[0.25]KSP Interstellar (Magnetic Nozzles, ISRU Revamp) Version 0.13

[merendel]

I really need some help with docking and waste heat. I docked my kethane probe to my space station, and it maxxed out it's solar panels waste heat from the station. Now if I undock the probe, its solar panels are at max waste heat and won't work! The probe doesn't have radiators as it didn't need them for just solar power.

How do I prevent docked vessels from absorbing all the waste heat? And how do I recover my probe?

For recovering the probe I sugest you send up a ship with a pair of the small non deployable radiators and a couple batteries and dock it to the probe. The ship can be little more than a probe body some RCS and the radiators sandwidched between 2 docking ports and you just leave it on the probe. Those radiators are not all that good in space but they are plenty for keeping a couple of solars cool. That should at least let you get the solars redeployed asumeing they are deployable ones. I think theres still a stock KSP issue where flat panel ones can still trigger the retract shutdown but theres no way to fire them back up later.

As to how to avoid it in the future... pretty much don't dock something that depends on solar with no radiators to something with high heat generation like that. Even a single radiator on the probe would have made it so waste heat was not over 95% max when you undocked. probably still would be high but it would cool off.

[SeventhArchitect]

So, as I see it, only VERY SMALL probes could use a Nuclear drive efficiently. Fission-wise. Fusion may be different. Ideas on Nulear Fusion Drives?

OMFG, I love calling the collections of parts drives, makes me feel like we're messing with awesome technology.

[db48x]

So, as I see it, only VERY SMALL probes could use a Nuclear drive efficiently. Fission-wise. Fusion may be different. Ideas on Nulear Fusion Drives?

OMFG, I love calling the collections of parts drives, makes me feel like we're messing with awesome technology.

The power scaling is nonlinear, so the largest reactor has quite a lot of power. All of the fission reactors are heavy though, so none of them have a good TWR. If you want a probe that can last 30 years, on the other hand, fission is the way to go. Fusion is quite different. Antimatter is slightly insane.

[VaporTrail]

Fission probably is better used for microwave generation. Four receiving antennae and pointing gear is a lot more weight efficient than a reactor and generator.

But then you might run into problems with waste heat... eventually.

[merendel]

So, as I see it, only VERY SMALL probes could use a Nuclear drive efficiently. Fission-wise. Fusion may be different. Ideas on Nulear Fusion Drives?

OMFG, I love calling the collections of parts drives, makes me feel like we're messing with awesome technology.

Ironicly the reverse is true. thanks to the nonlinear power curve biger is better and really the only cost effective way to go with fission thermal drives. Anything less than the 3.5m reactors your better of going with a standard LVN cluster and even on those its not a clear winner till you upgrade them. The small ones just cant generate any meaningful thrust and the TWR will always be on the lowside no mater what size reactor you go for.

Some of the other drive types are actualy worse if they need to push the reactor along as well and prety much are non viable with fission. Fission is amazing for beamed power however. On the flip side Antimater is the A+++ gold standard for generating power on board and getting silly amounts of thrust for low weight.

[gorkyporky]

Guys, i still cant figure out the microwave network. I have 8 3,5m reactors in orbit now, with generators of course, and the big microwave transmiter/relay thing. And i also have 10 relay satelites to make sure that i cover the entire orbit. They are all set on "relay", i triple checked. Anyway, when i send up a ship with 4 recievers, the only thing they connect to is the satelites themselves. And even then, sometimes the power just drops for reasons i cant figure out. The relay sats dont appear to be working. Do i need to put more of those giant arrays on them? Does the orientation matter? Also, why does the power in my transmiters keep falling? The generator gives out constant MW and so does the nuclear reactor, but the power that the transmitter transmits is constantly falling.

[Tristavius]

You got thermal power and thrust mixed up. Thrust is inversely proportional to isp.

You're right, sorry - typo on the text (the excel equation shows it correctly as a division). Corrected now.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Tristavius

[Tristavius]

Guys, i still cant figure out the microwave network. I have 8 3,5m reactors in orbit now, with generators of course, and the big microwave transmiter/relay thing. And i also have 10 relay satelites to make sure that i cover the entire orbit. They are all set on "relay", i triple checked. Anyway, when i send up a ship with 4 recievers, the only thing they connect to is the satelites themselves. And even then, sometimes the power just drops for reasons i cant figure out. The relay sats dont appear to be working. Do i need to put more of those giant arrays on them? Does the orientation matter? Also, why does the power in my transmiters keep falling? The generator gives out constant MW and so does the nuclear reactor, but the power that the transmitter transmits is constantly falling.

