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

[Northstar1989]

That is how they are designed, on the launch pad you have an atmosphere that makes dumping heat childs play. In space you have to radiate it, the new mechanic for it means that the hotter it is the more it will radiate. It will heat up until it reaches equilibrium.

I think you miss docfish' point- the radiators NEVER reach equilibrium with these bugs, the craft just keeps heating up until the solar panels auto-shutdown (like reactors, they will stop worknig at 95% heat).

I've experienced the same bug myself- though more inconsistently than the bug above with my nuclear reactors (not always reproducibly)- sometimes the radiators will start giving off heat at some obscenely low value in space (usually after a unload/load cycle), with noting but solar panels attached to the craft, and will continue to accumulate heat until I either restart KSP, unload the craft, undeploy and redeploy the solar panels or radiators, or some other sort of meddling (it seems to be different every time).

If allowed to run its course without interruption, eventually the craft will reach 95% heat levels, even with radiators rated WAY above the power output of the solars.

And *NO* the radiators don't give off more power as the craft heats up with this bug.

Fractal, I really hope you're paying attention to all these bug reports regarding the WasteHeat module- because these bugs have been creating a LOT of problems for guys like me, who try and build up a significant Interstellar-utilizing permanent space infrastructure over time (I ended up having to scrap/recycle several vessels relying on KSP-I, utilizing a scrapper ship from other mods, as they simply would not dissipate WasteHeat correctly...) It *MIGHT* be related to the weak computers some of us are trying to run the mod on (like was suggested before, RAM issues), but whatever the cause, it's a real pain in the a$$.

I've had to take to running entire craft off RTG's because of the problems this mod has created even for my stock solar panel vessels- even when equipped with what should be an excessive capability of heat radiators...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited December 22, 2013 by Northstar1989

[Eadrom]

During my water integration testing, I discovered that making mono-propellant wasn't working properly. Tweaked an RCS tank to be half-full and the refinery to be full of H2Peroxide and Water. The refinery is correctly consuming the water and H2Peroxide, but no mono-propellant is being created. On a whim, I sped time warp up and as I was stepping up to max time warp, mono-propellant started being created.

Is the stock resource change rearing its ugly head again?

[AArtisan]

This mod inspired me to put a few bits and pieces together, Unfortunately I dont know a thing about Unity and can't program it in. So heres what I've managed to make. The art style is sorta a mix between ZZZ and B9

https://sketchfab.com/show/d38ff48a9a644f56bb3d107923ec9d4a

https://sketchfab.com/show/69091fb829dc4b75a23e88ba536ce2d5

https://sketchfab.com/show/5506ee0751a846d7a69874cf1b461575

https://sketchfab.com/show/4e031aac9a974138a309bf8cca57fdf7

[Fractal_UK]

During my water integration testing, I discovered that making mono-propellant wasn't working properly. Tweaked an RCS tank to be half-full and the refinery to be full of H2Peroxide and Water. The refinery is correctly consuming the water and H2Peroxide, but no mono-propellant is being created. On a whim, I sped time warp up and as I was stepping up to max time warp, mono-propellant started being created.

Is the stock resource change rearing its ugly head again?

Yeah, that'll be because Monopropellant has an ALL_VESSEL flow type so the recent change to the part.requestResource() method is going to be a problem. Since that is a stock resource, there isn't much I can do about that one, other than hope the devs sort out that function.

-radiators-

I think you must have totally misread what I said with respect to radiators because you seem to be under some mistaken impressions about how they work. I never said radiators don't work as well when they get hotter, in fact, I said quite the opposite. What I said was that an upgraded radiator cannot reach its maximum radiation potential because the unupgraded reactors are not sufficiently hot enough to allow the radiators to reach their maximum operating temperature.

The temperature of the reactor does matter because obviously the radiators cannot get hotter than the reactor than they're attached to, that makes no sense. If they're equally hot, there is no temperature difference to work with and generator efficiency goes to 0%. Generator efficiency is based on (1 - T_C/T_H) * percentage of carnot efficiency where T_C is the average radiator temperature and T_H is the temperature of the reactor.

If you've updated to the latest version you should be able to see this in the VAB as there is now a list of temperatures and radiation values at each temperature.

Finally, you are mistaken about reactors with their generators turned off not generating WasteHeat and about them running at 0%. Fission and Fusion reactors operate at a minimum of 30% of their power output all the time, turning off your generator is actually negative in terms of waste heat production because it means that all of that 30% becomes WasteHeat rather than some fraction of it becoming something useful.

