KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[raxo2222]

What is difference between magnetohydrodynamic generator and 2 other generators?

[SpaceMouse]

@raxo2222, from the configurations, one generates power from heat (thermal) the 2nd generates it from charged particles, and the 3rd (mhd) does both.

Edited November 14, 2016 by SpaceMouse

[raxo2222]

7 hours ago, SpaceMouse said:

@raxo2222, from the configurations, one generates power from heat (thermal) the 2nd generates it from charged particles, and the 3rd (mhd) does both.

Ah so MHD is two in one generator.

 

When it is better to use MHD, than 2 separate generators?

I know reactor has to generate both of energy types to make MHD actually useful.

Is MHD lighter or heavier than Charged Particles + Thermal generator?

Edited November 15, 2016 by raxo2222

[FreeThinker]

27 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Is MHD lighter or heavier than Charged Particles + Thermal generator?

The same.

Edited November 15, 2016 by FreeThinker

[SpaceMouse]

7 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

The same.

Also, it looks cooler.

[FreeThinker]

Just now, SpaceMouse said:

Also, it looks cooler.

Well the real advantage would be that it allows you to connect the reactor directly to magnetic nozzle or thermal nozzle, which makes it more efficient

Edited November 15, 2016 by FreeThinker

[raxo2222]

Why we can't scale fission engines and structural parts?

[FreeThinker]

5 minutes ago, raxo2222 said:

Why we can't scale fission engines and structural parts?

I forgot them, good point, I will add them to the next release

[FreeThinker]

Great work @markinturamb not bad, but do it does contain a few mistakes like

• The Plasma Nozzle being an electric engine, which it not, its a Thermal Engine which allowed average high Isp (up to 10000s)
• Dusty Plasma not being able to produce charged particles, which it does (that is it main purpose)
• The MagnetoHydroDynamic Electric generator only being able to convert Charged particles into electricity, it can also convert thermal power to electric power (at the same time!)
• The Tri Apha beeing to produce charged particles yes, but it is self contained and cannot be used for propulsion by magnetic nozzle.

If you can correct this I will add it to the main page and put you in the list of contributers

Although not required it would be interesting to add the fact that Dishes have the advantage that they can be used to relay beamed power when linked up and also are capable of  functioning as very powerfull direct link communication transmitter/receivers

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FrancoisH]

Hello,

KSP Insterstellar seems to be responsible of a little bug I encountered on my KSP today.

I'm using SSTU parts which have new RCS options. But it generate a conflict with RcsSound which is a dependency of your project. Is there a quick fix to this?

Here's the message I get:

[ERR 18:20:31.724] Module RcsSounds threw during OnUpdate: System.MissingMethodException: Method not found: 'Part.GetConnectedResources'.
  at Part.ModulesOnUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

It's not happening if I remove RcsSound but I'm sure it will broke KSPI Extended.

I'm sure it's related to this part of the module manager config : 

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleRCS]] {
	MODULE
	{
		name = RcsSounds
		rcsSoundFile = RcsSounds/Sounds/RcsHeavy
		rcsShutoffSoundFile = RcsSounds/Sounds/RcsHeavyShutoff
		rcsVolume = 0.6
		loopRcsSound = true
		internalRcsSoundsOnly = false
		useLightingEffects = true
	}
}

Could I made a more specfic selection? Or just get rid of the generic RCS Sound Module Manager file (the code above) in the RcsSound directory? As you have you own patch in the WarpPlugin\Patches under RcsSound.cfg name.

Thank you fory our advice.

Kind regards.

Edited November 15, 2016 by FrancoisH

[Nansuchao]

1 hour ago, FrancoisH said:

Hello,

KSP Insterstellar seems to be responsible of a little bug I encountered on my KSP today.

I'm using SSTU parts which have new RCS options. But it generate a conflict with RcsSound which is a dependency of your project. Is there a quick fix to this?

Here's the message I get:

[ERR 18:20:31.724] Module RcsSounds threw during OnUpdate: System.MissingMethodException: Method not found: 'Part.GetConnectedResources'.
  at Part.ModulesOnUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

It's not happening if I remove RcsSound but I'm sure it will broke KSPI Extended.

