New Parts to reduce part count

[Bej Kerman]

On 6/12/2020 at 2:05 AM, Northstar1989 said:

On 6/11/2020 at 2:33 PM, KerikBalm said:

Besides, what does the smallest nuclear reactor weigh? does that compete with 1 ton of batteries (more like ultracapacitors in KSP)? 26x of the larger batteries mass only 5.2 tons. Would you propose having a nuclear reactor that masses only 5.2 tons, and can supply >250 EC/second?

I would very much like the larger alternative to RTGs to be a nuclear reactor (and it could use the heat mechanic like the ISRU convertor, and thus need radiators)

The smallest nuclear "reactor" and generator (one that uses Stirling Pistons) is about 600 kg- NearFuture actually hits the nose right on the head with this one (although, at KSP scale, maybe it should only be 300-odd kg instead).

Yeah, no.  Anything that uses 1000 kg of batteries is horribly unrealistic- at that point any space agency would just build a nuclear reactor (the Russians actually launched a few small space-capable nuclear reactors to Low Earth Orbit many decades ago...) or add more solar panels (depending on how far the probe was going from the sun...)

Nuclear reactors in space have been done before.  One of them (Kosmos 954) even crashed in northern Canada and caused a minor diplomatic incident:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

Nuclear reactors were done years ago and KSP still doesn't have an alternative to the wimpy selection of solar panels and batteries. Good luck making a large ion craft without your craft looking like a sunflower or a cactus. Please @SQUAD, add reactors!

[KerikBalm]

I mean, I would love a trimodal LV-N variant.

-Lf only, 800 isp

-Lf+ox, 180 Kn of thrust, around 500 Isp

-No thrust, generates EC, requires radiators

And of course, similar parts without any nozzle, just for EC generation.

But I feel like this is getting off topic.

I just want larger/composite versions of parts that are often used in fairly high numbers

A nuclear reactor is an obvious choice for a part corresponding to a larger RTG/ an alternative to multiple RTGs

But I also really want the quad blades, larger/procedural wings, larger air breathers, etc

[Incarnation of Chaos]

20 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

They are, if you assume 1 EC=1kW.  However 1 EC does far, far more than 1 kW could ever do in reality in an ion thruster- and far less than it would do in terms of powering probe cores.  For the game scale/balance they're right on the nose, though.

KSP-Interstellar has next-gen reactors which are amazingly more efficient for space use, though, and are ALSO true to real-life science.  The difference is, the past tried/true tech represented in NearFuture is outdated and EXTREMELY marginal for space use (ironic given the name "NearFUTURE"- it's all nearPAST), whereas Interstellar has the kind of next-gen (ACTUAL future) tech that will probably take humans to Jupiter and such... (Mars is entirely doable with conventional rocketry: aka SpaceX)

You can prolong the reactor life a lot more if you turn down the power levels.  At lower power levels they produce less EC, but consume fuel more slowly.  You can also reprocess fuel (turning a % of it back into usable fuel), and can swap in fresh (possibly reprocessed) fuel with an engineer while the reactor is powered down...  You get longer mission life for a launch mass with a single reactor and regular fuel swaps than you can with multiple reactors...

The way most players use batteries doesn't make much sense: they'd often be better off just loading on more (LARGER!  This is a thread about larger parts after all: and we need larger panels than the Gigantor!) solar panels and setting the throttle to whatever the panels can sustain, while they go off and do something else for a bit (or use a mod allowing thrust while in higher time-warps).

Yeah iv'e had plenty of times where i ran the reactors at lower power levels, but sometimes you just NEED all of that power for the entire mission duration. Which is when i'll use multiple reactors, and just bring fresh ones online as they flicker out and die. The reprocessing tech is nice, but comes way after the first reactors and generally isn't my priority.

