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

[guto8797]

hello there! I could use some help with this mod.

I designed a nuclear aircraft, with a thermal turbojet attached to a kiwi reactor, and the reactor attached to a generator. Added some air intakes. aaaand i cant even take off. The turbojet just flames out and says (IntakeATM) deprived, a resource that doesn't even show up on my resource list. What is wrong?

And thanks beforehand for your help!

[Boamere]

Um i don't know where to ask this but, when I crash my game lags up like crazy and goes about 1 fps every 2 seconds (on a 5 part ship)

I've found out that it seems to duplicate my ship a million times when I crash

Here is a screen-shot I took before I closed ksp (I can't even go to the space centre)

And here is my output log

http://www./download/44v85is1oc8yxnd/output_log.rar

It may be to do with the impactor experiments maybe?

I'm looking for help because I have no idea why this started happening

[guto8797]

NVM, bad install, sorry

[merendel]

yah, though for roleplaying, I think i prefer monoprop (as being cheaper, correct me if I'm wrong) if i was just making a lift stage. It's about the same as argon for ISP and thrust mulitplier.

the raw multiplier yes but the efficiency of the fuel will modify the actual thrust you receive. Mono has the worst efficiency by a fair margin of all the fuels. While this wont change your ISP it will reduce your thrust and how much waste heat you produce while your burning. I slapped together a quick test craft on the launch clamps. Running it off the 32.3GW my power grid provides I got the following thrust values.

Xenon 3285 kN

Argon 2009 kN

Mono 1222 kN

lithium 875 kN

Liquid 423 kN

As you can see for the same power input you only get about 3/5 of the thrust argon has despite having a very similar multiplyer. Lithium is not that far behind thanks to its very nice efficiency rating and has more than twice the ISP. the probe was also geting very very toasty while runing in mono prop mode, far faster than any of the other fuels. Personaly I dont see a good reason to pack an excessive amount of mono prop to use as fuel as its really quite poor in that department. I just bring enough for a couple docking manuver and call it good. Mono is also rather heavy compared to lithium so depending on your ship you may not end up gaining much in the TWT department at a full load.

[rosenkranz]

yah, though for roleplaying, I think i prefer monoprop (as being cheaper, correct me if I'm wrong) if i was just making a lift stage. It's about the same as argon for ISP and thrust mulitplier.

Actually, i think i pinned it down. I'm going to try quicksave/quickload and see if the reloading proper resets it. I think this will work because I just tried one and it didn't work, but i had quick saved prior to deorbit. Just for giggles I quickloaded and tried again and this time it worked.

Well, that didn't work, or at least it didn't work consistantly. The only thing that has worked twice in a row is as follows.

Once you collect and xmit the data, toggle the seismic sensor off, then on.

Go to each sensor site in turn and toggle them as well.

Go back to the space center and reload the impact ship (or carrier) from the tracking station.

Break off the impactor (if applicable), switch to the impactor and change its name.

Quicksave, then quickload.

Crash and profit.

I've got a few more impactors to test this on, but it's late. Will try more science tomorrow.

[merendel]

Well, that didn't work, or at least it didn't work consistantly. The only thing that has worked twice in a row is as follows.

Once you collect and xmit the data, toggle the seismic sensor off, then on.

Go to each sensor site in turn and toggle them as well.

Go back to the space center and reload the impact ship (or carrier) from the tracking station.

Break off the impactor (if applicable), switch to the impactor and change its name.

Quicksave, then quickload.

Crash and profit.

I've got a few more impactors to test this on, but it's late. Will try more science tomorrow.

I've not had anywhere near the amount of issues you seem to be haveing. For me I literaly landed and turned on all my sensors. Swaped to an impactor that was just an RGT, a probe core a toroidal tank, and LV1 ant engien and did a deorbit burn. impact recorded. Swap to a sensor to retrieve and transmit and then back to another impactor to repeat. I even had one time where I crashed 3 probes one after another without colecting and each recorded although I had to colect 3 times on the sensor as each impact was a discrete event to recover.

Maybe the issues you and others are having have to do with the method of geting the impactors out there. I used docking ports to attach my probes instead of a seperator. There was no matching port on the probe but for a single use part it didnt matter. Did that mostly to not leave extra junk out there in orbit.