Now, as I said before:

Case 1) Definitely not enough radiators.

Case 2) Definitely not enough radiators.

Case 3) Might be enough at minimum power (30%) but you probably want at least 3 or 4.

If you have un-upgraded reactors and upgraded reactors you cannot simply read the upgraded radiator value in the VAB and expect to get that.

Upgraded radiator maximum temperature is 3500K but unupgraded Uranium reactor temperature is 1674K, so the reactor is less than half as hot as the radiators can be at maximum temperature. If you actually want some reasonable efficiency out of your generator then you aren't going to want your radiators getting hotter than about 1200K to 1300K at which point, you're better off continuing to look at the base radiator outputs.

Now, you might be right, there might be a problem but I'm going to a lot more to work with than three vague examples of situations that probably shouldn't work at all anyway to convince me that that's the case. I'll need radiator temperatures, radiator outputs, total reactor output (from all reactors) and generator useage (from all generators).

Edited December 22, 2013 by Fractal_UK

[king224]

Am i the only person who has noticed the yellow and black electric bolt icon and is wondering what it is? i don't see a lot of posts relating to it.

[Lightwarrior]

Am i the only person who has noticed the yellow and black electric bolt icon and is wondering what it is? i don't see a lot of posts relating to it.

Power production/usage display.

Just click it and you will see.

[Northstar1989]

Yeah, that'll be because Monopropellant has an ALL_VESSEL flow type so the recent change to the part.requestResource() method is going to be a problem. Since that is a stock resource, there isn't much I can do about that one, other than hope the devs sort out that function.

I think you must have totally misread what I said with respect to radiators because you seem to be under some mistaken impressions about how they work. I never said radiators don't work as well when they get hotter, in fact, I said quite the opposite. What I said was that an upgraded radiator cannot reach its maximum radiation potential because the unupgraded reactors are not sufficiently hot enough to allow the radiators to reach their maximum operating temperature.

The temperature of the reactor does matter because obviously the radiators cannot get hotter than the reactor than they're attached to, that makes no sense. If they're equally hot, there is no temperature difference to work with and generator efficiency goes to 0%. Generator efficiency is based on (1 - T_C/T_H) * percentage of carnot efficiency where T_C is the average radiator temperature and T_H is the temperature of the reactor.

If you've updated to the latest version you should be able to see this in the VAB as there is now a list of temperatures and radiation values at each temperature.

Finally, you are mistaken about reactors with their generators turned off not generating WasteHeat and about them running at 0%. Fission and Fusion reactors operate at a minimum of 30% of their power output all the time, turning off your generator is actually negative in terms of waste heat production because it means that all of that 30% becomes WasteHeat rather than some fraction of it becoming something useful.

Now, as I said before:

Case 1) Definitely not enough radiators.

Case 2) Definitely not enough radiators.

Case 3) Might be enough at minimum power (30%) but you probably want at least 3 or 4.

If you have un-upgraded reactors and upgraded reactors you cannot simply read the upgraded radiator value in the VAB and expect to get that.

Upgraded radiator maximum temperature is 3500K but unupgraded Uranium reactor temperature is 1674K, so the reactor is less than half as hot as the radiators can be at maximum temperature. If you actually want some reasonable efficiency out of your generator then you aren't going to want your radiators getting hotter than about 1200K to 1300K at which point, you're better off continuing to look at the base radiator outputs.

Now, you might be right, there might be a problem but I'm going to a lot more to work with than three vague examples of situations that probably shouldn't work at all anyway to convince me that that's the case. I'll need radiator temperatures, radiator outputs, total reactor output (from all reactors) and generator useage (from all generators).

OK, you did say the radiators "can get as hot as the reactor" with the unupgraded reactors, and that efficiency goes to zero. I read that as you saying the radiators get *hotter*, and that the *radiator* efficiency goes to zero. On a second reading of that, it looks more like you meant the *relative heat difference* between the reactor and the radiator is less than with a larger mass of basic radaitors (the upgraded radiators, as they are made of Graphene, should have higher emissivity than the unupgraded reactors- so they should *NOT* get as hot as an EQUIVALENT mass of unupgraded radiators, however- as they will reach equilibrium at a lower temperature due to higher heat emission), and the *generator* efficiency declines as a result.

I can get the numbers you asked for (eventually), but like I said- the design worked FINE in space for several *hours*. If inadequate radiator capacity was the problem, that wouldn't have happened. It was only after several load/unload cycles WasteHeat began accumulating.