And yeah; the first reactors produced by humans came online in the 40's and submarine-based LWR's were produced in the late 50's- early 60's. Small tangent though; is while we often think of Nuclear Fission as an artificial process (Even though the only reason it's possible is because the elements we use naturally undergo spontaneous fission themselves for the most part)

Spoiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

It's very possible that natural reactors were rather common on earth billions of years ago, and i'd love for KSP2 to have planets that had them despite me knowing that anything beyond earth would be older and less likely to have them. Oh and the terrain system wouldn't allow it D:

I'm sure there's much more optimization that could be done to a Liquid Thorium design using modern material science and computer design to get the weight down considerably, and provide mounting points for thermal exchange that were much better. But that's speculation at best, and for the moment we really only have a few apollo-era concept designs, and Kilopower to go off of. And honestly even the outer solar system is likely doable with conventional technology; especially if you launch from Mars. But real life doesn't like the "Moar Boosters" approach like KSP, and you'd need some form of magnetics to shield yourself from the massive belts of radiation Jupiter throws off anyway.

9 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

I mean, I would love a trimodal LV-N variant.

-Lf only, 800 isp

-Lf+ox, 180 Kn of thrust, around 500 Isp

-No thrust, generates EC, requires radiators

And of course, similar parts without any nozzle, just for EC generation.'t

But I feel like this is getting off topic.

I just want larger/composite versions of parts that are often used in fairly high numbers

A nuclear reactor is an obvious choice for a part corresponding to a larger RTG/ an alternative to multiple RTGs

But I also really want the quad blades, larger/procedural wings, larger air breathers, etc

I mean it's been how many years since 3.75 and 5M parts were introduced? And we haven't gotten any large batteries, engines, wings or anything to match? Heck even the selection of 3.75 M engines is pretty poor, and 5M doesn't have anything besides the thrust plates and spamming 2.5 M engines for it. And the landing legs are barely passable even for 2.5M parts....

[Bej Kerman]

11 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

On 6/13/2020 at 7:45 AM, Northstar1989 said:

They are, if you assume 1 EC=1kW.  However 1 EC does far, far more than 1 kW could ever do in reality in an ion thruster- and far less than it would do in terms of powering probe cores.  For the game scale/balance they're right on the nose, though.

KSP-Interstellar has next-gen reactors which are amazingly more efficient for space use, though, and are ALSO true to real-life science.  The difference is, the past tried/true tech represented in NearFuture is outdated and EXTREMELY marginal for space use (ironic given the name "NearFUTURE"- it's all nearPAST), whereas Interstellar has the kind of next-gen (ACTUAL future) tech that will probably take humans to Jupiter and such... (Mars is entirely doable with conventional rocketry: aka SpaceX)

You can prolong the reactor life a lot more if you turn down the power levels.  At lower power levels they produce less EC, but consume fuel more slowly.  You can also reprocess fuel (turning a % of it back into usable fuel), and can swap in fresh (possibly reprocessed) fuel with an engineer while the reactor is powered down...  You get longer mission life for a launch mass with a single reactor and regular fuel swaps than you can with multiple reactors...

The way most players use batteries doesn't make much sense: they'd often be better off just loading on more (LARGER!  This is a thread about larger parts after all: and we need larger panels than the Gigantor!) solar panels and setting the throttle to whatever the panels can sustain, while they go off and do something else for a bit (or use a mod allowing thrust while in higher time-warps).

Yeah iv'e had plenty of times where i ran the reactors at lower power levels, but sometimes you just NEED all of that power for the entire mission duration. Which is when i'll use multiple reactors, and just bring fresh ones online as they flicker out and die. The reprocessing tech is nice, but comes way after the first reactors and generally isn't my priority.

