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

[Kerbonautical]

Ok, 7 power stations now and I still only get 200,000 MW at the best aspect angle. With or without a reactor I still can't get a proper supply of power beamed to me. Am I really supposed to need to keep just adding more and more until I finally have the power to get a plane to take off? I have reactors in space and right next to me at launch but I just can't get hardly any of their power. Each one is chucking out 60GW and for each three I add I get about 80,000MW beamed to me. This can't be right surely?

[Einarr]

[Form posted on reload an outdated post again.. - so I fill the space with something else useless]

Edit:

"Honestly though, he is right but still tell him to take a pill.."

What ever you say - the second time today..

Oh btw: Have a look at the non existing star wars thruster effects:

(Hint, it's the red hot looking thingys on the back of the Rebel Fighters)

EngineGlow != EngineTrail

Besides Engine Glow from the impulse engines is fairly common on Federation ships outside TOS.

TOS was based far more on actual and theoretical science (for its time) than later Trek. Realistically, the Impulse Engines might produce a visible trail, but with TOS, they would have had to spend money from their tiny budget to create the special effect. It was not cheap back then, and they decided it wasn't important enough. Later Trek has not introduced an engine trail likely to avoid continuity issues. as to engine glow not being present in TOS, again, look at it from a production standpoint, that glow would be a special effect and have to be paid for from a very limited budget.

Lucas raised far more money for Star Wars than Roddenberry was able to for Trek, and even created Industrial Light and Magic specifically for Star Wars. This is the main reason that Star Wars had better special effects for its time than other science fiction productions, such as Trek.

Now, seriously, can we move on, take it to PMs or whatever?

[phoenix_ca]

Whoh whoh whoh! Sorry man, i should have been more specific. I meant make them dangerous as a game play consideration. I didn't intend to imply that the actual power plants are somehow inherently less good than other systems. I was mainly thinking about using them in my off planet Kolony using the MKS mod. Building it off planet would reduce the ...silliness of launching one. It would also make a really neat "refueling and processing" base kind of concept.

Okay, fair enough.

I'm still proud of my hamster line though.

[Einarr]

Ok, 7 power stations now and I still only get 200,000 MW at the best aspect angle. With or without a reactor I still can't get a proper supply of power beamed to me. Am I really supposed to need to keep just adding more and more until I finally have the power to get a plane to take off? I have reactors in space and right next to me at launch but I just can't get hardly any of their power. Each one is chucking out 60GW and for each three I add I get about 80,000MW beamed to me. This can't be right surely?

Are you using both a MW Thermal Receiver and a regular MW Receiver/Transceiver on your craft? I expect the regular receiver might leech incoming power away...and generate a lot of heat whether you're using the power or not...

In any case, spaceplanes in KSP don't usually work well as heavy lifters. They require extra parts (wings are unused mass in space) and then all the struts needed to keep the things together... For heavy lift capability, I'd suggest a more traditional rocket, perhaps with a Fusion/Antimatter Thermal Rocket SSTO twist. Many of my heavy payloads now are SSTOs and need no boosters or other stages.

[Deredere]

Now, seriously, can we move on, take it to PMs or whatever?

Since endless "why is muh stuff not working" posts are far more entertaining, right? Of course they are. You're right. Speaking of which...

Ok, 7 power stations now and I still only get 200,000 MW at the best aspect angle. With or without a reactor I still can't get a proper supply of power beamed to me. Am I really supposed to need to keep just adding more and more until I finally have the power to get a plane to take off? I have reactors in space and right next to me at launch but I just can't get hardly any of their power. Each one is chucking out 60GW and for each three I add I get about 80,000MW beamed to me. This can't be right surely?

It sounds pretty accurate. The highest amount of power you'll get out of a 3.75m fusion reactor, which is what it sounds like you're using, is around 60% of its total energy output, if I recall correctly. You're losing 20% to charged particle generation (unless you have two generators attached, one of each type, which is generally impractical) and then losing another 50% or so of your thermal power to generator inefficiency, leading to a total output from each fusion microwave sat of about 30 gigawatts.

