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

[Fractal_UK]

The option to manually shut down a nuke reactor would be nice. I usually go through a bit of docking/modular power system acrobatics on long duration manned missions using multiple nuke reactors such that some of my reactors overheat on the way up, shut down, and then get turned on a later time as they are needed. I use this system to rotate a number of 3.75m nuke reactors on a Moho computer core station.

Yeah, I'm looking at adding a deactivate option now that it takes some time to actually start and stop the things. It becomes a long term minnion option rather than just a better short term power control.

[Eadrom]

Yeah, I'm looking at adding a deactivate option now that it takes some time to actually start and stop the things. It becomes a long term minnion option rather than just a better short term power control.

That would be awesome and exactly what I'd want the option for. I occasionally plan some pretty long duration missions where AM power isn't sustainable and nuke power is perfect. The option to ship multiple reactor/generator pairs and only have to have one turned on at a time would be a Godsend for those missions.

Also, did you see my post about waste heat w/ solar panels? Is that bug being squashed by the new solar panel waste heat code you mentioned previously?

Edit:

Love the nuke refueling option too! All these pictures and notes you keep posting is making me anxiously await 8.0 release! Keep up the fantastic work!

[Fractal_UK]

Also, did you see my post about waste heat w/ solar panels? Is that bug being squashed by the new solar panel waste heat code you mentioned previously?

It's not exactly a bug, more of just a feature of the way that KSP handles resources. It'll be a pain to work around but I'm sure it's doable.

[Eadrom]

If it's a going to be a pain to remove, I wouldn't worry about it. Unless you specifically know about it and intentionally exploit it, the mod won't play any different (it'll play correct even lol). Consider my "bug" report at the very, very bottom of your list. xD

I'd rather you continue working on all the amazing and awesome stuff you've been showcasing that's coming in 8.0!

[Fractal_UK]

Alright, a word on thorium reactors then.

Thorium reactors are a type of breeder reactor that use thorium fuel. Th-232 is not in itself a fissile material but when bombarded with a neutron it will (after a decay from Protactinium-233) transmute into Uranium-233, which is fissile and this is the dominant power producing element in a thorium reactor. Thorium has many advantages over Uranium, notably:

• Thorium is more abudant and thus easier to obtain than Uranium
  
• Thorium is more energy dense than Uranium
  
• Thorium is a lighter element than Uranium, meaning far more neutron absorptions are needed to produce those nasty transuranic elements and thus far less likely to occur.
  
• Thorium absorbs thermal neutrons much more readily than U-238 making it more efficient for breeding fissile elements
  

So, hurray for Thorium right? Not quite.

Remember that Protactinium-233 I mentioned earlier? Well, that is a very effective neutron absorber and it has a not-insignificant half-life, meaning it will tend to build up in the fuel during reactor operation and degrade the delicate neutron balance of your reactor. As such, thorium reactors should never be far from reprocessing equipment because they are going to need regular maintenance to keep them operating, especially at 100% output.

So, what does this mean in game?

Basically, expect your thorium reactors to produce more power and consume less fuel but don't expect them to keep operating for long periods without oversight. If you don't perform regular reprocessing, even when you have plenty of fuel left, expect your power output to start falling away until the reactor just shuts down. This power drop will happen very smoothly so you will see it occuring over time and you can decide when you want to step in with some reprocessing to arrest the slide.

In practise, this means you're probably going to want to operate thorium vessels where they can either make regular dockings with a science lab or carry a science lab on board. In exchange for the extra hassle, you get better power output and consequently better thrust on thermal rockets as well as a longer time period between actual refuelings (that is: refueling, not reprocessing).

[Pigbear]

now add some decouplers to those hexcans and start dumping nuclear waste!

[AeroEngy]

Just wanted to say great mod! I have been playing KSP for awhile and made this account just to say thank you. This has made the game so much more fun.

I had unlocked all tech levels on the stock game and had lots of extra science when I installed this mod. So I was able to jump in unlock everything but the last tech node from this mod.