And yeah; the first reactors produced by humans came online in the 40's and submarine-based LWR's were produced in the late 50's- early 60's. Small tangent though; is while we often think of Nuclear Fission as an artificial process (Even though the only reason it's possible is because the elements we use naturally undergo spontaneous fission themselves for the most part)

  Reveal hidden contents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

It's very possible that natural reactors were rather common on earth billions of years ago, and i'd love for KSP2 to have planets that had them despite me knowing that anything beyond earth would be older and less likely to have them. Oh and the terrain system wouldn't allow it D:

I'm sure there's much more optimization that could be done to a Liquid Thorium design using modern material science and computer design to get the weight down considerably, and provide mounting points for thermal exchange that were much better. But that's speculation at best, and for the moment we really only have a few apollo-era concept designs, and Kilopower to go off of. And honestly even the outer solar system is likely doable with conventional technology; especially if you launch from Mars. But real life doesn't like the "Moar Boosters" approach like KSP, and you'd need some form of magnetics to shield yourself from the massive belts of radiation Jupiter throws off anyway.

21 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

I mean, I would love a trimodal LV-N variant.

-Lf only, 800 isp

-Lf+ox, 180 Kn of thrust, around 500 Isp

-No thrust, generates EC, requires radiators

And of course, similar parts without any nozzle, just for EC generation.'t

But I feel like this is getting off topic.

I just want larger/composite versions of parts that are often used in fairly high numbers

A nuclear reactor is an obvious choice for a part corresponding to a larger RTG/ an alternative to multiple RTGs

But I also really want the quad blades, larger/procedural wings, larger air breathers, etc

I mean it's been how many years since 3.75 and 5M parts were introduced? And we haven't gotten any large batteries, engines, wings or anything to match? Heck even the selection of 3.75 M engines is pretty poor, and 5M doesn't have anything besides the thrust plates and spamming 2.5 M engines for it. And the landing legs are barely passable even for 2.5M parts....

The excuse SQUAD has is that no-one makes 5m engines. Source: Saturn V engine mount part description

[KerikBalm]

@Bej Kerman well the mammoth is not a single engine either, its basically 4 vectors with less vectoring, and a bit lower mass.

If they gave us a similar 5m engine cluster that was 1 part, that would be great

[Incarnation of Chaos]

8 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

The excuse SQUAD has is that no-one makes 5m engines. Source: Saturn V engine mount part description

No one lives on a planet with densities exceeding a neutron star either, so I think it balances out xD

[Bej Kerman]

12 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

20 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

The excuse SQUAD has is that no-one makes 5m engines. Source: Saturn V engine mount part description

No one lives on a planet with densities exceeding a neutron star either, so I think it balances out xD

What?

[betaking]

If there's going to be Nuclear Reactors. like 'proper fission nuclear reactors' I'd like them to be a bit more complicated than either RTG's, solar, or even Fuel Cells to use.

something like requiring an engineer be aboard to maintain them, use of radiators even when it's going to be in Kerbin orbit.

 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

On 6/15/2020 at 7:29 AM, Bej Kerman said:

What?

To achieve the gravity desired with much smaller planets than our own world; KSP's planets are impossibly dense.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

On 6/15/2020 at 1:29 PM, Bej Kerman said:

What?

To achieve the gravity desired with much smaller planets than our own world; KSP's planets are impossibly dense.

Yeah, they aren't even as dense as white dwarves. Besides, I didn't get what you meant by "that balances out".

[Incarnation of Chaos]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Yeah, they aren't even as dense as white dwarves. Besides, I didn't get what you meant by "that balances out".

It was supposed to be a joke, but now that iv'e explained it it's not funny

[wumpus]

On 6/13/2020 at 2:28 PM, Bej Kerman said:

Nuclear reactors were done years ago and KSP still doesn't have an alternative to the wimpy selection of solar panels and batteries. Good luck making a large ion craft without your craft looking like a sunflower or a cactus. Please @SQUAD, add reactors!

The biggest issue with ion craft is that that they aren't compatible with the "timewarp" system.  They need to be able to put ion craft "on rails", and I can't see that happening on KSP1.x (hopefully they will manage it with KSP2, if it ever ships).