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

[RadHazard]

Oh, and this isn't super important, but I think there might be some errors in the power/thrust tables in the OP. For example, according to it 3.75m reactors connected to thermal rockets provide less thrust when upgraded.

I'm not sure if the numbers are right or not on the tables, but I can see how this is possible. The thrust each engine provides is based on the power the reactor provides and the reactor temperature, since Fractal wants the engines to obey conservation of energy. The thrust may be lower, but with the much higher Isp, they do still provide higher total delta V.

[Fractal_UK]

I'm not sure if the numbers are right or not on the tables, but I can see how this is possible. The thrust each engine provides is based on the power the reactor provides and the reactor temperature, since Fractal wants the engines to obey conservation of energy. The thrust may be lower, but with the much higher Isp, they do still provide higher total delta V.

The 1.25m antimatter reactor is out of date on that list, everything else is correct. I'll try and update that part soon. Also, yes, the much higher Isp available from those engines explains the drop in thrust - they can be used with much lesser amounts of fuel so you can drop those mass ratios right down.

[kaldak]

The 1.25m antimatter reactor is out of date on that list, everything else is correct. I'll try and update that part soon. Also, yes, the much higher Isp available from those engines explains the drop in thrust - they can be used with much lesser amounts of fuel so you can drop those mass ratios right down.

Thanks Fractal, guess I wasn't looking at the larger picture. While I'm at it, there also seems to be something weird with the numbers for the 2.5 Nuclear Argon Plasma Thruster. In the chart, the reactor upgrade appears to decrease thrust, and in this case ISP should be staying the same (if I understand correctly).

Sounds like your running into the max ram Hard limit....

B9, KW, and Hooligan all have pretty heavy ram usage.

For B9 and KW, using the reduced texture packs can free up a lot of ram. That said, running out of ram always seems to result in a hard crash, while Srilania appears to be encountering the Hell Kraken.

Edited November 12, 2013 by kaldak

[Srilania]

I've done more testing. Everything is fine with KW and B9, both of which are using the low rez texture packs. The Hooligan's Airship mod is also cleared, as I tested with just envelopes without any propellers. However, it's unleashing the kraken when adding the firespitter's propellers. Since the propellers I was using uses electricity to produce thrust, it was a logical idea to make an airship with electric props that could just keep trucking for days.

[Fractal_UK]

I've done more testing. Everything is fine with KW and B9, both of which are using the low rez texture packs. The Hooligan's Airship mod is also cleared, as I tested with just envelopes without any propellers. However, it's unleashing the kraken when adding the firespitter's propellers. Since the propellers I was using uses electricity to produce thrust, it was a logical idea to make an airship with electric props that could just keep trucking for days.

Apologies, I didn't spot Firespitter in your list. It is a known compatibility issue with the way that Firespitter propeller intakes work, it will be fixed for the next update.

[Srilania]

ok. that took care of that issue, though sad, since a nuke powered prop driven science airship is easier than trying to ape some wheels on and drive it, or rocket it to a landing point without pancaking.

[Minwaabi]

I have a question about how the tech tree is implemented for KSP Interstellar. (1) Does the antimatter power node use TechRequired = antimatterPower? I'm trying to integrate some other end-game high lvl tech from other mods late in the tech tree and it seemed like a great place to put it. (2) How exactly is your tech tree implemented anyway? Did you move some nodes around and rename them or are they entirely new nodes. For example can I use robotics, nanolathing, and experimentalMotors nodes or do they no longer exist? I ask because a lot of the parts seem to use different nodes in their cfg files. For example, antimatter reactors are listed as TechRequired = experimentalRocketry, but it's listed as using Antimatter Power in your description in the first post.

[Fractal_UK]

I have a question about how the tech tree is implemented for KSP Interstellar. (1) Does the antimatter power node use TechRequired = antimatterPower? I'm trying to integrate some other end-game high lvl tech from other mods late in the tech tree and it seemed like a great place to put it. (2) How exactly is your tech tree implemented anyway? Did you move some nodes around and rename them or are they entirely new nodes. For example can I use robotics, nanolathing, and experimentalMotors nodes or do they no longer exist? I ask because a lot of the parts seem to use different nodes in their cfg files. For example, antimatter reactors are listed as TechRequired = experimentalRocketry, but it's listed as using Antimatter Power in your description in the first post.

Basically, the way TreeLoader (which is what I use to modify the tech tree) works is you can generate a file that contains all the nodes on the tech tree and those nodes contain a list of parts that are unlocked at that tech tree - this overrides what is set in the part.cfg file. So, if you play with the Interstellar tech tree, the fact that the Antimatter Reactors have TechRequired = experimentalRocketry has no effect upon their position in the tech tree - the tech tree knows that they are supposed to actually be in interstellarTechAntimatterPower.

