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

[Excavus]

I'd really like it if you could make Interstellar work with Science mode. I can't load up the tech tree in science mode compared to career.

[Khatharr]

Working on the precooler module. I was wondering if you guys would be interested in the part protecting the engines from exploding and possibly managing intakes. I only ask because I rarely use SSTOs.

Yes. I would like it very much if precoolers worked. I almost always need radial intakes on SSTOs, but the precoolers have to be attached to the intakes in order to work, so I don't end up getting any help with overheating, so I end up just removing the precooler and using a different ascent strategy.

Also, looking over the different engines, a lot of them are getting pretty weak compared to stock parts. The 0.625m plasma thruster vs the stock ion thruster, for example. The SABRE also tends to be better that the upgraded 1.25m TTJ, all things considered. These interstellar parts require reactors, radiators, generators, and upgrades, but they don't really match their 'easy' stock counterparts in terms of overall usefulness.

Anyway, any chance of a rebalance?

[Meltafire]

Working on the precooler module. I was wondering if you guys would be interested in the part protecting the engines from exploding and possibly managing intakes. I only ask because I rarely use SSTOs.

SSTO means B9. B9 already has a nice precoolers.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Meltafire

[nh5316]

I'd really like it if you could make Interstellar work with Science mode. I can't load up the tech tree in science mode compared to career.

I'm having a similar problem with tech tree in 0.24.2 science sandbox. Every time I load the game it doesn't have the updated tree where warp drive is the last part unlocked. So I have to dump the file and reload using module manager click all the parts. Anyone know of fix for this in science sandbox?

[Haifi]

Thank you for that info. Did you try to modify file?

ResourcesNuclear.cfg

I guess this is it.

Yeah, thats the file.

If you compare both screenshots you can see that the price for the reactor is changing according to the amount of UF4 stored in it.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Guess that proves how it works.

Only thing left to do is to find a reasonable price setup for all resources.

Personally id like to have a fixed price for the hardware around half the total and the other half UF4. And Thorium more expensive, but as far as I can tell by now the bundled price stays the same. So the reactor hardware becomes cheaper if you raise the unit price of the resource... Thats kind of unfortunate .

Regards

[Meltafire]

Yeah, thats the file.

If you compare both screenshots you can see that the price for the reactor is changing according to the amount of UF4 stored in it.

...

Guess that proves how it works.

Only thing left to do is to find a reasonable price setup for all resources.

Personally id like to have a fixed price for the hardware around half the total and the other half UF4. And Thorium more expensive, but as far as I can tell by now the bundled price stays the same. So the reactor hardware becomes cheaper if you raise the unit price of the resource... Thats kind of unfortunate .

Regards

I started the basic calculations already. It's early to say anything concrete. At first I want to show my calculations to WaveFunctionP. I want to find a fulcrum for my prices. For now I'm trying to use Liquid Fuel cost(IRL aproximation Kerosene of high purity). Thus Soyuz rocket is using for launch 100 t of kerosene based rocket fuel and fuel has price about 300k USD. So by that theory 1 Kerbin Fund=18,75 USD. Using that theory we can calculate nuclear era parts of KSP-I, but further goes problems.

[crazyewok]

Here is something that could be added, allow the generators to be attached inside the B9 cargo bays so I don't have to but the big ugly reactors on the outside of the craft.

[Atrius129]

Here is something that could be added, allow the generators to be attached inside the B9 cargo bays so I don't have to but the big ugly reactors on the outside of the craft.

I do that just by sticking a super thin procedural tank or battery to the inside of the cargo bay. Things like sticking to those.

Besides that has to do with the modeling of the cargo bay, so it should be brought up with B9. They are busy trying to get the new update though, so I don't think that will happen any time soon.

