeping the structure cool to that temp should be child's play by comparison and you can make a brand new cool looking module that would look and be like launching a giant bike tire.

It would be interesting to launch to say the least. However 100Gigajoules to terrajoules of energy storage with only a minimal parasitic drain would be interesting to see.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Profit-

[FreeThinker]

Talk is all good and fun, but we need to get some hard numbers. How much power (MegaWatt) could realsiticly be stored in super capacitator or super conducting energy storage and at what mass cost and how long would it take to lose half it power?

Specificly, how much could be stored in a 2.5m NFT capacitator model and how much mass should it have ?

Note, we going to need at least 40 MegaWatt to start a magnetic confinement fusion reactor

40 MW Would be a modest and conveniant amount I think for the 2.5m Capacitator. The 1.25 would then contain 10 MW and a single Capacitator would hold about 1 MW

Edited September 9, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

i again repeat that practically it's not working. i.e. tritium production is lower than many others reactions, but according to first page it should be larger.

something tells me that is bug.

The first page list a neutronicity 46.2% which is the percentage of all energy in neutrons. In KSPI this also translates into the breeding rate of Tritium. Beside that, ithe D-D fusion creates Tritium as a waste product.

Edited September 9, 2015 by FreeThinker

[okder]

The first page list a neutronicity 46.2% which is the percentage of all energy in neutrons. In KSPI this also translates into the breeding rate of Tritium.

this part i understand and breeding speed is too low for practical usage

Beside that, ithe D-D fusion creates Tritium as a waste product.

this part is not working or reactor and tritium storage should be specially connected to make it work properly?

Edited September 9, 2015 by okder

[FreeThinker]

this part is not working or reactor and tritium storage should be specially connected to make it work properly?

You should be able to see it in the information screen how much tritium is beeing produced. Notice when you use the magnetic nozzle, the Tritium will be thrown out the back

[okder]

You should be able to see it in the information screen how much tritium is beeing produced. Notice when you use the magnetic nozzle, the Tritium will be thrown out the back

again information states that only neutron breeding tritium production exist(when all engines turned off) (less than 0.1% of reactor input), no tritium as product of reaction(which i think would be several % of input mass).

[Coga19000]

If I may make such a bold comment, FreeThinker, I do feel copying the models from NFT is not a good idea. It may be legal now, but some may think that you are not taking your work too seriously despite the rest of your works. Also, NFT and KSPI have kinda different and distinct art styles, which do not really fit too much as parts of the same mod.

[FreeThinker]

If I may make such a bold comment, FreeThinker, I do feel copying the models from NFT is not a good idea. It may be legal now, but some may think that you are not taking your work too seriously despite the rest of your works. Also, NFT and KSPI have kinda different and distinct art styles, which do not really fit too much as parts of the same mod.

I would realy love if someone could create me some distinct KSPI capacitator models but I don't have that luxury. For the moment the best we might offer is give them give them a differnt paint job which will make them more distinct from exisitng NTF textures.

- - - Updated - - -

again information states that only neutron breeding tritium production exist(when all engines turned off) (less than 0.1% of reactor input), no tritium as product of reaction(which i think would be several % of input mass).

MM, I checked the Reaction Fuels config file and it appears your correct. I simply forgot to declare the Tritium product. I will fix it next release

Edited September 9, 2015 by FreeThinker

[ABZB]

Talk is all good and fun, but we need to get some hard numbers. How much power (MegaWatt) could realsiticly be stored in super capacitator or super conducting energy storage and at what mass cost and how long would it take to lose half it power?

http://i.imgur.com/0VX82Mj.png

Specificly, how much could be stored in a 2.5m NFT capacitator model and how much mass should it have ?

Note, we going to need at least 40 MegaWatt to start a magnetic confinement fusion reactor

40 MW Would be a modest and conveniant amount I think for the 2.5m Capacitator. The 1.25 would then contain 10 MW and a single Capacitator would hold about 1 MW

This is a very convenient answer:

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/gary-rubloff-supercapacitor-20090318/#.VfAq-xFViko - that's an experimental capacitor as of 2009, giving 1 MW/s per kilogram - so mass of .04 in KSP terms.

[Coga19000]

I would realy love if someone could create me some distinct KSPI capacitator models but I don't have that luxury. For the moment the best we might offer is give them give them a differnt paint job which will make them more distinct from exisitng NTF textures.

I know man, and I wish I could make this model for you if I was not sure it would turn up like crap. But still, at least make this temporarily until sometime capable of doing this shows up.

[Bishop149]

Talk is all good and fun, but we need to get some hard numbers. How much power (MegaWatt) could realsiticly be stored in super capacitator or super conducting energy storage and at what mass cost and how long would it take to lose half it power?

Those new models are lovely!

A quick bug report:

I launched a ship that had a single Dusty Plasma and charged particle generator that could generate about 1.44GW of power.

This wasn't enough to power everything I need but I couldn't afford the weight to lift more heavy generators. So I planned to dock a second module with some extra generators to boost up the power.

Here is the the ship sitting on the launch pad, pre docked all generators active, as you can see its fine:

As a side issue, I didn't want to attach radiators to the module I was docking so I launched the reactors deactivated and turned them on after they docked

But when it's all docked and turned on in orbit its essentially as if the docked generators aren't there, and as you can see the molten salt reactors are idling at 10%, and I still don't have enough power.

[FreeThinker]

This is a very convenient answer:

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/gary-rubloff-supercapacitor-20090318/#.VfAq-xFViko - that's an experimental capacitor as of 2009, giving 1 MW/s per kilogram - so mass of .04 in KSP terms.

I think we should not confuse maximum discharge with maximum storage capacity

[ABZB]

I think we should not confuse maximum discharge with maximum storage capacity

good point

[FreeThinker]

Those new models are lovely!

A quick bug report:

I launched a ship that had a single Dusty Plasma and charged particle generator that could generate about 1.44GW of power.

This wasn't enough to power everything I need but I couldn't afford the weight to lift more heavy generators. So I planned to dock a second module with some extra generators to boost up the power.

Here is the the ship sitting on the launch pad, pre docked all generators active, as you can see its fine:

http://i.imgur.com/mUShgGJ.png

As a side issue, I didn't want to attach radiators to the module I was docking so I launched the reactors deactivated and turned them on after they docked

But when it's all docked and turned on in orbit its essentially as if the docked generators aren't there, and as you can see the molten salt reactors are idling at 10%, and I still don't have enough power.

http://i.imgur.com/Vfz1dy0.png

Seems to me the reactor is not connected to the generator. They need to be connected directly (toching doesn't count). Note KSP ships cannot contain loops, even if it may seem so.