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

[Northstar1989]

I don't really know how they work, but it is a touch silly.

Upgraded radiators.

http://i.imgur.com/q3adhJD.png

Regular radiators.

http://i.imgur.com/o9disso.png

That's 38 (!!!) of the unupgraded large radiators performing worse than 2 of the smaller, upgraded huge radiators.

I had to send my power satellites up in pieces because I have to dock radiators to them to keep them in yellow with 12. Any more than 12 or so and the physics would go nuts on the launch pad.

Nevermind the lag in VAB when trying to build the stacks!

I don't really care how or why they work this way, I just care that it is needlessly excessive. And perhaps sandbox or max science players may not have encountered this behavior, and therefore haven't reported it as problem, because it IS a problem.

@Wavefunction

It's not excessive- it's realistic.

It's pretty simple, really. There is *NO SUCH THING* as "base" heat dissipation.

Your radiators dissipate heat based entirely on their temperature (like a hot piece of metal giving off heat as it glows- which is basically what your unupgraded radiators are- glowing pieced of metal). As it happens, there is a "background" temperature, which is the coldest they can get- but it's not a true "base" heat giveoff in any sense.

The hotter your radiators get, the more heat they dissipate. If they were at absolute zero (zero degrees Kelvin- the coldest any object can get), they would giveoff absolutely no heat.

The radiators dissipate heat according to a real-life physics law, and actually, the unupgraded radiators perform BETTER than they should relative to the upgraded ones- the Emissivity Coefficient of graphene (upgraded) radiators should be *higher* than that of metal (unupgraded) radiators- but KSP-I gives them exactly the same emissivity instead...

Anyways, you only will notice the difference in heat radiation when you are using upgraded reactors. The reason you are noticing the large difference is because you are using extremely, extremely hot reactors with low-tech radiators that can't safely reach a fraction of the reactor temperature. Use better radiators and don't complain about it.

The upgraded reactors are meant to be used with the upgraded radiators. It's perfectly understandable that you didn't know this when you posted, but *please* don't complain that it's "unbalanced" and ask for the mod to be made less realistic.

As I've already pointed out in my previous posts, there are more than enough realism issues with the upgraded radiators under-performing their actual real-life counterparts (graphene radiators' emissivity should be higher than their metal cousins), the ISRU system incorrectly making exothermic reactions such as the Sabatier Reaction *cost* large quantities of electricity when they should actually be self-sustaining and capable of *producing* small amounts of electricity, and basic-level fusion reactors outperforming what you might expect from first-generation fusion reactors (the upgraded fusion reactors do match expected performance for later-generation fusion reactors well, however). The last thing this mod needs is more inaccuracies, as awesome and fun to play as it is.

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. For those of you not familiar with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, any body that does not absorb 100% of the incident radiation hitting it is known as a GREY BODY rather than a BLACK BODY. Any normal metal is going to be a grey body, for instance- whereas graphene rather closely approaches an idealized black body. The equation for a GREY BODY is:

J = E * S * T^4

where:

J = the Emissive Power. Basically the total heat-giveoff per unit time. What we mean when we say how much heat is radiated.

E (Epsilon) = the EMISSIVITY CONSTANT. This is between 0 and 1 for any GREY BODY, but is 1 for a BLACK BODY.

S (Sigma) = Stefan's Constant. This is a mathematical/physical constant that you guys really don't need to know for these purposes.

T = Absolute Temperature (in degrees Kelvin). Note that it is raised to the FOURTH POWER- so if you double temperature, you get 16 times the heat-giveoff.

If you want to understand this equation for yourself, Wikipedia does a decent job explaining it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

Edited March 3, 2014 by Northstar1989

[WaveFunctionP]

I'm a junior physics major. I have a decent understanding heat. This is a both simulation and a game, I'm arguing that from a gameplay standpoint, the base values negatively impact the experience. It doesn't matter how it is done to me. Find another material to "simulate" for the base radiators, or include radiator upgrades with reactor upgrades. Or just multiply the base values by 10. This would still leave the upgrades as a ~400% improvement.

There's a lot going on in this mod, I wouldn't assume that a player will understand why their reactors are overheating with dozens of the largest radiators attached. Remember, there isn't even an indication ingame of how or where to upgrade radiators. The radiator tooltips only hint that it is an option.