[WaveFunctionP]

I started the basic calculations already. It's early to say anything concrete. At first I want to show my calculations to WaveFunctionP. I want to find a fulcrum for my prices. For now I'm trying to use Liquid Fuel cost(IRL aproximation Kerosene of high purity). Thus Soyuz rocket is using for launch 100 t of kerosene based rocket fuel and fuel has price about 300k USD. So by that theory 1 Kerbin Fund=18,75 USD. Using that theory we can calculate nuclear era parts of KSP-I, but further goes problems.

Coupling ingame cost to real world costs requires that the game model real world economics. Since that would be neither fun nor practical, the only thing that make sense is to price based upon gameplay considerations.

[WaveFunctionP]

I'd really like it if you could make Interstellar work with Science mode. I can't load up the tech tree in science mode compared to career.

Treeloader has a problem with science mode. As such, KSPI currently has issues with science mode as well. I am going to attempt to remove this dependency in the next version, as well as clean up some of the mechanics that require a certain tech tree to function. (Allowing players to use custom tech trees with kspi more easily.)

So, for now, science mode is unsupported. You can play career just fine though. If you don't want to fool with funds, then simply use the cheat (hold alt/whatever with the cheat menu open) to add as many funds as you want.

Edited August 10, 2014 by WaveFunctionP

[Haifi]

Coupling ingame cost to real world costs requires that the game model real world economics. Since that would be neither fun nor practical, the only thing that make sense is to price based upon gameplay considerations.

Absolutely, not to mention that the prices should not destroy the fun-factor. I hope someone comes up with something like a procedural price mod, because right now the price set in the part config is final. Switching fuels or modifying size in the VAB / SPH will not alter the absolute price.

[Meltafire]

Coupling ingame cost to real world costs requires that the game model real world economics. Since that would be neither fun nor practical, the only thing that make sense is to price based upon gameplay considerations.

I know. Even about Earth is Kerbin*10:confused:. I read FractalUK reactor charts, historical references (here goes real prices). Do game testing. Gathering info in my head.

For now here is interesting fact:

KSP-I "Kiwi" is somehow simmilar to LV-N engine.

mass 2.5 vs 2.25

thrust 16.5 (LFO with 1.25 nozle) vs 60

ISp 725 vs 800

So actual price on "Kiwi system" is near LV-N (8700 definetly not 100000 ). Now I'm trying to separate a costs of Th4, reactor,nozle.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Meltafire

[WaveFunctionP]

I know. Even about Earth is Kerbin*10:confused:. I read FractalUK reactor charts, historical references (here goes real prices). Do game testing. Gathering info in my head.

For now here is interesting fact:

KSP-I "Kiwi" is somehow simmilar to LV-N engine.

mass 2.5 vs 2.25

thrust 16.5 (LFO with 1.25 nozle) vs 60

ISp 725 vs 800

So actual price on "Kiwi system" is near LV-N (8700 definetly not 100000 ). Now I'm trying to separate a costs of Th4, reactor,nozle.

Part of the issue is that since kspi uses an upgrade mechanic instead of discrete parts, the prices need to be set at the upgraded cost to be balanced. Or I have to implement special functionality to kspi, kspi already plays badly with many mods because it does things in a non-standard way.

Fission is going to be buffed significantly in the next version. Some of that cost can be offset by the use of extractors. Fuels are going to be expensive, particularly the higher end fuels, but after you get a supply chain going, it should work out. Reactors are going to have more tiers. I also have the idea for each tier to be a kind of factory for the next fuel type where byproducts can be used in higher tier reactors, or at least allow for a most cost effective means of fuel supply. The supply chain may not be finished, but the reactor tiering should be in place. The tiering is part of the process of removing the upgrade system. I may also remove the confusing fuel modes and he3 altogether in the process. I'm currently working to implement tweakscale compatibility which is part of the tiering process.

[Haifi]

Part of the issue is that since kspi uses an upgrade mechanic instead of discrete parts, the prices need to be set at the upgraded cost to be balanced. Or I have to implement special functionality to kspi, kspi already plays badly with many mods because it does things in a non-standard way.