And even one should be more than enough to blow any kind of spaceplane right out of the atmosphere and on its way out the solar system. Try using Xenon fuel if you're using plasma engines. Liquid fuel isn't going to cut it for a large craft unless you have the maximum size plasma engine and enough power in the network (which it sounds like you do).

If you're using thermal rockets I can't help you, you should be getting accelerations in the km/s range. I use thermal rockets as ghetto-rigged mass drivers.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Deredere

[Kerbonautical]

Are you using both a MW Thermal Receiver and a regular MW Receiver/Transceiver on your craft? I expect the regular receiver might leech incoming power away...and generate a lot of heat whether you're using the power or not...

In any case, spaceplanes in KSP don't usually work well as heavy lifters. They require extra parts (wings are unused mass in space) and then all the struts needed to keep the things together... For heavy lift capability, I'd suggest a more traditional rocket, perhaps with a Fusion/Antimatter Thermal Rocket SSTO twist. Many of my heavy payloads now are SSTOs and need no boosters or other stages.

Just a thermal receiver but I did try adding other types to see if I could increase my performance but even with a deployable array I couldn't increase the signal. I shall probably switch to heavy lifters since the planes aren't going well but it just seems I'm not getting a proportional amount of power compared to what I should be. There's something like 420GW of power floating around Kerbin now and I can't even pick up a single GW at the pad, even with a reactor right next to it. I had toyed with a few other propulsion types on different installs and ran into the same issue, not enough power to launch. Except for one fluke install that I foolishly deleted where I could get plenty of GW at the pad. I do have an RSS plugin installed that adds a blue horizon to kerbin, I dunno if that could be somehow messing with the atmosphere so I may need to try removing that I think

[philotical]

Impulse engines in Star Trek, including the ones on shuttles, are fusion-powered electro-rockets.

i.e the exact same thing as a plasma engine.

You could assume the exhaust doesn't emit in the visible spectrum if it bothers you.

I got this point allready when Hughesdylan and Einarr explained it to me in such a friendly way

And even if it's irrelevant, I knew that before..

So since I have to reclaim my reputation just for one stupid post about star trek - let me explain my point.

Maybe the angry kids will bulli someone else than..

In Space (that is where the Plasma works as you know) I have allready warp to simulate ST.

But to start/land from/to the ground, there could be a much more ST-like feeling as we have now.

That is not a feature request - it's just a fact.

"He said KSPI does not have all star trek features - let's attack him"

I did not see the memo, that fractal claims KSPI is 100% star trek.

I also did not read the memo where it says, I'm not allowed to say that it is not.

I mean we can aswell say "Saturn 5 is like a Star Trek Shuttle, it too brought you into orbit"

I miss the ability to hover and than accellerate to orbit like a ST-Shuttle - does not/can not work with our plasmaengines..

agreed?

I merly said I would be fond of a Impuls drive that can be used like the ST ones..

(Than I was expelled from some goofy kids club where self-important people decide who may be a fan of what.)

A ST shuttle can point it's thrust in all directions (several at once actually) and it can fully automatically cancel out gravity, it can also come to a halt in mid air without turning around to thrust backwards,

All that does not work with a static engine, with one thrust vector, mounted on the back of the craft. So Plasma is (no matter of it's functionality) out of the race!

For those who didn't get it that is science fiction - a fantasy, something we all dream about - KSPI is as close to "our" science reality as possible and we all appreciate it for that.

That's why the KSPI plasma thruster can not do that - expecially not in the atmosphere.

No one said KSPI must allready have all from ST - so why does everyone claim it does?

To compare the non-atmosperic plasma function with a shuttle-impuls is just wishfull thinking.

[phoenix_ca]

Would you quit derailing this thread already? This is all pointless quibbling over things that don't even remotely matter.

You want a reason why an "impulse" drive is a bad idea? Fine. It's functionally identical to the already implemented Alcubierre drive, combined with every other engine in the game. You want high thrust and the ability to steer? Okay. Put lots of plasma thrusters on and use xenon as a propellant. Done.

Edited May 13, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[Deredere]

I miss the ability to hover and than accellerate to orbit like a ST-Shuttle - does not/can not work with our plasmaengines..

agreed?

