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

[Fractal_UK]

I noticed a discrepancy between the displayed values for radiators and their actual cooling. I.e. with the 1.25m inline radiator it says in the VAB 0.941 MW radiated. If I use it I actually only get a power radiated readout of 0.527 MW both in space and on kerbin at sea level. Of course at sea level you also get convected power of about 180 MW but where do the 0.527 MW come from and if that is the maximum it can actually radiate why doesn't it say so in the VAB?

If you want to plan ahead how much cooling you need for, lets say 2 1x6 solar panels, at present it is a pain to figure out which and how much cooling parts you need as there is no information about the actual cooling in the parts description.

Is there a way to derive the actual power radiated from the values displayed in the VAB?

The figure in the VAB is a maximum amount of heat dissipation, if you aren't producing that much heat, you won't be able to radiate it. 0.941MW of heat dissipation is enough for a great deal of solar panels though, you should be able to see the panel's production by right clicking on them.

[evilphish]

My test setup consisted of a 1.25 m Reactor and waste heat was building up faster than I could dissipate it with the 1.25 m inline radiator displaying the 0.527 MW. This way I could make sure that enough waste heat was there to saturate the radiator. It still never went to 0.941 MW.

Regarding the panels production I noticed that for all the stock panels the amount of heat generated is half the energy output in kW, is that correct?

[Myrten]

Thanks Myten, I'll try and incorporate this code sometime this evening or tomorrow. Once that it's in, we should be about ready for a new update including the improved thermal mechanics.

That's great, it could be a lot smaller if KSP had supported all of LINQ, but it crashes if I use 'where' lol... If you have any problems PM me.

I've updated it yesterday for your last develop build on Github, If I understood your change to MicrowaveReceiver.cs correctly you zeroed efficiency of connection to transmitter on the same vessel, in my code I removed transmitters on the same vessel from search list entirely so they are ignored.

[Donziboy2]

Jebediah has just made an orbit with thermal turbo jet\vacuum plasma SSTO

Try that with FAR

Edit....

Just tested the 2 PAM Transceivers with all 3 receivers at extreme range(114Gm) and found that all 3 receiver sizes got almost 6% more from the small transmitter....

Edited December 8, 2013 by Donziboy2

[Fractal_UK]

That's great, it could be a lot smaller if KSP had supported all of LINQ, but it crashes if I use 'where' lol... If you have any problems PM me.

I've updated it yesterday for your last develop build on Github, If I understood your change to MicrowaveReceiver.cs correctly you zeroed efficiency of connection to transmitter on the same vessel, in my code I removed transmitters on the same vessel from search list entirely so they are ignored.

Did you set the compiler for .NET 3.5? If not, you will definitely encounter problems with KSP.

My change actually just zeros the connection from the same vessel to inline receivers but I'm sure I can incorporate that into the algorithm. The code that ensures energy conservation should take care of the megajoule producing receivers.

My test setup consisted of a 1.25 m Reactor and waste heat was building up faster than I could dissipate it with the 1.25 m inline radiator displaying the 0.527 MW. This way I could make sure that enough waste heat was there to saturate the radiator. It still never went to 0.941 MW.

Thinking about it, this is probably because you're using a radiator that is hitting a temperature cap, there is a limit to how hot the radiators can get as a proportion of reactor temperatures - this mechanic is getting improved in the next update.

In any case, a 1.25m inline radiator is totally inadequate for a nuclear reactor in space. Those inline radiators function well in atmosphere but they simply don't have the neccessary area to dissipate much heat in space. You need deployable radiators for reactors in space - even with the full 0.941MW, that's only 2.35% of the reactor's 40MW capacity. The reactor won't run at less than 30% so you're producing 12MJ of heat every second and are capable of dissipating 8% of that under optimal conditions -> your spaceship is going to cook.

A small deployable radiator has 20x the radiating area, so adding a couple of those will just about keep the reactor cool under any operating conditions (though you might want a 3rd for safety).

Regarding the panels production I noticed that for all the stock panels the amount of heat generated is half the energy output in kW, is that correct?

Yep.

[evilphish]

Thinking about it, this is probably because you're using a radiator that is hitting a temperature cap, there is a limit to how hot the radiators can get as a proportion of reactor temperatures - this mechanic is getting improved in the next update.

In any case, a 1.25m inline radiator is totally inadequate for a nuclear reactor in space. Those inline radiators function well in atmosphere but they simply don't have the neccessary area to dissipate much heat in space. You need deployable radiators for reactors in space - even with the full 0.941MW, that's only 2.35% of the reactor's 40MW capacity. The reactor won't run at less than 30% so you're producing 12MJ of heat every second and are capable of dissipating 8% of that under optimal conditions -> your spaceship is going to cook.