[SeventhArchitect]

sent my first intentionally large ship into space a while ago. 3.75 alcubierre, AM tank, AM reactor. the rest was a collection of objects, like my faved AM drive, but this time, as LFO powered. no wobble, 209 (or 207) parts.

It flies amazingy, powered by 8, 1.25m thermal nozzles, and there is a total of just under 5,000 units if liquidfuel, and same for oxidizer. Don't know the exact fuel payload, last saw how much was in there when I was refueling it via lazor systems. It is made to be docked with 4 different things at most. But 200+ parts is hard on the cpu.

[MaHuJa]

Northstar: You need to take the vehicle off of the launchpad for it to work. While it sits on top of any mesh (buildings including runway) it won't work.

The rest of you having trouble with gathering impact data: Try testing if it makes a difference if you go root part first vs last. I've had plenty of debris fall through the ground and bug my game out when it landed rear-first.

[Sevio]

For those of you who would like lithium mining to make a little more sense, here is the MM config I used to bring down the time to fill a single canister with a single refinery on Laythe from ~7 hours of real time max timewarp to a matter of a few in-game days. Relative balance of mining speed between Laythe, Kerbin and Eve is unchanged, I just multiplied the abundance by 10000.

@OCEANIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[EveLithium]
{
	@abundance = 0.00093
}
@OCEANIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[KerbinLithium]
{
	@abundance = 0.0017
}
@OCEANIC_RESOURCE_DEFINITION[LaytheLithium]
{
	@abundance = 0.00237
}

Edited February 16, 2014 by Sevio

[Cassonator]

I'm guessing looking at the other comments here that the size / weight of an impactor doesn't matter. Just wish I could get some kind of consistency here. Nothing worse than designing and planning a mission, everything goes exactly to plan, but absolutely no result. Very disappointing. Might just hold fire on impactor experimentation until a fix comes out.

[agentexeider]

@Fractal_Uk

OK, I have been away from this mod for a bit, but I need to understand something. Why is the nuclear reactor saying it's UF6 Deprived, when it's a fresh, full reactor?

The antimatter containment device is powered by ???? (Megajoules??)

assuming it's megajoules, what is the absolute minimum needed to keep the anti matter containment running?

Can this be maintained by a nuclear reactor? or does it have to be a fusion reactor??

[Lightwarrior]

Fuel for reactors is UF4 now, you probably loaded old craft?

Antimatter containment can be powered by either megajoules or EC, if i remember correctly it is 1KW for small bottle, 40Kw for 1.25m tank, 100KW for 2.5m tank, but i may be wrong with exact numbers. Anyway it is very small amount of power if you have any reactor.

Also 2 gigantor solar panels in kerbin orbit are enough to power 1.25m tank with EC, but you will have problems with high timewarps because of how resource (EC) consumption works in KSP (or you will need a lot of batteries).

[Donziboy2]

@Fractal_Uk

OK, I have been away from this mod for a bit, but I need to understand something. Why is the nuclear reactor saying it's UF6 Deprived, when it's a fresh, full reactor?

The antimatter containment device is powered by ???? (Megajoules??)

assuming it's megajoules, what is the absolute minimum needed to keep the anti matter containment running?

Can this be maintained by a nuclear reactor? or does it have to be a fusion reactor??

Need more information for the Reactor...

The AM Container description tells you what you need, the requirements are in KW, 1 KW = 1 EC/s or 1 KW = 0.001 MW

You can use stock EC to power the Containers.

[NeoAcario]

Is that with the Antimatter container as part of a larger module or with the antimatter container as a separate part with only docking ports attached? My station that does not generate antimatter out of focus has the antimatter container as an independent part with only docking ports attached.

I'm not sure if it matters... but the entire station is connected via stack... thanks to the HubMax and the 90 degree turn in the ISRU. Why would you build an AM collector station with no AM tank as part of the main assembly?

Obviously I have a docking port that I use to fill up my 1m AM probes for deposit at KSC (and for placing the station via the warp tug)... but that's a separate issue.

EDIT:

Gotta love quantum struts. TBH tho.. I'm thinking about dropping that mod and just using the strut ends provided by KAS. I'm just not sure I want to deal with the tedium of having to constantly link them.... and not all my craft are manned.

