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

[Rizendell]

How hard would it be to limit the power supply to the power demand for microwave receiver craft? Maybe a couple lines of code or an alteration to an existing formula or variable? It doesn't make sense that just because the theoretical supply of energy is 20 GW or whatever, that your reactors all have to be running at 100% if they are transmitting at all (even if nothing is using it or demanding it) and then your receiving craft has to deal with all that waste heat and excess power its NOT DEMANDING. Like seriously doesn't make any sense. Its such a pain in the ass to go around to every transmitting craft and turn on and off the transmitters every time I need a few GW for a receiving craft somewhere, not to mention the need for more refueling of said reactors because they don't limit their supply.

I launched a UF4 3.75m fission reactor the other day after the .10 update and by the time I had left kerbin SOI; the damn thing ran out of fuel after just 36 days just because the transceiver was transmitting. not sure if it was a bug or an issue with time warp or whatever, but it defiantly didn't last long.

[Lightwarrior]

Just place you reactors on the surface (kerbin or any other moon/planet) and add few refineries and they will run forever. The only thing you will need is some containers for depleted fuel. Then you can use relays...

The second problem is a bit worse, but still 2 small radiators are enough to handle ~20-30GW for few minutes, just remember to shutdown receivers when you do not need power (you actually only need those power during burns, so those few minutes will be enough).

And... ability to limit received/transmitted power would be nice of course, but not critical...

Also noticed another problem - UF4/ThF4 mining seem to work only under high timewarp, again.

And another one - 2.5/3.75m fusion reactors cannot breed tritium fast enough to work, they still need external tritium source, is this intended?

Edited February 6, 2014 by Lightwarrior

[NeoAcario]

Can anyone tell me the math for the ratio of parts per million and the mining rate from the ISRU? Trying to do the math on how many reactors I can support per refinery based on where I land it... how concentrated the Uranium is.

Anyone?

~Steve

[TheTom]

I launched a UF4 3.75m fission reactor the other day after the .10 update and by the time I had left kerbin SOI; the damn thing ran out of fuel after just 36 days just because the transceiver was transmitting. not sure if it was a bug or an issue with time warp or whatever, but it defiantly didn't last long.

I think you should ask Fractal here - this is a bug. 36 days sounds too little. Way too little.

https://github.com/FractalUK/KSPInterstellar/wiki/Reactors

gives the lifetime of a 3.75m fission reactor at 100% power output at 1 year and 59 days for UF4. One can agree on whether this is long or not.... but it still is multiple times your 36 days, so something is odd here.

Edited February 6, 2014 by TheTom

[Fractal_UK]

Also noticed another problem - UF4/ThF4 mining seem to work only under high timewarp, again.

That's utterly bizarre - I can't see any reason why that should be the case when Tritium breeding still works. You're right though.

And another one - 2.5/3.75m fusion reactors cannot breed tritium fast enough to work, they still need external tritium source, is this intended?

Not to the degree that it exists at the moment, it's supposed to be very tight so that tritium will fractionally deplete relative to everything else. I've got the quantities a bit better now.

I think you should ask Fractal here - this is a bug. 36 days sounds too little. Way too little.

Mostly likely thing I can think of is tweaking the tweakable in the VAB, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong at all with reactor consumption rates.

Hey Fractal, love Interstellar. Looking forward to see the updated version of the impactor experiment stuff. I noticed in the 10.X versions, the precooler was no longer necessary for superfast turbojetting. Noticed some exceptions being thrown into the log, and I spotted this in the Sabre heating module:

if (rapier_engine2.isOperational && rapier_engine2.currentThrottle > 0 && rapier_engine.useVelocityCurve) {

Looks like a simple typo, the useVelocityCurve check is against the wrong variable, and rapier_engine is Nothing, causing a null ref exception.

Thanks, good catch.

