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

[AetherGoddess]

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.

I'm not up to beamed power networks in my .24 game, and the last time i was was KSPi .8 or .9, so I might be dealing with older information. when i was setting up for it, i ran a bunch of experiments and discovered the thermal engine would die if I flew directly away from my test generator, where the inline receiver was in the MW shadow of the thermal engine & power was proportional to the direction. maybe i was interpreting the behavior wrong?

only 3 sats at 120 degrees from each other at a Kerbalsynchronous orbit

[...clipped...]

4 sats at 90 degrees from each other at a 750km orbit and everything

again, been a while since i was doing this, but my last MW constellation 16 in 250 km 45 deg orbit, arranged such that each pair would cross the plane and each other at roughly the same time as another pair at the same longitude would be at the northern and southern peaks. each had a transmitter, a relay, and a fairly large fusion generator (the 2.5m pair, maybe?) took FOREVER to get it all up and synchronized, and .23 came out almost immediately after, so i had to toss it all and start over. i'm nearing that point in my .24 game now, i probably will go with half as many, in polar orbits, at a much higher altitudes, assuming the x64 version stays relatively stable and i can afford it, fusion power looks STUPIDLY expensive right now, but i'm still a ways away. haven't even got my first science station up yet.

[Atrius129]

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?

When setting up relays, you can right click the relay to see how many are connected to the network. This is probably much simpler and less taxing than the RT system of having connecting lines going everywhere.

[WaveFunctionP]

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.

Well, except that I am rebalancing reactors. Fission is going to be much more capable, even the basic tech.

[krillin678]

Wavefunctionp,

I know this is a couple of pages back, but my opinion on precoolers is that they are kind of worthless. I typically throttle back when things get a little hot or change propellants. Also I am finding much less use for non radial(the back ones) intakes. Might use two or less in a design.(non intake stacker)

I know you didn't ask for an opinion on upgrades or resources but I am in favor for removal of he3 and I am also in favor of more reactor models to show steps of progression. As it stands now it is kind of confusing with upgrades that are not really shown. Back to resources, I am also in favor of waste to new fuel for next reactor but dunno if that makes real world sense, just so long as we get a resource reduction I am fine with it. I find the amount of different resources to be a little daunting for new players.

[Meltafire]

Well, except that I am rebalancing reactors. Fission is going to be much more capable, even the basic tech.

Oh? So overall theory is ok. Then I'm waiting for update and just modify that costs almost only with TWR.

[Atrius129]

I'm not up to beamed power networks in my .24 game, and the last time i was was KSPi .8 or .9, so I might be dealing with older information. when i was setting up for it, i ran a bunch of experiments and discovered the thermal engine would die if I flew directly away from my test generator, where the inline receiver was in the MW shadow of the thermal engine & power was proportional to the direction. maybe i was interpreting the behavior wrong?

The inline receivers are not truly omnidirectional. They best receive power when the source is 90deg perpendicular to the side of the receiver. So, flying directly towards or away from the power source will cause a loss of power. One of Mr. Manley's early Interstellar videos demonstrates this fairly well.

[Stevie_D]

A good tip is to use the infernal robotics mod and mount your receivers on a hinge or joint. That way you can turn the receiver mid-flight to have a good chance of always getting the best reception.

[Woodstar]

Anyone else think wave should start his own thread with his ex version and add a change log? I do it will help with following his work.

[asheft]

I agree. It would be nice to have information about his update in a separate thread.

Edited August 11, 2014 by asheft
The his?

[GentlemanJack]

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.

Nevermind, i was wrong. It does work lol

[sober667]

I agree. It would be nice to have information about the his update in a separate thread.

100% agree

[merendel]

Wave have you considered just outright changing the upgrade mechanic? Instead of the current auto upgrade in the VAB once tech is unlocked or useing science to upgrade inflight stuff what if you made the high tier versions require an "Upgrade Parts" resource and define a price per unit for the resorce. As an example reactors would by default not have any of the upgrade parts filled in the VAB but it would have storage for the correct amount to do the upgrade. If you want a basic version of the reactor you just launch as is. IF you want the upgraded version you just tweek in the "Upgrade parts" resource, which increases the cost of the vessel appropriately just like tweaking in/out fuel from a tank. Once out on the pad if you have the tech and full parts you just select the upgrade option and your reactor is the upgraded version. This would have the benifit of alowing both high and low tier versions of the reactor (an oft requested feature) and alow for the low tier parts have a more reasonable price instead of the price for the high tier. For upgradeing in flight parts just add a copy of one of the resorce containers for the upgrade parts so the player can ship out the parts. This honestly makes more sense than the current magic upgrade with science method anyway.