I'm sure it's related to this part of the module manager config : 

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleRCS]] {
	MODULE
	{
		name = RcsSounds
		rcsSoundFile = RcsSounds/Sounds/RcsHeavy
		rcsShutoffSoundFile = RcsSounds/Sounds/RcsHeavyShutoff
		rcsVolume = 0.6
		loopRcsSound = true
		internalRcsSoundsOnly = false
		useLightingEffects = true
	}
}

Could I made a more specfic selection? Or just get rid of the generic RCS Sound Module Manager file (the code above) in the RcsSound directory? As you have you own patch in the WarpPlugin\Patches under RcsSound.cfg name.

Thank you fory our advice.

Kind regards.

You can get rid of RCS Sounds without effects at all. As the name suggest, it just replace the stock rcs sound with something better.

[FrancoisH]

@Nansuchao Thanks for your update.

I already get rid of the default RCS config file and my issue is gone but will preserve the config from KSPI Ext.

Good day

[FreeThinker]

Version 1.11.1 for Kerbal Space Program 1.2.1

Released on 2016-11-15

• Added Improved Model and texture Magnetic Nozzle & EM Drive by SpaceMouse

• Added Tweakscaling to ParticleBed & Open Cycle Gas Core

• Balance: Limited Aperture Bonus to Microwave

[markinturamb]

4 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

• The Plasma Nozzle being an electric engine, which it not, its a Thermal Engine which allowed average high Isp (up to 10000s)
• Dusty Plasma not being able to produce charged particles, which it does (that is it main purpose)
• The MagnetoHydroDynamic Electric generator only being able to convert Charged particles into electricity, it can also convert thermal power to electric power (at the same time!)
• The Tri Apha beeing to produce charged particles yes, but it is self contained and cannot be used for propulsion by magnetic nozzle.

If you can correct this I will add it to the main page and put you in the list of contributers

Although not required it would be interesting to add the fact that Dishes have the advantage that they can be used to relay beamed power when linked up and also are capable of  functioning as very powerfull direct link communication transmitter/receivers

I assumed there would be even more mistakes, and I still need to understand the FTL engine to put it there. I've never unlocked even half of that stuff in my carreer  I just started studying it now that I'm starting my beam network, so I needed to understand better the connections. (Speaking of it, was the relay mirrors really not working, or that was just with me?)

 

 

• The Plasma Nozzle I assumed it would be electric and need charged particles because of what it's description said, haven`t really tested it up until now. And I tested it on the molten salt and the Peeble Bed (which don't produce charged particles I suppose) and the engine worked..so maybe it's just the description that's wrong? I also noted while testing that while the Dusty Plasma does not produces electricity, the Peeble Bed does even though it's not specified in the description like the Molten Salt is. Just want to be sure of what's right.
• Will correct the Dusty Plasma and the MHD Generator, I was probably just too sleepy to notice it.
• So the Tri Alpha is basically a self-electric generator then? Neither the Thermal or the Charged Particle Generators seemed to have worked with it, so it can basically be only used as a powerful electricity supply?

 

As for the dishes, you mean that if you link two of them in the same ship, you can get a relay without the efficiency loss of converting to energy and to beam again, basically working like the mirrors? And the ship itself would not get any power from it? Is that only for the FELA and the smaller Fela, or can you also link other receiving dishes with, let's say, the laser turret? And how does that direct link works?

Another thing I just noticed as well is that the Folding Thermal Dish Receiver and the Microwave Thermal Receivers are set as Electricity producers..is that correct or they only produce thermal power?

Edited November 16, 2016 by markinturamb

[SciMan]

Anyone else miss the old standalone Gas Core fission reactor? I do.
Maybe it needed a new model, but I really think it's something that needs to be back in KSPI.

Right now AFAIK the Nuclear Lightbulb and Open Cycle Gas Core engines are in KSPI, and that's great.
That doesn't get rid of the need for a stand-alone Gas Core reactor, and I have a good use case that explains exactly why.

Some types of fission reactor are very good at providing standby, backup, or emergency power for very long periods of time.
Fusion reactors don't start on their own, and a fission reactor is basically the only choice to start one (solar panels or RTGs are way too slow for all but the tiniest fusion reactors).
If you have a fission reactor to provide power to start a fusion reactor, an intelligent choice of which type of fission reactor to use allows the same reactor to be used for standby power. This lets you shut down the fusion reactor when it's not needed, for example during the coast phase of a Hohmann transfer orbit, or when a base is not doing any high-power ISRU processing.

However, I have discovered by process of elimination that there is really only one fission reactor that is ideally suited to this task, and it is the Gas Core reactor.