How far away is your ship and with what type of receiver?

When you say it doesn't connect to the relays, are the transmitting station(s) in line of sight? Basically it will only use relays if it has to - if it can see the station directly it will simply use it. If it needs to use relays it will use the minimum possible - the worst case scenario I ever saw for relays was being on the night side of Jool which was on the far side of the sun from Kerbol when the transmission station was on the night side of Kerbin and that only took 3 jumps (to a Jool relay with LoS on the sun, to a sun relay to a Kerbin relay with LoS on the station).

Power tails off for a number of reasons, primarily distance and line of sight. I recently tried an experiment with a single mid-sized receiver (the non-moving hexagonal) jumping directly away from Kerbin towards deep space. The receiver was kept pointing directly at Kerbin. By Duna's orbit it was down to 63% of it's original power received. By Dres it was 4.5%, by Jool 1.1% and by Eeloo 0.7%. I also know from another craft that a single large receiver (the fold out hexagonal one) when it reached Jools orbit directly out from Kerbin was getting about 34% which is clearly a few superior performance. These values of course would only apply to a planet when it is at it's closest approach to Kerbin.

Been meaning to do some more tests here anyway so I will try and do so soon and publish the results for small and large receivers.

[gorkyporky]

How far away is your ship and with what type of receiver?

When you say it doesn't connect to the relays, are the transmitting station(s) in line of sight? Basically it will only use relays if it has to - if it can see the station directly it will simply use it. If it needs to use relays it will use the minimum possible - the worst case scenario I ever saw for relays was being on the night side of Jool which was on the far side of the sun from Kerbol when the transmission station was on the night side of Kerbin and that only took 3 jumps (to a Jool relay with LoS on the sun, to a sun relay to a Kerbin relay with LoS on the station).

Power tails off for a number of reasons, primarily distance and line of sight. I recently tried an experiment with a single mid-sized receiver (the non-moving hexagonal) jumping directly away from Kerbin towards deep space. The receiver was kept pointing directly at Kerbin. By Duna's orbit it was down to 63% of it's original power received. By Dres it was 4.5%, by Jool 1.1% and by Eeloo 0.7%. I also know from another craft that a single large receiver (the fold out hexagonal one) when it reached Jools orbit directly out from Kerbin was getting about 34% which is clearly a few superior performance. These values of course would only apply to a planet when it is at it's closest approach to Kerbin.

Been meaning to do some more tests here anyway so I will try and do so soon and publish the results for small and large receivers.

Well im using the large non moving hexagonal transmiter on the stations and relay satelites, and the fold out ones on the ship. The reactors are in 400x400km orbit and the relays are in 1000x1000km. There is pretty much always at least one station in the line of sight with the ship, so i guess thats why the relays won't connect? I was hoping to get the power of the entire grid, but i guess it doesnt work that way. Anyway, the recievers constantly say they are at 85% efficency, but the power changes acording to how i orient my craft, wich makes sense i guess. I dont understand tho, why the last time the power just dropped form around 200MW to 1MW instantly, and i couldnt get it back, but it still had the same ammount of connections to satelites. Also, that power drop thing on the transmiters also boggles my mind.

EDIT: i forgot to mention, all this happens in LKO, i never took the test ship over 300km yet.

Edited March 21, 2014 by gorkyporky

[Korn Sarum]

Has anyone been able to get the thermal turbojets to work with HotRockets and Smokescreen? Trying to install them causes all engine effects to disappear, and the engines themselves start to behave incorrectly.

[kapytanhook]

Amazing mod, spent many hours playing. However there's something I don't understand. I have lots of antimatter but its almost useless to get anything into orbit. As I can't get it into the tank on the launchpad. How to solve this? Is beamed power the way to go? Or is there a thrust limit on plasma engines. Please help me think of a way to make a good interstellar ssto.

[John Crichton]

Amazing mod, spent many hours playing. However there's something I don't understand. I have lots of antimatter but its almost useless to get anything into orbit. As I can't get it into the tank on the launchpad. How to solve this? Is beamed power the way to go? Or is there a thrust limit on plasma engines. Please help me think of a way to make a good interstellar ssto.