However, I think you're missing *part of* my point about the radiator efficiency entirely...

First of all, the more WasteHeat a craft has, the hotter the radiators should get. Radiator output should increase with increasing levels of WasteHeat (I've tested this numerous times- in the game it DOESN'T *at all* on ANY of my vessels, solar OR nuclear-powered. Radiator output is FIXED AND IMMUTABLE with regards to WasteHeat- which is highly inaccurate.)

The upgraded radiators may have a higher maximum temperature, but what does this really mean? That they will somehow limit themselves from accepting any more heat after they reach that temperature?

Regardless, the radiators should get hotter and hotter until they reach the point where they accept and give off heat at the same rate. If they initially do not give off enough heat, the craft should accumulate WasteHeat UNTIL the craft reaches a temperature where it can give the radiators as much heat as it is being produced, and then WasteHeat should STOP accumulating (assuming this temperature isn't outside the tolerance range of the ship's components- as represented by its WasteHeat storage limit). The radiator output HAS TO increase accurately with increasing WasteHeat levels for the system to work in anything like a realistic manner.

The radiator temperature should not start off at its maximum when the reactor is first turned on. No matter how many/large, or how few/small the radiators, initially the radiators will be quite cold, and the reactor (once it has warmed up) quite hot. Therefore, the generators should ALWAYS start off at high efficiency, until WasteHeat accumulation has lowered their efficiency ... More importantly, generator efficiency should STEADILY decline as WasteHeat accumulates- but I am observing SUDDEN drops from 20%+ to 0.6% efficiency with less than 20% of maximum WasteHeat levels (in my screenshot, WasteHeat was at 66241/404500 - 16.4% of maximum). One moment it's at over 20% efficiency, the next it's at less than 1%...

Now, the upgraded radiators aren't reaching their optimal operating temperature you say, and therefore the reactor/radiator temperature difference is becoming relatively small as WasteHeat accumulates... But the radiators should come closer to their optimal temperature as the vessel accumulates WasteHeat, so the WasteHeat accumulation should at least level off at some point...

If their maximum temperature simply represents the maximum temperature the radiators will allow themselves to reach, then they should heat up towards that temperature as the vessel accumulates WasteHeat, and give off more heat as they warm as a result. Over time, the ABSOLUTE difference between reactor and radiator heat should increase, as the radiators give off more and more thermal energy (with the fourth power fo their increasing temperature). What should decline is the RELATIVE difference between radiator and reactor temperature (made-up numbers: 480/800 is a worse ratio than 160/400, even though the absolute difference is greater), and thus the generator efficiency.

The generator efficiency will still fall off, but there are several KEY differences here- what is sustaining the continued heating of the craft is the reactors cranking up to higher and higher levels of ThermalPower output to try and meet a fixed power demand on the generators with a lower and lower generator efficiency. However this *should* hit a limit when the reactor reaches maximum output (which it already had, in the craft where I took a screenshot). At that point, the increases in radiator heat giveoff (remember, the radiators are nowhere near maximum temperature- and heat giveoff should climb rapidly) should quickly outpace the continued declines in generator efficiency (the generator is already near 0% efficiency- so any continued decline will make very little difference), and the WasteHeat accumulation should level off and hit an equilibrium fairly quickly...

In the space station you saw a snapshot of there, it DIDN'T- the vessel actually reached maximum reactor output at a much lower level (around 20,000 I think) of WasteHeat- but continued to accumulate WasteHeat at an undiminished rate until (and after) I took that screenshot. Right-clicking on the radiators revealed no increase in heat radiation the whole time, and shutting down the generator (which led the reactor to instantly fall from 100% to 0% output- actually 30% at standby according to your earlier post) did not stop the WasteHeat from continuing to accumulate, despite the fact that it should have led to a more than three-fold decrease in WasteHeat production (at 0.6% generator efficiency, 99.4% of maximum reactor output was being converted into WasteHeat. With the generator shut down, 30% of maximum reactor output was being converted to WasteHeat).