A small deployable radiator has 20x the radiating area, so adding a couple of those will just about keep the reactor cool under any operating conditions (though you might want a 3rd for safety).

.

Oh I'm not trying to run a reactor with one inline radiator in space. I just wanted something that can saturate the radiator quickly to test how much it actually cools. Due to KSPI I need to redesign my RT communication sattelites as the current ones do not have radiators and are slowly starting to melt ^^

Of course I want to keep the mass down as much as possible so I kind of need to figure out what the maximum cooling amount in space is with certain radiator types. These will only be used to cool heat due to the solar panels on the satellites.

If there is a thermal mechanics change coming I probably should delay the whole thing and wait what you come up with. Will it be somewhat clearer to see for example if a certain radiator would be enough to keep 2 1x6 panels in check or in what way are you going to modify the temperature difference relationship if I may ask?

On a different topic: I have so far failed to find any information on what the benefits are if you run a reactor on Th instead of U. I read something about getting "more thrust and a bit more ISP" but can you give me something more concrete? I.e. does it generate more heat but the fuel doesn't last as long or how does it work exactly?

[Fractal_UK]

The primary problem with the current setup is that the un-upgraded reactors aren't as warm as they should be, which is capping radiator temperatures below their maximum and leading to reduced radiation.

In the next version, the reactor temperatures will be increased somewhat, generator efficiency will also be slightly increased but the amount of heat radiation from the radiators will depend upon how full the WasteHeat bar is, in other words, it will become a representation of how much heat your spacecraft's heat rejection system is carrying. That will mean your WasteHeat bar will always be somewhat filled rather than ideally empty. The result will be that generator efficiency properly depends upon heat rejected and more radiators will always give some kind of efficiency advantage.

Radiator ratings won't change, the VAB heat dissipation rating will simply be the maximum possible dissipation at 100% waste heat. If you keep an eye on the megawatt radiator ratings compared to the reactors rating and leave yourself some spare capacity, you won't go far wrong. Once you get the upgraded parts, you can make do with a lower proportion (maybe 50%) due to increased reactor temperatures and generator efficiencies.

For solar panels, the energy flow is assumed to be in KW, since the radiators are generally dissipating MW or at least significant fractions of one then you'd need a truly impressive solar array to task any radiator at all, at least near Kerbin. Of course, solar panels are tricky to deal with universally because you can move them around, a ship that has no heat problems near Kerbin could easily have problems near Moho, for example.

Thorium reactors give 1.38x more power and 1.17x higher temperature, which translates to about 8% more specific impulse and about 27 % more thrust. Thorium reactors also use less than half the fuel compared to Uranium reactors but the power output will begin to drop after even a small amount of actinides accumulate, so you'll need to reprocess a lot more to maintain the power advantage - probably every few months.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Fractal_UK

[Myrten]

Did you set the compiler for .NET 3.5? If not, you will definitely encounter problems with KSP.

My change actually just zeros the connection from the same vessel to inline receivers but I'm sure I can incorporate that into the algorithm. The code that ensures energy conservation should take care of the megajoule producing receivers.

Yeah, I've used 4.0 but I managed to get it to work and this code compiles under 3.5 so there shouldn't be any problems now. Too bad KSP doesn't yet support 4.0 This algorithm wouldn't look so bloated then lol.

In this version algorithm ignores all transmitters on the same vessel (line 525 in file, 3rd in this fragment), check this loop:

 foreach (VesselMicrowavePersistence transmitter in vmps) //first check for direct connection from current vessel to transmitters, will be optimal at this point
            {
                if (transmitter.getAvailablePower() > 0 && transmitter.getVessel()!=vessel)//ignore if no power or transmitter is on the same vessel
                {
                    if (lineOfSightTo(transmitter.getVessel()))
                    {
                        double distance = ComputeDistance(vessel, transmitter.getVessel());
                        double facingFactor = ComputeFacingFactor(transmitter.getVessel());
                        double efficiency = ComputeTransmissionEfficiency(distance, facingFactor);
                        transmitterRouteDictionary[transmitter] = new MicrowaveRoute(efficiency, distance, facingFactor); //store in dictionary that optimal route to this transmitter is direct connection, can be replaced if better route is found
                    }
                    transmittersToCheck.Add(transmitter);// connections will only be checked to transmitters in this collection.
                }
            }

Unless that's wrong I'm pretty sure it should fix that bug and you don't have to modify anything. If that's wrong however, then code part which you've modified in your dev build is in ComputeFacingFactor(Vessel powerVessel) method.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Myrten

[Myrten]

Try that with FAR

Edit....

