KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[Rushligh]

I also would really appreciate some different applications for the atmosphere scoops;
i find im always have to make my own modifications to be able to use them. The inline scoop would be far better suited if you changed the model to something like the MK4 pack's pre-cooler (a circular fuselage with intakes around it's surface), or in the form of an extended shock cone to be able to mount at the end of a nacelle.

also, if you added oxygen-less ATM intake abilities~

2 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Get molten salt reactor to power fusion reactor.

so you need a reactor to power a reactor. that seems kinda.... silly to me. it defeats the purpose of the OMEGA being a "portable application";
that is unless you were to make it so that it requires insane electricity to operate; allowing the vessel to be powered by a central reactor while the OMEGA's are essentially part of the engines.
 

Edited July 5, 2016 by Rushligh

[FreeThinker]

2 hours ago, Rushligh said:

how would i fix this? The reactos say they are active; and they have fuel fuel. i've tired switching all modes, even shutting it of and jump starting it again. even with the change in name which allows me to load my older vessels, the engines on those no longer work. something with the engine's mechanics has changed. is there a fuel source i need to add now? or a secondary reactor to jump start them in some way I don't know? My primary use for the OMEGA's was as VTOL lift engines /primary jet engines because of their efficiency, small size, and fast response time (Antimater reactor causes the engine to delay up to 30 seconds of extra burn, making it useless for anything that has to maneuver in atmosphere, and neither the antimatter initiated or magnetic reactors can go smaller than 2.5M, also they're to long for my applications)

Does anybody else have problems getting the OMEGA reactors to work with the thermal turbo jet?

 

In my last test of Magnetized Target Fusion  it worked as it expected. Could you describe in detail how to reproduce the problem.

1 hour ago, Rushligh said:

I also would really appreciate some different applications for the atmosphere scoops;
i find im always have to make my own modifications to be able to use them. The inline scoop would be far better suited if you changed the model to something like the MK4 pack's pre-cooler (a circular fuselage with intakes around it's surface), or in the form of an extended shock cone to be able to mount at the end of a nacelle.
 

I intend to make the Atmospheric scoops more generic, allowing you to use any air intake as a scoop

[FreeThinker]

Version 1.9.4 for Kerbal Space Program 1.1.3

Released on 2016-07-06

• Increased Power Priority Computer Core
• Fixed Daedalus ability to be turned offline and function correctly when going to Time-warp while active

Edited July 5, 2016 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

9 hours ago, Rushligh said:

so you need a reactor to power a reactor. that seems kinda.... silly to me. it defeats the purpose of the OMEGA being a "portable application";
that is unless you were to make it so that it requires insane electricity to operate; allowing the vessel to be powered by a central reactor while the OMEGA's are essentially part of the engines.
 

Well you can make 0.625m molten salt reactor on burnup mode. Bring megajoule charger with it.

But you need thermal generator connected to omega reactor on other side to actually maintain fusion.

you can also make 1.25 molten salt on uranium burnup mode, then you don't have to add megajoule charger and thermal generator to omega reactor, if it uses low energy to maintain fusion, like D-T

 

Edited July 6, 2016 by raxo2222

[Rushligh]

19 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Well you can make 0.625m molten salt reactor on burnup mode. Bring megajoule charger with it.

But you need thermal generator connected to omega reactor on other side to actually maintain fusion.

you can also make 1.25 molten salt on uranium burnup mode, then you don't have to add megajoule charger and thermal generator to omega reactor, if it uses low energy to maintain fusion, like D-T

 

this is all news to me, since before 1.1.3 the OMEGA functioned on its own as a full blown autonomous reactor. :/
again, this entirely defeats the point of the OMEGA reactor, rendering it entirely obsolete. in small scale application's i'd just use the Antimater reactor shrunk to 0.625, and for large scale use antimatter-initiated/magnetic confinement reactors. i've also notices that powering the thermal jet directly though these reactors creates a much greater delay time in throttling down; there seems to be up to 20 seconds of extra full-thrust burn time even after cutting engines. this seems a little bit... excessive.

another possibility would be to replace the OMEGA with a miniature magnetic confinement reactor that can produce substantial thermal power, but hardly any charged particles, and requires a lot of electricity to maintain (powered by a secondary reactor that doesn't necessarily have to be directly connected).

i understand the reasoning why from a physics standpoint; but from an engineering standpoint its just.... WHY?!?!?? the inefficiency...

