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

[Northstar1989]

@FractalUK

Three more things that I want to make sure you're aware need fixing:

(1) The scaling on the Al-Hybrid Engine and Argon Tank are currently messed up. It's a simple matter to fix- in fact there was already a community patch released for it in your brief absence...

(2) The Magnetic Nozzle currently has gaps between the model ends, and the nodes. Once again, a community patch was made for this. However, please note, THE COMMUNITY PATCH STILL FAILED TO FIX THE NODE SIZES- the 3.75 meter variant still only uses a size 2 (instead of a size 3) node- which negatively affects joint strength and structural integrity...

(3) A lot of the parts in KSP-Interstellar fail to scale up the node sizes to use the Size 3 nodes introduced to KSP with the ARM mission. Such parts include (this is *NOT* an exhaustive list) the 3.75 meter thermal and magnetic rocket nozzles, *all* of the 3.75 meter reactors, the 3.75 meter electrical generators, the 3.75 meter refinery, the 3.75 meter Thermal Power Receiver, and the 3.75 meter LiquidFuel tank. In fact, going through the WarpPlugin folder, I can't find a single part that uses Size 3 nodes where appropriate...

Finally, I wanted to remind you one more time of the large performance gap between KSP-Interstellar's Meth/LOX engine and the real-life "Raptor" Engine off which it is clearly based (besides being made by Elon Musk's Space Exploration Corp vs. Elon Kerman's Space Exploration Corp., it is also 2.5 meters with the same fuels, combustion ratio, and role as a heavy-lift engine- and so should be the model for the Interstellar engine's performance). The Interstellar engine's performance is VERY weak by comparison to the Raptor it is based off...

Interstellar's "Deinonychus 1-D"

Thrust 1425 kN (thrust does not vary with atmospheric pressure in stock engine module)

Mass 3500 kg (for the record- that's a TWR of 41.5)

ASL ISP 309 s

VAC ISP 368 s

Space-X's "Raptor"

ASL Thrust 6900 kN

VAC Thrust 8200 kN

Mass Unknown- but TWR predicted likely to exceed 120 (which would equate to a mass of less than 5867 kg- 5860 kg is a good KSP approximation)

ASL ISP 321 s

VAC ISP 380 s

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 28, 2014 by Northstar1989

[cicileo]

My tech tree in career mode isnt showing advanced fusion and antimatter tiers. the last tier related to interstellar mod is the beamed power things and the fission reactors, what should i do?

[Ryusho]

I think that was my issue, So I will try again here in a bit.

[RoverDude]

Are the mod authors aware of this issue? That kind of thing REALLY should be on the release threads for both MKS/OKS and Kabonite...

I think the guy who's the author of both of those mods already knows I'll be correcting it in this weekend's release anyway. Not in the threads since I kinda just found out like... today, and I'm still in the office.

[undercoveryankee]

Finally, I wanted to remind you one more time of the large performance gap between KSP-Interstellar's Meth/LOX engine and the real-life "Raptor" Engine off which it is clearly based (besides being made by Elon Musk's Space Exploration Corp vs. Elon Kerman's Space Exploration Corp., it is also 2.5 meters with the same fuels, combustion ratio, and role as a heavy-lift engine- and so should be the model for the Interstellar engine's performance). The Interstellar engine's performance is VERY weak by comparison to the Raptor it is based off...

Interstellar's "Deinonychus 1-D"

Thrust 1425 kN (thrust does not vary with atmospheric pressure in stock engine module)

Mass 3500 kg (for the record- that's a TWR of 41.5)

ASL ISP 309 s

VAC ISP 368 s

Space-X's "Raptor"

ASL Thrust 6900 kN

VAC Thrust 8200 kN

Mass Unknown- but TWR predicted likely to exceed 120 (which would equate to a mass of less than 5867 kg- 5860 kg is a good KSP approximation)

ASL ISP 321 s

VAC ISP 380 s

My two cents on the methalox engine:

The Deinonychus model looks like it's scaled down from the Raptor. It's on a 2.5m plate/tank end, but the engine itself looks like it would fit on a 1.25m base. If I saw it and didn't know what it was, I'd expect Skipper-level thrust. There's not really that much need for a 2.5m engine with more than about 1500 kN outside RSS, so I'm fine with leaving the thrust where it is.

Isp is weaker than the real-world counterpart, but balanced fairly well against the engines in KSP 0.23 and below. With the NASA engines and the 0.24 bump of the 2.5m engines, I'd second bringing Isp up to the Raptor's figures.