The reason I have done it this way, rather than specifying TechRequired = interstellarTechAntimatterPower is that if people don't play with the KSPI tech tree, the parts will revert to using their default node, in this case experimentalRocketry. If I did it the other way, the parts would just be unavailable.

If you want to add parts to my tech tree, you can use any of the following:

TechRequired = interstellarTechFusionPower
TechRequired = interstellarTechAccelerator
TechRequired = interstellarTechAntimatterPower
TechRequired = interstellarTechUHEPhysics

You should be able to add things to the other advanced stock nodes too, they just won't appear until they have at least one part in them.

[Minwaabi]

Wow. Thanks for the quick response. And for making the mod so compatible with everything else.

[Dron]

Hi all. Is the last version of module "ElectricEngineController.cs" in the "interstellar" incompatible with B9 aerospace? KSP stops loading assets when try to parse the "ElectricEngineController" module in MPD part.cfg.

Version 0.7.2 is Ok.

Does anybody has the information about this problem?

[Fractal_UK]

Does anybody has the information about this problem?

This is a common question. It happens when Interstellar has been installed in the wrong location, chances are you have an extra GameData folder or have a KSP Interstellar folder to put everything in together but this is not correct.

The zip file is supposed to be unzipped into the base KSP directory and the directory structure will automatically be created from there. When this is done, you should see the WarpPlugin folder inside the GameData folder.

[Makeone]

Right, thermal rockets: are they correct, as i get from 3.75 reactor 500+ KN using liquid fuel AND 730 KN using LFO. According your spreadsheet in 1st message, LFO should double the thrust, which its not doing. Kethane has 1.33 multiplayer, but i haven't used it yet as fuel.

[Fractal_UK]

Right, thermal rockets: are they correct, as i get from 3.75 reactor 500+ KN using liquid fuel AND 730 KN using LFO. According your spreadsheet in 1st message, LFO should double the thrust, which its not doing. Kethane has 1.33 multiplayer, but i haven't used it yet as fuel.

Sounds like you might be testing them in different places. The table given shows vacuum thrust and Isp, if you test in thick atmosphere both the thrust and the Isp will be much lower.

[Tommygun]

The last few days I have been playing around with making an SSTO with the nuclear thermal turbojet without much luck.

I keep losing thrust at about 12,000 to 16,000 meters depending on how many air intakes I use and switching to liquid fuel drops the thrust to 8.8kn of power.

Liquid/oxidizer combination doesn't seem to help much ether.

I'm using eleven intakes and would like to take most off as it takes away from some of the "realism".

So I need some secondary engine to push it the rest of the way up.

The engine doesn't have a lot of power on takeoff, so I have to be careful how much I put on the aircraft.

I was thinking about four small radial rocket motors (Rockomax 24-77), but the isp on those isn't that great.

The four engines give me 80kn of thrust and Kerbal Engineer list the Delta V at 1667.

Has anyone had a workable design layout they could suggest?

Here is one of the designs I'm working with.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Tommygun

[Umlüx]

i am struggling with this too. haven't yet found a working design for a thermal turbojet SSTO. i have upgraded everything (only the alcubierre drive is left), tried to make the plane very lightweight, tried just adding MOAR... but it seems not enough. maybe AM reactors are the only way to go?

maybe someone could share a working design?

[Tommygun]

I'd like to keep the tech level reasonably close to near future, for me antimatter is too much.

I did make a four engine design with two nuclear thermal turbojets and two aerospike engines.

It was so heavy I needed to use the aerospike engines to get it airborne and then switch back to the nuclear engines to the ride up to about 9,000 meters before I had ineffectual thrust.

Then there just wasn't enough fuel to make orbit.

Edit: maybe a nuclear hybrid turbine scramjet is need in the mod?

You take off as a high thrust turbine jet using fuel and switch to nuclear ramjet mode at the right speed and finally to scramjet that takes you to the upper limit of the atmosphere.

After that you are basically a NERVA engine.

It would take a lot of switching modes, but it would be an interesting engine to play with.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Tommygun

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

It would be nice to know if you're using FAR or not. The difference between FAR and non-FAR in KSP's aerodynamics system is extremely important.

But as far as design goes... I think your problem is with inlet location and angle.

