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

[rosenkranz]

Maybe I'm doing something I'm not suppose to be doing. Help me out here.

Current Tech has fission reactors (un-upgraded), the generators (un-upgraded) and the microwave transceivers.

I put up 3 relay sats in synchronous orbit.

I put together a power platform in the SPH that consists of a pod, 9 of the 3.75m Akula reactors, 9 of the 3.75m generators, 3 of the big flat radiators and as little else as I could get away with (less than 50 parts). This platform can transmit 17.1GW I parked 4 of these (68.4GW transmitted) a few km from the launchpad to keep them out of load range.

Using the microwave receivers, I'm getting 36GW at the launchpad and 50+ nearly anywhere in Kerbin's SOI. I put relays in moria orbits about Mun and Minmus and it really is anywhere.

I've not gone anywhere else yet so I don't know how fast this attenuates with distance. I'm trying to put a solar sat up in low Kerbol orbit but I'm wondering if I really need to.

Once I upgrade the reactors to gas-cores, that 68.4GW transmitted is going to jump to over 200GW. More if the generator efficiency goes up above 42%.

A 1.25m plasma thruster using argon caps out at 34GW. Just one of those can push 60 tons into orbit using only 15 tons of argon. On 200GW, I can cap out 6 of those. That would be 360 tons to orbit.

Did I break something? Is this working as intended? I mean, with this kind of power, why would I need anti-matter. I certainly don't need regular rockets at this point.

Really, the only downside I'm seeing so far is heat management on the microwave receivers.

For balance purposes, should attenuation through atmosphere be higher? What kind of attenuation are you guys seeing from Kerbol Solar Satellites?

Alternately, should plasma thrusters cap out lower? Pumping 34GW through a 1.25m parts does seem OP. As does receiving 50+GW from with the default mw-rcvr.

Just looking for some thoughts on balance and options to adjust it.

[NeoAcario]

Can someone please tell me what the point is supposed to be of the larger 3.75m ISRU? It didn't seem to do processes any faster when I checked... just seemed to have larger capacity for ingredients. So.. why bother? Normally keep spare canisters anyways.

Anyone convince me to use this huge part?

~Steve

[undercoveryankee]

Can someone please tell me what the point is supposed to be of the larger 3.75m ISRU? It didn't seem to do processes any faster when I checked... just seemed to have larger capacity for ingredients. So.. why bother? Normally keep spare canisters anyways.

Anyone convince me to use this huge part?

~Steve

The small inline refinery is not able to mine resources. The 3.75m inline and the original dome-shaped part can. And of the two that can mine, the 3.75 inline is sometimes more convenient.

[NeoAcario]

The small inline refinery is not able to mine resources. The 3.75m inline and the original dome-shaped part can. And of the two that can mine, the 3.75 inline is sometimes more convenient.

I disagree on the more convenient part... but, you're saying the 3.75m's sole purpose is to be a massive inline miner/refinery. Uhm.. ok? So I was right about it, there wasn't something special I was missing, and it still doesn't sound like something I'm going to use.

Thanks anyways

~Steve

[undercoveryankee]

I disagree on the more convenient part... but, you're saying the 3.75m's sole purpose is to be a massive inline miner/refinery. Uhm.. ok? So I was right about it, there wasn't something special I was missing, and it still doesn't sound like something I'm going to use.

Thanks anyways

~Steve

Because of some gotchas with the way KSP handles unusual arrangements of attachment nodes, the dome-shaped refinery/miner has to have its side node toward the root part. Some people find that inconvenient enough that they prefer the 3.75 inline for mining.

The small inline is, just as it looked to you, the obvious choice if you don't plan on mining.

[NeoAcario]

Because of some gotchas with the way KSP handles unusual arrangements of attachment nodes, the dome-shaped refinery/miner has to have its side node toward the root part. Some people find that inconvenient enough that they prefer the 3.75 inline for mining.

The small inline is, just as it looked to you, the obvious choice if you don't plan on mining.

I honestly only use the ISRUs in 2 cases... orbital refueling station and mining bases. I may work the 3.75m into my orbital station design.. but I doubt it. I find the 2.5m pretty convenient.

Also, I think I may just be an idiot. Why the heck have I not been using the Thermal Turbojet in my Warptug design instead of the Thermal Rocket Nozzle? Toss on an intake and it makes Jool + Eve ascents a joke. Makes Duna, Kerbin, Laythe a tad easier too... Can anyone think of a reason why I SHOULDN'T use the Thermal Turbojet? Looks like the same ISP, same Thrust, same mass.. everything. Just swap it out on my 1.25m AM reactors and slap an intake on the thing. Done.