The upgraded radiator in use was capable of over 170 MW of heat output at maximum temperature. The basic version of that radiator is only capable of about 3 MW of heat output. That's a more than 50-fold difference! So, if the 40 MW molten-salt reactor only starts off about warm enough to heat the radiator to the maximum temperature of the lower-tier version of the radiator, causing the radiator to only give off a little over 3 MW of heat, it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that the radiator give off more heat as WasteHeat accumulates. The decline in generator efficiency from 24% (when WasteHeat = 0) to 0.6% (when WasteHeat =66,000) represents an increase in Tc/Th of 30.8% (from 0.76 to 0.994), and THAT means a SUBSTANTIAL increase in radiator temperature (a more than 50-fold increase in radiator temperature, according to my calculations. 0.76 is a little more than 3/4. 0.994 is a little more than 150/151). The Stefan-Boltzmann law indicates that total heat radiation increases to the FOURTH POWER of temperature, so that means the radiators should give off 6,250,000 times more thermal energy at a WasteHeat value of 66,000 than at a WasteHeat value of 0, when they are 50 times as hot.

Regards,

Northstar

Edited December 22, 2013 by Northstar1989

[Fractal_UK]

The way you are describing how the radiators *should* work is exactly the way they do work, so I can only assume that if you are observing something different you are running an out of date version.

All the radiators do is they have a fixed area, their temperature increases as the WasteHeat bar fills up and they radiate energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which considers radiator area, emissivity and temperature (to the fourth power) as you rightly say. Why do you think the upgraded radiators are so much more effective than the basic ones? The maximum temperature is over twice as high so its no surprise it goes up so much.

Since the 0.9.1 update, I've also added a range of heat dissipations at a range of radiator temperatures to the display so if you want a cold bath of say 1200K, you can see how many radiators you need to maintain that temperature.

Edit:

Just to be clear, the radiators will start (at 0 waste heat) by radiating at the ambient temperature which for Kerbin is going to be around the 270-300K mark. They will heat up, increasing their WasteHeat dissipationin the process up to an absolute maximum of the reactor temperature. If the reactor temperature >> max radiator temperature, as in the both parts upgraded then the radiators will get up to max temperature no problem and everything will be fine.

If max radiator temperature > reactor temperature, radiator temperature -> reactor temperature and generator efficiency -> 0. This can occur for upgraded radiators and basic reactors, the solution is more radiators. It seems like you are expecting radiator temperature to exceed reactor temperature, which is, of course, totally impossible.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Fractal_UK

[Northstar1989]

Let me just put a couple key-points as bullet-points here, so I know they're not missed:

- Tc/Th at 24% generator efficiency: 0.76 (A)

- Tc/Th at 0.6% generator efficiency: 0.994 (

- Relative increase in Tc from A to B: >50-fold ©

- Increase in radiator heat-radiation with increase C: 6,250,000-fold

- Radiator output at efficiency level A does not change when efficiency declines to level B due to WasteHeat accumulation!

- Maximum Mo-Li radiator output: 3 MW (D)

- Maximum Graphene radiator output: 170 MW (E)

- Maximum molten-salt reactor output: 40 MW (F)

- E>>F, yet radiator does not stop WasteHeat accumulation even after reactor reaches max output F at efficiency B!

- WasteHeat level at which reactor reaches maximum output F: 20,000 (G)

- WasteHeat level at which reactor is STILL accumulating WasteHeat: 66,000 (H)

- Fold-increase in radiator temperature from G to H if WasteHeat units represent linear increase in temperature: 1.46 (I)

- Expected fold-increase in heat radiation with increase I according to Stefan-Boltzmann law: 4.54 (354% increase in total radiation!)

- Observed increase in heat radiation: NONE

[meArchI]

After updating to 0.23 KSP keeps crushing after loading all the parts. I've found that it is because of the WarpPlugin folder. Any ideas?

[Fractal_UK]

You appear not to be reading my posts. I've explained this several times already.

Graphene radiator max temperature >3000K.

Molten Salt reactor temperature = 1674K.

Can the radiator reach >3000K? No. The radiator can reach 1674K, then it can get no hotter. No more increase in WasteHeat dissipation, ever. If you can't cool your ship with the radiators at operating at < 1674K you never will.

The only difference between upgraded and basic radiators is the maximum temperature. If you can't reach the maximum temperature, the upgrade is irrelevant.

The only examples you have provided of ships that don't work are of ships that cannot work, the only thing that surprises me is you saying they worked for a while.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Fractal_UK

[Elan]

I just started with this mod, and it's great ! But I have a few suggestions. I can't read all 474 pages of this thread, so I hope I'm not repeating what others have written. Anyway, here it is :

Nuclear reactors

- adding an option to start with an offline reactor (via tweakables during construction)

- changing units on uranium/thorium

Currently, reactor has ~ 1.2 units (kg ?) of fuel, which displays only 2 digits.