The Molten Salt Reactor is likely the best at providing standby power, but it's "Low" core temperature (2000K fully upgraded) means that it does not play nice with other reactors. Radiators suitable for use with a primary fusion reactor are easily capable of providing enough cooling power to let a MSR run efficiently, but if the fusion reactor is running then the radiators are VERY likely to be over 2000K, which means that all the MW of spare cooling ability in the world won't do anything to keep the MSR from shutting down. The only solution to this is to add more radiators to the craft to reduce the maximum radiator temperature to something less than 2000k, but because radiator power dissipation scales with (radiator temperature)⁴, this solution is extremely heavy, requires a lot of parts, and is just generally a bad idea.
Additionally, in the very likely situation that the MSR does shut down because of overheating, it requires a Kerbal on EVA to restart it. If this happens to an unmanned craft and the fusion reactor is then shut down (maybe it ran out of fuel, much more likely you didn't notice the fission reactor overheated and shut-down), the entire craft is basically as good as scrap.

The Pebble Bed reactor has the same "low" core temp problems (2500k fully upgraded, not much better) as the Molten Salt Reactor, but I'm not sure if it has the same problem with requiring a Kerbal on EVA to restart (doesn't seem like it "should", but I don't know for sure).

The Fission Fragment reactor WOULD be "okay" as it's core temperature is 3700K (same as the max temp of all graphite/graphene radiators), except for the fact that it can't throttle below 40%, which makes it a non-starter.

The Nuclear Lightbulb engine seems like it would be the solution I would be driven to for this situation, but I can't scale it down below 2.5m, it can only ever divert up to 30% of it's reactor power to a thermal generator, and I'm still stuck carting around an engine I'll never use (if I'm starting a fusion reactor, I'm using a fusion reactor, and if I'm using a fusion reactor in space, it's being used for propulsion).
I haven't calculated it out yet, but I imagine that this has a similar mass-penalty as adding enough radiators to the MSR so it doesn't shut down because of an operating fusion reactor (ok, probably not that much but it's still a lot of "useless" mass I can't get rid of).

On the other hand, the Gas Core reactor (from KSPI-E 1.5.16) has a core temperature of 15780k base (19725 upgraded), a minimum throttle of 0.1%, and it was fairly good for use with thermal propulsion as well.
IIRC it was not overpowered at all even without the "buoyancy effects" thing. The MSR would still have a niche if the gas core didn't have buoyancy effects (power for bases on planets or moons with mineable Uraninite deposits).
On the topic of buoyancy effects, the article I'm reading states that the propellant flows must be throttled until the reactor reaches a steady state. They do NOT state that this steady state must be one that is not accelerating, merely that it must be steady. To me, this means that a gas core reactor suffers negatively from rate of change of acceleration, aka "Jerk" (unit: m/s³). Because of that, I think it's best represented by a reactor that has a non-instant rate of change for it's power setting, no matter what's connected or demanding power. However, because I expect this would wreak havoc with the power net calculations, I think it can be safely omitted for the sake of game balance.

Of course, if the Gas Core Fission reactor was to make a comeback (new model or not, integrated thermal generator or not), I think the best way to approach it would be to use the same part module as the MSR, but take the stats (power output, core temperature, minimum throttle, etc.) from the current Nuclear Lightbulb engine (minus mass, because it's possible to make the thing a whole lot lighter if you don't have all the complicated plumbing, rocket engine bells, hydraulics, and gimballing hardware).

I borrowed heavily from both the KSPI-E v1.5.16 Gas Core Reactor and the KSPI-E v1.10.12 Nuclear Lightbulb engine, and came up with some stats for a new version of a standalone Gas Core Fission reactor:

• Uses the InterstellarFissionMSRGC part module
• Default size = 2.5m (same as v1.5.16 Gas Core Reactor)
• Cost = 600k (same as v1.5.16 Gas Core Reactor)
• Mass = 4.0 tons (same as v1.5.16 Gas Core Reactor)
• Power output; Mk1 = 2000 MW, Mk2 = 3000 MW, Mk3 = 4500 MW (matches current KSPI-E Nuclear Lightbulb exactly)
• Core temperature; Mk1 = 7890 K, Mk2 = 12562 K, Mk3 = 20000 K (matches current KSPI-E Nuclear Lightbulb exactly)
• Minimum throttle = 0.001 (same as v1.5.16 Gas Core Reactor AND v1.10.12 Nuclear Lightbulb)
• Thermal Energy Efficiency; Mk1 = 0.25 (25%), Mk2 = 0.375 (37.5%), Mk3 = 0.5 (50%) (Can Upgrade! Buffed from 0.2 in v1.5.16 Gas Core Reactor)
• Thermal Propulsion Efficiency = 1.0 (100%) (same as v1.5.16 Gas Core Reactor AND v1.10.12 Nuclear Lightbulb)
• Tweak scale sizes: 0.625m, 1.25m, 1.875m, 3.75m, 5.0m (same as v1.5.16 Gas Core Reactor)
• Upgrade tech nodes = expNuclearPropulsion, exoticNuclearPropulsion (identical to current KSPI-E Nuclear Lightbulb engine)

Other than that, it should have roughly the same stats as the Lightbulb.

