KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[FreeThinker]

In my game at least since the last 2 updates (that came is swift succession, I only installed the latest) I appear to have completely lost the the particle bed reactor from the VAB.

It still appears in the tech tree and has still been researched although there it has been renamed "pebble bed".

TBH I'm too scared to switch to any of my ships that already contain one (most of them!) for fear of a savegame corrupting bugger up.

Edit:

Oh FFS, mystery solved it's been moved! It now appears for me in BOTH "Nuclear Fuels Systems" AND "Improved Nuclear Power". The latter of which I've unlocked the former I've not.

That's really bloody irritating, almost all of my craft use it (best reactor I thought I'd unlocked) and I'm not likely to get the 500 odd science points needed to re-unlock it for ages.

Sod it I'm modding it back to where it was, my space programs essentially crippled if I leave it.

Sorry for the inconvenience. Yes, I changed it to Fuel System as this truly the technology which allow the Pebble Bed Reactor to be possible , new revolutionary way of getting nuclear fuel into the system. Beside that, it's a conscious choice to to research it and meaning full choice are always a good thing.

- - - Updated - - -

The power of Interstellar!!! Probably the worst spaceplane I've ever built, but it reach orbit with enough fuel to travel, with a huge payload, to everywhere and back!!!

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

Looking great. How they hell did you get this thing into orbit?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm guessing Interstellar fuel switch recognized the 1 unit LH capacity as a fuel tank and because of that gives the option to switch, which is rather odd. Thermal rockets do recognize it as fuel as well, so when you switch propellants during flight you're likely to drain it instantly as well.

IFS has nothing the do with it. It's the Thermal/Electric engine fuel configuration which thinks it's valid, as it basically looks at any compatible resource, even if it to small

[Kielm]

Hello,

Quick little problem / question: I notice that the warp drive patch has been commented out, and there are now two folders for warp drives - one in Parts/Engines and another in Parts/Electrical.

Looking at github I think I should be deleting the Parts/Engines/WarpEngine folder as it now puts the warp drives to the experimental rocketry node (previously this was patched to move to the final node in CTT).

Can anyone confirm please?

Many thanks!

[Nansuchao]

Well, from a long time I use Far and Interstellar together. This SSTO is not beautiful, but it's balanced. It has a good control in supersonic speed and with the Sabre from B9 (the fuselage too) it reach orbit easily, just need to follow a shallow trajectory, without corrections... The best thing is that he can deploy really huge payloads everywhere... 12m X 3.75m Cargo Bay.

[FreeThinker]

Random thermal engines overheats and blowups on low thrust with any reactors (they have as shown in previous post 4*10^9 heat production)

I just had the blowing up at low reproduced. At very low throthle, the heating becomes ridiculous high as Thermal-heat is a direct function of flow. I need to put some maximum on it. But weird that it only shows up now, as it has been this way for quite some time.

[FreeThinker]

[h=2]Version 1.3.2 for Kerbal Space Program 1.0.4[/h] Released on 2015-07-27

• Fixed Issue with thermal nozzle/turbojet exploding at very low throttle
  
• Put KSPI Warp engines back in Ultra High Energy Physics (final tech)
  

[okder]

I just had the blowing up at low reproduced. At very low throthle, the heating becomes ridiculous high as Thermal-heat is a direct function of flow. I need to put some maximum on it. But weird that it only shows up now, as it has been this way for quite some time.

it was for long time, not recent, recent one is with Inertial confined fusion with >10% thrust.

refinary/mining problems is also for long time.

if ISP is constant why heating is direct function of flow, i.e. more flow means more energy consumption and so heating, why problems on low thrust?

[ss8913]

@FreeThinker - I've been using this mod since the original version in 0.23.5 and I have to say it's better now than it's ever been - please don't stop maintaining it You seem to always get everything fixed quickly and correctly and I really appreciate that. I noticed the "exploding under low throttle" last night and I see you've already fixed that too happens a lot when you're using MJ2 landing autopilot or with TCA, so I'm glad this is addressed now

edit: will 1.3.2 be available on CKAN later today or should I just grab it from kerbalstuff for now?