I built an anti-matter/science miner with 2x antimatter collectors, 2x large antimatter tanks, science lab, 2x upgraded computer cores, 3.75m nuke/generator, 2x atmosphere scoops and a vista engine. I sent it to Jool with the mission to collect & return antimatter to the Kerbin surface & do some sweet science. Unfortunately I didn't read about all the parts and made some critical errors. First scooping Jool for deuterium was a miserable failure. When I went deep enough to get any flow rate I couldn't get back out again. So after a re-load that plan was abandoned. I also didn't know that you could only reprocess the DUF so many times. By the end on my return trip it would only allow me to reprocess a tiny fraction of the DUF. I also didn't head the warning on the antimatter containers that they would explode when un-powered. I was planning to drop them at the spaceport and use them to refuel an antimatter space plane w/KAS on the ground (which would have exploded anyway since no power on the lander cans) ... but it exploded in space anyway when my nuke ran out when I was almost back to Kerbin ...

Pic of pre-exploded ship. Bob is not happy about his impending doom.

Anyway, I am going to try again but this time splitting my vehicle in two. A dedicated science station with 9 computer cores (4 upgraded to AI initially) and a dedicated antimatter miner with backup nuke + microwave receiver to prevent annihilating kerbals with antimatter.

[NotCoach]

Ah, apologies, it used to work so I assumed it still did. Apparently I overlooked the extra thrust for the oxidiser burning in my new nozzle re-write so you are getting a thrust boost due to the extra mass of the injected oxygen but nothing for the actual chemical reaction.

It will be fixed for the next update.

Is that changeable in any of the config files?

[Fractal_UK]

Is that changeable in any of the config files?

Unfortunately not, the config files are correct but the plugin code never checks for the isLFO = true flag.

[Fractal_UK]

More nuclear updates

I have made some changes to the nuclear fuel cycle in order to avoid too much clutter and to make the resource system a bit more logical and transparent. There will be four nuclear resources after the update, these are:

Thorium Tetraflouride (ThF4) - Reactor fuel on the Thorium fuel cycle.

Uranium Tetraflouride (UF4) - This is just a seemless replacement for UF6 and is the reactor fuel on the Uranium fuel cycle. The use of UF4 is perhaps slightly more logical for the reactor types, which is a point in its favour but the main advantage for me is that changing the resource name is it allows me to reset all old, in use reactors, to the same base starting point rather than having to worry about the contents of existing reactors - helping to maintain seemless operation in existing savegames.

Actinides - Unspecified nasty actinide wastes. Both types of nuclear reactor will accumulate actinides, these represent waste products that are still very rich in nuclear fuel but contain some waste contaminants that hinder the fission process. Actinides can be reprocessed into either Uranium or Thorium Tetraflouride, depending upon the reactor, with 80% conversion efficiency.

DepletedFuels - Unuseable nuclear waste. These can only be stored in the Uranium/Thorium resource cannisters, when you reprocess Actinides, the other 20% will become this useless waste. This stuff will build up and replace the fuel as you go through reprocessing cycles.

The reactors can use either Uranium or Thorium Fuel but can't use any mixture of the two, but that's okay because you can't pump fuel into or out of the reactors anyway, it's all handled through the options on the reactor.

Uranium is still the default fuel but you can swap it out easily enough on launch, as shown.

Power output is up to 166MW (from 120MW) with Thorium fuel.

JEB! What have I told you about leaving nuclear fuel on the runway?!

[Jasmir]

Hi Fractal,

these Uranium/Thorium suppy Hexcan, can then attaced everywhere on the ship? Mostly they will attach througth a docking port that can be far away from the reactor. Thats why i'am asking.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Science Lab... On modern spacecraft we call this area Main Engineering.

[Fractal_UK]

Hi Fractal,

these Uranium/Thorium suppy Hexcan, can then attaced everywhere on the ship? Mostly they will attach througth a docking port that can be far away from the reactor. Thats why i'am asking.

Yes, you can put them anywhere. In fact, I suggest having a way to remove them because eventually they become full of nuclear waste and you will need to replace them. You can dispose of them responsibly if you wish, or just drop them into Kerbin's atmosphere like a madman, it's all up to you

[Srilania]

Basically, expect your thorium reactors to produce more power and consume less fuel but don't expect them to keep operating for long periods without oversight. If you don't perform regular reprocessing, even when you have plenty of fuel left, expect your power output to start falling away until the reactor just shuts down. This power drop will happen very smoothly so you will see it occuring over time and you can decide when you want to step in with some reprocessing to arrest the slide.