I feel the need to make specific mention of the Thermal Energy Efficiency stat, because it doesn't match either of the reactors I based this reactor's stats on, and I feel that this stat is the one that gives this reactor the niche I want it to have. If it's possible, I would like this stat to be able to be upgraded by researching the same nodes that upgrade the core temperature and power output. This makes it possible for the reactor to have the basic electrical generation efficiency start at close to the same as the KSPI v1.5.16 version.
The final upgrade node gives the 2.5m gas core reactor the ability to output at most 1350 MW electrical power under ideal circumstances, calculated so:
4500 MW reactor output * 0.5 reactor electrical efficiency * 0.6 thermal generator maximum efficiency = 1350

To me, this seems like a perfectly reasonable amount of power for starting a much larger fusion reactor, powering a mid-powered electric drive system, running a surface base, and many other tasks.
The primary advantage over the MSR is the high core temperature which considerably reduces the needed radiator area for an acceptable generator efficiency, with the very good throttling ability coming a close second for making this reactor really really good at long-duration standby or surface base power.

If I had to come up with a "crippling" disadvantage for this reactor, it's that it runs on UN, which means you need Nitrogen. That's not a very common element if you're not close to a planet with an atmosphere, so this reactor is not suited to operation on the surface of any planet or moon without an atmosphere that isn't close enough to Kerbin to allow resupply within a reasonable time frame.

 

Immediate EDIT:
Holy moly you could probably see this wall of text from SPACE!
It would not surprise me if someone thought I was getting paid by the word on my posts.

Edit 2:
On an entirely different note, I have a request for @FreeThinker regarding the OP of this thread.
Could you change the Curse Download link to point at the CurseForge link for the mod instead of the Curse link? I've verified that they both point to essentially the same page.
Just trying to make people's experience better when they go to download this mod.
Any KSP mod that's on Curse has a CurseForge link by default, and they point to the same thing. The only difference is that the CurseForge link doesn't have ads or that silly "your download will start in 5 seconds" thing that's entirely there to make you look at ads (I think that's the purpose of those things, but I use an ad blocker so I don't see ads anyway).
 

Edited November 16, 2016 by SciMan

[FreeThinker]

8 hours ago, markinturamb said:

• The Plasma Nozzle I assumed it would be electric and need charged particles because of what it's description said, haven`t really tested it up until now. And I tested it on the molten salt and the Peeble Bed (which don't produce charged particles I suppose) and the engine worked..so maybe it's just the description that's wrong? I also noted while testing that while the Dusty Plasma does not produces electricity, the Peeble Bed does even though it's not specified in the description like the Molten Salt is. Just want to be sure of what's right.
• Will correct the Dusty Plasma and the MHD Generator, I was probably just too sleepy to notice it.
• So the Tri Alpha is basically a self-electric generator then? Neither the Thermal or the Charged Particle Generators seemed to have worked with it, so it can basically be only used as a powerful electricity supply?

Correct

8 hours ago, markinturamb said:

As for the dishes, you mean that if you link two of them in the same ship, you can get a relay without the efficiency loss of converting to energy and to beam again, basically working like the mirrors? And the ship itself would not get any power from it?

Correct, do notice there (will be) is some loss because due to all the refecting. A single mirror reflection is more efficient

Edited November 16, 2016 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

9 hours ago, markinturamb said:

 Is that only for the FELA and the smaller Fela, or can you also link other receiving dishes with, let's say, the laser turret? And how does that direct link works?

Yes, currently only the multi wavelength transmitters are capable of re-transmitting a received beam (by another dish). Effectivly it worlk like how relay used to work, except you use  2 parts to achieve it, one dish receiver and another transmitting part which send the beam to its target. In the future the beam signal will also be able to be boosted by onboard beam generators, allowing you to create a chain of power links. Mirors will not be able to boost, but they arelight and more efficient in directly refecting (but they are still limited by their diameter/aperture)

7 hours ago, SciMan said:

Anyone else miss the old standalone Gas Core fission reactor? I do.
Maybe it needed a new model, but I really think it's something that needs to be back in KSPI.@FreeThinker

Yes I agree, The currently model is not idealy suitable for KSPI because the model is mainly mend for propulsion (power production wouldn't even be possible), but I didn't have any good model at my desposel.