Anyone find any fault in this plan?

~Steve

EDIT:

Upon further testing, looks like it might even be about the same efficiency with AM... not quite, but close enough to make it worth while.

Edited June 17, 2014 by NeoAcario

[ArcFurnace]

Only downside I can think of is that if you go too fast in atmosphere while in thermal turbojet mode your engines will explode from overheating, but that's not a problem if you're careful. On ascent you can just switch to rocket mode when you see the overheating starting, and on descent you just stay in rocket mode (likely not thrusting, since you can aerobrake instead) until you know you're going slowly enough that the engines can handle it.

[NeoAcario]

Only downside I can think of is that if you go too fast in atmosphere while in thermal turbojet mode your engines will explode from overheating, but that's not a problem if you're careful. On ascent you can just switch to rocket mode when you see the overheating starting, and on descent you just stay in rocket mode (likely not thrusting, since you can aerobrake instead) until you know you're going slowly enough that the engines can handle it.

Yeah, I was just re-taught that. Tried to make a very minor adjustment as I burnt into the atmo of Eve. Instant explosion of Turbojets. But that really does look to be the only danger of using turbojets over thermal rocket nozzles.

Curious to see if this can make my warptug SSTO from Splashdown on Eve without any additional fuel tanks... as it sits now I need a 1/4 rockomax drop tank to get my warptug ssto.

~Steve

EDIT:

Forgot how much I sucked at vertical landing with jet engines... sheesh. Guess now is as good a time as any to learn.

Edited June 17, 2014 by NeoAcario

[Zadian]

anyone else having trouble downloading this mod?

[Tery215]

I honestly only use the ISRUs in 2 cases... orbital refueling station and mining bases. I may work the 3.75m into my orbital station design.. but I doubt it. I find the 2.5m pretty convenient.

Also, I think I may just be an idiot. Why the heck have I not been using the Thermal Turbojet in my Warptug design instead of the Thermal Rocket Nozzle? Toss on an intake and it makes Jool + Eve ascents a joke. Makes Duna, Kerbin, Laythe a tad easier too... Can anyone think of a reason why I SHOULDN'T use the Thermal Turbojet? Looks like the same ISP, same Thrust, same mass.. everything. Just swap it out on my 1.25m AM reactors and slap an intake on the thing. Done.

Anyone find any fault in this plan?

~Steve

EDIT:

Upon further testing, looks like it might even be about the same efficiency with AM... not quite, but close enough to make it worth while.

unfortunately

said turbojets can't scale to 3.75

go ahead, there's not a problem with your plan (i hope he nerfs turbojets)

[ABZB]

unfortunately

said turbojets can't scale to 3.75

go ahead, there's not a problem with your plan (i hope he nerfs turbojets)

you can make one easily if you want. You can make a copy of the part1 or part2 file in the turbojet/ folder, then in the new file change the name to ThermalTurbojet3, change the rescaleFactor to 3, and in the FNNozzleController module change the radius to 3.75

[NeoAcario]

Ayulp... 1/3 fuel to 100km orbit on EVE SSTO Warp Tug. It now really can land and take off from every planet. No clue why I didn't think of this sooner. On the up-side, air intakes weigh almost nothing. Now I guess I just need to practice one of the few things I can't do well in KSP: Vertically land with jet engines...

If all else fails, I can always make the final few meter touchdown in LFO mode.

41 part + 10 struts, 11.5 tons... 9500 dV vac when full.. etc etc etc. Really can do basically anything.

~Steve

EDIT:

FYI... I really love the turbojet nozzle animation.

EDIT:

But I hate how it always makes the jet sounds... no matter which fuel mode it's in.

Edited June 18, 2014 by NeoAcario

[VaporTrail]

How do you find the thermal turbojets handle with dual reactors?... I've only used them with microwave receivers and have had boatloads of problems with thrust balance.

[NeoAcario]

How do you find the thermal turbojets handle with dual reactors?... I've only used them with microwave receivers and have had boatloads of problems with thrust balance.

No problem what so ever. Each turbojet has its own AM reactor and air intake. Perfectly balanced and no issues with any flame out spinning nonsense. Kinda how I designed my Warp Tug way back when. Two completely independent fuel sources, engines, and thrusters.