[Umlüx]

this plugin is so awesome and growing so fast.. a big wiki update would be cool. i already read back nearly 100 pages and still don't know how to use half of the parts

[Kaa253]

this plugin is so awesome and growing so fast.. a big wiki update would be cool. i already read back nearly 100 pages and still don't know how to use half of the parts

Yes. The existing wiki IS very helpful and I have read about 300 pages but still the best way to explore the parts is to put them together on the launchpad and try to discover what does what . Doesn't always work out but mostly it does.

[Taki117]

Question: If I Put a microwave power generation station in Low Kerbol Orbit (Approx 10Gm altitude) with 16 Gigantor Solar panels if I supplemented this with two 3.75m electric generators (With appropriate reactors) would I produce more power, or would the system be unaffected?

[forsaken1111]

Question: If I Put a microwave power generation station in Low Kerbol Orbit (Approx 10Gm altitude) with 16 Gigantor Solar panels if I supplemented this with two 3.75m electric generators (With appropriate reactors) would I produce more power, or would the system be unaffected?

One would assume that you'd make more power WITH the 2 reactor/generators than without... what makes you doubt this?

[Taki117]

One would assume that you'd make more power WITH the 2 reactor/generators than without... what makes you doubt this?

I'm curious if there is a limit to the amount of power I can transmit. I plan on having 3 such arrays around Kerbol.

[forsaken1111]

I'm curious if there is a limit to the amount of power I can transmit. I plan on having 3 such arrays around Kerbol.

Ahh. I don't know if there is an upper limit to the amount of power the transceivers can pump out honestly.

[Fractal_UK]

Version 0.10.3 Released

As promised - Integration of the impactors with the stock science system and a few bug fixes.

Version 0.10.3
-Integrated Impactor experiment into the stock science system
-Fixed zero resource extraction rate at low timewarp
-Fixed refinery monopropellant conversion rate
-Fixed overheating with atmospheric engines
-Fixed Tritium breeding rate

Download links on the first page have been updated.

Note: When updating, please delete your existing OpenResourceSystem folder in addition to your WarpPlugin folder before installing (you only need to do this if updating from 0.10.1 or 0.10.2).

[forsaken1111]

Very nice! What will this do to saves which have already performed a few impact experiments?

[Fractal_UK]

Very nice! What will this do to saves which have already performed a few impact experiments?

Nothing, the data recording format has changed to support this. The only effect will be that you'll be able to get a bit of extra science doing the impact experiments you've already done all over again.

[forsaken1111]

Nothing, the data recording format has changed to support this. The only effect will be that you'll be able to get a bit of extra science doing the impact experiments you've already done all over again.

Woo science!

[Umlüx]

anyone using the new IR telescope with remote tech?

is it enough to simply boost the DishRange value from the antennas.cfg? or is the range somewhere hardcoded?

will it affect only new crafts or already launched ones too?

[merendel]

I'm curious if there is a limit to the amount of power I can transmit. I plan on having 3 such arrays around Kerbol.

IF theres a limit I've not yet found it. I've had masive nuke trains on the order of 27 pairs of unupgraded reactor/generator combos that output in the 10s of gigawatts with no problem other than a few fried spaceships. Frankly its easier to strap some wheels to a reactor and drive it away from KSP than to try and launch them into orbit and you get almost as much effective power.

[Ethan3369]

Umilux I plan to try to get the wiki up to date because noone else seem to be getting to it but it will be a while before its done.

[JewelShisen]

For everybody that has been complaning about the change to the stock accel sensor you can "fix" it with just a tiny change that takes two seconds!

Just find the science.cfg file in the WarpPlugin folder and remove the line that starts with !MODULE from it. Now you have the stock accel science sensor AND the KSPI impact sensor all in one.

[InfinityArch]

So I've been playing around with designs using KSPI tech, and managed to built something that, on paper, would appear to be capable of reaching around 7.8% of the (real world) speed of light without warp drives. Assuming this mission was intended to deliver a probe to a KSP analogue to Proxima Centurai and thus had to slow down on the other end, it would be capable of reaching another star system (at kerbal scales meaning 1/11 of real life) in about 10 years, not taking into account the speed up/slow down time and the (still quite small but not, IIRC, negligible) effects of relativity at those speeds.