In practise, this means you're probably going to want to operate thorium vessels where they can either make regular dockings with a science lab or carry a science lab on board. In exchange for the extra hassle, you get better power output and consequently better thrust on thermal rockets as well as a longer time period between actual refuelings (that is: refueling, not reprocessing).

Not quite. If instead of Thorium tetraflouride and Uranium tetraflouride, use thorium and uranium hexaflouride, run it as a molten salt instead of a solid, and have a small reprocessing/storage tank, and extract from the molten salt as soon as the Thorium 233 beta decays into Americium 233, which is a very simple chemical reprocessing, it will beta decay fairly quickly into protactinium, and held in a storage tank, it can then sit till it beta decays into Uranium 233, where another simple trickle reprocessing can remake it into uranium hexaflouride, and pumped back into the reactor to use as fuel.

Also, one of the byproducts from the thorium cycle is the plutonium that is not very useable for weapons, but quite useable for RTG's

[Fractal_UK]

Not quite. If instead of Thorium tetraflouride and Uranium tetraflouride, use thorium and uranium hexaflouride, run it as a molten salt instead of a solid, and have a small reprocessing/storage tank, and extract from the molten salt as soon as the Thorium 233 beta decays into Americium 233, which is a very simple chemical reprocessing, it will beta decay fairly quickly into protactinium, and held in a storage tank, it can then sit till it beta decays into Uranium 233, where another simple trickle reprocessing can remake it into uranium hexaflouride, and pumped back into the reactor to use as fuel.

Also, one of the byproducts from the thorium cycle is the plutonium that is not very useable for weapons, but quite useable for RTG's

The basic reactors are indeed molten salt reactors, though the fuels for these reactors are the Tetraflourides, hence the change from the current UF6. I've been testing mainly in sandbox mode, so this change hasn't really come up in the pictures.

But yes, one of the advantages of a molten salt reactor is you can do some reprocessing while its running, that means with appropriate facilities you can then remove those generic actinides from the fuel during operation and separate out some nasty products and extract the useful U-233 to go back in.

I've been thinking about a way to introduce a use of Plutonium(-238) for RTGs but so far I can't find a satisfactory solution that balances gameplay considerations against the interest value. Still, it is a good idea, I understand Plutonium-238 is in really short supply and does give space agencies real problems. Producing it themselves would be one solution to that availability problem...

[Makeone]

About RTG's or such-a-likes...

Recently i have used a very op generators on ships (that does not require nukes) from IonHybrid-pack, 1.25m produces 20 and 2.5m produces 40 energy per second, for comparison, stock RTG produces 45 energy per MINUTE, hum. Anyway, I like to use nukes as they produce nice amount of power for previous mentioned packs engines, but one thing that i am not so keen is the stacking, reactor and generator becomes pretty tall, and i usually 'hide' them with covers.

SO, would it be idea to design, maybe two variants, of combined reactor/generator that doesn't go so tall. Instead maybe some width? Take the 1.25m KiWi and design a small suitable generator to attach a side of it than also works properly OR let zzz to create simple reactor looking parts, just like the KiWi but make them produce electricity like the stacks currently, although, some thermal power for thermal engines if desired.

I hope that wasn't too confusing...

[Srilania]

The basic reactors are indeed molten salt reactors, though the fuels for these reactors are the Tetraflourides, hence the change from the current UF6. I've been testing mainly in sandbox mode, so this change hasn't really come up in the pictures.

But yes, one of the advantages of a molten salt reactor is you can do some reprocessing while its running, that means with appropriate facilities you can then remove those generic actinides from the fuel during operation and separate out some nasty products and extract the useful U-233 to go back in.

I've been thinking about a way to introduce a use of Plutonium(-238) for RTGs but so far I can't find a satisfactory solution that balances gameplay considerations against the interest value. Still, it is a good idea, I understand Plutonium-238 is in really short supply and does give space agencies real problems. Producing it themselves would be one solution to that availability problem...