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by FreeThinker

[ss8913]

so I finally got a pre-alpha dev build of FAR out of github and decided to try it, so i'm back in KSP... of course I'm still using KSPIE, but a major difference i noticed between the last 1.1.3 version of KSPIE and now... the thermal ramjet and thermal turbojet now have about the same ISP.  The turbojet still has more thrust at low speed as expected, but the ramjet nozzle now makes about 2x as much starting from 0kph, and scales up much faster.  A 300-500t spaceplane that i used to need full throttle or close to it to get to orbit due to the less thrust from the ramjet nozzle in general, now tears itself apart if I use more than 33%.  Also, in closed cycle mode, the ISP on the thermal ramjet is about the same as the turbojet; the whole reason to put up with the ramjet's reduced thrust was for the ISP.. now they're pretty much identical and I don't see an advantage to the ramjet engine...?

Are these changes intentional or bugs?

[DrScarlett]

Hi FreeThinker, thank you very much for another wonderful update!!!

I was doing a little project setting up a power space station, and the two modules I have been sending up contain "locked or invalid" parts since I installed 1.11.1. I can open the vessels and edit them, but not launch them. I cannot find what the guilty part is. Any tips? Or would you need to (and be willing to) have a look?

[DrScarlett]

EDIT:

I think I found it. Can it be that my OMEGA reactors have disappeared? I was building a space cube with one of those in each rib, I only had three ribs to launch.

So never mind the question above.Any way I can get that reactor back so i can complete my cube with all the ribs being the same?

[DrScarlett]

EDIT:

Again: never mind, lol. I found the old version, rolled back, and am completing my cube  

So now my question is, what was the reason for removing the omega? I liked it. Both thermal and charged particles, sleek look. Was  it OP?

[FreeThinker]

1 hour ago, ss8913 said:

so I finally got a pre-alpha dev build of FAR out of github and decided to try it, so i'm back in KSP... of course I'm still using KSPIE, but a major difference i noticed between the last 1.1.3 version of KSPIE and now... the thermal ramjet and thermal turbojet now have about the same ISP.  The turbojet still has more thrust at low speed as expected, but the ramjet nozzle now makes about 2x as much starting from 0kph, and scales up much faster.  A 300-500t spaceplane that i used to need full throttle or close to it to get to orbit due to the less thrust from the ramjet nozzle in general, now tears itself apart if I use more than 33%.  Also, in closed cycle mode, the ISP on the thermal ramjet is about the same as the turbojet; the whole reason to put up with the ramjet's reduced thrust was for the ISP.. now they're pretty much identical and I don't see an advantage to the ramjet engine...?

Are these changes intentional or bugs?

Well the fact is that any heat exchanger is limited to the maximum melting tempertures. The only method of achieving higher temperures is to use either plasma nozzles (which confine the plasma ions with magnetic coils) or magnetic nozzles which divert charged particles directly.

Edited November 16, 2016 by FreeThinker

[SpaceMouse]

Anyone interested in a beefier version of the EM drive? I completed a 2.5m variant, but KSPi seems to only want one variant of each. Probably don't need two anyway with tweakscale.

[SciMan]

11 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Yes I agree, The currently model is not idealy suitable for KSPI because the model is mainly mend for propulsion (power production wouldn't even be possible), but I didn't have any good model at my desposel.

 

So what you're saying is that you need a model for a Gas Core reactor. Honestly, I think we both already know you know of at least two people that can solve that problem, and I'm not one of them.

I'm liking my odds of seeing a Gas Core reactor again sometime in the future. Good news to hear.

 

Now for something different. I have a suggestion for a new kind of electric thruster, and a new kind of fusion reactor. Both use the same basic physics and reactions, so I don't think I need to explain them individually except where there's an important difference.

It's basically a hybrid of a fusion reactor and ion engine all in one.

If I had to give it a name, I'd call it a "Laser-Initiated Fusion Fragment Reactor".

The only difference between the "reactor" and the "thruster" is that the reactor has a direct conversion electrical generator on the output, and the thruster has a magnetic nozzle on the output.