I do wish that ability was available; the inability to takeoff and land horizontally oriented VTOL craft in high gravitational fields without a considerable amount of caution and precision engineering is frustrating. With the amount of power available in KSPI via microwave networks and/or antimatter drives, a multi-axis high-energy thruster system to simulate an inertialess drive should be possible.

But I imagine that kind of adaptive propulsion system to hold potentially asymmetric craft motionless in an atmosphere would be quite the programming task, it's not as simple as just making a new engine.

[Sokar408]

Fractal do you have any plans to make the mining processes of the ISRU happen without being the active vessel?

[Atrius129]

Just a thermal receiver but I did try adding other types to see if I could increase my performance but even with a deployable array I couldn't increase the signal. I shall probably switch to heavy lifters since the planes aren't going well but it just seems I'm not getting a proportional amount of power compared to what I should be. There's something like 420GW of power floating around Kerbin now and I can't even pick up a single GW at the pad, even with a reactor right next to it. I had toyed with a few other propulsion types on different installs and ran into the same issue, not enough power to launch. Except for one fluke install that I foolishly deleted where I could get plenty of GW at the pad. I do have an RSS plugin installed that adds a blue horizon to kerbin, I dunno if that could be somehow messing with the atmosphere so I may need to try removing that I think

Can you post pics of one of your transmitting craft and one of your spaceplane? I don't know if you have multiple receivers active on that ship or within the 2.3km , but that will mess things up.

[Atrius129]

I do wish that ability was available; the inability to takeoff and land horizontally oriented VTOL craft in high gravitational fields without a considerable amount of caution and precision engineering is frustrating. With the amount of power available in KSPI via microwave networks and/or antimatter drives, a multi-axis high-energy thruster system to simulate an inertialess drive should be possible.

But I imagine that kind of adaptive propulsion system to hold potentially asymmetric craft motionless in an atmosphere would be quite the programming task, it's not as simple as just making a new engine.

Sounds like a great idea for a new mod. VTOL thrusters that can maintain stability perfectly and allow you to translate up at a ridiculous velocity. It would be cool if it were incorporated into KSPi, to use it's power systems.

Really though, this isn't the Star Trek/Wars/Craft/Ship Troopers mod so we should probably leave those on other pages ("Fractal, why can't I mine Di-lithium crystals with my AT-AT and react them with my Vespene gas?") . Um... that would be an amazing idea for another mod though.

[phoenix_ca]

There is already a mod that makes VTOLs more stable:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/67270-Throttle-Controlled-Avionics-1-3-0-23-5-%28April-6%29

[philotical]

I do wish that ability was available; the inability to takeoff and land horizontally oriented VTOL craft in high gravitational fields without a considerable amount of caution and precision engineering is frustrating. With the amount of power available in KSPI via microwave networks and/or antimatter drives, a multi-axis high-energy thruster system to simulate an inertialess drive should be possible.

But I imagine that kind of adaptive propulsion system to hold potentially asymmetric craft motionless in an atmosphere would be quite the programming task, it's not as simple as just making a new engine.

You got the point :-)

I am working on the app layout for something like this - but currently just mapping out in my mind - because some other mod want's to be finished first..

The Game offers actually all we need - I've checked allready - the rest is math..

[Threadsinger]

Sounds like a great idea for a new mod. VTOL thrusters that can maintain stability perfectly and allow you to translate up at a ridiculous velocity. It would be cool if it were incorporated into KSPi, to use it's power systems.

Really though, this isn't the Star Trek/Wars/Craft/Ship Troopers mod so we should probably leave those on other pages ("Fractal, why can't I mine Di-lithium crystals with my AT-AT and react them with my Vespene gas?") . Um... that would be an amazing idea for another mod though.

Actually, I was kind of hoping for some VTOL-inspired fusion engines. I've played through, say, 80% of KSPi in Career mode and have LOVED it so far. It's better than the stock game, although I respect the design intent of KSP vanilla.