The reasons for tetraflouride is because it requires a lower operation tempurature, however seems to require high pressure refining, which is not very doable in a small power plant in space. Hexaflouride, uses simple electrochemical processing, but requires a higher operation temperature, but is better for a small portable generator, such as for a spaceship or space station.

[wasmic]

About RTG's or such-a-likes...

Recently i have used a very op generators on ships (that does not require nukes) from IonHybrid-pack, 1.25m produces 20 and 2.5m produces 40 energy per second, for comparison, stock RTG produces 45 energy per MINUTE, hum. Anyway, I like to use nukes as they produce nice amount of power for previous mentioned packs engines, but one thing that i am not so keen is the stacking, reactor and generator becomes pretty tall, and i usually 'hide' them with covers.

SO, would it be idea to design, maybe two variants, of combined reactor/generator that doesn't go so tall. Instead maybe some width? Take the 1.25m KiWi and design a small suitable generator to attach a side of it than also works properly OR let zzz to create simple reactor looking parts, just like the KiWi but make them produce electricity like the stacks currently, although, some thermal power for thermal engines if desired.

I hope that wasn't too confusing...

You do realize that the generators from IonHybridElectric pack are actually LESS mass-efficient than RTG's? You could make your ship lighter and keep the power output by replacing the generators with craptons of stock rtg's. Anyway, I like your idea of a radial generator or reactor. It's really hard to design good-looking small lander probes, if you want them to be nuclear-powered.

Oh, and what I came here to ask: Is it possible to restart a reactor, that shut itself down, without EVA'ing? 'Cause otherwise, my Jool-system probe landers might have a few problems.

[Eadrom]

Fractal, what will be the new part requirements for ships that do and don't have reprocessing capabilities? Like right now, for a ship without a science lab, you pretty much just slap on the nuke reactors that your ship needs.

In 8.0, the following is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong. You can have a ship with whatever nuke reactors it needs. Or you can have a manned ship with whatever nuke reactors it needs and equipped with nuke fuel tanks that you can EVA and transfer new fuel into and actinides out of. OR you can have a ship with nuke reactors, fuel tanks, and a science lab that consumes the actinides in nuke reactors to put fuel back into the reactors and depleted fuel into the attached nuke storage hexcan (which I assume starts empty?).

Another question is do ships with science labs and nuke reactors require a fuel tank where the science lab can dump depleted fuel when reprocessing actinides? From your screenshots, it looks like if you want to reprocess actinides, you HAVE to have a fuel tank. As amusingly and irresponsible as these next words might be, when reprocessing actinides, can I just vent the waste? Maybe add a restriction that you can't vent waste if you are on Kerbin or Laythe for a modicum of environmental responsibility. lol

Anyways, moar new stuff looks awesome as always!

[Donziboy2]

Fractal, what will be the new part requirements for ships that do and don't have reprocessing capabilities? Like right now, for a ship without a science lab, you pretty much just slap on the nuke reactors that your ship needs.

In 8.0, the following is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong. You can have a ship with whatever nuke reactors it needs. Or you can have a manned ship with whatever nuke reactors it needs and equipped with nuke fuel tanks that you can EVA and transfer new fuel into and actinides out of. OR you can have a ship with nuke reactors, fuel tanks, and a science lab that consumes the actinides in nuke reactors to put fuel back into the reactors and depleted fuel into the attached nuke storage hexcan (which I assume starts empty?).

Another question is do ships with science labs and nuke reactors require a fuel tank where the science lab can dump depleted fuel when reprocessing actinides? From your screenshots, it looks like if you want to reprocess actinides, you HAVE to have a fuel tank. As amusingly and irresponsible as these next words might be, when reprocessing actinides, can I just vent the waste? Maybe add a restriction that you can't vent waste if you are on Kerbin or Laythe for a modicum of environmental responsibility. lol

Anyways, moar new stuff looks awesome as always!