If you changed it to 1 200.0 (grams ?), it would show 5 digits, giving a better idea how much fuel is left.

- showing how long the fuel will last

Related to the previous one. If I see fuel consumption as (0.00), I can't tell how long it's going to last without looking up the numbers, on the wiki for example. The time remaining would be best displayed in units of days.

- more of a question about aktinoids - on the wiki it says that they can only be removed from the reactor by refinery. Does that mean a reactor on a vessel that doesn't have at least a docking port to somehow connect it to a refinery will become permanently unusable once it's aktinoids rise to maximum ? Because that would be annoying.

- also, I had a reactor go down to 30% due to waste heat, but it still generated waste heat, which quickly got to a maximum. Shouldn't there be some deterrent to keep waste heat from maximum ? Maybe an explosion ?

Antimatter

- the containment unit doesn't seem to lose it's "charge" if I turn off the power. Is that a bug or does it take longer to see a change ?

- I saw somewhere (on wiki or in game) that antimatter has units of micrograms. But elsewhere it's denoted by "mg", miligrams. Micrograms are usually denoted by "ug" in the absence of the greek letter mu, since "u" looks most similar to it.

[Fractal_UK]

After updating to 0.23 KSP keeps crushing after loading all the parts. I've found that it is because of the WarpPlugin folder. Any ideas?

Check your installation would be the main advice I can give, most crashes are caused by either incorrect installation or by running out of memory if you have a lot of mods installed. For the installation, particularly check that you don't have two GameData folders.

---

Elan, good idea about being able to start with reactors disabled, I like that idea and will include that in the next update. Time remaining for fuel is tricky because it depends on current power output and changing units is a nice idea in theory but would result in a horribly breaking update, so that's why I haven't done it.

The antimatter container doesn't use any power when it doesn't have any antimatter in, indeed you can only turn it off when this is the case.

Antimatter has units of milligrams, not micrograms, so the current display is correct.

You do indeed need a way to attach a refinery or a science lab to deal with the actinide waste but only the larger reactors use their fuel up at any great rate, the small ones will last for years without any reprocessing.

[Eadrom]

I just started with this mod, and it's great ! But I have a few suggestions. I can't read all 474 pages of this thread, so I hope I'm not repeating what others have written.

Welcome to the forum and the mod!

I'll try to answer your questions best I can!

- Reactors can be turned on and off via a Kerbal on EVA. Unmanned vessels can have reactors turned off by floating near a manned vessel and having a kerbal EVA over and turn it off. However, it being an unmanned vessel, you would have no way to turn it back on once you get to your destination, unless you also have a manned vessel at your destination. At which point you can just use a Kerbal on EVA at departure and destination, thus negating the need to have this option in all but the most rare of occasions.

- The reactors burn fuel so slowly that even with that unit change from kg to grams, that not even the upgraded 3.75m fission reactor would show anything other than (0.00).

- Each the fission reactors burn fuel at different rates and different upgrade levels, Fractal would need to code sixteen different resources, one for each size, upgrade, and type of fuel to be able to display the units in days remaining. It rapidly gets VERY complicated.

- Yes, if you have no way to replace or dock a maintenance vessel with your ship, eventually it will need to be replaced. Keep in mind that it typically takes years in game time for a reactor to burn through its fuel. An easy solution is to toss in one of the junior docking nodes somewhere on vessels you want to have operating for very long periods of time and despite advances in technology. Usually by the time you need to replace a fission reactor, you probably have researched better power systems. I typically include a small docking port on all my vessels. It's one part and push comes to shove, you always have a way to access the plethora of options available by being able to dock another vessel to your ship.

- The reactor being at 30% is because fission reactors have to maintain a minimum amount of reacting in order to sustain the nuclear reaction. If you drop it below that, the reactor can't sustain fission and would shut down. Also, if you cap out on WasteHeat, the reactor should SCRAM, shutting down and requiring a Kerbal on EVA to turn it on again. Note that turning off a fission reactor the normal way and when it SCRAM's will still cause it to enter a cool down period of around 3 days in which it will still generate some heat as small amounts of fission is still occurring in daughter products.

- If you don't have antimatter in the containment units, the tank doesn't need a charge. If you have antimatter in the tank and see via the power management pop-up (lightning symbol button) that the tank isn't drawing a charge, it might be a bug. It's also possible that Fractal has coded a safety override, so if you have antimatter and try to turn it off, the mod may still provide power for the tank.