[FreeThinker]

2 hours ago, Rushligh said:

this is all news to me, since before 1.1.3 the OMEGA functioned on its own as a full blown autonomous reactor. :/
again, this entirely defeats the point of the OMEGA reactor, rendering it entirely obsolete. in small scale application's i'd just use the Antimater reactor shrunk to 0.625, and for large scale use antimatter-initiated/magnetic confinement reactors. i've also notices that powering the thermal jet directly though these reactors creates a much greater delay time in throttling down; there seems to be up to 20 seconds of extra full-thrust burn time even after cutting engines. this seems a little bit... excessive.

another possibility would be to replace the OMEGA with a miniature magnetic confinement reactor that can produce substantial thermal power, but hardly any charged particles, and requires a lot of electricity to maintain (powered by a secondary reactor that doesn't necessarily have to be directly connected).

i understand the reasoning why from a physics standpoint; but from an engineering standpoint its just.... WHY?!?!?? the inefficiency...

I would like to get to the bottom of this but you realy have to help me because I could not reproduce the problem. THe engine is mend as a stand alone engine that does not need external power to operate effectively., It is mend to be flexable, easy to use in  in a wide range of environments..

Perhaps some other modsr effect is unaccounted for. For starters are you using the correct part and not a part that is abandoned, which  isn't correctly configured?

Either way, I need to know the exact circumstansen when it start behaving not as expected, then I can fix the issue.

Edited July 6, 2016 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

I think MFT is unbalanced comparing to IFS - all I did was copying and pasting resources so MFT tank would contain newer KSPI resources.

Procedural part tank with MFT doesn't change mass ratio when changing size.

Also SMURFF has its own ideas for mass ratios of stock resources.

Liquid Fuel, Liquid Fuel/Oxidizer, Oxidizer and Monopropellant: 1:25 - 1:33 mass ratio - 96% - 97% of fuel tank mass is fuel.

Xenon - 1:10 -  90% of mass is fuel

Ore - 1:20 - 95% of mass is fuel

It needs to be single mass ratio for any fuel/propellant - it shouldn't matter if tank is defined by MFT, SMURFF, RealFuels or IFS.

Dry masses of tanks could have a multiplier - for RSS it would be 1 and for stock it could be some bigger number to balance DV.

Here is for example liquid fuel and hydrogen tanks:

Procedual part with MFT: 1:9, 1:1.61

Interstellar fuel tank: 1:8, if smallest tank could hold it, same for hydrogen.

and SMURFF be like: fuel mass ratio for liquid fuel is something like 1:25

 

 

 

[FreeThinker]

@raxo2222 Alright, I'm listening, how do you suggest be balance KSPI IFS and MFT tanks?

[raxo2222]

14 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

@raxo2222 Alright, I'm listening, how do you suggest be balance KSPI IFS and MFT tanks?

IFS and MFT tanks should have dry mass multiplier, just like SMURFF does - for stock IFS mass ratios are fine, as its inline with stock, but it should be reduced, if you have bigger planets modpack, like RSS.

MFT tank should have mass ratios defs for stock and for RSS - it would change dry mass depending on planet mod, if its stock, then make all gases have mass ratio of stock xenon tank, solids - stock ore tank and fuels - same as IFS.

If there is RSS installed, then dry mass should be reduced just like in SMURFF.

Liquids would have mass ratios of SURFF liquid tank, solids - of SMURFF ore tank, and gasses - of SMURFF xenon tank, if said tank contains xenon.

At the end I want to see same fuel mass ratio not depending if its for example procedural part with MFT definition or dedicated IFS tank.

If you had SMURFF AND RSS, then all mass ratios would have higher values, but consistent with themselves.

For now it seems like MFT tanks and IFS tanks have inconsistent mass ratios, which doesn't depend, if you are playing stock or RSS.

Edited July 6, 2016 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

In general I like SMURF except mass fraction of Liquid Hydrogen of only 63% It would make Hydrogen pretty terrible. CryoTanks  74% would be more acceptable

[raxo2222]

31 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

In general I like SMURF except mass fraction of Liquid Hydrogen of only 63% It would make Hydrogen pretty terrible. CryoTanks  74% would be more acceptable

Why IFS tanks have hydrogen mass ratios 1:8 - 1:10 ( 87.5% - 90%) at first place?