[safcol]

Hmm, could someone shine some light on an issue i'm having;

This extends to both the thermal rocket nozzle and the thermal turbojet, as well as some others.My engine turns on, the whoosh animation is there, but i'm getting zero actual thrust from it.

It's probably something really obvious that I'm missing? I've tried different fuels, and the thingy in the picture is actually copied from a youtube guide video, yet it doesn't work for me.

Thanks in advance guys.

[Suvhater]

Air Intake looks absent

[safcol]

Air Intake looks absent

Oh, that made the Thermal Turbojet move with very little thrust. If i drive off the landing strip, its thrust goes way up for a split second; probably while its in the air momentarily, what's that about?

Has no effect on the rocket nozzle however, still zero thrust..

[okder]

Gas Core now(>1.3) is not feeling well under acceleration(gravity included, i.e. good only in orbit, see changes in previous posts of FreeThinker)

Suhvater, air intake is not needed if you don't use atmospheric propellant, but it is strange to use turbojet without atmospheric propellant, still i think it should work with liquid fuel at full power, before 1.3 it was like 800KN thrust there, i used thermal nozzle for asteroid mover, and it was launched on it's own (actually lf+ox because it has more thrust, but in upper atmosphere i switched for lf only).

[Nansuchao]

LiquidFuel isn't good for TTJ, you build soot too fast, with a couple of burn you loose almost 50% of thrust. It's better Hydrazine (Monopropellent)...

[okder]

FreeThinker, reactor core life time calculated incorrectly after 1.3 in several reactors (definitely changed ones and may be some others).

- - - Updated - - -

LiquidFuel isn't good for TTJ, you build soot too fast, with a couple of burn you loose almost 50% of thrust. It's better Hydrazine (Monopropellent)...

yea i fix it with co2 which i hack into stock isru (it's very slow now and power consumption, but small amount is enough to clean engines), because all fuel should go from asteroid (E class moving from kerbin to jool orbit), i know i could use stock atomic engines(Nervs) but moving 30 Nervs engines to asteroid is not so interesting as 4 thermal nozzles (with reactors)

P.S. FreeThinker, could you add stock mono-propellant as KSPI engine propellant with same properties as hydrazine?

[FreeThinker]

I'm thinking about rebranding the Inertial Confinement Fusion reactor to Magnet Target Fusion reactor. The reason is that Magnet Target Fusion is truely a combination of both Magnetic Confinement (Tokamak) and Inertial Confinement (Vista). THis also concide perfectly with the tech tree which requires both Fusion (Tokamak) and Fusion Rocketry (Vista = Inertial Fusion). Another big advantage of Magnetic Target Fusion, is that is doesn't require hige amount of space. It can be miniturised, like the current fusion reactor. Als it require a lot less power compaired to Inertial Fision Reactor, which require even more power than Magnetic Fusion Reactors. This is the reason why the Vista requires 2.5 GW to operate!

Edited July 28, 2015 by FreeThinker

[okder]

magnetic containment fusion reactor (and may be some others) has incorrect time warp load scaling, i.e. load is changes on timewarp, and so it's not possible to approximate how much fuel in D-He3 Fusion mode will be needed for long travel.

probably 1.3 introduced

Edited July 28, 2015 by okder

[FreeThinker]

P.S. FreeThinker, could you add stock mono-propellant as KSPI engine propellant with same properties as hydrazine?

I was planning to allow this eventualy but the reason I didn't do this already if because I didn''t want people to accidently burn all Monoopropellant which switching. But a possible solution to this to no longer allow flight switching. Which makes sence except for LFO. A posible solution would be to make the adding of Oxygen danamic. This would allow you to scale the Isp and thrust up and down. Max trotle would be translated into Maximum thrust (with oxygen) and half throtle would Maximise Isp and not use any oxygen.

- - - Updated - - -

magnetic containment fusion reactor (or may be some others) has incorrect time warp load scaling, i.e. load is changes on timewarp, and so it's not possible to approximate how much fuel in D-He3 Fusion mode will be needed for long travel.

probably 1.3 introduced

You mean at time warp, load scaling breaks down?

