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

[AeroEngy]

I do. I have 4 relays spaced 90 degrees at 300km. But I have still seen large drop off in power when pitching over at launch With a single receiving dish on the top. However, I just tested a single transmitter and a single receiver in orbit and am getting the same "cone" of about 30 degrees as xfrankie where the power doesn't drop off but Then falls quickly when approaching 90. So I am not sure what's going on or how it works exactly.

[Jivaii]

I've got 8 in stationary orbit around Kerbin. Never had an issue with it.

[psicorman]

Hi All,

need help or advice, ive just downloaded and installed KSP interstellar in to my gamedata folder, I have had to take them out as every time it crashes the game just as its starting to load in, it goes through and get to the end of loading everything up but as soon as it goes in to the game I crash to desktop. if I remove the 3 folders from my Gamedata folder

Hexcans

Treeloader

Wearplugin

and then remove ModuleManager_1_5.dll from my KSP folder then game works

I know other people play the game with it installed but I duuno why im having the issue, can anyone help

Thanks

Psi

[RadHazard]

I do. I have 4 relays spaced 90 degrees at 300km. But I have still seen large drop off in power when pitching over at launch With a single receiving dish on the top. However, I just tested a single transmitter and a single receiver in orbit and am getting the same "cone" of about 30 degrees as xfrankie where the power doesn't drop off but Then falls quickly when approaching 90. So I am not sure what's going on or how it works exactly.

That will help, but I was referring to geostationary (or keostationary, if you prefer) satellites. That way, they'd always be in exactly the right spot over KSC. You could have one more or less directly above KSC, another one about 20-30 degrees east, a third the same distance away, and then maybe one positioned in a good spot for your circularization burn. If you need more coverage, you could either put more or space them out. Stationary orbit is about 2,868.75 km up, though you'll get better accuracy if you use an information mod and get the orbital period to be only a few seconds plus or minus 6 hours.

[MedievalNerd]

Recording vessel unique IDs, it technically doesn't stop you reverting but it does stop you using the same ship to gain science repeatedly.

Smart man!

Thanks for this, I'll have to start figuring out how to make experiments with this new toy!

[merendel]

I put 6 relays into a 700 equatorial orbit. Prety much any standard launch profile has at least 1 relay withen a 30 degree cone strait forward at all times so power dropouts are almost non existant during launch. I was feeling lazy when I put them up and just straped all 6 to a rocket, got it up to 700km and asked mechjeb for a 5/6 resonant orbit. Released one at each AP and used RCS to circularize each sat and matched up the orbital period. Ended up with a nearly perfect constellation.

BTW is it possible to edit the part file to change which node is the initial attachment point for the refinery in the VAB? I've been trying to come up with a way to just mount it on the top of a rocket like a nose cone. I can do it if I use it as the root of the rocket but I was kinda hopeing to use it as a sub assembly. trying to avoid having to either launch it sideways (or a separate launch) and redock in orbit facing the right way.

[db48x]

BTW is it possible to edit the part file to change which node is the initial attachment point for the refinery in the VAB? I've been trying to come up with a way to just mount it on the top of a rocket like a nose cone. I can do it if I use it as the root of the rocket but I was kinda hopeing to use it as a sub assembly. trying to avoid having to either launch it sideways (or a separate launch) and redock in orbit facing the right way.

The problems with the refinery in the editor are KSP bugs; there are only one or two stock parts that use more than two attach nodes, so the bugs have lingered. Try using the Select Root mod, I've used that in the past to work around this sort of problem.

[merendel]

ya. I read the section of this thread where fractal was asking people's opinion on which node they prefered being the working one due to the attachment bug. Still cant comprehend why you guys voted for the side one. Far as I can tell that one is only useful if you want to attach several refineries radially. Guess it would be harder to work around the limitation if you actualy wanted to attach it that way and the botom node was the default but I have no need or desire to do so. Still was hopeing that it was something a quick edit could reverse the behavior on. I'll probably end up checking out that select root mod.

[biglightbt]

Question: I've recently unlocked the Plasma engines and I was curious exactly what I needed to get any real thrust out of them. I've built the tiniest craft I can with them (Quite literally a command pod, paracute, liquidFuel, generator, reactor, and engine) and I can't get any kind of TWR, most of the time I'm lucky to get .01. What am I doing wrong?