Also it seems like you could pick hydrogen (lightest tank) empty and switch to heaviest resource getting excellent mass ratio.

Record mass ratio I could get was for Hydrogen tank -> HTP tank (spherical one), It went from 1:10 to over 1:200

Edited July 6, 2016 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

 

12 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

Why IFS tanks have hydrogen mass ratios 1:8 - 1:10 ( 87.5% - 90%) at first place?

 

KSPI IFS have mass ratios ranging from 1:7 to 1:10 which are  based on the following data:

Quote

Propellant Tank Mass :  source: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/basicdesign.php

Robert Zubrin says that as a rule of thumb, the mass of a fuel tank loaded with liquid hydrogen will be about 87% hydrogen and 13% tank. In other words, multiply the mass of the liquid hydrogen by 0.15 to get the mass of the empty tank (0.13 / 0.87 = 0.15).

So the Polaris' 792.6 tons of hydrogen will need a tank that masses 792.6 * 0.15 = 119 tons.

87% propellant and 13% tank is for a rocket designed to land on a planet or that is capable of high acceleration. An orbit-to-orbit rocket could get by with more hydrogen and less tank. This is because the tanks can be more flimsy since they will not have to endure the stress of landing (A landing-capable rocket that uses a propellant denser than hydrogen can also get away with a smaller tank percentage). Zubrin gives the following ballpark estimates of the tank percentage:

Propellent	Engine	Tank %
Argon	Ion rocket	4
Water	Nuclear salt water rocket	4
Hydrogen	NTR / GCR	10
LOX/Hydrogen	Chemical	6

---

But if you want to do this the hard way, you'd better warm up your slide rule.

The total tank volume (V_tot) of a tank is the sum of four components:

1. Usable Propellant Volume (V_pu): the volume holding the propellant that can actually be used.
2. Ullage Volume (V_ull): the volume left unfilled to accomodate expansion of the propellant or contraction of the tank structure. Typically 1% to 3% of total tank volume.
3. Boil-off Volume (V_bo): For cryogenic propellants only. The volume left unfilled to allow for the propellant that boils from liquid to gas due to external heat.
4. Trapped Volume (V_trap): the volume of unusable propellant left in all the feed lines, valves, and other components after the tank is drained. Typically the volume of the feed system.

V_tot = V_pu + V_ull + V_bo + V_trap

No, I do not know how to estimate the Boil-off Volume. A recent study estimated that in space cryogenic tanks suffered an absolutely unacceptable 0.1% boiloff/day, and suggested this had to be reduced by an order of magnitude or more. When the boil-off volume is full, a pressure relief valve lets the gaseous propellant vent into space, instead of exploding the tank.

Tanks come in two shapes: spherical and cylindrical. Spherical are better, they have the most volume for the least surface area, so are the lightest. But many spacecraft have a limit to their maximum diameter, especially launch vehicles. In this case cylindrical has a lower mass than a series of spherical tanks.

The internal pressure of the propellant has the greatest effect on the tank's structural requirements. Not as important but still significant are acceleration, vibration, and handling loads. Unfortunately I can only find equations for the effects of internal pressure. Acceleration means that tanks which are in high-acceleration spacecraft or in spacecraft that take-off and land from planets will have a higher mass than tanks for low-acceleration orbit-to-orbit ships. My source did say that figuring in acceleration, vibration, and handling would make the tank mass 2.0 to 2.5 times as large as what is calculated with the simplified equations below.

 

In the Space Shuttle external tank, the LOX tank was pressurized to 150,000 Pa and the LH₂ tank was pressurized to 230,000 Pa.

 

The design burst pressure of a tank is:

P_b = f_s * MEOP

where:

P_b = design burst pressure (Pa)
f_s = safety factor (typically 2.0)
MEOP = Maximum Expected Operating Pressure of the tank (Pa)

---

Tank Materials
Material	Density ρ kg/m3	Allowable Strength Ftu GPa	Efficency Ftu/(ρg0) km	Mass Factor φtank m
2219 - Aluminum	2,800	0.413 0.214 welded	15.04	2,500
Titanium	4,460	1.23	28.81	2,500
4130 - Steel	7,830	0.862	11.23	2,500
Graphite Fiber Composite	1,550	0.895	58.88	10,000

---

Spherical Tanks

You have to make V_s so it is equal to V_tot, or at least equal to V_tot - V_trap.