Given that there's no other star systems to travel to at this point, the biggest use I can see for it would be for missions using Brachistochrone rather than Hohman transfers.

Would anyone happen to know of a good way to plan a Brachistochrone transfer in Kerbal Space Program? I've seen the math for calculating transit times, but how would I figure out the ejection angle I'd want?

[merendel]

Given that there's no other star systems to travel to at this point, the biggest use I can see for it would be for missions using Brachistochrone rather than Hohman transfers.

Would anyone happen to know of a good way to plan a Brachistochrone transfer in Kerbal Space Program? I've seen the math for calculating transit times, but how would I figure out the ejection angle I'd want?

Honestly the best I've been able to come up with is use precise node (or other manuver node editor of your choice) to set a really high deltaV burn and just tweek the timeing normal and radial till you manage to hit your target. I basicly use the same techniques I'd use for a traditional hohman transfer. Set the target, set the dV, tweek it till the closest approach gets an encounter. only real difference is your dV budget is significantly higher and your probably not waiting for a launch window, you just go when your orbit around the parent body is faceing the right way. That and you probably want to be in an orbit in the 200-300km range or higher as your burn vector has a prety good chance of intercecting the atmosphere if not the ground itself if your in LKO.

From my few attempts at it it seems the outbound dV requirement is inversly proportional to the time your shaveing off the trip from a homan transfer. one example was kerbin to jool, standard approach ~280days and 2k dV, direct approach ~57 days and about 10k dV. a few other dV values on that same transfer loosely followed the same ratios of time vs dV. 1/X time cost X*dV. Havent tried geting a transfer that went down to eve or moho however so dont know if it holds going that way. Jool duna and interestingly enough minmus were pretty similar however. Also didnt try when the target planet was significantly out of phase as both duna and jool were withen a month of a hohman window

[NeoAcario]

Hey Fractal... have you considered allowing a few of us access to edit the Wiki? I have piles of data I could add... or is it that you want to be careful not to give too much info and have some people figure things out on their own?

I know you haven't had time yet to include/update new parts with the .10 patch... not talking about that, obviously.

~Steve

[Rizendell]

Mostly likely thing I can think of is tweaking the tweakable in the VAB, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong at all with reactor consumption rates.

No there defiantly is something wrong with the consumption rates. I made two video's for you to watch proving that the 3.75m reactor will chew through an entire 3 units of UF4 in just 5.5 hours. The first is with tritium breeding, the second is without... since I didn't know if that would make a difference. Also I tested this with TH4 and got the same results.

http://youtu.be/nnPGM67mgr8

http://youtu.be/K1ltwxemB7I

[Fractal_UK]

No there defiantly is something wrong with the consumption rates. I made two video's for you to watch proving that the 3.75m reactor will chew through an entire 3 units of UF4 in just 5.5 hours. The first is with tritium breeding, the second is without... since I didn't know if that would make a difference. Also I tested this with TH4 and got the same results.

http://youtu.be/nnPGM67mgr8

http://youtu.be/K1ltwxemB7I

You need to replace your reactors on saved ships form before version 0.10.X with fresh ones from the VAB part list. All of the resource totals are wrong, they are 3, when they should be 3000.

Hey Fractal... have you considered allowing a few of us access to edit the Wiki? I have piles of data I could add... or is it that you want to be careful not to give too much info and have some people figure things out on their own?

You should be able to edit it if you have a Github account.

[NeoAcario]

Seems I found another refinery bug. Sitting at a 38ppm UF4 location... it won't actually extract if I'm not at at least 10x time acceleration.

x5

x10

1.268 kg/h doesn't seem so low as to not register at normal speed.

~Steve