Just tested the 2 PAM Transceivers with all 3 receivers at extreme range(114Gm) and found that all 3 receiver sizes got almost 6% more from the small transmitter....

I got enough problems with making it stable with vanilla aerodynamics lol, although I think it might work since to reach orbit it only has to launch straight up..

At this distance efficiency changes all the time so 6% doesn't prove anything. I don't see anything in code that could indicate larger transmitters working better so I doubt it at this point.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Myrten

[Myrten]

Some suggestions for future development of Microwave transmission:

1)Currently there is a 'Total efficiency' label which as far as I'm aware of includes efficiency of receiver itself and atmospheric effect. But there is nothing about how efficient is transmission from network (angle and distance penalties) so I'd do as follows:

a)Rename what's now 'Total efficiency' to 'Receiver efficiency'

b)Create new label 'Transmission efficiency' which would display on average how efficient is transmission from satellites - so if we receive 100 MW from satelite A with 50% efficiency and 900 MW from satelite B with 90% efficiency then it would display 86% efficiency.

c)Create new label called 'Total efficiency' which would be a*b so if receiver efficiency is 50% and transmission efficiency is 86% it would display 43% total efficiency.

I think this would help in diagnosing how networks work

2) Currently relays only allow us to go around celestial bodies and change direction of transmission, but they doesn't affect distance. I think it would be better with these two changes:

a)Instead of acting as mirrors they could act as receiver and transmitter so if we got a relay with big antenna receiving power from Sun's satelites it could re-transmit locally so ships at Kerbin orbit wouldn't have to carry giant receivers to receive full power.

b)If a) is implemented then antennas distances should be nerfed

c)Another thing to consider is if transmitter's antenna size shouldn't affect distance penalty..

Generally my goal in Sun-Kerbin transmission case would be that both transmitter on Sun's orbit and relay on Kerbin's orbit would have to be big to work at 100% efficiency but then this relay could re-transmit locally so even if your ship has small receiver if there is a good infrastructure then it could run at 100%.

[Ravien]

I think, with all the changes with radiation, Interstellar could add some tools to provide shielding for crew. I really didn't like to see my Kerbals to liquify.

[Romby]

Is there a way only to instal the wasteheat part of the mod? cant figure out what files to leave out when installing.

[db48x]

Is there a way only to instal the wasteheat part of the mod? cant figure out what files to leave out when installing.

Not really. The waste heat is handled by the dll, which also handles most everything else. You could install it and then remove the parts you don't want, leaving just the radiators. You would also get the updated solar power production curve as well.

[Romby]

Not really. The waste heat is handled by the dll, which also handles most everything else. You could install it and then remove the parts you don't want, leaving just the radiators. You would also get the updated solar power production curve as well.

Ok thx. Will do this.

[db48x]

I think, with all the changes with radiation, Interstellar could add some tools to provide shielding for crew. I really didn't like to see my Kerbals to liquify.

The radiation is currently just cosmetic.

I don't have anyone in orbit right at this moment (lots of science probes in flight though), but I saw someone mention a dose level of micro-sieverts per hour. That's pretty low; the average background dose is about 10 micro-sieverts per day (.4µs/hr) here on Earth. The dose limit for radiation workers here in the US is 50 millisieverts per year, or 50,000 microsieverts per year (~5.7µs/hr continuous).

I need to send some folks to to Jool orbit and see how much they get.

BTW: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

[Fractal_UK]

The radiation is currently just cosmetic.

I don't have anyone in orbit right at this moment (lots of science probes in flight though), but I saw someone mention a dose level of micro-sieverts per hour. That's pretty low; the average background dose is about 10 micro-sieverts per day (.4µs/hr) here on Earth. The dose limit for radiation workers here in the US is 50 millisieverts per year, or 50,000 microsieverts per year (~5.7µs/hr continuous).

I need to send some folks to to Jool orbit and see how much they get.

BTW: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

The dose rates are totally wrong on Kerbin at the moment, it's really only modelling proton belts at the moment, I need to add in electron belts, cosmic rays and ground-based sources of radiation. Most places you go in the system though, it's not really very dangerous - the biggest danger would be spending time close to Jool, the radiation levels can get pretty high in that area, other radiation belts aren't very dangerous dangerous for short term exposure (i.e. passing through) but would be dangerous for an extended period in orbit, aside from that, it's mainly more long term dangers.