Regarding estimated remaining fuel usage, it should be easy to implement if you ignore breeding effects

[okder]

yeah time warp breaks down normal operation of reactor, it goes to 100% load, and using resources, on day warp, on other hand while you off ship (in space center) it seems use zero or just much lesser resources than actual "idle" load for specific ship.

i think some many-propellant selection (which enables some resources used as propellant) for specific engine should be available, i.e. i use flight switching to clear soot with co2, or water.

If you disable flight switching then there will be no way for soot clearing, or other usages: in high atmosphere lf(+ox), later hydrogen for high isp.

P.S. now for gascore reactor thermal nozzle isp is much better than for magnetic containment fusion reactor, is it correct?

[FreeThinker]

Say Has anyone noticed all the new fusion reactions? Please take a look at the Reaction Table on the OP for all planned reactions. For energy requirment and techlevel I based my data on the followinging graphs:

Let me know what you think

Edited July 29, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

Note, In order to implement p-B11 Fusion , I'm thinking about introducing a new resource called Hexaborane (6 Boran + 10 Hydrogen atoms), which can be stored at room temperature and prevent you from accidently using all available hydrogen for propulsion. I has a desity of 0.6 kg/liter. For p-B11 fusion. The Hexaborane would simply be heated to high temperature creating p + B with some excess hydrogen which can be used for other purposes

Edited July 28, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Bishop149]

Sorry for the inconvenience. Yes, I changed it to Fuel System as this truly the technology which allow the Pebble Bed Reactor to be possible , new revolutionary way of getting nuclear fuel into the system. Beside that, it's a conscious choice to to research it and meaning full choice are always a good thing.

Understandable, however bear in mind that for those of us already well in to our career games, decisions about which nodes to spend our precious science on have already been made and can't be re-made. I'd make node changes for crucial technology (like reactors) sparingly!

On a related note I'm having trouble Fusion. . . . only unlocked the first fusion tech and I'm having real trouble maintaining 400MW required to even run the reactor.

It certainly can't be done lightly, a big heavy second reactor is required and this extra mass simply to generate the start up energy to the fusion reactor almost instantly nullifies the benefit in the fusion reactor, well at least for relatively small ships.

I'm guessing I'll have to wait for future tech nodes for fusion to become useful, what are the running power requirements of the other, later reactors?

A few points though, once running the fusion reactor should be self sustaining right? Deducting that 400MW from it's own generated power?

What state the do the reactors launch in? When launched "activated" they certainly don't seem to be able to maintain their running form their own power, but seem to do so if they can initially be fed power from another reactor which I the subsequently turned off (or deactivated it's generator more accurately).

Also from all my testing it certainly seems that reactors can't share a thermal power generator anymore, it used to be the case that a [Reactor]-[Generator]-[Reactor] arrangement would lead to the generator being used by both reactors. . . . doesn't seem to work now and its by no means clear which of the 2 reactors WILL use the generator.

Does each reactor need its own generator? Whatever the answer how do you arrange such stacks so everything works?

[FreeThinker]

P.S. now for gascore reactor thermal nozzle isp is much better than for magnetic containment fusion reactor, is it correct?

No, maximum theoretical Isp Gas Core reactor is 5000s which high but nothing compaired to Magnetic noozle which Isp start at 12000s up to 12.000.000s

- - - Updated - - -

Understandable, however bear in mind that for those of us already well in to our career games, decisions about which nodes to spend our precious science on have already been made and can't be re-made. I'd make node changes for crucial technology (like reactors) sparingly!

On a related note I'm having trouble Fusion. . . . only unlocked the first fusion tech and I'm having real trouble maintaining 400MW required to even run the reactor.

It certainly can't be done lightly, a big heavy second reactor is required and this extra mass simply to generate the start up energy to the fusion reactor almost instantly nullifies the benefit in the fusion reactor, well at least for relatively small ships.

I'm guessing I'll have to wait for future tech nodes for fusion to become useful, what are the running power requirements of the other, later reactors?

Initialy fusion might be very hard (which is intended) if you don't have access to High efficient radiators and Efficient Electric generators . As these tech are unlocked and properly applied, you will notice fusion become much more rewarding.