- Antimatter is defined as a density of 0.000000001. That is in metric tons. Which is 1,000 kg. Which is 1,000,000 grams. Which means that antimatter is 0.001 grams, which is milligrams. It's possible that references to micrograms was in conversations about collecting antimatter, in which you are usually dealing with very, very small numbers.

EDIT:

Elan, good idea about being able to start with reactors disabled, I like that idea and will include that in the next update.

I stand corrected! I'll still maintain that this is a matter of small convenience in my opinion, but still, it's one that probably can be quickly implemented. It'll at least save you a few minutes at your departure point.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Eadrom

[Northstar1989]

The way you are describing how the radiators *should* work is exactly the way they do work, so I can only assume that if you are observing something different you are running an out of date version.

All the radiators do is they have a fixed area, their temperature increases as the WasteHeat bar fills up and they radiate energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which considers radiator area, emissivity and temperature (to the fourth power) as you rightly say. Why do you think the upgraded radiators are so much more effective than the basic ones? The maximum temperature is over twice as high so its no surprise it goes up so much.

Since the 0.9.1 update, I've also added a range of heat dissipations at a range of radiator temperatures to the display so if you want a cold bath of say 1200K, you can see how many radiators you need to maintain that temperature.

Edit:

Just to be clear, the radiators will start (at 0 waste heat) by radiating at the ambient temperature which for Kerbin is going to be around the 270-300K mark. They will heat up, increasing their WasteHeat dissipationin the process up to an absolute maximum of the reactor temperature. If the reactor temperature >> max radiator temperature, as in the both parts upgraded then the radiators will get up to max temperature no problem and everything will be fine.

If max radiator temperature > reactor temperature, radiator temperature -> reactor temperature and generator efficiency -> 0. This can occur for upgraded radiators and basic reactors, the solution is more radiators. It seems like you are expecting radiator temperature to exceed reactor temperature, which is, of course, totally impossible.

OK, let's throw in some hard numbers here, directly from the configs and VAB editor:

Maximum reactor temperature: 1674 (assuming that's 1674 K)

Maximum Mo-Li Radiator Temp: 1350

Maximum Graphene Radiator Temp: 3500 (3500 according to "RadiatorTemp" in the .cfg, but note the part EXPLODES at 3400 according to a different line in the same .cfg)

- The temperature differences are misleading. Graphene has a higher emissivity than most known metals- which is what the Mo-Li radiator probably represents (metal radiators). The Stefan-Boltzmann Law has an additional coefficient for emissivity, which ranges in value between 0 and 1. Graphene would have a value much closer to 1 than any metal, and therefore higher output relative to its temperature.

Mo' Li Radiator Maximum Output: 3 MW (taken from displayed values in the VAB editor)

Graphene Radiator Maximum Output: 170 MW (taken from displayed values in the VAB editor)

Inferred Mo'Li Radiator Emissivity (setting Graphene Emissivity to 1) - 0.80 (calculated from: predicted Mo' Li heat-radiation at 3500 / Graphene heat-radiation at 3500)

Predicted Graphene Heat-Radiation at 1350 K : 3.75 MW (based on 25% greater emissivity)

Predicted Graphene Heat-Radiation at 1674 K : 8.87 MW ( [3.75]*[1674/1350]^4)

So basically, yeah, you're right, it's not enough heat-radiation to deal with all the WasteHeat from a 40MW reactor (12MW on standby)- because Radiator Temperature caps at the "MaxTemp" of the Reactor. However, if MaxTemp is reached when WasteHeat is at 100% in the reactor part, then we STILL have a serious bug/problem- because generator efficiency was at 0.6% at 16.4% of MaxTemp, and at that point the reactor was at 100% WasteHeat and the rest was in the radiator, meaning...

Th = 1674

Tc/Th = 0.994

Tc = 1663.956 K

Radiator WasteHeat Capacity = 400,000

Expected WasteHeat at Tc = 1663.956 K : ([1663.956-270]/[3500-270])*400,000+4500= 177,126

Observed WasteHeat at Tc = 1663.956 : 66,241

Clearly, something isn't right here: either the radiator was far hotter than it should have been at that 66,000 WasteHeat, or the generator was far less efficient than it should have been at 66,000 WasteHeat (4500 in the reactor, 61,500 in the radiator). Given the generator's other weird behavior (like suddenly plummeting from over 20% efficiency to less than 1% efficiency, skipping all the values in between), I'm leaning towards the latter.

Regards,

Northstar

[Elan]

Welcome to the forum and the mod!

...

Thanks for the information, it was a lot more than I expected !