This thread is 700 pages. And I remember reading the wiki while trying to learn, and not really understanding anything. I'm a pretty average as it goes, so I wouldn't expect that someone else would find the experience much easier.

I understand that some people might want KSP to be more simulation, and others want more game. I think a balance can be had. But first it must be accepted that it is both at once.

[HerrGeneral]

Yes, I'm using a helium cryostat. Maybe it's because they're mounted on struts, but I was hoping that wasn't the problem- because that means I have to relaunch it all over again.

[merendel]

I'm a junior physics major. I have a decent understanding heat. This is a both simulation and a game, I'm arguing that from a gameplay standpoint, the base values negatively impact the experience. It doesn't matter how it is done to me. Find another material to "simulate" for the base radiators, or include radiator upgrades with reactor upgrades. Or just multiply the base values by 10. This would still leave the upgrades as a ~400% improvement.

There's a lot going on in this mod, I wouldn't assume that a player will understand why their reactors are overheating with dozens of the largest radiators attached. Remember, there isn't even an indication ingame of how or where to upgrade radiators. The radiator tooltips only hint that it is an option.

This thread is 700 pages. And I remember reading the wiki while trying to learn, and not really understanding anything. I'm a pretty average as it goes, so I wouldn't expect that someone else would find the experience much easier.

I understand that some people might want KSP to be more simulation, and others want more game. I think a balance can be had. But first it must be accepted that it is both at once.

The tech tree picture on the first page actualy tells you where to get the upgrades for the radiators. This is also avalible on the wiki. While it would be ideal for this to be directly visable in game for now it is what it is.

I would also counter your argument about the values negitively impact experience by instead arguing that it presents a design challenge and a very real choice on what to prioritize. Out of the box if you have base fission and generators you have radiators that work just fine. If you choose to upgrade generators first without upgrading generators/radiators you need to over engineer your heat dissipation system to compensate for useing T1 tech to cool T2 tech. Conversely you could go the other way and realize oh with upgraded radiators I can keep this reactor from overheating with a single radiator only to realize that the radiator gets so hot you tank your generator efficiency. KSPI is more catered to having to think and experiment to find the best solution vs the base game where you can just go command pod tank engine "look maw I can fly." If anything I'd say the option to deploy T1 tech instead of T2 tech after the upgrade node has been purchased is a better option than just nerfing radiators to alow sloppy design. As it is now I tend to always go generators first and deploy a ship with a dozen or so small T1 reactors into orbit studding it on docking ports so I have a stockpile of them for small power use situations later before I get the fusion node.

[Kidneythump]

I've been trying to build a fusion tokamak powered cargo SSTO for the past 2 days now and i gotta say it really really hard, so far I barely managed to get it into the upper atmosphere, my latest candidate (6 one so far) seem very promising with it's dual 2.5 reactors and jets. However I'm running into 2 problems. The first has to do with the way air flows through the engine, how do you guys manage to claw your way out of the atmosphere? I currently get 2500kN of thrust when going at 40km but as I climb higher the air pressure drops off and so does the thrust, then I have to switch over to liquid fuel mode (as far as I can tell with thermal turbojets you don't get all that much more thrust from LFO and liquid is way more efficient) and the produce a measly 150 kN of thrust, so far this haven't been nearly enough to get it out of the atmosphere (I usually get to a rough 20 km height before the pressure drops of). How do the more experienced pilots manage this? I'm using B9, more specifically the HL fuselage (I'd like to fit some science equipment and a rover in there idealy)

The second problem is harder to pin down and probably not something to do with this mod but I thought I might as well ask. When trying to build up speed I usually try to go slightly over horizontal to increase my speed at the same time as my height, however I've run into a problem with my last 2 planes where it sometimes seemingly at random start pulling to the left and starts spinning like a Frisbee. I've checked the thrust and as far as i can tell both engines produce the same and I shouldn't be able to flame out the thermal turbojets right? I've also checked my airintakes and they're all fine, no asymetric airflow through 'em.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Kidneythump

[xfrankie]