The assigned mass of 3.5 tons is slightly heavier than a Skipper. That's a satisfactory TWR when you're in the stock-size system comparing with stock engines. Upgrading to realistic TWR would go well with RSS, but I don't think an engine that good would be fun outside RSS.

[ruifung]

-snip-

(2) The Magnetic Nozzle currently has gaps between the model ends, and the nodes. Once again, a community patch was made for this. However, please note, THE COMMUNITY PATCH STILL FAILED TO FIX THE NODE SIZES- the 3.75 meter variant still only uses a size 2 (instead of a size 3) node- which negatively affects joint strength and structural integrity...

-snip-

Whoops, didn't know about the node sizes. That being said, swapping out one number at the end couldn't be that hard? =P

Also, someone posted a community patch that fixed the node sizes a while back...

@PART[KSPIMagneticNozzle3]:Final
{
    @node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.205, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.75, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
}

[FrancoisH]

Evidently someone has had more success than me then! On the plus side, now I can get to work on creating a fixed release rather than working on the fix itself. I have a pretty busy week going on this week and worse next week so will try to squeeze some hours in on it when I can and hopefully get a fully operational release out again to tide you all over until I can get back to work on proper new features.

I was going to ask if any fixed release were being released soon. Hopefully, I thought I can look at your latest forum post and I found your message So I'll just wait until your release, which should only be in a few weeks. Thank you for your job. I enjoyed (only a little) your plug-in and I'm waiting since I returned to KSP for a new release. Hopefully it'll come soon.

Kind regards.

[xDGDZEx]

Made an account just to say how much I'm enjoying this mod. Very complicated at first, but tons of fun.

Also, I'm seeing some strange behavior with tritium and cryostat prices. According to the .cfg files they should cost ~5M, however the large D/T Cryostat costs upwards of 40M when attached, while the small one costs virtually nothing. Additionally none of the D/T cryostats have Tritium, which I didn't think was supposed to be the case. It seems like some people may have encountered this before, is there a fix out there now, or should I wait until the next update?

[LukeTheYeti]

evidently someone has had more success than me then! On the plus side, now i can get to work on creating a fixed release rather than working on the fix itself. I have a pretty busy week going on this week and worse next week so will try to squeeze some hours in on it when i can and hopefully get a fully operational release out again to tide you all over until i can get back to work on proper new features.

omg so stoked to have tech tree integration back!!!!

[Cybersneeze]

Here's a MM patch to fix the model scale of the argon tank and aluminum hybrid rocket.

@PART[AluminiumHybrid1] {
    @MODEL,0 {
        @scale = 1, 1, 1
    }


}

@PART[BigXenonTank] {
    @MODEL,0 {
        @scale = 0.5, 0.5, 0.5
    }
}

How do you use this; I assume you implement it onto a text document, but where should it be implanted?

Also, would it be possible for someone to update me upon any fixes or hot patchs that have come out over the past week; I've been forced to use the hot patch for implementing interstellar parts into the vanilla tree on my main build while I've been away, and would really appreciate if I was able to start a proper save again; rather than being able to get anti-matter reactors after 4 or 5 missions (depending on if you count a kerbal wandering around the space-center a mission )

Edited October 29, 2014 by Cybersneeze

[Atrius129]

How do you use this; I assume you implement it onto a text document, but where should it be implanted?

Yes. Copy/paste into a text doc, save as a .cfg (ex AlumArgonFix.cfg) and leave it anywhere underneath the gamedata folder. I usually put it into the WarpPlugin folder so that when there is an update, hopefully with a fix, it will be deleted to prevent redundancy issues.

Also, would it be possible for someone to update me upon any fixes or hot patchs that have come out over the past week; I've been forced to use the hot patch for implementing interstellar parts into the vanilla tree on my main build while I've been away, and would really appreciate if I was able to start a proper save again; rather than being able to get anti-matter reactors after 4 or 5 missions (depending on if you count a kerbal wandering around the space-center a mission )

Simply copy tree.cfg from the WarpPlugin folder into your save file. Then install TechManager in place of TreeLoader. You should be set. There is also a fix for magnetic nozzles on page 1209.

[xfrankie]

Remember a few hundred pages back, there was a discussion about black hole power generation [refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_starship]? the following adds reactor modes and a reactor that mimics that somewhat, in turning various substances into energy. Note that throttle is 1 (Cannot throttle down from max) as the rate is dependent on the mass, which has to be kept in a relatively narrow range for stability.