It can only use the Proton-Boron reaction, but all the fuels are solid-state.
It is a type of non-thermal Fusion Reactor, but it's extremely simple because it's not a beam-core design.
(Side note, I do think KSPI needs a properly long and unwieldy beam-core fusion reactor, long enough that it would be good for making the "spine" of a ship)

Advantages:

• Relatively simple technology (unlocks at the basic Fusion Power tech node)
• Small size (Defaults to 1.25m diameter, can scale down to 0.625m diameter).
• Lightweight (0.625m = 0.05 t, 1.25m = 0.4 t, 2.5m = 3.2 t)  It doesn't need to "contain" the fusion reaction (magnetic fields only need to be strong enough to direct the resulting charged particles to the outputs, weak magnets = lightweight and small magnets).
• Zero "maintenance" power (does not need to sustain a fusion chain reaction).
• High core temperature (It IS a fusion reactor, and the reaction products are 8.7MeV alpha particles).
• Throttles all the way to 0% (or as close as possible if 0% results in crashes).
• Output power is proportional to (but greater than) input power. (reactor is effectively a "power multiplier" and can't sustain a chain reaction).
• Engine only: Much easier to power via Beamed Power due to "power multiplier" effect (less power for the same thrust at the cost of consuming Boron).
• Engine only: Very high specific impulse due to integrated magnetic nozzle.
• Engine only: Engine produces its own supply of Charged Particles for the integrated magnetic nozzle to use, allowing reactors that generate only thermal or electrical power to be used for propulsion with the specific impulse of a Magnetic Nozzle.
• Reactor only: Can use Plasma and Magnetic nozzles very effectively (chargedParticlePropulsionEfficiency = 1).
  If the plasma nozzle uses the Thermal Propulsion Efficiency stat, it might need it's own stat to reflect this ("plasmaPropulsionEfficiency" probably).

Disadvantages:

• Low maximum power output (0.625m = 250 megawatts, 1.25m = 1000 megawatts, 2.5m = 4000 megawatts)
• Low maximum part diameter (2.5m).
• No tech upgrades
• Poor power output scaling to larger diameters, (mass scales with 3rd power of diameter, max power scales with 2nd power of diameter).
• Can not create a self-sustaining chain reaction.
• For the reactor (with its integrated Direct Conversion Generator), this means that it requires a connected Super Capacitor instead of a connected generator.
  For the engine, this means it requires an external source of Megajoule power, meaning it's effectively a magnetic nozzle that consumes Boron (and a little more LqdHydrogen than a standard Magnetic Nozzle) instead of Charged Particles.
• Engine only: Output power is proportional to input power (Zero times a big number is still zero).
• Reactor only: Due to needing a connected Super Capacitor, one reactor can not be used for power and thrust on the same ship.
• Reactor only: Not usable with thermal nozzles (thermalPropulsionEfficiency = 0)

I chose stats with the intent that this reactor is generally easy to use, compact, lightweight, and high efficiency, but with a low overall power output and a few quirks that aim to make it not the "go-to" reactor for everything.
Basically, I tried to make it a good reactor for small probes (1 to 5 tons wet mass) going to other planets or stars in OPM and other planet packs that add much more distant stars, planets, and/or moons.

Edited November 16, 2016 by SciMan

[FreeThinker]

14 hours ago, SciMan said:

It can only use the Proton-Boron reaction, but all the fuels are solid-state.

Seems to me fusion is only limited to aneutronic fusion modes, which means He3-He3, p-Li7 should also be possible as well

14 hours ago, SciMan said:

If I had to give it a name, I'd call it a "Laser-Initiated Fusion Fragment Reactor".

Intresting concept, your engine only  idea which would fullfill a nice niche we don't have yet. Note that I was already thinking about making a kind of Laser powered plasma propulsion. The Idea was to connect a Laser Diode beam generator to a some kind of plasma nozzle, which allows it to produce high exhaust speed

14 hours ago, SciMan said:

(Side note, I do think KSPI needs a properly long and unwieldy beam-core fusion reactor, long enough that it would be good for making the "spine" of a ship)

Yes I like this idea as well, it would be a nice flavor to our exisitng beam core reactor, but why no even better we could make it modular , making it usefull for more than just power production. Technically it is a beam core reactor with 2 additional linear particle accelerators. The particle accelerator would function like booster , improving the power output & efficiency. Those particle accelerator could techically also be used for direct charged particle propulsion if you connect it to a magnetic nozzle...

Edited November 17, 2016 by FreeThinker