[AetherGoddess]

...versions require an "Upgrade Parts" resource

This has been proposed.

[Monthar]

Okay, here's a really weird bug. Whenever I launch a vessel with a reactor onboard(type doesn't matter), the craft suffers a sever shock at 6000 meters. The craft either breaks up, or tumbles out of control. At the same time, two black bars pass on either side of the vessel.

...

Also, the reactors sometimes break away from the part below them on the launchpad.

I'm getting the same thing happening every time with any reactor or any of the engines. They all act as if they are missing part their collision mesh. So any of them not supported on the launchpad will either fall thru whatever is below them, fall thru the launchpad itself, stuff on top of them falls thru them, or all of the above.

Then once I manage to get enough support in place to prevent the falling thru mess and can launch, they all explode around 6km. It doesn't matter how fast they're speed nor now high the acceleration, they always explode. One time the explosion was so bad it hurled the probe control into deep space at over 7k mps. One second the small probe was flying then at around 6k it was suddenly just the HECS module tumbling and spinning wildly by itself at over 200KM up and over 7k mps.

I've also noticed, that every engine added by this mod has a 2nd exhaust graphic shooting out one side perpendicular to the expected exhaust graphic. Most of them show this in the VAB and they all show this on the launchpad.

Lastly, while trying to get just a simple probe to work with the Plasma or Attila thruster, they wouldn't accept any of their fuels except the normal liquid fuel all the stock engines use. The toggle fuel button didn't solve this. I tried with every fuel type listed for these engines.

KSP version 0.24.2.559 (latest version Steam provides)

I just picked up this mod so it's the latest version as well. I even did the upgrade it said was needed once I launched the game.

P.S. All those fancy new engines is the main reason I got this mod, so with them all busted I'm not enjoying the mod at all.

[WaveFunctionP]

I'm getting the same thing happening every time with any reactor or any of the engines. They all act as if they are missing part their collision mesh. So any of them not supported on the launchpad will either fall thru whatever is below them, fall thru the launchpad itself, stuff on top of them falls thru them, or all of the above.

Then once I manage to get enough support in place to prevent the falling thru mess and can launch, they all explode around 6km. It doesn't matter how fast they're speed nor now high the acceleration, they always explode. One time the explosion was so bad it hurled the probe control into deep space at over 7k mps. One second the small probe was flying then at around 6k it was suddenly just the HECS module tumbling and spinning wildly by itself at over 200KM up and over 7k mps.

I've also noticed, that every engine added by this mod has a 2nd exhaust graphic shooting out one side perpendicular to the expected exhaust graphic. Most of them show this in the VAB and they all show this on the launchpad.

Lastly, while trying to get just a simple probe to work with the Plasma or Attila thruster, they wouldn't accept any of their fuels except the normal liquid fuel all the stock engines use. The toggle fuel button didn't solve this. I tried with every fuel type listed for these engines.

KSP version 0.24.2.559 (latest version Steam provides)

I just picked up this mod so it's the latest version as well. I even did the upgrade it said was needed once I launched the game.

P.S. All those fancy new engines is the main reason I got this mod, so with them all busted I'm not enjoying the mod at all.

The version in the OP does not support the current version of KSP. You'll need an updated version to play ksp. There is a slightly different working version available for .24.2 in my sig if you do not have the resources to fix it yourself.

Be sure to follow the instructions here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43839-0-23-5-KSP-Interstellar-%28Toolbar-Integration-New-Models-New-Tech%29-Version-0-11?p=1329198&viewfull=1#post1329198

[WaveFunctionP]

I will probably start a new thread and bump the version in the next release. I think I've nailed down a reactor scaling model, and now I'm working on tweakscale implementation. Assuming I don't run into major issues, I may release after tweakscale is implemented and I have resource costs nailed down.

[Darkblade48]

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.

You can't have two identically named files anyway. However, if the game is trying to load two different .cfg files, then it will cause a problem.

For example, I had the Crowd Sourced Science Definitions called "sciencedefs.cfg" so that the game would load those.

However, I kept my original science definitions named as "originalsciencedefs.cfg" -- with the .cfg extension, the game would load both files, leading to a conflict. Changing the extension fixed it.

Nevermind, i was wrong. It does work lol

Glad it works now.

[Meltafire]

I found a deamons of cost. It's electric generators. Did you ever imagine how much would cost a gas turbine capable to be in space? 300 MW turbine is 50-60 mln USD. So 3.75 genereator is 1 500 000 kerbin funds.

Somebody wrote somewhere in this thread about He3. That it's usless because there is antimatter at same time. Cant actualy find post. As I calculate the test prices for myself I started to see solution of problem.