Somehow I think other space fairing races may take offense to radioactive waste splattering across their wind shields;)

[Makeone]

You do realize that the generators from IonHybridElectric pack are actually LESS mass-efficient than RTG's? You could make your ship lighter and keep the power output by replacing the generators with craptons of stock rtg's. Anyway, I like your idea of a radial generator or reactor. It's really hard to design good-looking small lander probes, if you want them to be nuclear-powered.

Oh, and what I came here to ask: Is it possible to restart a reactor, that shut itself down, without EVA'ing? 'Cause otherwise, my Jool-system probe landers might have a few problems.

Well, mass in those ships that i meant, isn't that important, as they are already at 200t class. Mainly a fuel tanker that needs some power and i don't wish to use just batteries (...and panels) so i slap one of those nice and low profile generators on them and that's a wrap. Since i sometimes use those IHE's engines, they need a nuke/genny combo to run, or a generator per engine. And if someone wonder why to use them...900 Isp and 250 KN thrust per engine, not bad, maybe slightly op, but not much.

[Decoherent]

Re. microwave power transmitters:

Do these need to actually face the planet containing the devices they're supposed to power? Does anything block line of sight besides moons/planets?

Also, this mod really needs a wiki

[Donziboy2]

Re. microwave power transmitters:

Do these need to actually face the planet containing the devices they're supposed to power? Does anything block line of sight besides moons/planets?

Also, this mod really needs a wiki

This Wiki?

And no, as long as the transmitter and receiver have Line of Site it does not matter what direction the transmitter is facing, only the receiver.

[BananaDealer]

This Wiki?

And no, as long as the transmitter and receiver have Line of Site it does not matter what direction the transmitter is facing, only the receiver.

"Line of Sight"*...

(Yes, I actually posted solely for this... I'm sorry, I'm terrible- I know...)

[Fractal_UK]

Fractal, what will be the new part requirements for ships that do and don't have reprocessing capabilities? Like right now, for a ship without a science lab, you pretty much just slap on the nuke reactors that your ship needs.

In 8.0, the following is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong. You can have a ship with whatever nuke reactors it needs. Or you can have a manned ship with whatever nuke reactors it needs and equipped with nuke fuel tanks that you can EVA and transfer new fuel into and actinides out of. OR you can have a ship with nuke reactors, fuel tanks, and a science lab that consumes the actinides in nuke reactors to put fuel back into the reactors and depleted fuel into the attached nuke storage hexcan (which I assume starts empty?).

Another question is do ships with science labs and nuke reactors require a fuel tank where the science lab can dump depleted fuel when reprocessing actinides? From your screenshots, it looks like if you want to reprocess actinides, you HAVE to have a fuel tank. As amusingly and irresponsible as these next words might be, when reprocessing actinides, can I just vent the waste? Maybe add a restriction that you can't vent waste if you are on Kerbin or Laythe for a modicum of environmental responsibility. lol

Anyways, moar new stuff looks awesome as always!

Nothing is really going to change for unmanned vessels compared to how things function at the moment. The one exception to that is that there may be options for nuclear fuel reprocessing without Kerbals present, so you could load up a rocket with thorium fuel on the launchpad and then maintain the thorium reactor output with unmanned reprocessing equipment. That would obviously significantly extend the potential lifetime of unmanned ships.

One thing I should clarify with regard to the new fuel system though: you cannot take the Actinides out of your reactor. They represent the very long lived nuclear waste that still contains lots of very useful isotopes for power generation but would require deep geological disposal for hundreds of thousands of years. I prefer to think of the Kerbals as a bit more forward thinking race who know what to do with their nuclear waste, namely: reprocess it and stick it back in the reactor (over and over again) until it's less dangerous. You also cannot simply refuel as an alternative to reprocressing those actinides, while they are in your reactor, they are clogging it up with unwanted elements that hinder proper functioning.

This system also helps avoid parts that contains ludicrous numbers of resource types.

The depleted fuels consists of non-fissile elements and fission products that might be very high activity but don't have these huge many-thousand year half-lives. You do however need a cannister to actually store the depleted fuel part when you do the reprocessing step, you cannot simply vent these products into space in raw particulate form but you can just dump the cannisters full of waste if you want.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Fractal_UK