The mass and power are Moved down tremendously from the RL numbers described there (606000 Metric Tonnes for the singularity, (606000 units of in-game mass) and produces 126 Petawatts (~311,111 times the power output of the 3.75 AM reactor)). Although MW/Mass is higher - the AM 3.75 has a ratio of 7500 MW/1000kg, while the BH reactor has somewhere around 208,000 MW/1000 kg.

-snip-

Great idea, but doesn't work. Game always gets stuck on loading screen, always on the same item:

Doesn't matter if I have both or just one of the "additions" present, it freezes all the same.

KSP.log

output-log.txt

[Black Science Man]

I'm having issues with the storage tanks for the reactors. (Deuterium-tritium cryostat at least; I haven't tested the others like thorium) Whenever I place them on my vessel, I'm getting some sort of kracken attack where my navball turns black, the velocity turns to NaN, and everything on the screen but the UI goes black. (When I launch the vessel) This has never happened in any other situation, so I'm pretty sure these containers are causing it. Anyway, I'm using 0.24.2 with version .12 of KSPI, so I suppose I may not be directing my question at the devs, (with an outdated version and all) but rather asking if there was ever a problem with this before and if there may be a fix. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Extra info: As a temporary fix/experiment, I messed around with the config files for the fusion reactors and added the appropriate "module" (decay to helium 3) and "resource" lines from the DT radial vessel onto the end of the different fusion reactors. This caused a black screen with the reactors, until I removed the "module" sections, which were the radioactive decay info, iirc. I can post the cfg files if need be, but I'm away from my computer for a bit.

[Northstar1989]

The Deinonychus model looks like it's scaled down from the Raptor. It's on a 2.5m plate/tank end, but the engine itself looks like it would fit on a 1.25m base. If I saw it and didn't know what it was, I'd expect Skipper-level thrust.

Looks can be deceiving. The real-life Raptor isn't supposed to look particularly intimidating either. Part of that is that the exhaust gasses aren't as dense as with Kero/LOX or hypergolics, so the nozzle is a bit thinner to prevent the atmosphere from over-compressing the exhaust trail. The less dense the exhaust gasses, and the thicker the atmosphere, the smaller the engine nozzle. The Raptor would also work on a much more advanced fuel cycle (Full Flow Staged Combustion), which reduces the total size of the engine by eliminating the need for certain components, and allowing others to be smaller/thinner. Part of the reason its TWR is supposed to be so high for a rocket engine is because it would produce a lot of thrust. The other is because it would have an extremely light engine structure for the thrust it produces...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_%28rocket_engine%29

There's not really that much need for a 2.5m engine with more than about 1500 kN outside RSS, so I'm fine with leaving the thrust where it is.

That's where you're wrong. There's ALWAYS use for heavier launch-stage engines. Try stacking taller fuel tanks on top of the engine if you have a higher TWR than you need- and then just increase the payload mass to compensate. Have too much payload capacity? Then just add some fuel destined for your orbital fuel depot, or some small probes, as secondary cargo. Also, start to get in the habit of stacking multiple payloads onto one rocket... All this will REALLY pay off if you also play with FAR- which rewards long, tall rockets over short, wide ones...

Remember the Meth/LOX engine is a whole tech level above even the most advanced SLS engines. So it SHOULD be a *LOT* better than the Skipper engine- especially when we already have real-life design figures on TWR and ISP to work off of that confirm that assumption...

Isp is weaker than the real-world counterpart, but balanced fairly well against the engines in KSP 0.23 and below. With the NASA engines and the 0.24 bump of the 2.5m engines, I'd second bringing Isp up to the Raptor's figures.

NOTHING in KSP-Interstellar is balanced against the stock parts. Just take a look at the DT-Vista engine if you don't believe me. Rather, KSP-Interstellar is balanced against reality- which IMHO is much better when it allows us to get much higher-performing parts than in stock. And it costs a lot of Science Points to unlock Experimental Rocketry (1000, to be precise). By the time I've unlocked the Meth/LOX engine, I probably also have access to spaceplanes, Nuclear Thermal Rockets, and Microwave Beamed Power. So it needs SOMETHING to justify its large Science cost to unlock. Balancing it against real-world performance predictions is just in keeping with the general spirit of KSP-Interstellar...

The assigned mass of 3.5 tons is slightly heavier than a Skipper. That's a satisfactory TWR when you're in the stock-size system comparing with stock engines. Upgrading to realistic TWR would go well with RSS, but I don't think an engine that good would be fun outside RSS.