However, right now I'm trying to get SSTO's into orbit using the smaller diameter, upgraded laser fusion reactors (the 0.625 and the 1.25 OMEGA reactors), and to my great frustration, they are weaker in thrust than the little LV-909... I understand that some serious math has gone into balancing the science-fictional components in the game, (which is great!), and that some challenge is required otherwise KSP loses a lot of appeal. Everything else to this point felt very satisfying in balance and achievement when unlocked and later left behind for more advanced part.

But after all this advancement in the tech tree, I admit I'm disappointed that all this advanced hardware and the fury of a baby star can't out compete a primitive thruster for lift (it comes close, but...) I'm not looking to break the game challenge, but I was kinda hoping that this far down the tech tree I could manufacture some Halo-style dropships (or, more categorically, SSTO-capable light to medium craft), without having to resort to twenty of those to boost a fairly small craft or capsule into space, or perform VTOL maneuvers without again needing a hilarious amount of them. Or using a couple of hideously oversized 2.5 meter reactors/turbojets. (Although, on that note, some 0.625 and 3.5 meter turbojets would be fantastic and I hope to see them in a future build, but that's just to I can better use those 3.5 m monster reactors!)

Just a loyal fans' comment here: any possibility of a thrust increase on the peak-end fusion thrusters to allow them to act as better VTOL/SSTO drives? Wouldn't have to be much, but even a small increase could realize some fun, futuristic sci-fi staple-capable craft once you get absurdly high into the tech tree. Also helps for those of us who are working on under the 'clean' space program ethos.

I did manage to build this, however:

Fun to fly, and comes with a built in funeral-pyre!

Regardless, thanks again Fractal (and co.!) Looking forward to whatever else comes down the pipe!

/also, just lost ALL my missions, satellites, starbases, beacons, flags, memorials today... time to declare war on the Space Kraken... feel free to develop nukes

[Kerbonautical]

Can you post pics of one of your transmitting craft and one of your spaceplane? I don't know if you have multiple receivers active on that ship or within the 2.3km , but that will mess things up.

Sure. here's the station. Sorry for the shot being slightly from the dark side of my ship but I wanted to get in both the display for my thermal power and antenna's transmission capability.

And here's the plane on the runway. I've tried various builds including larger planes with larger thermal receivers and every single transmitter receiver in KSPI. Also the thing in the background is another fusion reactor set to transmit. There shouldn't be anything else at all in my universe that is set to receive.

I really hope it's just some stupid mistake I'm making because I've been trying to get around this for what feels like an eternity now

[Atrius129]

Sure. here's the station. Sorry for the shot being slightly from the dark side of my ship but I wanted to get in both the display for my thermal power and antenna's transmission capability.

http://i.imgur.com/qd4GITl.jpg

And here's the plane on the runway. I've tried various builds including larger planes with larger thermal receivers and every single transmitter receiver in KSPI. Also the thing in the background is another fusion reactor set to transmit. There shouldn't be anything else at all in my universe that is set to receive.

http://i.imgur.com/yXfgcwj.jpg

I really hope it's just some stupid mistake I'm making because I've been trying to get around this for what feels like an eternity now

Indeed! You are receiving about 83.2 GW of power. The thermal receivers don't display on the MJ manager. I would pop some more air intakes on that bad boy.

[Kerbonautical]

Indeed! You are receiving about 83.2 GW of power. The thermal receivers don't display on the MJ manager. I would pop some more air intakes on that bad boy.

I am?! *facepalm* I never checked the math of how many MW to a GW so didn't realize that's how much power I was netting, I kind of figured the display would switch to GW accordingly, and that the air intake was holding that power back! Thanks man, time to see what this thing can really do!

[Deredere]

I am?! *facepalm* I never checked the math of how many MW to a GW

[phoenix_ca]

@Threadsinger: I suggest reading the wiki page to get a good grasp of how thrust is calculated for thermal rockets in KSPI. https://github.com/FractalUK/KSPInterstellar/wiki/Thermal-Rocket-Nozzle-and-Thermal-Turbojet

Once you've done that you should be able to tweak the values in part files with relative ease to increase thrust provided by the reactors. Although you'll also necessarily be increasing power output too when using generators, because thermal power output is what determines thrust.

Honestly a better option might be to go with B9's SABRE engines or the stock RAPIERs. They're great for SSTO flight.