~Steve

Edited February 16, 2014 by NeoAcario

[Icer_HR]

I see many people here having issues with the seismic recording of impact events - so am I.

Is there any consistency in this?

I tried the impact on a rudimentary launch from KSC, probe being launched by sep-trons while the experiment base still landed on KSC. I learned that the trick was to switch to the impactor itself - I had to be controlling it for the base to register an impact.

Now I can't for the love make a successful impact experiment on the Mun. I use a fairly large craft, come into orbit around the Mun, separate the impactors, land the science lander while the impactors are still in orbit, then deorbit the impactors.

Not 1 success

Please help

[rosenkranz]

of course my question is, why so many AM tanks. The 2.5 tanks takes like 400kW to maintain. You'll be wasting AM maintaining all those tanks and it will take years to fill them. Just one tank hold an awful lot.

[rosenkranz]

the raw multiplier yes but the efficiency of the fuel will modify the actual thrust you receive. Mono has the worst efficiency by a fair margin of all the fuels. While this wont change your ISP it will reduce your thrust and how much waste heat you produce while your burning. I slapped together a quick test craft on the launch clamps. Running it off the 32.3GW my power grid provides I got the following thrust values.

Xenon 3285 kN

Argon 2009 kN

Mono 1222 kN

lithium 875 kN

Liquid 423 kN

As you can see for the same power input you only get about 3/5 of the thrust argon has despite having a very similar multiplyer. Lithium is not that far behind thanks to its very nice efficiency rating and has more than twice the ISP. the probe was also geting very very toasty while runing in mono prop mode, far faster than any of the other fuels. Personaly I dont see a good reason to pack an excessive amount of mono prop to use as fuel as its really quite poor in that department. I just bring enough for a couple docking manuver and call it good. Mono is also rather heavy compared to lithium so depending on your ship you may not end up gaining much in the TWT department at a full load.

Wow, good to know. After doing a little research I found that argon is about $5/kg while xenon is about $1200/kg and hydrazine (what we think monoprop is) is about $17/kg.

So for the money and the effeciency, Argon may be the winner. Earths atmosphere is about .7% argon.

[NeoAcario]

of course my question is, why so many AM tanks. The 2.5 tanks takes like 400kW to maintain. You'll be wasting AM maintaining all those tanks and it will take years to fill them. Just one tank hold an awful lot.

Almost 3 mil capacity (those are 3.75m tanks). Around Jool, with 56 collecters, you collect over 0.37 per second. AM reactors only throttle to what you need. The reactor only throttles to 0.003%. I still get the 0.37 AM per second with only an AM reactor powering containment. This means I never have to reprocess nuclear fuels. It never needs maintenance... it can run forever.

With that much capacity it can run at full power transmission for right around 75 hours. Obviously you would never need ~240 GW for more than a couple of minutes. Keep in mind the largest plasma thruster (2.5m) maxes out with 200 GW of power. Also, it fills in ~93 days @ ~32.1k per day.

This allows me to easily swing by and grab ~1mil per month with my warp tug + 1.08mil AM probe (that I keep landed near KSC).

EDIT:

Mass AM at KSC comes in handy... you can launch pretty much anything (up to around 600 tons) into LKO with 3.75m AM reactor, thermal rocket, and ~2750 AM.

~Steve

Edited February 16, 2014 by NeoAcario

[Colseg]

I'm not sure if it matters... but the entire station is connected via stack... thanks to the HubMax and the 90 degree turn in the ISRU. Why would you build an AM collector station with no AM tank as part of the main assembly?

Obviously I have a docking port that I use to fill up my 1m AM probes for deposit at KSC (and for placing the station via the warp tug)... but that's a separate issue.

~Steve

That seems like it could be the problem then, my Kerbin station where I collect AM was just a normal fuel station that I added some parts to over time for antimatter generation and collection, and with the antimatter container as just the container with 2 docking ports attached to the station separately from everything else it does not collect AM while out of focus, can anyone else confirm this behavior in their game so we can give Fractal some good info for a fix?