Nattutaly He3 is more expensive because:

-Antimatter is extremly cutting edge tech even for KSPI. So Kerbin must use previous tech which is particulary stands on He3. More of it antimatter should be banned on Kerbin just it's too dangerous. Look at Fukushima it's only fission.

-Antimatter is anywhere. Even near Kerbin. Even in big enough ammounts for total cheating.

-He3 is mostly at Jool only.

So collecting a biggest part of your budget by antimatter is wrong.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Meltafire

[Woodstar]

I found a deamons of cost. It's electric generators. Did you ever imagine how much would cost a gas turbine capable to be in space? 300 MW turbine is 50-60 mln USD. So 3.75 genereator is 1 500 000 kerbin funds.

Somebody wrote somewhere in this thread about He3. That it's usless because there is antimatter at same time. Cant actualy find post. As I calculate the test prices for myself I started to see solution of problem.

Nattutaly He3 is more expensive because:

-Antimatter is extremly cutting edge tech even for KSPI. So Kerbin must use previous tech which is particulary stands on He3. More of it antimatter should be banned on Kerbin just it's too dangerous. Look at Fukushima it's only fission.

-Antimatter is anywhere. Even near Kerbin. Even in big enough ammounts for total cheating.

-He3 is mostly at Jool only.

So collecting a biggest part of your budget by antimatter is wrong.

That's a fine "opinion" but my kerbals are well trained at handling antimatter and are good a doing so, In "MY opinion" antimatter is the way to go.

[Perdu]

The version in the OP does not support the current version of KSP. You'll need an updated version to play ksp. There is a slightly different working version available for .24.2 in my sig if you do not have the resources to fix it yourself.

Be sure to follow the instructions here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43839-0-23-5-KSP-Interstellar-%28Toolbar-Integration-New-Models-New-Tech%29-Version-0-11?p=1329198&viewfull=1#post1329198

At the risk of simply frustrating you more, has anyone contacted you with an issue regarding the mod not actually loading up? In the load screen before the main menu, that is?

I've been going back through and updating mods and I've been trying to figure out whats up with a couple of them failing to load completely, and KSPi is one of them. With no log or anything, all I can sort out is removing the file it hangs on to see if it keeps going.

[Temeriki]

I just wanna say WavefunctionP keep up the awesome work, thanks for keeping this mod going.

[Threadsinger]

I will probably start a new thread and bump the version in the next release. I think I've nailed down a reactor scaling model, and now I'm working on tweakscale implementation. Assuming I don't run into major issues, I may release after tweakscale is implemented and I have resource costs nailed down.

That sounds like a good idea. I still hope for Fractal_UK's return, but KSP-I is one of my "core" mods and I doubt I'd enjoy KSP as much if it went stagnant. Ever thought about contacting Roverdude for some modeling help? The models features in his mods appear to be of a simple-but-defined aesthetic.

/keep up the awesome work!!

//moar fusion

[RoverDude]

I will probably start a new thread and bump the version in the next release. I think I've nailed down a reactor scaling model, and now I'm working on tweakscale implementation. Assuming I don't run into major issues, I may release after tweakscale is implemented and I have resource costs nailed down.

Ping me when this happens - I have some issues to sort out with ORS (some philosophical, some technical) and my strong preference is for us not to have two forks

[Monthar]

The version in the OP does not support the current version of KSP. You'll need an updated version to play ksp. There is a slightly different working version available for .24.2 in my sig if you do not have the resources to fix it yourself.

Be sure to follow the instructions here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43839-0-23-5-KSP-Interstellar-%28Toolbar-Integration-New-Models-New-Tech%29-Version-0-11?p=1329198&viewfull=1#post1329198

Thanks for pointing me to the correct post to fix this.

[TheGatesofLogic]

I found a deamons of cost. It's electric generators. Did you ever imagine how much would cost a gas turbine capable to be in space? 300 MW turbine is 50-60 mln USD. So 3.75 genereator is 1 500 000 kerbin funds.

Somebody wrote somewhere in this thread about He3. That it's usless because there is antimatter at same time. Cant actualy find post. As I calculate the test prices for myself I started to see solution of problem.

Nattutaly He3 is more expensive because:

-Antimatter is extremly cutting edge tech even for KSPI. So Kerbin must use previous tech which is particulary stands on He3. More of it antimatter should be banned on Kerbin just it's too dangerous. Look at Fukushima it's only fission.

-Antimatter is anywhere. Even near Kerbin. Even in big enough ammounts for total cheating.

-He3 is mostly at Jool only.

So collecting a biggest part of your budget by antimatter is wrong.

Seriously man, don't bring up Fukushima-Daiichi here, some people, including myself, have very strong opinions regarding the situation there.