~Steve

[VaporTrail]

The problem I was running into was that one TJet (running off a MWThRec) would lag on throttleup by quite a bit. To get something with multiple TJets off the pad (or heaven forbid, runway) I'd have to have it held by launch clamps until the thrusts were balanced... and when you've got one TJet running wide open at 235kN and another climbing up from 170ish... well, a mistimed release makes cartwheel lovers happy.

Might look into using smaller reactors and building Tjet craft if I can't figure out what (or if) I'm doing wrong with them on MWThRecs.

[Atrius129]

-snip

Also, I think I may just be an idiot. Why the heck have I not been using the Thermal Turbojet in my Warptug design instead of the Thermal Rocket Nozzle? Toss on an intake and it makes Jool + Eve ascents a joke. Makes Duna, Kerbin, Laythe a tad easier too... Can anyone think of a reason why I SHOULDN'T use the Thermal Turbojet? Looks like the same ISP, same Thrust, same mass.. everything. Just swap it out on my 1.25m AM reactors and slap an intake on the thing. Done.

Anyone find any fault in this plan?

~Steve

EDIT:

Upon further testing, looks like it might even be about the same efficiency with AM... not quite, but close enough to make it worth while.

That is so funny. I actually was going to suggest this to you before when we were talking about your tug, but for some reason I forgot to mention it.

[bonesbro]

The problem I was running into was that one TJet (running off a MWThRec) would lag on throttleup by quite a bit. To get something with multiple TJets off the pad (or heaven forbid, runway) I'd have to have it held by launch clamps until the thrusts were balanced... and when you've got one TJet running wide open at 235kN and another climbing up from 170ish... well, a mistimed release makes cartwheel lovers happy.

Might look into using smaller reactors and building Tjet craft if I can't figure out what (or if) I'm doing wrong with them on MWThRecs.

You shouldn't need two receivers and engines if you're relying on beamed power. One receiver and engine can handle an infinite amount of incoming power. I've had pretty poor luck with building efficient craft that use them, though, as the receiver's temperature is low so efficiency in rocket mode is awful.

Well, and by awful I guess I mean "still better than you'll get in stock KSP". Interstellar has such crazy high ISPs that anything stock feels like garbage now.

[Northstar1989]

Maybe I'm doing something I'm not suppose to be doing. Help me out here.

There's nothing you've done wrong- you've just taken the Kerbal philosophy of "MOAR POWER!" to an extreme...

I put together a power platform in the SPH that consists of a pod, 9 of the 3.75m Akula reactors, 9 of the 3.75m generators, 3 of the big flat radiators and as little else as I could get away with (less than 50 parts). This platform can transmit 17.1GW I parked 4 of these (68.4GW transmitted) a few km from the launchpad to keep them out of load range.

You *DO* realize that you just up a nuclear power array capable of transmitting 15.428% of the United States' annual electricity consumption (3,886,400 Gw-h/yr, equivalent to a constant production of roughly 443.4 Gigawatts), right?

Considering the shear INSANE magnitude of a 68.4 GW array, you shouldn't be surprised AT ALL by the size of rockets you can lift to orbit. If we set up a Microwave Array like that in the real world, we'd be lifting 360-ton payloads to orbit like it was a cakewalk too...

Once I upgrade the reactors to gas-cores, that 68.4GW transmitted is going to jump to over 200GW. More if the generator efficiency goes up above 42%.

And once you upgrade, you'll be beaming more than half the United States' baseline power consumption (which is a lot lower than average consumption) to your rockets at any given time, even after the rather massive amounts of power you're losing to the system's minimum 15% inefficiency due to the shear size of your system...

A 1.25m plasma thruster using argon caps out at 34GW. Just one of those can push 60 tons into orbit using only 15 tons of argon. On 200GW, I can cap out 6 of those. That would be 360 tons to orbit.

Did I break something? Is this working as intended? I mean, with this kind of power, why would I need anti-matter. I certainly don't need regular rockets at this point.

It's working as intended. You're just insane- and would NEVER be able to afford a Microwave Array like that once budgets is implemented...

Really, the only downside I'm seeing so far is heat management on the microwave receivers.

:Sarcasm: Really, you think? I'm surprised your rockets don't look like giant heat radiators with the amounts of WasteHeat that must be generating at any given time (15% inefficiency times 68.4 GW, hmmmmm- you're having to dissipate over 10.26 GW of WasteHeat when the receivers are active to keep things from exploding...)