Edit: Here is an image of how my antimatter container is connected, ignore the window about antimatter generation being 0, that was a bug in an older version, the AM container is still in the same place though. It works fine while in focus and with time warp as far as I can tell, but does not generate while out of focus.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Colseg

[ecat]

That seems like it could be the problem then, my Kerbin station where I collect AM was just a normal fuel station that I added some parts to over time for antimatter generation and collection, and with the antimatter container as just the container with 2 docking ports attached to the station separately from everything else it does not collect AM while out of focus, can anyone else confirm this behavior in their game so we can give Fractal some good info for a fix?

Edit: Here is an image of how my antimatter container is connected, ignore the window about antimatter generation being 0, that was a bug in an older version, the AM container is still in the same place though. It works fine while in focus and with time warp as far as I can tell, but does not generate while out of focus.

http://i.imgur.com/eZ7Fm4d.png

I posted about the same problem yesterday so it's happened at least twice

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43839-0-23-KSP-Interstellar-%28Thermal-Helper-Solar-Sail-Impactors-Fusion%29-Version-0-10-3?p=971495&viewfull=1#post971495

[Della]

Hey there. New user here. ...actually i'm almost at the end of KSPI, just have to unlock the Alcubierre. But, hey, it's the first time I post

Actually, it's to ask about some stuff that i was wondering about.

After trying around some rockets, it seems like the for large ships the DT Vista beats anything. even at top throttle, it has decent thrust and an ISP that's pretty much unbeatable by anything that's not AM. Am I right in assuming that, barring AM, the Vista is THE large ship engine? Or am I overlooking some way of using the rocket nozzles creatively? I mean, I guess their advantage is versatility of propellant (liquid, LFO, etc), but is there something more to them that I'm missing?

Of course I'm not talking about small ships, the 2.5GW requirement for the Vista pretty much kills it in that regard.

And: to get Helium-3, you have to actively breed Lithium into Tritium, or just leaving a stock of Tritium to decay somewhere is enough?

[juraleona]

As noone answered me, I ask one more time:

Can anybody help me with missing textures in this mod? I am missing textures of:

- radiators (all unfolding ones, inline and big flat radiator have their textures),

- 1.25m fusion reactor and 62.5 cm fusion reactor,

- small radial radiator alongside with radial radiator.

If anyone have any idea how to fix it or how can I make my report more usefull please tell.

BR,

JJ

[merendel]

Can anybody help me with missing textures in this mod? I am missing textures of:

If anyone have any idea how to fix it or how can I make my report more usefull please tell.

Be aware that freshly registered users posts take a little while to show up. in a fast moving thread your post could be on page 680 but the thread is already to 682 by the time it shows up so its really easy to miss posts like your first one.

Never seen that happen before but I'd recommend the canned troubelshooting tips. Delete the warp plugin folder from KSP and then download a fresh copy of the mod and install it. I would suspect with a missing texture like that you somehow downloaded a corrupted archive. If that fails knowing what other mods you have installed might help in trouble shooting your problem. a copy of the error log wouldnt hurt either.

On to my own question is the wiki out of date in reguards to the plasma thrusters max input? wiki says 3.125GW for the .625 thruster but its actualy drawing up to 4.34 on my test rig and the 1.25 rated at 25GW was pulling the full 32GW out of my microwave network. Just curious if that was a bug, out of date info, or just me missing something blindingly obvious. Also the info in the VAB for the attila thrusters is a bit off, they show the proper ISP but are listing the plasma thrusters thrust/MW values for each fuel type.

[EuSouONumero345]

Is there any balloon tank mod for ksp?

[Lightwarrior]

...

On to my own question is the wiki out of date in reguards to the plasma thrusters max input? wiki says 3.125GW for the .625 thruster but its actualy drawing up to 4.34 on my test rig and the 1.25 rated at 25GW was pulling the full 32GW out of my microwave network. Just curious if that was a bug, out of date info, or just me missing something blindingly obvious. Also the info in the VAB for the attila thrusters is a bit off, they show the proper ISP but are listing the plasma thrusters thrust/MW values for each fuel type.

It seems like this depends on efficiency. If you try monopropellant 0.625 thruster will use 6+ GW. Probably effective power is limited, not total.

Della,

Yes, it seems that Vista is one of the best options for big ships. The only thing that can be slightly better in some cases is thermal nozzle with upgraded antimatter reactor. Also it can be powered by relatively small/light 2.5m fusion reactor or even 1.25m antimatter reactor. Its size cause more problems than power requirements.