Orion aka "Ol' Boom-boom"

[damerell]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/135061-ALPHA-Project-Orion-Nuclear-Pulse-Engine

... or just wait for RoverDude to start a new one.

[FreeThinker]

No, nyrath Orion it should be seperate from RoverDude Orion

[damerell]

No, nyrath Orion it should be seperate from RoverDude Orion

If you are a fan of the nyrath Orion, by all means. However, I'm betting at least some of the people reading this thread (like me) want _an_ Orion mod and don't much care who did it, except inasmuch as RoverDude is a) around and does lots of very good mods.

These two mods aren't rival gangs. It's no bad thing to let those people reading this thread know there's an alternative - one that can be downloaded and installed today.

[Solospirit]

I had the same problem.

When I looked into the archive at https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/1170/Nyrath's%20USAFOrion, I noticed that there are two dlls inside: USAFOrion.dll and TacLibGUI.dll.

However the archive at https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/679/USAFOrionMod-TD-subedition contains an additional dll, TacLib.dll.

When I copied it into GameData\Nyrath\, the parts appeared.

I had the same issue...parts not showing up after a CKAN instal....i can confirm that copying the TacLib.dll file across fixed this issue...Thanks!

[Falcon Coupe]

Thanks guys, this worked for me aswell. On a side note, having both the Nyrath and TD version installed makes the nuke firing not work in game. Dont judge me, I like lots of big booms! Seriously it was only for testing...

Also, what is the purpose of the Nuke pulse loader pieces? What is the difference between the two?

[TiktaalikDreaming]

damerell said:

If you are a fan of the nyrath Orion, by all means. However, I'm betting at least some of the people reading this thread (like me) want _an_ Orion mod and don't much care who did it, except inasmuch as RoverDude is a) around and does lots of very good mods.

These two mods aren't rival gangs. It's no bad thing to let those people reading this thread know there's an alternative - one that can be downloaded and installed today.

The point about the thread being a bit of a mess still stands regarding _this_ mod though.

Yes, I agree, it's good that there's a second Orion mod, and yes, having RoverDude working on it pretty much guarantees it'll be more maintained than this. And, they're not competing gangs. As RD is looking at approximating the Orion in completely different ways, they're not even really competing mods. And it certainly frees me from the calls for "stockalike". Which is good, 'cos I suck at stock like modelling.

I'll have a look at an updated thread.

For the moment, the KerbalStuff edition has everything you need for KSP v1.0.4.

- - - Updated - - -

Falcon Coupe said:

Thanks guys, this worked for me aswell. On a side note, having both the Nyrath and TD version installed makes the nuke firing not work in game. Dont judge me, I like lots of big booms! Seriously it was only for testing...

Also, what is the purpose of the Nuke pulse loader pieces? What is the difference between the two?

I should add a note about that. The Nyrath and TD editions are incompatible.

I'd prefer to discuss the loader pieces over at the topic for the TD mod, but it models the original Orion. The main supply of pulse units was built into the parts I have as loaders, and the pulse unit magazines are basically refills. I don't have a way of enforcing players to use a minimum of 1 floor, but I have made it ugly not to.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Snark
Link to defunct website removed by moderator

[The Optimist]

Yeah! detonate nukes on the launchpad! Yayyyyyyy

[Stargazer1776]

Does anyone here know the specific impulse of nyrath's orion mod? I realize its some insanely high figure, but I was just wondering if anyone had an actual number for the Isp.

[Chris P. Bacon]

2 hours ago, Stargazer1776 said:

Does anyone here know the specific impulse of nyrath's orion mod? I realize its some insanely high figure, but I was just wondering if anyone had an actual number for the Isp.

My best guess would be ~3,300 seconds given that he modeled the engines after the 10m USAF Orion, and taking the numbers from his own website: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id--Pulse--Orion

[Stargazer1776]

50 minutes ago, Chris P. Bacon said:

My best guess would be ~3,300 seconds given that he modeled the engines after the 10m USAF Orion, and taking the numbers from his own website: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id--Pulse--Orion

Thanks. The reason I am asking is because I remember that nyrath mentioned some time ago that even though he was basing the model for his Orion off of the USAF 10 meter design, he was changing some of the values such as thrust. According to his website, the USAF 10 meter Orion had a thrust of approximately 2 mega-newtons, and yet he gave his Orion the ability to launch bombs all the way up in to the 400 mega-newton range. I was just wondering if since he altered the thrust (quite dramatically), then maybe he altered the specific impulse as well.