Fission is going to be buffed significantly in the next version. Some of that cost can be offset by the use of extractors. Fuels are going to be expensive, particularly the higher end fuels, but after you get a supply chain going, it should work out. Reactors are going to have more tiers. I also have the idea for each tier to be a kind of factory for the next fuel type where byproducts can be used in higher tier reactors, or at least allow for a most cost effective means of fuel supply. The supply chain may not be finished, but the reactor tiering should be in place. The tiering is part of the process of removing the upgrade system. I may also remove the confusing fuel modes and he3 altogether in the process. I'm currently working to implement tweakscale compatibility which is part of the tiering process.

Sounds pretty good so far, but nontheless one of Kspi's main features is the microwave power network. And we need the monetary means to build it up to an extent where it actually works about midgame, because for lategame / endgame, you have Vista / Warpdrive respectively. If youre interested, a few pages back i posted some info about solar thermal powerplants which could be a solution to the power dilemma, if someone is willing to do some coding.

Best regards

[GentlemanJack]

I have a nuclear reactor (3.75m) in orbit around Kerbin that supplies my beamed power network. It's been running fine for a while but now all the sudden every time i go to do a manual restart it goes right back to the decay heating instantly. Is it because of the Actinides buildup? They are currently at 1106 and whenever i go to reprocess them at the science lab, nothing happens.

[xjoe99]

I just started with this mod. Props to Wave for maintaining it. Is anyone else having a problem with the phased array microwave transceivers not functioning as omnidirectional dishes? I have a receiver in orbit and the only time that it receives power is when it is literally pointing within +/-90 degrees of the transmitter. I even placed a transmitter near the Launchpad and the only time that I get power is when I go to orbit and point within 90 degrees of its location as I pass above it. I also drove a receiver around the transmitter and the power supply continually fluctuates from full to zero. Is there a way to point satellites at each other like in Remote Tech? Am I missing something? Is this wip? I find the relay setting useless. When I look at the RemoteTech antennae config files, they state the antennae as being omnidirectional. I could not find such in the Phased Array configs. Hmmm? Anyone?

[AetherGoddess]

within +/-90 degrees of the transmitter.

Working as intended. Microwaves are blocked by most everything that blocks visible light you'll want to set up a Satellite constellation of repeaters (this is what the relay is for, you set up a big generator and a bunch of relays to get continual coverage), or, for bigger apps, lots of generator with attached transceivers.

drove a receiver around the transmitter and the power supply continually fluctuates from full to zero

Input power depends on line of sight to the sender. as you turn, other parts of the rover would block line of sight, occluding the beamed power. yet another reason to have a fairly dense constellation, so you can get counter-balanced power from 2 or 3 sources.

Edited August 11, 2014 by AetherGoddess
stupid editor won't paste

[xjoe99]

Thanks for the reply. I have done relay networks/"constellations" before with RemoteTech, using only 3 sats at 120 degrees from each other at a Kerbalsynchronous orbit with much success. I have tried many different experiments with KSPI, and the array parts just aren't functioning properly for me. I have seen Wave's youtube video, used 4 sats at 90 degrees from each other at a 750km orbit and everything. I have the experimental version KSPI. I tried removing other mods too. I have a complete understanding of orientation and LOS, blocked signals by celestial bodies and so forth. I put a receiver next to a transmitter on the launchpad and got nothing until I pointed the arrays at each other using MagicSmokeIndustries parts. But for some reason, the phased array microwave transceivers don't receive unless I point within +/- 90 degrees of the transmitter...even when the transmitter is in orbit. Even if I "receive" a signal, when I switch from receive to relay, the joules drain to zero immediately. I have let a sat rotate in orbit only to notice that if the phased array microwave transceiver is not pointing within +/- 90 degrees of the transmitter, the signal is lost. I don't know what to say. Something is up. HELP!!!!!

Using sandbox

Your links: Yeah Faraday cage..."The Darkest Hour, 2011" Gotcha! Still, +/- 90 degrees or nothing.

2nd link: So deploy more sats to increase peripheral of LOS? Gotcha. Will try. TY amiga.