That said it's not all bad news. Once you hit antimatter reactors, the TWR for the 1.25m reactors (Basic) is a whopping 23.62. Upgraded some weirdness happens: TWR drops to 15.49 (which is still pretty amazing), but ISP rockets up to 8379s, compared to the 1831s of the unupgraded versions.

Your other, perhaps better option, would be to use the thermal rocket nozzles, not the turbojets, and use a propellant to get significantly more thrust. If you used LFO for your VTOL, you could get a thrust from your fusion rocket nozzles of 2.7 (quite respectable, and enough to be useful), with an ISP of a whopping 3226s.

@Kerbonautical: MW to GW? That's easy. It's a 1GW = 1,000MW. Mega, Giga. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units#Prefixes

Edited May 14, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[Woopert]

If I just want to keep the magnetometer and the other spectrometers, my tech tree, and the other science progress, will this work without WarpPlugin.dll? And if I remove that, can I use Near Future Propulsion without any compatibility issues?

What about all of the image files, could those be deleted if I just want the magnetometer and the other spectrometers? Will deleting the CFG files along with the WarpPlugin dll also set the settings back to stock? PlanetResource data folder can be deleted? In the Parts\Resources\ResourcesNuclear, can that be deleted?

Phew, that was a lot of questions, sorry. Thanks in advance!

[phoenix_ca]

Probably not. The spectrometers definitely would stop working if you start eviscerating your KSPI install. The magnetometer has this:

MODULE
{
	name = DTMagnetometer
	animName = deploy
}

...which if I'm not mistaken is added by WarpPlugin.dll .

If you start pulling out files from KSPI, particularly the plugin itself, there's no guarantee you won't end-up breaking your persistence file, or just leave a bunch of junk data all over it.

[Hremsfeld]

I found a bug with the antimatter tanks: It's possible to get them to store small amounts of antimatter for free.

To reproduce: Lob up two 3.5m antimatter tanks connected in sequence to a collector (I haven't tried smaller sizes) and supply enough current to satisfy their maximum charging demands. Tell the tank farther back to stop charging, and then disable flow into the first tank. The second tank will hold up to 2.50 milligrams of antimatter without its power draw being reflected in the power manager. Above 2.60mg, however, it draws its full 400.00KW. On this note, an empty 3.5m antimatter tank will demand 200.00KW, even with 1000.00/1000.00 charge, unless you select "Stop Charging." Easy enough fix on the user's part, but still noteworthy.

[Einarr]

The small antimatter bottles will also do this, even when completely full. I never used these tanks until I built an Antimatter Initiated Reactor test ship, then I noted I could stop charging both tanks and timewarp to my heart's content without the charge dropping from 1k. I looked into it when I realized that the ship doesn't actually have a means of producing MegaJoules. The reactor is for a Thermal Rocket Nozzle, and main power is from some NFP solar panels, 4 of 'em producing a whopping 9 EC/sec each. The craft is capable of SSTO performance on pure Liquid from the pad at KSC. There is no generator on the reactor, for weight and space savings.

[artforz]

The small antimatter bottles will also do this, even when completely full. I never used these tanks until I built an Antimatter Initiated Reactor test ship, then I noted I could stop charging both tanks and timewarp to my heart's content without the charge dropping from 1k. I looked into it when I realized that the ship doesn't actually have a means of producing MegaJoules.

As small AM bottles only require 0.5EC/s to maintain their charge, I suspect the solar panels were enough for that draw to not really show.

Unless I'm reading the code wrong, AM containers can hold 0.001% of their max capacity for free.

If they contain more than that, they will always consume MJ or if that isn't available EC to maintain 1000 charge, regardless of the "Charging/Discharging/No Power Required" display.

And yeah, there's a bit of a bug there:

The checks for "should consume charge" and "should consume MJ/EC to replenish charge" in OnFixedUpdate use (current_antimatter > 0.00001 * antimatter.maxAmount)

The checks for buttons and display state in OnUpdate use (current_antimatter > 0.01) ...

edit: ... and another bug. A small AM bottle can't ever explode, as DoExplode() does nothing if current_antimatter is <= 0.1 ...

Edited May 14, 2014 by artforz