[Chris P. Bacon]

Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, to me, has always seemed like a really tricky type of engine to estimate in the first place.   It's strange in that, as you scale the mass of the ship up, and use larger bombs, your ISP skyrockets by orders of magnitude, since the mass of various sized charges does not scale lineally with the thrust output.   I'd like to think his code takes this into account, but I honestly haven't flown the engine enough to verify this.  I'd stick with 3k seconds as a low-ball estimate, and even that is pretty darn cheaty for RSS/RO games.

[Arugela]

I'm surprised they can't make conventional non radiation producing explosion to do this very thing for cheap. Are conventional explosions powerful enough now to do what the older nukes did. Assuming that was designed using real nukes at the time and not theoretical ones.

 

And these engines would be a lot more fun if they are realistic stats. I have played with some and they are way to overpowered. I don't think they are in any way realistic to the real things. If they were I'm sure it would feel more realistic. maybe make a 10 diameter one or make a smaller one taking into account the lack of ISP noted above with a smaller diameter.

 

They really need to be balanced properly or they are just not enjoyable. The more depth to how and why it works the more realistic and the more it feels like you are using the real thing. That is what makes them fun to use and try to work around. It also leaves room for more things and gets rid of balancing issues because you are making it work a certain way and not trying to artificially balance it to other things.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Arugela

[TiktaalikDreaming]

On 5/12/2015 at 11:31 PM, Chris P. Bacon said:

Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, to me, has always seemed like a really tricky type of engine to estimate in the first place.   It's strange in that, as you scale the mass of the ship up, and use larger bombs, your ISP skyrockets by orders of magnitude, since the mass of various sized charges does not scale lineally with the thrust output.   I'd like to think his code takes this into account, but I honestly haven't flown the engine enough to verify this.  I'd stick with 3k seconds as a low-ball estimate, and even that is pretty darn cheaty for RSS/RO games.

The yield vs mass of pulse unit is not coded into the module.  That's set by the magazine selection.  And if you're using my modified edition, also by atmospheric density.  What sets the Orion drive apart from most chemical rockets is the Isp and trust being dramatically better in an atmosphere.  So when you need that big thrust, you get it.  When you'd prefer gentle efficient thrust, you get, well, more gentle, and less efficient.  Isp is basically all over the shop.  The limits really come down to "do I break my spine?".

[TiktaalikDreaming]

On 8/12/2015 at 10:44 PM, Arugela said:

I'm surprised they can't make conventional non radiation producing explosion to do this very thing for cheap. Are conventional explosions powerful enough now to do what the older nukes did. Assuming that was designed using real nukes at the time and not theoretical ones.

 

And these engines would be a lot more fun if they are realistic stats. I have played with some and they are way to overpowered. I don't think they are in any way realistic to the real things. If they were I'm sure it would feel more realistic. maybe make a 10 diameter one or make a smaller one taking into account the lack of ISP noted above with a smaller diameter.

 

They really need to be balanced properly or they are just not enjoyable. The more depth to how and why it works the more realistic and the more it feels like you are using the real thing. That is what makes them fun to use and try to work around. It also leaves room for more things and gets rid of balancing issues because you are making it work a certain way and not trying to artificially balance it to other things.

Nuclear explosion yield per mass of bomb is several orders of magnitude higher than any conventional explosive.  So, unfortunately, when you switch over to conventional explosives, you get a few hundred feet up and run out of bombs.  The idea works just as well, but you have to carry so much explosives, you get about four pulses.  And at about 1 pulse per 0.84 seconds, that doesn't last long.

The thrust, weights, etc all come from the released data from the studies done on the propulsion system.  I'm sorry if you feel it's over-powered.  It is when you compare it to chemical rockets.  One of the reasons (among nuclear test bans, freaking Kennedy out, no-one wanting to pay for it, etc) for the Orion project being cancelled is it would have obsoleted the Saturn project overnight.  That was why the NASA Orion was pushed as a 10m pusher plate (which is extra innefficient for Orions), so it could be lofted on a Saturn and everyone could feel good about having spent all that money developing the Saturn.