I noticed in KSP that inlets behave in relation to angle of attack. Over-wing inlets suffer a major problem in this regard as an increasing AoA causes the wing to mask the inlet. I don't know if the masking is computed in stock KSP, but I've seen the AoA itself effect it. Try using the 5 degree increment on some underside inlets to angle them down 5 or ten degrees. That way, while your nose may be high, the inlets have the angle they need to continue intake. Also, after about fifteen kilometers, drop the nose and fly level until you gain velocity and then start a shallow climb. Intake air is a function of static pressure and velocity so you may have issues with an overly aggressive climb profile as well. See

video for a climbing profile. (Scramjet vehicle, but still.)

[Tommygun]

I'm not using FAR, I did wonder about angle of attack and forward speed affecting how much air I was getting, but didn't think stock KSP physics would factor this.

The eleven intakes I have now seem ridiculous, so getting rid of the four on top is not a problem.

I'll give the five and ten degree idea a try. I hope I can get to 15 kilometers without spamming intakes, thanks.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

If you're non-FAR, then you're probably too heavy for your wings. So the result isn't enough intakes so much as stacking everything onto your vehicle is forcing it to cut a high AoA at mid-to-high altitude, depriving the intake of air and reducing your thrust, which further causes your AoA to pitch back to maintain lift, taking your thrust more and more out of your forward vector, and more and more into keeping you airborne. I can see this as a cascading loop that results in your engines choking at a certain altitude because you can't keep them aligned.

Keep an eye on your velocity. After about 13 km or so, you should start to pick up speed like speed is going out of style. If you aren't at Mach 4 (~1300 m/s) by 15 to 18 km with stock kerbal physics, something's wrong.

[Tommygun]

OK, I'll strip what I can off the plane and try to be less aggressive after 10,00 meters too.

[Donziboy2]

I got this into orbit 1 or 2 times, the main problems are you cant go up to fast and the auto throttling of thrust is tricky, it does not seem to work all the time and you get flameouts.

Im a crap pilot in KSP and I found the plane to be hard to fly, but that's not saying much lol.

I just installed FAR and Deadly Reentry so I may give it another try.

The alcubierre drive upgrade may be needed, it also upgrades the AM reactors.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Donziboy2

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

You installed FAR, take everything you know about kerbal flight and toss it out the window.

FAR forces REAL aerodynamics (to an extent) into KSP. You'll find it a LOT harder to fly until you learn real aerodynamics. I'm still trying to figure out an issue with an aircraft of my own. (Mach 2.5 at 17 km and it suddenly decides that stability is for wimps and buffets like crazy until a strong enough kick to the roll axis knocks it out of its flight envelope and sends me into a flat spin. Usually I can recover once it gets down to 9 km but I have to be patient with it.)

[Donziboy2]

Thats why I went with FAR, trying to build planes with KSP flight systems just sucks. My next problem is the SAS is crap and keyboard controls are to touchy.....

I managed to get the above mentioned plane into orbit, alot easier then with normal KSP but reentry had the same problem, the plane decides it wants to fly backwards, and its nearly impossible to regain control once its lost the plane just refuses to fly straight......

[Saphykitten]

Can we get a module that is either unnammed, or 1.25m that can do the electrolysis? Or maybe a 1.25m version of the aluminum rocket?

And a way to get deuterium from Vall and Duna (since they have water ice, and since you can get liquid fuel from the oceans of Eve, Laythe, and Kerbin, you should be able to get Deuterium as well?)

Whats the status on a reskin for the rest of the nuclear reactors? I LOVE the Kiwi skin, I would love a new skin for the rest of them. They just look a little.. you know!

Also, You could always include smaller and different shape Liquid fuel tanks for the Vista Engine, but there are other mods out there to do that. Wouldnt mind non-radial tanks for Lithium, Tritium, and Deuterium!

Or maybe a smaller, less thrust, 2.5m version of the vista drive as well?

Let me know what you think of these ideas!!

[Tommygun]

I just retried it with five intakes adjusted to 5 degrees and I topped out at 10,000 meters. (I also modified the plane with more wing lift and reduced weight)

I had to maintain a 15 degree pitch just to keep my altitude and speed stayed below 300m/s at full throttle.

At that point I fired the four Rockomax 24-77 rocket motors and was able to slowly reach 18,000 meters before the fuel ran out and was doing over 600m/s.

The plane's weight went from 13.6 to 7.6 tons. I then leveled the plane's pitch to five degrees but it dropped very quickly to 10,000 meters again and the speed was a little over 300m/s with a lighter aircraft.

Without spamming a very large number of air intakes or going antimatter, I'm starting to doubt this engine can make it into space on it's own.

I don't know if it can lift the rocket motors and fuel it needs into the air to help it ether.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Tommygun