Nothing! They are working precisely as intended. The plasma thrusters are megajoule thirsty monsters and if you just got them unlocked you probably don't have the power available to really let em' loose. Once you get a reliable Microwave power network going you can really let em rip. I have a small array of four upgraded Ageletes II reactors and generators parked behind the VAB pumping 10GW of Microwave power into my 4 satellite grid. With that kind of power on tap, without the weight of a reactor on a craft, you can easily hurl entirely mono-propellant fueled craft into orbit using them with 1,000kN worth of thrust out of the one engine.

If I can say one thing about Fractal's mod, its that he has put enormous effort into making the tech tree unfold in an incredibly engaging way. Keep doing science and soon enough you will have those puppies putting out mind boggling amounts of thrust.

[Rizendell]

If it's so easy why don't you code it yourself and submit it to Fractal_UK ?

#1 - The base animation for the arm already exists on the research lab and just needs to be cut off and rigged (20 minutes of work, maybe) into its own part.

#2- The code for determining the orientation is already defined (see module ComputeFacingFactor) and just needs to be applied to the animation via a simple module in the MicrowavePowerReceiver.cs file (another 20 minutes of programming and recompiling the mod). And since I do not have permission from Fractal_UK to modify his copyrighted code, Im not going to violate the law. If I really wanted to, all I would have to do is delete that module out of the file and forget the facing factor entirely.

#3 - I will await an answer to my post that was addressed to him directly before I take any other steps towards my polite request.

On a side note- I am sorry to learn that ZZZ is no longer modeling for KSP and this mod. I really hope someone else who has the skills to do us all justice can pick up the torch and carry on.

[Lightwarrior]

Nothing! They are working precisely as intended. The plasma thrusters are megajoule thirsty monsters and if you just got them unlocked you probably don't have the power available to really let em' loose. Once you get a reliable Microwave power network going you can really let em rip. I have a small array of four upgraded Ageletes II reactors and generators parked behind the VAB pumping 10GW of Microwave power into my 4 satellite grid. With that kind of power on tap, without the weight of a reactor on a craft, you can easily hurl entirely mono-propellant fueled craft into orbit using them with 1,000kN worth of thrust out of the one engine.

...

And you do not really need upgraded reactors to do this. You can do it with unupgraded reactors, you will simply need more of them parked near KSC, which is easy anyway.

Also argon is better than monoprop because it gives better efficiency with almost the same ISP, resulting in higher thrust.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Lightwarrior

[merendel]

And you do not really need upgraded reactors to do this. You can do it with unupgraded reactors, you will simply need more of them parked near KSC, which is easy anyway.

Also argon is better than monoprop because it gives better efficiency with almost the same ISP, resulting in higher thrust.

I second both of those. I'll replace em once I can upgrade reactors(I went generators first) just straped some parachutes and strut landing legs to a nuke/generator combo and stuck it on a rocket just big enough to lob the whole thing 10k westward. I lobed about 20 of those out that way and along with the few nuke ships I have in a parking orbit also supplying power I can get 16 or so GW depending on the relay angles.

I'm also loving argon as a launch fuel. I've managed to shove a 40 ton payload into orbit on just a couple of the argon tanks and a 1.25M plasma. I tried the xenon but the stuff just burns out too fast to be worth it. Mostly I've been a couple of argon drop tanks as launch fuel and then switching over to lithium for orbital maneuvers. Lithium strikes a really nice ballance between weight, ISP, and thrust. I'm likeing it over pure liquid.

[Lightwarrior]

Instead of flying those 40T reactors i built such "rovers":

They are a a bit tricky to control, but with those landing gears instead of rover wheels they can go really fast.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Lightwarrior

[merendel]

I did the rover thing the first time or two. Then I realized why am I spending 20 minutes driving each nuke out as far as I wanted when I could get there in 2 minutes by siting it on top of a couple of mainsails. lost 1 or 2 to insufficient landing control (aka it fell over and broke in half) and one to accidentally taging it with the spent booster of another launch, one in a million shot with that but oh well.

[NeoAcario]

So, I have a dumb question: Fractal, why was the Warp Drive Mk2 not added to the official mod pack? That thing is amazing... and practically necessary for any space plan that wishes to warp.

Any chance we could get it properly added?

~Steve

[Boamere]

Eheheheheh I just landed my 8 3.25m reactors+generators 20 k away of ksc, now i have 200GW on launch with my plasma thrusters XD

[Jivaii]

So, I have a dumb question: Fractal, why was the Warp Drive Mk2 not added to the official mod pack? That thing is amazing... and practically necessary for any space plan that wishes to warp.

Any chance we could get it properly added?