In the first generation fusion reactor (Tokama) you will only be able to use D-T fusion which the easiest achievable fusion, but produces a lot of energenic neutron. At Advanced fusion, D-He and D-D becomes avialable, which allows you to generate a lot more charged particles and become tritium independant. The third generation is unlocked with Exotic fusion, which allows you to use p-B11 fusion (not implemented yet*) and, T-T and T-He3 fusion. The 4th Generation fusion modes are unlocked with High Energy Physics (which also unlocks FTL). Which allows you to use He-He3 and Lithium fusion which are very difficult to achieve effectively

- - - Updated - - -

A few points though, once running the fusion reactor should be self sustaining right? Deducting that 400MW from it's own generated power?

Fusion cannot sustain itself. You need to constantly apply power. However you can produce more power than you put into it. The initial Fusion reactor has a Q of 10, which means to the total power you generate is 10 times as high as you put into it. However, due to ineffiicencies, of the electric generators this will be significantly lower. The most effective method is Direct Energy conversion, which is up to 86.5% efficent. That's very high compaired to your initial Thermal Generator of 31% which in practice is more llikely to be 15% due to radiator effectiveness.

So if you only research the first generation thermal generator, you will produce about 4GW * 0.80 * +/-0.15 = +/- 480 MW. Subtract the 400 MW initial investment and your are only left with 80 MW, which isn't much considering the large mass, but it is realsitic. if ITER managed this, they would be very happy

Now, if could use both upgraded thermal engine (with sufficient radiator capacity) and direct energy converter, you can expect about 4000 MW * 0.8 * 0.56 + 4000 MW * 0.2 * 0.865 - 400 MW = +/- 2100 MW. As you see this is a lot more!

Now if you also upgrade up to exotic fusion, you can produce up to 10 GW with D-T fusion. With this all energy problem are solved

Edited July 28, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Bishop149]

Thanks for that, I'm pretty sure I have upgraded radiators (Graphene) but am not so sure about my thermal generators, what tech node upgrades them?

[FreeThinker]

Also from all my testing it certainly seems that reactors can't share a thermal power generator anymore, it used to be the case that a [Reactor]-[Generator]-[Reactor] arrangement would lead to the generator being used by both reactors. . . . doesn't seem to work now and its by no means clear which of the 2 reactors WILL use the generator.

Does each reactor need its own generator? Whatever the answer how do you arrange such stacks so everything works?

I was not aware this was possible in the past. To my understanding, power was limited to the connected reactor, but if that reactor was drained by thermal engine, resulting in a global shortage in thermal power, it might have been active.

Perhaps we can make it possible again, especialy for thermal reactors (which are bigger and heavier), this would both improve usebility and gameplay sence as it would lower the mass cost of secondary reactors, which is something I try to promote.

Edited July 28, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

Thanks for that, I'm pretty sure I have upgraded radiators (Graphene) but am not so sure about my thermal generators, what tech node upgrades them?

"High Tech Electrical Systems" allows both Thermal and Charged Particle Electric Generator to upgrade their efficencies. This technology is prety much required if you want to get serious about electrc propulsion.

Btw, I'm very intrested in your (or anyone else) experience using KSPI. Specificly everything that has to do with gameplay and balance. What are the biggest obsticals? KSPI is and end game mod, which

requires people already have done a lot of research. I have not been able to play such a long compaign myself.

Edited July 28, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Nansuchao]

At the moment, in my series, I harvested science from Kerbin (most), Mun (all), Minmus (all), some from Duna, Ike, Eve, Gilly and I'm departing for the first interplanetary manned travel, and I unlocked the Gas Core Reactor and the first KSPI radiator. To end the tech tree, I'll probably need to make long interplanetary travel, manned... So, it seems good from a balance point of view. For now I just use the smallest reactor with a thermal generator, down scaled to 0.625 to power ships and probes, TTJ is pointless in vacuum (for now), Thermal Nozzle and Attila Thuster not so useful. For sure I need a better reactor (or an upgraded one) to have gain from KSPI power (like the SSTO I posted yesterday).