I found the mili/micro thing that confused me : https://github.com/FractalUK/KSPInterstellar/wiki/Dual-Technique-Magnetometer

It's just a single wiki page, but it must have stuck in my head somehow.

I understand the rest of the stuff, why changing units from 1.2 to 1200.0 would break compatibility etc., but the reactor operation time remaining seems simple enough - since

time=(total fuel)/(current fuel consumption)

it should be easy if you can access the two variables. You obviously have access to total fuel, and fuel consumption is displayed (even if it's rounded to (0.00)) so it should also be known. It doesn't matter if the time remaining is not exactly accurate, I just want to know if it's 200 days or 400 days. I tried going through the code, but I suck at C#, so if I'm being stupid, just ignore this paragraph.

[Donziboy2]

Found another bug Fractal_UK, closing the Ram Air Intakes at high altitude while running the engines caused them to overheat and explode instantly......

[db48x]

I found the mili/micro thing that confused me : https://github.com/FractalUK/KSPInterstellar/wiki/Dual-Technique-Magnetometer

It's just a single wiki page, but it must have stuck in my head somehow.

Oops, that was my fault. I've updated the wiki; thanks!

[Gibster]

Hi, I'm still quite new to this mod and I have a few Qs:

#1: What is the difference between Thorium and Uranium, I know Thorium has a higher power output but that's it, what's its draw back as opposed to Uranium? Does it have a shorter half-life, making it better for long term bases and such?

#2: What is needed to reprocess nuclear fuel? I tried it but it appears I need a place to store the depleted fuels, I looked at the VAB and there is no place, unless I'm looking in the wrong area.

#3: I want to learn how to use the thermal engines efficiently but all that I've read includes terms I don't quite understand. Specific impulse? I've been playing this game for a few months and I still don't exactly know what that is, I know what Delta-v is (I think) the energy (power to weight to fuel is it?) your ship has. I'm really a simpleton when it come to scientific terms like that, I don't comprehend math and math terms very well.

#4: I made a really good methane launcher that I really like, before the new update. Maybe I misread it but the update replaces the current one? Wont that break saves (like mine for example)? Or at least the current ships using it? I want to update for the bug fixes but I'm really far in my current save which is why I'm reluctant.

#5: Is there just a general in-depth guide for all this stuff? I know about the wiki but it hasn't answered any of these questions, or at least not in a way I would understand them. I might be an AP student in High school but I tend to be more literal and factual than other people, so dedicated guides are really nice.

[Donziboy2]

Fractal_UK

Its getting to the point that the early reactors have no value at all...

83T for 10 Huge radiators, 1 3.75 reactor/gen for 290.8MW idle....

That's 3.5MW/T, run it at 100% and your looking at 1.77MW/T.....

Edited December 22, 2013 by Donziboy2

[AerospaceME]

Hi, I'm still quite new to this mod and I have a few Qs:

#1: What is the difference between Thorium and Uranium, I know Thorium has a higher power output but that's it, what's its draw back as opposed to Uranium? Does it have a shorter half-life, making it better for long term bases and such?

#2: What is needed to reprocess nuclear fuel? I tried it but it appears I need a place to store the depleted fuels, I looked at the VAB and there is no place, unless I'm looking in the wrong area.

#3: I want to learn how to use the thermal engines efficiently but all that I've read includes terms I don't quite understand. Specific impulse? I've been playing this game for a few months and I still don't exactly know what that is, I know what Delta-v is (I think) the energy (power to weight to fuel is it?) your ship has. I'm really a simpleton when it come to scientific terms like that, I don't comprehend math and math terms very well.

#4: I made a really good methane launcher that I really like, before the new update. Maybe I misread it but the update replaces the current one? Wont that break saves (like mine for example)? Or at least the current ships using it? I want to update for the bug fixes but I'm really far in my current save which is why I'm reluctant.

#5: Is there just a general in-depth guide for all this stuff? I know about the wiki but it hasn't answered any of these questions, or at least not in a way I would understand them. I might be an AP student in High school but I tend to be more literal and factual than other people, so dedicated guides are really nice.

1: Thorium has more power but requires more frequent fuel reprocessing compared to uranium, or without reprocessing, will run out of fuel faster.

2: Science lab to do the reprocessing, fuel hexcan with space for depleted fuel.