It's not the correct TWR or thrust for its designed role- which is as a super-heavy-lift engine. The Meth/LOX engine should replace the SLS heavy-lift engines, not the Skipper (which have low thrust for their size/mass due the their reliance on LH2/LOX in real life...) The Raptor is supposed to be a 2.5 meter engine with better thrust than many 3.75/4 meter engines in real life... (now imagine what THREE clusters of NINE of these engines can do, and you have the tri-core Mars Colonial Transporter- which should be able to take 100 tons of payload to the surface of *Mars*, not just Low Earth Orbit, in a single launch- with a reusable first stage...)

I've been bugging FractalUK to implement a lander-version of the Meth/LOX engine for a while (something Space-X *hints* they might be working on, but hasn't released any hard announcements of like they have for the Raptor). THAT would have more the kind of TWR you're looking for- probably a thrust and TWR level somewhere between the Poodle and Skipper, but a cost and mass commensurate with that. Its ISP would also be *even better* than 380s in vacuum, but significantly worse at sea-level (something like 280/390s would be appropriate- compared to 321/380s for the Raptor...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 30, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Lightwarrior]

I'm having issues with the storage tanks for the reactors. (Deuterium-tritium cryostat at least; I haven't tested the others like thorium) Whenever I place them on my vessel, I'm getting some sort of kracken attack where my navball turns black, the velocity turns to NaN, and everything on the screen but the UI goes black. (When I launch the vessel) This has never happened in any other situation, so I'm pretty sure these containers are causing it. Anyway, I'm using 0.24.2 with version .12 of KSPI, so I suppose I may not be directing my question at the devs, (with an outdated version and all) but rather asking if there was ever a problem with this before and if there may be a fix. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Extra info: As a temporary fix/experiment, I messed around with the config files for the fusion reactors and added the appropriate "module" (decay to helium 3) and "resource" lines from the DT radial vessel onto the end of the different fusion reactors. This caused a black screen with the reactors, until I removed the "module" sections, which were the radioactive decay info, iirc. I can post the cfg files if need be, but I'm away from my computer for a bit.

If i remember correctly this happens when tritium=>he3 decay happens with no he3 storage available.

[nathanktm]

I'm sorry, I'm new and don't really know how to browse the forums yet...but does anyone know why my tech tree in career mode only gets this far?

Edited October 30, 2014 by nathanktm

[Oscilllator]

Can anybody tell me how to open the dish of a microwave power receiver? I have tried right clicking activate, but that doesn't cause it to open for some reason even when the option is set as an action group. I feel like I'm missing something super obvious here so if somebody could tell me what's going on I would very much appreciate it.

[ABZB]

Can anybody tell me how to open the dish of a microwave power receiver? I have tried right clicking activate, but that doesn't cause it to open for some reason even when the option is set as an action group. I feel like I'm missing something super obvious here so if somebody could tell me what's going on I would very much appreciate it.

which specific part are you using? the in-line thermal receiver and the second-biggest dish don't have expanding-dish parts

oh - also, if there is nothing to recieve (i.e no beamed power is available at the moment in direction the dish is pointing) then it will automatically un-deploy, and automatically re-deploy when beamed power becomes available (which seems kind of unrealistic...) (I noticed this with the largest dish, not sure if the small orange and black one does the same (ha - pumpkin colors).

[undercoveryankee]

I'm sorry, I'm new and don't really know how to browse the forums yet...but does anyone know why my tech tree in career mode only gets this far?

The TreeLoader mod that used to handle adding the later nodes nodes is broken. The best replacement available is TechManager from http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/98293-0-25-TechManager-Version-1-1.

[teepee2345]

Can anybody tell me how to open the dish of a microwave power receiver? I have tried right clicking activate, but that doesn't cause it to open for some reason even when the option is set as an action group. I feel like I'm missing something super obvious here so if somebody could tell me what's going on I would very much appreciate it.

the dish only deploys when it is pointed at a ship with a microwave transmitter

[Ariane5]

how do you save configs?

[nathanktm]

thanks a ton, big help

[Bolter]

how do you save configs?

Use notepad, or any other text editor. Drop the code into it, then "save as" filename.cfg

Make sure that you select "all file types" instead of "text" as that would give you filename.cfg.txt

I hope that helps,

Bolter

[Saphykitten]

Anyone know when the tech tree is going to be fixed?

[FrancoisH]

Anyone know when the tech tree is going to be fixed?

If you read just a few pages before, you'll find out the author of this mod is currently busy for the next two weeks. He says he'll find a way to put all the fixes together early if he can but he promised nothing.

I think someone spoke about a new techtree add-on which is able to read the tree.cfg file and act as the old add-on does. If I'm not mistaken, it's TechManager.

Edited October 30, 2014 by FrancoisH