There are 2 ways to do it imo:

1) Have a mobile lab (or rover with antimatter tanks) stationed on the runway. Dock your SSTO or other craft to it. Or use the KAS mod.

2) Launch your antimatter SSTO or other craft using conventional rockets and dock up with your antimatter fuel depot in orbit.

What other fuel are you using with your plasma engines? They all have different TWR.

[kapytanhook]

There are 2 ways to do it imo:

1) Have a mobile lab (or rover with antimatter tanks) stationed on the runway. Dock your SSTO or other craft to it. Or use the KAS mod.

2) Launch your antimatter SSTO or other craft using conventional rockets and dock up with your antimatter fuel depot in orbit.

What other fuel are you using with your plasma engines? They all have different TWR.

Thanks for your reply. I have looked at the tables, I figured id be best off using a thermal receiver + thermal rocket nozzle with LFO or

a plasma engine running on Xenon.

At the moment I am thinking I'd be best off doing this setup:

- Low Kerbol solar arrays + Jool antimatter power stations to generate power

- Relay the power to kerbin orbit

- Beam power down to 2 science labs to produce antimatter over 2.5 km away from launchpad

- Rover it over to my launch vehicle.

- Make my Launch vehicle have a antimatter reactor + Generator + Xenon + Plasma Engine + Extra beamed power receiver (can never have enough mj's) to get into orbit.

- Profit

(Antimatter can be transferred with KAS, 100% sure?)

Just seems like a whole lot of steps to get something into orbit.

Somehow I feel like there is a better way to utilize antimatter to get into orbit than this evil scheme.

[AeroEngy]

Thanks for your reply. I have looked at the tables, I figured id be best off using a thermal receiver + thermal rocket nozzle with LFO or

a plasma engine running on Xenon.

At the moment I am thinking I'd be best off doing this setup:

- Low Kerbol solar arrays + Jool antimatter power stations to generate power

- Relay the power to kerbin orbit

- Beam power down to 2 science labs to produce antimatter over 2.5 km away from launchpad

- Rover it over to my launch vehicle.

- Make my Launch vehicle have a antimatter reactor + Generator + Xenon + Plasma Engine + Extra beamed power receiver (can never have enough mj's) to get into orbit.

- Profit

(Antimatter can be transferred with KAS, 100% sure?)

Just seems like a whole lot of steps to get something into orbit.

Somehow I feel like there is a better way to utilize antimatter to get into orbit than this evil scheme.

KAS definitely works with antimatter. It is what I use on the ground to fill up on the pad/runway.

Here is how I did it:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[kapytanhook]

Thanks and very impressive setup.

[jinks]

Hi there,

I have a problem with doing very short warp jumps in my tests.

As soon as I enable the warp drive, all toggle buttons from the menu disappear for about 5 seconds. Hotkeys are also inoperable during this time.

So, every warp jump I do has to last at least 5-7 secs until I can turn the drive off again.

Is this intended behaviour? If not, what could be causing it?

[WaveFunctionP]

Hi there,

I have a problem with doing very short warp jumps in my tests.

As soon as I enable the warp drive, all toggle buttons from the menu disappear for about 5 seconds. Hotkeys are also inoperable during this time.

So, every warp jump I do has to last at least 5-7 secs until I can turn the drive off again.

Is this intended behaviour? If not, what could be causing it?

I've experienced the same behavior. I think it's why we have no toggle warp action. Makes timing those aerobrakes and gravitybrakes a bit of tedious f9-ing.

[VaporTrail]

You have how much antimatter? On my planet?!

Talk about safety hazard

[WaveFunctionP]

Thanks for your reply. I have looked at the tables, I figured id be best off using a thermal receiver + thermal rocket nozzle with LFO or

a plasma engine running on Xenon.

At the moment I am thinking I'd be best off doing this setup:

- Low Kerbol solar arrays + Jool antimatter power stations to generate power

- Relay the power to kerbin orbit

- Beam power down to 2 science labs to produce antimatter over 2.5 km away from launchpad

- Rover it over to my launch vehicle.

- Make my Launch vehicle have a antimatter reactor + Generator + Xenon + Plasma Engine + Extra beamed power receiver (can never have enough mj's) to get into orbit.