I've been trying to build a fusion tokamak powered cargo SSTO for the past 2 days now and i gotta say it really really hard, so far I barely managed to get it into the upper atmosphere, my latest candidate (6 one so far) seem very promising with it's dual 2.5 reactors and jets. However I'm running into 2 problems. The first has to do with the way air flows through the engine, how do you guys manage to claw your way out of the atmosphere? I currently get 2500kN of thrust when going at 40km but as I climb higher the air pressure drops off and so does the thrust, then I have to switch over to liquid fuel mode (as far as I can tell with thermal turbojets you don't get all that much more thrust from LFO and liquid is way more efficient) and the produce a measly 150 kN of thrust, so far this haven't been nearly enough to get it out of the atmosphere (I usually get to a rough 20 km height before the pressure drops of). How do the more experienced pilots manage this? I'm using B9, more specifically the HL fuselage (I'd like to fit some science equipment and a rover in there idealy)

Are you sure about 2500kN @ 40km? That would be an insanely good number if you're still in IntakeAtm mode.

How to get SSTO to orbit? There are basically two approaches:

1) You try to get out of the atmosphere as fast as you can, burning at 70 or so degrees to get maximal possible Apoapsis using air-breathing mode, and then you try to circulate your orbit using fuel (about 2kmps of deltaV, depending on the parameters of your original sub-orbital hop).

2)You try to get as much horizontal velocity as you can in air-breathing mode, until you lift your Apoapsis above the atmosphere, and then you circularize using less fuel than in 1). This one is much more difficult to perform properly, because most of the time (at least in my case) I reach a sort of "equilibrium" where my pitch prevents me from dropping altitude, but the engine doesn't give enough horizontal thrust, and if I pitch down I start accelerating (slowly) but also plummeting down rather fast.

So it is reasonable to just switch over to LFO once you get in such situation, since it's very likely to produce more thrust than air-breathing. And don't be afraid of spamming air intakes (with precoolers). More air through engine = more thrust, especially at high altitudes.

Also LFO gives way more thrust than just LiquidFuel. The thrust is lowering with altitude, so once you get high enough the difference between lfo/liquid becomes more apparent. From the Wiki: "To modify for LFO - multiply thrust by 3.7 and multiply Isp by 0.6," the liquid fuel being the base-line.

Here's one of my latest creations, FireFly Mk.4 (it is more likely to end up in a fireball on runway than in an actual orbit, also ugly and highly pitch-unstable because of those radiators). The fuel spent is what it took to get it from 20km apoapsis to 180km orbit.

The second problem is harder to pin down and probably not something to do with this mod but I thought I might as well ask. When trying to build up speed I usually try to go slightly over horizontal to increase my speed at the same time as my height, however I've run into a problem with my last 2 planes where it sometimes seemingly at random start pulling to the left and starts spinning like a Frisbee. I've checked the thrust and as far as i can tell both engines produce the same and I shouldn't be able to flame out the thermal turbojets right? I've also checked my airintakes and they're all fine, no asymetric airflow through 'em.

For the frisbee effect you might want to check left-right weight distribution and/or reduce the engines to one to eliminate any possible thrust differences.

The engine number doesn't matter in air-breathing mode, since you are dividing the air into parts, at higher altitudes the total thrust is equal to a single engine eating all of the air. However multiple engines become an advantage one you switch to fuel.

[Fractal_UK]

You really should use LFO instead of LiquidFuel, the thrust is considerably higher once you switch modes. You'll have a hard time getting enough thrust to keep going without the extra boost from the oxidiser.

Once you've got past 20km or so, try to make sure you build vertical velocity to get yourself out of the atmosphere because once above the atmosphere, you should have sufficient time to burn your way into a stable orbit before you fall back to Kerbin. Since you are having thrust problems, you need to get the vast majority of the vertical velocity component required when you're in the atmosphere and have plenty of thrust available, then you can make a far slower burn to pick up the horizontal velocity needed to enter orbit using LF/LFO once you have created yourself the time window you need to do that.

[HerrGeneral]

Okay, I'm still having a problem with the IR telescope and the helium cryostat. Does the telescope need to be directly mounted on the helium tank? I have the helium tanks on docking ports on the side of the vessel so that I can drop them once used up, but the IR telescope always just says "Helium Coolant D..." which I'm assuming means "coolant depleted."

[Fractal_UK]

Okay, I'm still having a problem with the IR telescope and the helium cryostat. Does the telescope need to be directly mounted on the helium tank? I have the helium tanks on docking ports on the side of the vessel so that I can drop them once used up, but the IR telescope always just says "Helium Coolant D..." which I'm assuming means "coolant depleted."