Regardless, there is zero danger at present, just thought I'd make some of the information available as a bit of a teaser to invite discussion. I created another thread here to discuss this idea because the Interstellar thread itself is a bit too general for discussions of specific features and this particular idea offers a large number of possibilities.

[simmy2109]

Random question about science labs... Can you give more details on the effects on their science gathering efficiency by altitude and planet multiplier factors? I understand that lower altitude is better, but what is the floor and ceiling for each body? You also get a different efficiency rating for landing a lab on the body. What is this boost? Are there general multipliers for each body as well?

[Fractal_UK]

Random question about science labs... Can you give more details on the effects on their science gathering efficiency by altitude and planet multiplier factors? I understand that lower altitude is better, but what is the floor and ceiling for each body? You also get a different efficiency rating for landing a lab on the body. What is this boost? Are there general multipliers for each body as well?

The altitude factor only kicks in if you orbit at higher than the planet's radius above the surface, so for Kerbin you need to orbit at 600km or less to get the maximum rate. You generally get a bonus of 2x for being landed but a couple of places give you a bit more.

The base science rate is determined by celestial body and depends on a combination of how difficult and how scientifically interesting I think a place is but it mostly follows the distance scale. The Mun and Minmus will give you more than Kerbin, Duna and Eve will give you more than the Mun and Minmus, etc. I don't want to provide an exhaustive list of all the numbers because it will take away the enjoyment of investigation but anywhere you go that isn't Kerbin will give you a large bonus, potentially a massive bonus.

[simmy2109]

The altitude factor only kicks in if you orbit at higher than the planet's radius above the surface, so for Kerbin you need to orbit at 600km or less to get the maximum rate. You generally get a bonus of 2x for being landed but a couple of places give you a bit more.

The base science rate is determined by celestial body and depends on a combination of how difficult and how scientifically interesting I think a place is but it mostly follows the distance scale. The Mun and Minmus will give you more than Kerbin, Duna and Eve will give you more than the Mun and Minmus, etc. I don't want to provide an exhaustive list of all the numbers because it will take away the enjoyment of investigation but anywhere you go that isn't Kerbin will give you a large bonus, potentially a massive bonus.

Nifty. Thanks for the details. This mod is incredibly intricate. Been using it for a few weeks now, but just only realized a few interesting things... Like the modified solar panel curve (which is awesome), intelligence of scientists matters, ect. This is a great mod with lots of details. I've also been following this thread for about a week. You are easily the most consistently responsive mod dev out there. Keep it up! This is already one of my favorite mods.

Time to go land a science base on Kerbol! Jeb's gonna love it there.

[Shalashalska]

I can't seem to reprocess nuclear fuel. I have room for depletedfuel, UF4, and actinides.

@simmy

I don't think that you can land on Kerbol. Every time I've tried, I explode due to overheating.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Shalashalska

[Kenken244]

That won't stop him from trying.

[feriofukada]

Is it me or the 2.5m Electric Generator in this ship I built is not producing Megajoules? I connected it properly to a 2.5m Nuclear Reactor, and from the previous versions that I fiddled with, it still worked. Now, it just produces a teeny weeny bit of MJ when I flick the on/off switch repeatedly. Kinda need help on this

[Fractal_UK]

Is it me or the 2.5m Electric Generator in this ship I built is not producing Megajoules? I connected it properly to a 2.5m Nuclear Reactor, and from the previous versions that I fiddled with, it still worked. Now, it just produces a teeny weeny bit of MJ when I flick the on/off switch repeatedly. Kinda need help on this

I'm going to need more information, do you actually have some power draw that the generator needs to provide power for? Is the nuclear reactor working? Have parts shut down due to overheating or something?

[Myrten]

This vessel has 1xtransmitter, 1x3.75m generator, 1x3.75m antimatter reactor (offline) and 5x3.75m nuclear reactors.

All thermal sources on this vessel produce enough thermal power to generate that 32 GW of electric power but single generator is only attached to single antimatter offline reactor. Thermal receiver doesn't really matter here, it just adds more power.

Is this going to be changed in next version?

[bojangles9999]

I have a question about waste heat with the basic solar panels that do not extend, just flat on the side.

I made a probe and sent it out to Kerbin Synchronous orbit, eventually it built up waste heat to maximum from sitting in the sun light, but nothing has happened.

Should the probe shut down when waste heat is filled to the max? Or am I misunderstanding how the waste heat system works? I tried searching the forums, but I could not find a good explanation of how it is supposed to work.