Edited August 11, 2014 by xjoe99

[Atrius129]

The transceivers are only omnidirectional while transmitting and relaying. While in receive mode they are subject to LOS as they are turned away from the power source.

[Atrius129]

Input power depends on line of sight to the sender. as you turn, other parts of the rover would block line of sight, occluding the beamed power. yet another reason to have a fairly dense constellation, so you can get counter-balanced power from 2 or 3 sources.

I believe only celestial bodies (sea level) are capable of blocking MW transmission/reception. Things like craft parts, other craft, and surface features are transparent to microwaves... At least in KSPi.

[xjoe99]

The transceivers are only omnidirectional while transmitting and relaying. While in receive mode they are subject to LOS as they are turned away from the power source.

But when you switch to relay mode, are the joules just passed through the sat/array and therefore you get a reading of zero joules being stored? If so, how do you know that the relay sat is working properly? Or do you just check the LOS in map view and just assume all is well?

[Darkblade48]

The bit that needs to be put in the cfg for it to "work" is already in the cfg. Still not working

You don't happen to have Crowd Sourced Science installed, do you? If so, it might be conflicting sciencedefs.cfg that would be causing your conflict.

[AndreyATGB]

But when you switch to relay mode, are the joules just passed through the sat/array and therefore you get a reading of zero joules being stored? If so, how do you know that the relay sat is working properly? Or do you just check the LOS in map view and just assume all is well?

No way of knowing other than pointing a receiver at it, it would be cool if KSPI drew lines in map view like RT2 so we can see how the networks work but right now all you can do is point at it and power should go up.

[Meltafire]

Ok, I'm done with first part of calculations. It's so bad:(

Kiwi(Fission reactor 1.25) and LV-N is prototypes from reality. It's a KIWI A (Rover programm) and NERVA (utilize 3 years later KIWI B4A).All for Moon space program. For game near the same things only for Munar program.

Lets take 1st tiers of KSPI solid reactor and radiators and LFO type fuel.

Fire test.

Kiwi(LFO)* LV-N

mass*,t 3,5 2,25

thrust VAC,kN 33 60

Isp VAC,s 549,2 800

Uf4 per Kday,l 0,083 -

*(I call it «Kiwi system».Reactor 2,5t with nozle part 0,4t and 3 radiators 0,2t*3. You can fly without radiators but decay heat)

As we can see we can assemble LV-N analog using Kiwi.

So LV-N has a reactor too, but how much fuel it must have? What is a part of fuel cost in 8700 funds?

Let's fly to the Mun! LV-N historicaly was made for Munnar program!!

We don't need radioactive waste at Kerbin so, we leave nuclear engine at Mun.

hours

Launch from Kerbin+circularization 0,5

Coast to transfer position 1

Coast to Mun 6

Mun operations 6

In total 2.25 Kerbin days * 0.083 l (Kiwi Uf4 consumption)= 0.2 l of UF4 (round up).

So if LV-N was from KSPI it would have 200.00/0.02 units of UF4.

Nice amount but what about funds??

Flight Engineer shows the diference between dry and wet "kiwi". It's 1 t. IRL 1t of U for nuclear power plant is 500000 USD (price of 2009). Course by Liquid Fuel is 1 fund = 18.75 usd (look this thread up).

So 200 UF4=26700 funds. 0.02=2.66 funds. Only 2.66 from 8700.

We can compare engines from KW rocketry and KSPI "kiwi". Compare it's rough power, posible ISP and thrust.

3300 for a dry kiwi fission reactor should be a good price. Full loaded kiwi with UF4=30000.

Based on this knowledge now I can easely calculate all prices of mod. If you don't mind.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Meltafire

[Jaxx]

You don't happen to have Crowd Sourced Science installed, do you? If so, it might be conflicting sciencedefs.cfg that would be causing your conflict.

So long as he doesn't have two identically named sciencedefs.cfg, it won't matter. They only affect the Squad science parts and don't interfere with basically anything else.