V_s = 4/3 * π * r_s³

A_s = 4 * π * r_s²

t_s = (P_b * r_s) / (2 * F_tu)

M_s = A_s * t_s * ρ

where:

r_s = radius of sphere (m)
A_s = surface area of sphere (m²)
V_s = volume of sphere (m³)
t_s = wall thickness of sphere (m)
P_b = design burst pressure (Pa)
F_tu = allowable material strength (Pa) from tank materials table
M_s = mass of spherical tank (kg)
ρ = density of tank structure material (kg/m³ from tank materials table

---

Cylindrical Tanks

Cylindrical tanks are cylinders where each end is capped with either hemispheres (where radius and height are equal) or hemiellipses (where radius and height are not equal). As it turns out cylindrical tanks with hemiellipses on the ends are always more massive than hemispherical cylindrical tanks. So we won't bother with the equations for hemielliptical tanks. In the real world rocket designers sometimes use hemielliptical tanks in order to reduce tank length.

What you do is calculate the mass of the cylindrical section of the tank M_c using the equations below. Then you calculate the mass of the two hemispherical endcaps (that is, the mass of a single sphere) M_s using the value of the cylindrical section's radius for the radius of the sphere in the spherical tank equations above. The mass of the cylindrical tank is M_c + M_s.

V_c = π * r_c² * l_c

A_c = 2 * π * r_c² * l_c

t_c = (P_b * r_c) / F_tu

M_c = A_c * t_c * ρ

where:

r_c = radius of cylindrical section (m)
l_c = length of cylindrical section (m)
A_c = surface area of cylindrical section (m²)
V_c = volume of cylindrical section (m³)
P_b = design burst pressure (Pa)
F_tu = allowable material strength (Pa) from tank materials table
ρ = density of tank structure material (kg/m³ from tank materials table
t_c = wall thickness of cylindrical section (m)
M_c = mass of cylindrical tank section (kg)

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

30 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

 

 

KSPI IFS have mass ratios ranging from 1:7 to 1:10 based on the following data:

 

Hmm then it seems like you are right and SMURFF needs to change hydrogen tank mass ratio

[physicsnerd]

Would the water in this mod be compatible with Kerbalism water?

[Nansuchao]

4 hours ago, physicsnerd said:

Would the water in this mod be compatible with Kerbalism water?

Yes and with any other mod depending on the Community Resource Pack.

[FreeThinker]

Version 1.9.5 for Kerbal Space Program 1.1.3

Released on 2016-07-08

• Added double pivoted phased array microwave transmitter (by Raknark), which now the only transmitter.
• Replace Shpere Microwave Receiver Sputnik model by a phased array microwave receiver model (by @Raknark)
• Microwave parts sending and receiving microwave is now limited by an upper power limit
• Fixed crash to void when switching Fusion mode
• Inertial Fusion reactor require lithium to convert neutrons to thermal power
• Fixed lithium starvation despite lithium reserves
• Moved lithium resource from IFS Cryo tanks to IFS holding tank

picture of new sphere microwave reciever:

Edited July 8, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Rushligh]

Hey @FreeThinker, i still have that problem
i completely removed all components of KSPI-E including interstellar fuels, and freshly installed your newest release (1.9.5).

Im using as simple an example as i can: stock 2.5m shockcone intake, stock 2.5m drone core, direct electric converter, OMEGA, big bad KSPI radiators, and a thermal turbojet.

electricity is supplied, atmosphere is available, cross-feed is enabled, engine is active, but the thermal jet is receiving 0 Watts of power, and reactor is creating 0 watts of power (even though it's running and using resources).

I've checked my mods, and there shouldn't be anything that interferes with it. Every mod I have installed has never conflicted with KSPI before. almost all are parts packs like Suicidal Instantiates MK2 expansion, or the OPT pack. The new game mechanics mods I have are TCA, Tool Bar Extensions, Quick Search, Persistent names, Smart Parts, Connected living spaces, Infernal Robotics, Joint-reinforcement, Firespitter, Thrust indication (it only displays thrust levees of individual engines), and none of those should, or have in past, conflicted.