For balance purposes, should attenuation through atmosphere be higher? What kind of attenuation are you guys seeing from Kerbol Solar Satellites?

NO, attenuation should NOT be higher- it's quite high enough as is (currently corresponding to shorter-wavelength microwaves in real-life: longer-wavelength microwaves need much bigger receivers, but experience less power-loss when passing through atmosphere). There should just be some kind of sanity-check for people like you...

I set up around 12.6 GW of beamed power TOTAL, to operate a series of Reusable Microwave Thermal Rockets using a Space-X style strategy for recovery of both the launch and upper stages, which I rationalized could pay for itself many times over in the higher payload fractions and reduced maintenance costs vs. the same fleet of lifters with chemical rocketry, and I thought *I* was overdoing it, and pushing the limits of realism...

Alternately, should plasma thrusters cap out lower? Pumping 34GW through a 1.25m parts does seem OP. As does receiving 50+GW from with the default mw-rcvr.

Just looking for some thoughts on balance and options to adjust it.

I'm pretty sure FractalUK based the current caps on what is theoretically achievable with the technologies. However I don't think he planned for players to get ahold of that much power on their spacecraft before they had at least discovered fusion power- by which point the technology might reasonably be thought to have come closer to its theoretical limits. Congratulations, you just achieved with 21st-century technology what probably won't be achieved until at least the 22nd-century in real-life...

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

You shouldn't need two receivers and engines if you're relying on beamed power. One receiver and engine can handle an infinite amount of incoming power. I've had pretty poor luck with building efficient craft that use them, though, as the receiver's temperature is low so efficiency in rocket mode is awful.

One receiver can handle an infinite amount of power, but it doesn't capture an infinite fraction of the incoming power. I've tested this many times: two receivers will collect, in total, more power than one receiver of the same size. And larger receivers collect more power than smaller receivers. It caps out at a certain percentage of the total amount of power being beamed at the craft, of course.

This increase in total power capture, and design constraints, still make twin thermal receivers useful sometimes- especially on aircraft. Heck, I even use three 1.25 meter Thermal Receivers on one of my rockets as they act as radial boosters around the edges of a HUGE 5 meter chemical rocket core (I'm still using basic fission power- so there's "only" 12.6 GW or so of Microwave Power being beamed at my rockets...) as I couldn't find a 2x symmetry design that fit correctly around my landing legs (it's a Space-X style reusable vehicle: the lower stage is recovered with a powered vertical landing after a straight-up vertical ascent)

Well, and by awful I guess I mean "still better than you'll get in stock KSP". Interstellar has such crazy high ISPs that anything stock feels like garbage now.

:sarcasm: Congratulations, you've discovered that basic chemical rockets are crap, and NASA is a bunch of fools for sticking with increasingly-large chemical rockets, when we've had the technology to power our rockets with Microwave Beamed Power since the 1960's... (when the rectenna was invented)

The gyrotron-technology used for efficient long-wavelength microwave beamed power has been available since 2005, whereas the technology for short-wavelength power (most likely what is being simulated in KSP Interstellar, based on the relatively high rate of atmospheric attenuation) has been around since the late 1940's...

It's a large sunk-cost, but there's no reason we couldn't have set up a large nuclear reactor (or heck, even an enormous solar array, wind farm, or fossil fuel power plant) near the Kennedy Space Center at the end of the Apollo-era, and have begun beaming Gigawatts of Microwave Beamed Power to power reusable rockets (with the higher ISP's achievable- as much as 1000s in vacuum using hydrogen for propellent- thermal rockets are vastly superior to chemical rockets- making reusable rockets EASILY achievable with enough beamed-power to provide good thrust) since about 1970 on...

By now, such a launch site would have paid for its (HUGE, multi-billion dollar) cost many time over, from the cost-savings from the reusable rockets (or spaceplanes) it would have enabled, and the fuel-flexibility that thermal rocketry allows... (NASA's annual budget was $20 billion in 2011, to give just one example- and even more in today's money further back in the past- so this definitely would have been within NASA's means to do in 1970...)