If you're using the Nyrath edition, then you're getting vacuum performance regardless of atmospheric density, which is slightly unrealistic.  The updated version on KerbalStuff has a modifier to boost performance in an atmosphere, as the yield per KT is radically higher in an atmosphere.  Unfortunately for the purpose of game balance, Orions just are better in virtually every way.  The difficulties are around the "you're nuking your launch pad", and the propulsion system is developing thrust in discrete pulses.  While this mod doesn't model nuking the launch pad, it does model discrete impulses rather than steady forces.  Also, your craft will tend to be large and heavy, and hard to turn.  But before you complain about something being unrealistic and not real, it might be worth researching said thing.  Orions just kick poophole.  Yes, they violate every nuclear treaty ever, and irradiate their launch site, suck at docking, and god help you if one crashes on the launch pad, but if everything goes right, they liquid on every chemical rocket ever.  By orders of magnitude.  The Orion project team in the early 60's were talking manned missions to Saturn's moons by the early 1970s.  In a single stage.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

OK, this is just an early notification.  I'm going to mod up a Footfall Michael.  Althoguh it may not fit in the hanger.  And I'll feel required to adjust to fit what is now known of Orions.  Back when Footfall was written, Orion was a bunch of press releases dating back from the early sixties, but very little hard data.  So Niven/Pournell had little to go on for putting detail in about the craft.  At the very least I'll be using a flat pusher plate with everything else being in the pusher plate shadow.  Which will mean a central pulse unit dispensor, rather than side mounted cannons.  And probably a bunch of other changes.  I'll also be doing just the propulsion systems, framework, and shield.  Control, weaponry, etc can all be had from other mods or from stock.  In other words, "the Brick" section will be an open framework with lots of attachment points but very little substance of it's own.  I've started some basic work on the Michael, but as I'm rereading Footfall for the first time in decades, I've not settled on a design yet.

 

Also, I can't believe I wasn't following this topic.  WTF?

[Kenobi McCormick]

On 12/8/2015 at 6:44 AM, Arugela said:

I'm surprised they can't make conventional non radiation producing explosion to do this very thing for cheap. Are conventional explosions powerful enough now to do what the older nukes did. Assuming that was designed using real nukes at the time and not theoretical ones.

 

And these engines would be a lot more fun if they are realistic stats. I have played with some and they are way to overpowered. I don't think they are in any way realistic to the real things. If they were I'm sure it would feel more realistic. maybe make a 10 diameter one or make a smaller one taking into account the lack of ISP noted above with a smaller diameter.

 

They really need to be balanced properly or they are just not enjoyable. The more depth to how and why it works the more realistic and the more it feels like you are using the real thing. That is what makes them fun to use and try to work around. It also leaves room for more things and gets rid of balancing issues because you are making it work a certain way and not trying to artificially balance it to other things.

You can't really balance a nuclear pulse drive against 'realism' and still fly it. Orion never flew. The hazards inherent in firing off a chain of nukes were simply too big for project contiuation. The closest it ever got to flight was a scale model using C4 as propellant.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Kenobi McCormick

[TiktaalikDreaming]

7 hours ago, Kenobi McCormick said:

You can't really balance a nuclear pulse drive against 'realism' and still fly it. Orion never flew. The hazards inherent in firing off a chain of nukes were simply too big for project contiuation. The closest it ever got to flight was a scale model using C4 as propellant.

The reasons for stopping the project weren't actually the obvious hazards, although the fallout was probably a contributing factor to killing ground launches.  The political environment and lack of any agency funding it killed it pretty dead.  And the inability to test anything after the NTB treaty.

And yes, the C4 test is how I know you get about four pulses using conventional explosives.  So about 1/8th of your loaded mass per pulse for conventionals, vs pulse units of about 140kg (which is significantly propellant, rather than just bomb) yielding around the equivalent of 1kT of TNT.  It doesn't take a lot of math to show the Isp of nukes is around 10,000 times better than TNT.  The best conventional explosives cap out around 1.6x TNT, C4 is around 1.4-1.5 I think.

[landeTLS]

Im curious. Do anyone know how would one go about properly calculating the isp in c# of such an engine in ksp? The fuel flow would be static. So im thinking it would be somehow related to the thrust created by each blast??

Edit: ok. Thought about it a little. Is it as simple as isp = thrust * 9.81?? 

If that is right then is current isp something like this

currentIsp = (thrust * someMultiplierFromAtmoCurve) * 9.81 ??

Edited January 3, 2016 by landeTLS

[TiktaalikDreaming]

49 minutes ago, landeTLS said:

Im curious. Do anyone know how would one go about properly calculating the isp in c# of such an engine in ksp? The fuel flow would be static. So im thinking it would be somehow related to the thrust created by each blast??

The calculations would need to adjust for the fact that the thrust is delivered in impulses of delta V rather than force over time.  People have done this though.  And it's not horrible.

For an idea of thrust per mass of "fuel", all you'll need the impulse force (eg: 3.0x10^6N), and the mass of each pulse unit (eg: 141kg).  So about 21280 N/kg, or 2170sec (Newtons/pulse / kg/pulse /Gin m/s).