- Profit

(Antimatter can be transferred with KAS, 100% sure?)

Just seems like a whole lot of steps to get something into orbit.

Somehow I feel like there is a better way to utilize antimatter to get into orbit than this evil scheme.

I know it's not exactly what you asked, but I put a collector array around Jool with a warp drive and it runs on transmitted power, and a full container of antimatter on my kerbin station. I then "roleplay" moving antimatter with ship manifest at launch by using it's fill resources function on the launch pad. Not that antimatter is particularly useful at this point in my save. Nearly everything that needs to be done is trivial to do by the time you get a 200+ GW power network. Add in warp and even the most complex missions are trival.

Which is why I started a new save.

[merendel]

Add in warp and even the most complex missions are trival.

Which is why I started a new save.

Add in Extraplanetary launchpads and the stipulation that once you've got the ability to produce ships off kerbin thats your only way to build ships (asside from required kerbal transports for manpower requirements) Particularly with the new manpower requirements in EL it can make missions quite involved to setup. On the one hand you can build ships you'd never be able to launch short of a wackjob style computer killing launcher. On the other it can take quite a while to build a large ship.

I'm doing that myself right now and its rather tough. I sent up enough uranium to get some mining of it started without haveing to go solar but its alot harder to setup big power farms when the uranium does not come free. That and I'm probably going to have to skip fusion altogeather unless I break down and ship some lithium and deuterium up. I could go out to jool/lathe to get the stuff but frankly AM will be easier.

[AeroEngy]

You have how much antimatter? On my planet?!

Talk about safety hazard

These are kerbals we're talking about ... they are always careful. Plus Jeb said it was fine to drop 2 big antimatter tanks from orbit what could go wrong?

[merendel]

These are kerbals we're talking about ... they are always careful. Plus Jeb said it was fine to drop 2 big antimatter tanks from orbit what could go wrong?

ya I read that, looked at your avatar and nearly had a spit take. What could go wrong with droping half a kilo of antimater onto a planet. Its not like that much could crack the planet open like an egg.

[smurphy34]

Hi there,

I have a problem with doing very short warp jumps in my tests.

As soon as I enable the warp drive, all toggle buttons from the menu disappear for about 5 seconds. Hotkeys are also inoperable during this time.

So, every warp jump I do has to last at least 5-7 secs until I can turn the drive off again.

Is this intended behaviour? If not, what could be causing it?

I always felt it conveyed the "shock" of the warp transition, but it has caused me to impact my warp craft as well.

The best fix I've found it to use the Time Control mod to slow time down so you can have "recovery time" and to better judge when to end those fine warp maneuvers.

Thanks

[jinks]

I've experienced the same behavior. I think it's why we have no toggle warp action. Makes timing those aerobrakes and gravitybrakes a bit of tedious f9-ing.

In 0.21 short jumps still worked as seen

What I want to know is if this is a deliberate change or an artefact of changes in the menu-system since then, but I can't seem to find the relevant places in the code.

Edit: Actually... I believe the problem lies with the short instances of vessel.GoOnRails() in ActivateWarpDrive() and DeactivateWarpDrive() respectively.

If I go to time warp the same thing happens, so this is probably not a deliberate feature but rather a consequence of KSP reinitializing the whole vessel for the "Rails Physics" and taking it's sweet time to do it.

Alas, I have no idea how to restore the old behaviour.

Edited March 22, 2014 by jinks

[Fractal_UK]

In 0.21 short jumps still worked as seen

What I want to know is if this is a deliberate change or an artefact of changes in the menu-system since then, but I can't seem to find the relevant places in the code.

Edit: Actually... I believe the problem lies with the short instances of vessel.GoOnRails() in ActivateWarpDrive() and DeactivateWarpDrive() respectively.

If I go to time warp the same thing happens, so this is probably not a deliberate feature but rather a consequence of KSP reinitializing the whole vessel for the "Rails Physics" and taking it's sweet time to do it.

Alas, I have no idea how to restore the old behaviour.

Yeah, nothing has actually changed in the alcubierre drive code for quite a long time, any changes that have occured are within KSP itself.

Unfortunately, there is no way around making the engine activation/deactivation an On-Rails behaviour, if the transition is made Off-Rails then, quite rightly, ships will be immediately torn apart by their tremendous acceleration.