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. Don't believe me about the ISP values you can get with thermal rockets in real-life? Take a look at this article on Solar Thermal Rocketry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_rocket#Propellants

Edited June 18, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

@FractalUK

I've become convinced you can't (or won't) read anything I post here because you've blocked or ignored my posts or something, but in case you can, here's another idea for propulsion systems in KSP Interstellar I stumbled across, and this one wouldn't be very difficult to implement at all:

Solar Thermal Rockets

(the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_rocket#Propellants)

This would be a more powerful than collecting solar energy with photovoltaics, beaming the power to another craft with a Thermal Receiver via Microwave Beamed Power, and then using that power for a Thermal Rocket- as instead of a Photovoltaic panel, what this would basically use is mirrors to concentrate sunlight directly onto a Thermal Receiver.

Using mirrors eliminates the inefficiency factor of PV cells (mirrors can reflect close to 100% of the incoming visible light to be turned directly into heat at the thermal receiver, instead of peak 30-40% efficiencies with space-quality PV composite-cells), and thus attain around 3-4x the power production for a given collector surface area. Deployable mirrors are also much lighter than composite PV cells per square meter...

Thermal Receivers already work fine for the technology- and have a NoSurfaceAttach rule already implemented, so line-of-sight to them would normally be expected- though you could implement a line of code requiring line-of-sight between the mirrors and Thermal Receivers if you wanted.

All that would be needed is a concentrating mirror part- it would look a bit like a solar panel, except it would be thinner (more like a solar sail), reflective, much larger (to reflect useful amounts of sunlight), lighter, and have a parabolic shape. Ideally, one could create a part that simply looked like a huge static parabolic dish that would make a stack-attachment above the thermal receiver (to not interfere with its connection to a thermal rocket nozzle), and would provide ThermalPower to the receiver with an effectiveness based on its angle towards the sun...

Also, deployable/movable mirrors that could be mounted on trusses away from the body of the rocket, and would angle such as to reflect sunlight towards the Thermal Receiver would work as well- but would be much more difficult to code I imagine...

It would produce more thrust for the mass than PV cells coupled with Microwave Transmitters and Thermal Receivers, but of course it would weigh down the craft hosting the mirrors with a (small- much less than a comparable surface are of PV cells) amount of additional mass. Obviously, it would be most useful in the Inner Solar System- especially when sun-diving (simply turn the rocket's tail towards the sun with the static dish I described earlier, and obtain HUGE amounts of Thermal Power for thrust at minimal mass penalty).

I could also imagine the ability to reflect sunlight towards a craft over longer distances (using similar coding to Microwave Beamed Power), for much better ThermalPower production than comparable-sized Photovoltaic satellites... (just IMAGINE what a handful of enormous mirror-satellites in low orbit around the sun could accomplish... and without the need for much radiator mass, since +90% of the sunlight is reflected, rather than absorbed) That would be an even more ambitious coding project, however...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited June 18, 2014 by Northstar1989

[BigD145]

Collecting mirrors would work fine if you're only thrusting near the sun. Away from the sun their available power is significantly lower.

protip: the solar sail already exists in this mod

[Northstar1989]

@NeoArcario

Actually, the Thermal Tubojet has a lower ISP and a higher thrust for the amount of ThermalPower used. But that doesn't matter, because the propellant mass is freely-available atmosphere instead of internal fuel... The Thermal Turbojet doesn't work once the air becomes thin in the upper atmosphere, though.

I *have* been bugging FractalUK to include Air-Augmented rockets, which would basically be a middle ground between a Thermal Turbojet and a Thermal Rocket when applied to the thermal rocketry line (the technology also works for chemical rockets though)- using both air and internal fuel simultaneously rather than exclusively. Come to think of it, that would make a lot of sense as an additional propellant-mode on the Thermal Turbojet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-augmented_rocket

Post something about it yourself if you want to see it, though- I'm pretty sure he somehow has blocked all my posts so he can't see them.

Regards,

Northstar

[rosenkranz]

lol, that's not extreme. The AM farm I put in my last save was nearly of whackjob proportions (well not really, that man is crazy). It was a lot of work. An anti-matter based economy is a lot of work and (i thought) well worth it. I didn't really get microwave stuff yet.

My point was how easy it was to do it and you're kinda making my point here.