3: Specific impulse is a measure of both exhaust velocity and propellant efficiency. A higher Isp (specific impulse) means you get more momentum change per kilogram of propellant. It is different from thrust. Delta V is how much you can change your velocity, but has no information on how long it will take to change your velocity. If you accelerate at 10m/s^2 for 1 second or 1 m/s^2 for 10, in both cases you've used 10 m/s delta V. Higher Isp at the same thrust gives you more delta V. Thermal engines are fairly anemic until you have at least upgraded fission reactors, but really come to life with fusion and anti-matter.

4: I haven't used the methane tank stuff yet, but a few versions back the fission reactor models changed. I updated without problems. The models swapped and the saved ships just loaded the new models and clipped the parts as needed.

5: The documentation is improving all of the time, but with all the new features and constant updates, documentation has lagged. My advice is just spend some time experimenting and figure out what works. KSP is a sandbox game after all.

[Lightwarrior]

Hi, I'm still quite new to this mod and I have a few Qs:

#1: What is the difference between Thorium and Uranium, I know Thorium has a higher power output but that's it, what's its draw back as opposed to Uranium? Does it have a shorter half-life, making it better for long term bases and such?

...

#2: What is needed to reprocess nuclear fuel? I tried it but it appears I need a place to store the depleted fuels, I looked at the VAB and there is no place, unless I'm looking in the wrong area.

...

#3: I want to learn how to use the thermal engines efficiently but all that I've read includes terms I don't quite understand. Specific impulse? I've been playing this game for a few months and I still don't exactly know what that is, I know what Delta-v is (I think) the energy (power to weight to fuel is it?) your ship has. I'm really a simpleton when it come to scientific terms like that, I don't comprehend math and math terms very well.

Thorim gives more power, but power will reduce when Actinide waste will build up in reactor.

...

Reprocessing is the only way to remove those waste. I think it is obvious why this is needed. Depleted fuels can be stored in UF4/ThF4 containers. And you will also need Lab, crew in it, and 5MW of power.

...

Isp is basically engine efficiency. The higher it is the better. (you can find more "scientific" description on wikipedia i think).

Delta-v is basically velocity change. For example if you want to accelerate you vessel to 500m/s from zero you will need 500 Delta-v.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Lightwarrior

[Gibster]

1: Thorium has more power but requires more frequent fuel reprocessing compared to uranium, or without reprocessing, will run out of fuel faster.

2: Science lab to do the reprocessing, fuel hexcan with space for depleted fuel.

3: Specific impulse is a measure of both exhaust velocity and propellant efficiency. A higher Isp (specific impulse) means you get more momentum change per kilogram of propellant. It is different from thrust. Delta V is how much you can change your velocity, but has no information on how long it will take to change your velocity. If you accelerate at 10m/s^2 for 1 second or 1 m/s^2 for 10, in both cases you've used 10 m/s delta V. Higher Isp at the same thrust gives you more delta V. Thermal engines are fairly anemic until you have at least upgraded fission reactors, but really come to life with fusion and anti-matter.

4: I haven't used the methane tank stuff yet, but a few versions back the fission reactor models changed. I updated without problems. The models swapped and the saved ships just loaded the new models and clipped the parts as needed.

5: The documentation is improving all of the time, but with all the new features and constant updates, documentation has lagged. My advice is just spend some time experimenting and figure out what works. KSP is a sandbox game after all.

1: So in other word Thorium does have a quicker half life or depletes quicker. Are atomic half-lives even simulated or replicated in this mod?

3: Ok, I think I get it.

4: I'm gonna see if the dev has anything to say on it before I download the new update.

5: Yeah, I here you, it would just be nice to have a place that the community could manage, update and cater to.

[Fractal_UK]

Thorium is actually stable so its not really down to half life, its actually that the Thorium fuel cycle has poor neutron economy so as you build up neutron absorbing materials in the reactor, it kills the power output. This means that although a given amount of fuel actually lasts longer with thorium and you get more power output, you have to baby the reactor a bit more.

The new methane tank is backwards compatible but it is a fractionally different size so you'll want to snap your saved launcher back together to correct the small difference in part alignment. It is only a fraction, so it shouldn't affect your existing ships much.

[Gibster]

So in other words Uranium is the better long term material if I don't want to put on a science lab or babysit it?

Ok, I wish you would have kept the other methane tank ingame though, that would have been nice, in addition to adding the new one. But it is what it is and I'll just have to spend some time fixing up a new launcher.

Here's a situation one of my ships is in: My reactor is completely full of actinides, I'm out of power, I've got 2 hexcans full of thorium, is there any way I can save it (restart the reactor)?

Edited December 22, 2013 by Gibster