~Steve

Oh wow, I'd nearly forgotten about that. If I recall, there was an issue with the animation?

For those curious to what we speak of.

After some break I finally made something new but instead of something usefull it's something too complex and crazy shaped mostly for my own fun. It's warpdrive model with changeble shape for horisontal things, it still need some additional elevation but much less then with regular model.

Not supposed to be part of regular pack, more like "bonus content". Use on your own risk.

I copied modules from regular one but don't know can it actually warp or not.

http://www./?ewkw5zkzuss6s2h

Edited January 25, 2014 by Jivaii
More info

[AeroEngy]

... And since I do not have permission from Fractal_UK to modify his copyrighted code, Im not going to violate the law. If I really wanted to, all I would have to do is delete that module out of the file and forget the facing factor entirely.

#3 - I will await an answer to my post that was addressed to him directly before I take any other steps towards my polite request.

FYI, from what I understand of the license terms terms you can modify and distribute any changes as long as you license it under the same terms.

Sections 4 &6.

https://github.com/FractalUK/KSPInterstellar/blob/develop/FNPlugin/License.md

However, it would be bad form to not talk to the owner first.

[Boamere]

Cool I forgot about that too!

Also let me get this straight; If I want to relay power around,I have to set up generators in any orbit and have them on transmit? then I put relays up around 700k (which only have one transceiver? Or 2, one for receiving and one for relaying?) and set them to relay mode, will this work?

Edited January 25, 2014 by Boamere

[AeroEngy]

Oh wow, I'd nearly forgotten about that. If I recall, there was an issue with the animation?

For those curious to what we speak of.

I forgot about that also. I second this being added due to high levels of awesome.

[Fractal_UK]

Thanks to some great work by AArtisan, you're going to have put up with fewer of my poor quality models in version 0.10 and will get some high quality work by him instead.

The fusion reactors that I wrote about before will be replaced by this:

You can find further details of the tokamak fusion reactors here, only the model has changed: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43839-0-23-KSP-Interstellar-%28Tweakables-New-ISRU-Preecoolers%29-Version-0-9-2-%28Beta%29?p=924772&viewfull=1#post924772

This is an antimatter initated microfission/fusion reactor. It uses small quantities of antiprotons to cause fission in Uranium nuclei, this fission then induces fusion in a pellet of Deuterium/Helium-3. It is essentially another type of fusion reactor - it always uses the same four fuels though, there is no option to swap between fusion modes, it's a nice reactor that produces comparable output to the 3.75m tokamak fusion reactor but, as it's D-He3, produces 80% charged power, which is great for efficient power generation and, crucially, it doesn't require any input power. It is also much lighter than the similar sized and output Tokamak (less than half the mass) and doesn't have any kind of minimum output, meaning operational lifetime can theoretically be huge.

Convenience comes with a price, however, and that price is resource availability - Antimatter, even in tiny quantities, and Helium-3 are far more inconvenient to need for your reactor compared to the Tokamak's Deuterium and Lithium.

This is the ATTILA (Adjustable Throttle Inductively Afterburning Arcjet) and its designed for people who want a higher thrust (lower specific impulse) electric engine. Specific impulse is ~3.92x lower than the MPD (that's 2,854s for LiquidFuel), the thrust is consequently higher by the same fraction. It's particularly useful for those earlier periods of the game where you want a different range of thrust performances from your nuclear electric rockets.

It is, however, a little less efficient than the plasma engine and, because it's electrothermal, it doesn't get to use propellants like Lithium.

---

Now to demonstrate why it's better when I don't make models, we have this:

A 2.5m inline refinery - it doesn't come with all the resource extraction parts of the larger model but it does all the processing stages, that crucially includes the Sabatier process, so you can land this on Duna/Eve and use it to refuel with Methane.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Fractal_UK
spelling

[Boamere]

Wow looks awesome! Will solar sails be in that version or is that later?

[Fractal_UK]

Wow looks awesome! Will solar sails be in that version or is that later?

Solar sail will be in too, yes.

[Boamere]

Solar sail will be in too, yes.

Nice!

Also I'm having a bit of trouble with relays (I'm new) do I need to have reactors transmitting and relays receiving and relaying (with 2 receivers?)

[Konnor]

@Fractal_UK

Awesome indeed.

Also, while I may sound as a grammarnazi here, I believe the spelling of "tokomak" is incorrect, since I haven't heard of any abbreviation with an "o" - after all, it should be a torroidal camera with magnetic coils, both in russian and english. AFAIK, most common english spelling is tokamak.