Each of those power platforms is about 50 parts. That's a pretty small really (part wise). I'll post pics tonight, they really are simple. Just four rovers for a total of just under 200 parts and I'm transmitting absolutely insane amounts of power. The receivers (which are extraordinarily light) can pull it all in without burning to a crisp plus the thruster can take it with out melting on the spot. Transmitters seems to have no limit on power either. If you have 200GW to transmit, it's good to go

Now, please don't get me wrong. I'm not demanding anything, nor am I throwing darts at Fractal. I love this mod. I love the community that has gathered around it. I love the amount of attention Fractal has put into this. But I know he's trying to achieve a certain amount of balance here and he needs every input if he wants to make the best mod he can.

So, this is me just throwing it out there that maybe this needs to be looked at.

As to attenuation, it's fine. At the launchpad I can get 36GW (out of 68 transmitted). That doesn't seem out of sorts. Where it gets weird is as I go up and connect to relays, the power goes up. Technically, it should never get any better because the initial transmitter is on the ground. So it had to come through the atmosphere no matter where I go. If I were to try to land said craft elsewhere on Kerbin it should attenuate again because the power had to go up to the relays and then back down to me. Once I'm on the relay network, I don't think the plugin pays attention to where the power comes from. It's only paying attention to where I am relative to where the connected relay is (in orbit). Is that intended or is it just a case of Fractal hasn't figured out how to account for it? Perhaps if sources had flags (landed body?). If it were null it's in space. If it's on a planet with an atmosphere, it could attenuate it accordingly. Dunno.

A thought for receivers. You have 3 types. The flimsy fold up, the sturdier looking one, and the great big fold up. None of these look like they should be deployed in flight. Perhaps they should be breakable like solar panels (may not as breakable though, damn solar panels are downright fragile). This would limit there use to space or airless moons.

Before you choke on that though, there are the thermal receivers that look more than sturdy enough for atmospheric use but take a bit more science

I think it's intended that the receivers have limits since they have a collection area defined. I don't think it's been implemented yet. The smallest receiver can pull in just as much as the biggest one can. Plus, they all weigh in at 25kg which given their respective sizes, seems a bit off. So if this is ever implemented, this would likely balance a lot. With tweakscale, each type could come is several sizes.

As for the thrusters, I don't know. I was trying to find some specs on what a near future VASMIR might be and couldn't find any so I couldn't say how realistic it is or not. I'm sure Fractal's math is correct. You put x amount of power to y amount of propellant, you'll get z amount of thrust. So all I can say about these is that the power caps seems high. Of course I could play with these via MM configs to see how lower caps pan out. Maybe the larger versions with larger caps should be in more advanced tech nodes. Perhaps the caps could start out at a lower base with upgrades in higher tech nodes?

Just some thoughts.

[rosenkranz]

Having read the links for both of those, it seems like they are still too theoretical. The solar one is airship based and I aggree with them that airships and supersonic speeds won't mesh well. It also wouldn't really be in the scope of this mod.

As for the Air augmented rocket, the same applies. The added weight of the duct work would outweigh the benefits. You can try this yourself. Copy a stock engine. Add the appropriate weight to account for the duct work. Add intake air to the engines requirements (liquid fuel should be .9, oxidizer is 1.1. Start with intake air at 4 or so). Slap an intake on it and see how it goes. I'm not sure the isp should change though. However, the fuel consumption would go down by virtue of the fact that intake air may take up to half of the total ratio. This would (should?) double your fuel economy by itself.

[Northstar1989]

Collecting mirrors would work fine if you're only thrusting near the sun. Away from the sun their available power is significantly lower.

Ahhh yes, but some of the most valuable real-estate in the solar-system is closest to the Sun. Not only is there an abundance of solar energy (just IMAGINE the potential from huge farms of reflecting mirrors in near-Kerbol orbit shining onto a single craft's thermal receiver with a plugin basis similar to Microwave Beamed Power- the ThermalPower would be ENORMOUS- and could also be turned into electricity at a surface area efficiency roughly comparable to using PV panels in the first place using a generator on that craft, if need be- but without having to send nearly as much mass to low Kerbol orbit as with PV-based solar farms) but there is also an abundance of ISRU resources on Eve, including antimatter in its orbit; and it actually takes LESS Delta-V to get from Eve to Jool or further out in the solar system, due to the Oberth Effect, than it does from Kerbin...

protip: the solar sail already exists in this mod

I'm well aware of that (I've probably been using KSP Interstellar long than you have), but solar sails have VERY low thrust, because they don't have any working mass other than the "mass" of a photon. Thermal Rockets powered by collecting mirrors have a huge thrust advantage because they have actual mass to propel with than energy...

Regards,

Northstar