Aside from the OMEGA reactor, i have no problems with KSPI...

I made this nice warp-shuttle :3 those fuselages on the sides hold and shield massive solar panels. There's a cargo bay on the belly that opens to reveal a massive retractable radiator array too.
 

[FreeThinker]

3 hours ago, Rushligh said:

Hey @FreeThinker, i still have that problem

Im using as simple an example as i can: stock 2.5m shockcone intake, stock 2.5m drone core, direct electric converter, OMEGA, big bad KSPI radiators, and a thermal turbojet.

electricity is supplied, atmosphere is available, cross-feed is enabled, engine is active, but the thermal jet is receiving 0 Watts of power, and reactor is creating 0 watts of power (even though it's running and using resources).

 

Where is the Thermal Electric generator? It needs a thermal electric generator to convert heat into electric power which is needed to maintian the fusion.

Understand it cannot work with a direct energy converter (it doesn't even have charge particle buffer) all energy is converted to heat in the lithium blanked surrounding the reactor core.

The fact that it is still consuming lithium is the real bug here (thank for that), and this probably confusing you into believing it is active, but it is not.

Also notice it is not using Fusion Fuel (at least not measurable), but it still display some weaky numbers on lifetime, which I consider a minor bug.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

On 5-7-2016 at 4:17 AM, Rushligh said:

 

 

Now that I taken another look, the same problem applies here.

As I said before the 'OMEGA Magnetized Target Fusion  is ' thermal heat production .

 

It's main purpose is to provide direct thermal thrust to SSTO and landing vessels.

Edited July 8, 2016 by FreeThinker

[spacetackle]

Hey everyone, 

Is someone able to tell me if this mod will work with unmanned before manned or if they conflict?

 

 

Thanks  

Edited July 8, 2016 by spacetackle

[raxo2222]

18 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Version 1.9.5 for Kerbal Space Program 1.1.3

Released on 2016-07-08

• Added double pivoted phased array microwave transmitter (by Raknark), which now the only transmitter.
• Replace Shpere Microwave Receiver Sputnik model by a phased array microwave receiver model (by @Raknark)
• Microwave parts sending and receiving microwave is now limited by an upper power limit
• Fixed crash to void when switching Fusion mode
• Inertial Fusion reactor require lithium to convert neutrons to thermal power
• Fixed lithium starvation despite lithium reserves
• Moved lithium resource from IFS Cryo tanks to IFS holding tank

picture of new sphere microwave reciever:

Apparently upper limit of power doesn't scale with microwave part size, or at least number in GUI doesn't.

[FreeThinker]

1 minute ago, raxo2222 said:

Apparently upper limit of power doesn't scale with microwave part size, or at least number in GUI doesn't.

mmm, well it will be in the next patch, I intend it to scale it with the microwave reciever  mass, which is exponent 2.5

Edited July 8, 2016 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

@FreeThinker looks like reducing receiver reception doesn't reduce incoming energy transfer - radiators heat up independently from this setting.

 

Edit: How fuel is heated up in AIM/Antimatter reactors, where core temp is higher than 3000 K - more than most solids can withstand?

How much fuel can be actually carried trough magnetic fields, so it can't touch anything while being very hot?

When you run fuel trough 5m Antimatter reactor and thermal engine it heats to 220000 K and it flows in hundreds kilograms per second

Edited July 8, 2016 by raxo2222

[volcanicshrimp]

When are the new transmitters meant to pivot? I've tried them in both transmitting and receiving setups and they have yet to point themselves in any direction but straight.

[FreeThinker]

20 minutes ago, volcanicshrimp said:

When are the new transmitters meant to pivot? I've tried them in both transmitting and receiving setups and they have yet to point themselves in any direction but straight.

The Microwave Transmitter is currently technically configured as a Double Pivot Deplorable solar array

To get it pivoted, which is pure cosmetic are by pressing the 2 Extend Panels buttobs

 

Now you get some cool pivot animation, and as a side effect it acts as a  huge low efficiency solar array (absorbing infrared light from the sun)

54 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

@FreeThinker looks like reducing receiver reception doesn't reduce incoming energy transfer - radiators heat up independently from this setting.

Oh, it sounds as a Bug, thanks, I will look into it

Edited July 8, 2016 by FreeThinker