For the mod, it depends on the pulse units and atmospheric density (like for rockets, except the other way around).  For the Kerbal scaled (5m) Orion, the best will be from the biggest pulse unit, with 50,million Newtons, at 144kg per pulse unit.  For 35,395sec Isp in a vacuum.  The most recent edition of the mod includes scaling the impulse in an atmosphere.  It uses a conservative multiplier for 1 atmopshere of x13* (actual impulse variation could be up to x35).  So, at sea level, the effective Isp is 460,000sec.   With the largest bomb, which will ruin your day if used at sea level.  But, that's to demonstrate the equations, not how you'd want to use an Orion.

That's not the exact same thing as a rocket's Isp, but it gives you an idea where you don't need to consider the TWR of the engine system, and you're not actually concerned with propellant velocity.  A more detailed and accurate Isp for Orions can be found at http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id--Pulse--Orion

More specifically http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/supplement/orionisp1.jpg and http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/supplement/orionisp2.jpg  and more detail than you'll likely ever want at http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/supplement/GA-5009vIII.pdf

:-)

 

* the code multiplies the bombImpulse by (((float)(Math.Pow(((double)this.vessel.atmDensity),0.333))*12)+1)

Edited January 3, 2016 by TiktaalikDreaming
add code equation

[TiktaalikDreaming]

I should probably start a new thread at some stage seeing as I'm maintaining this now (well, sort of).  But, the updated download location (post collapse of KerbalStuff) is http://spacedock.info/mod/73/USAF%20Orion%20Mod

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Notes for 1.1 based on prerelease;

The module/plugin doesn't work, as all plugins won't without recompiling.  Parts not related to Orion propulsion should work.  I'm not sure when I can get the module fixed up, seeing as I have no idea what I'm doing.  I have solicited help, so we might even get a working UI by the end of this (the existing UI depends on a separate library that's not in 1.1 afaik).

[p3asant]

On 3/31/2016 at 3:22 PM, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Notes for 1.1 based on prerelease;

The module/plugin doesn't work, as all plugins won't without recompiling.  Parts not related to Orion propulsion should work.  I'm not sure when I can get the module fixed up, seeing as I have no idea what I'm doing.  I have solicited help, so we might even get a working UI by the end of this (the existing UI depends on a separate library that's not in 1.1 afaik).

Have you had by now any luck on recompiling? Is the source available somewhere?

[TiktaalikDreaming]

3 hours ago, p3asant said:

Have you had by now any luck on recompiling? Is the source available somewhere?

I've managed to recompile a dependency that was abandoned by the original author, but I'm currently a bit lost on some things, but am slowly working through a book I bought on C#.

Current source code (excepting the recompile mentioned above) is at https://github.com/cerebrate/USAFOrion

I think for 1.1 I'd like to rebuild the UI from scratch, seeing as it hasn't worked in a while, and is steadily building incompatibilities.  The issue being that I'm not a C# developer.  I'm a sec admin.  If it's perl or bash scripting, I'm your man.  But I'm a bit lost finding the linkings and so on I need in the VS IDE.  I'll get there, but if anyone else wants to take a look, feel free.

[FreeThinker]

On 27-6-2016 at 3:08 AM, TiktaalikDreaming said:

I've managed to recompile a dependency that was abandoned by the original author, but I'm currently a bit lost on some things, but am slowly working through a book I bought on C#.

Current source code (excepting the recompile mentioned above) is at https://github.com/cerebrate/USAFOrion

I think for 1.1 I'd like to rebuild the UI from scratch, seeing as it hasn't worked in a while, and is steadily building incompatibilities.  The issue being that I'm not a C# developer.  I'm a sec admin.  If it's perl or bash scripting, I'm your man.  But I'm a bit lost finding the linkings and so on I need in the VS IDE.  I'll get there, but if anyone else wants to take a look, feel free.

Any progress to report? Is there something in particular that is problematic?

Edited July 8, 2016 by FreeThinker

[TiktaalikDreaming]

On 7/8/2016 at 10:21 PM, FreeThinker said:

Any progress to report? Is there something in particular that is problematic?

No real progress.  I'm leaning towards a rewrite, dropping the TacLib dependencies.  At the moment I'm unclear which procedures and variables are linked from where, and considering TacLib hasn't been updated in several versions (last worked in 0.25) it seems a bit silly to fudge it around to keep it in the loop.  Esp as it's mostly there for GUI elements, which is the bit that's most radically different in 1.1.

The main problem is I have no idea what I'm doing though.  :-)