It doesn't need to be directly mounted on it, no but they need to be stack connected through crossfeed capable parts like normal LFO fuel tanks or connected up to the tanks by fuel lines.

[Kidneythump]

Are you sure about 2500kN @ 40km? That would be an insanely good number if you're still in IntakeAtm mode.

How to get SSTO to orbit? There are basically two approaches:

1) You try to get out of the atmosphere as fast as you can, burning at 70 or so degrees to get maximal possible Apoapsis using air-breathing mode, and then you try to circulate your orbit using fuel (about 2kmps of deltaV, depending on the parameters of your original sub-orbital hop).

2)You try to get as much horizontal velocity as you can in air-breathing mode, until you lift your Apoapsis above the atmosphere, and then you circularize using less fuel than in 1). This one is much more difficult to perform properly, because most of the time (at least in my case) I reach a sort of "equilibrium" where my pitch prevents me from dropping altitude, but the engine doesn't give enough horizontal thrust, and if I pitch down I start accelerating (slowly) but also plummeting down rather fast.

So it is reasonable to just switch over to LFO once you get in such situation, since it's very likely to produce more thrust than air-breathing. And don't be afraid of spamming air intakes (with precoolers). More air through engine = more thrust, especially at high altitudes.

Also LFO gives way more thrust than just LiquidFuel. The thrust is lowering with altitude, so once you get high enough the difference between lfo/liquid becomes more apparent. From the Wiki: "To modify for LFO - multiply thrust by 3.7 and multiply Isp by 0.6," the liquid fuel being the base-line.

Here's one of my latest creations, FireFly Mk.4 (it is more likely to end up in a fireball on runway than in an actual orbit, also ugly and highly pitch-unstable because of those radiators). The fuel spent is what it took to get it from 20km apoapsis to 180km orbit.

http://i.imgur.com/lLn6NB2.png

For the frisbee effect you might want to check left-right weight distribution and/or reduce the engines to one to eliminate any possible thrust differences.

The engine number doesn't matter in air-breathing mode, since you are dividing the air into parts, at higher altitudes the total thrust is equal to a single engine eating all of the air. However multiple engines become an advantage one you switch to fuel.

You really should use LFO instead of LiquidFuel, the thrust is considerably higher once you switch modes. You'll have a hard time getting enough thrust to keep going without the extra boost from the oxidiser.

Once you've got past 20km or so, try to make sure you build vertical velocity to get yourself out of the atmosphere because once above the atmosphere, you should have sufficient time to burn your way into a stable orbit before you fall back to Kerbin. Since you are having thrust problems, you need to get the vast majority of the vertical velocity component required when you're in the atmosphere and have plenty of thrust available, then you can make a far slower burn to pick up the horizontal velocity needed to enter orbit using LF/LFO once you have created yourself the time window you need to do that.

Ah I see! Ill check it out right away, thanks for the quick reply guys, I rechecked the thrust and it actually plateaus at 2600kN before dropping of (rather fast i might add). I think I might've forgotten to test LFO at higher altitudes, maybe that's why I got so lousy numbers.

The problem with one centered engine is that I need to use alot more parts if I still want to use the cargohold from B9 since i plan on unloading once i land and theres only one cargo ramp as far as i can see, smack dab in the back of the fuselage where i would have liked to put my fusion reactor, otherwise I'd have to build a trimaran kinda thing (for the record my third iteration is just that but it had to low thrust and to many parts)

EDIT: Just checked my speed, haha I break mach 1 less than 20 seconds from leaving the runway (in a 81 ton beast)

Edited March 3, 2014 by Kidneythump

[Kidneythump]

I think I've encountered and bug (I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed) but I finally made it out of the atmosphere! everything is fine and dandy but I realize I need to burn a bit more with LFO to circularize (used liquid for the circularization burn) but when i cycle through the different modes my 2 thermojets explode when I tab past atmosphere mode, is this because of the precoolers? I had problems with my engines exploding before i attached the intakes to them instead when flying at high altitude and i know that's intentional, is there a upper limit for heated gases in the intakes?

[CrazyOdd]

I ve got a question: How can I make sure my powerplant satellites always send to one of my relay satellites?

[zephrylia]

I hope this isn't totally obnoxious, but I think my question about Balka solar wings & the inverse square law might have gotten overlooked because it ended up being the last post on a page? So I'm reposting it - thank you!

Apologies if these two questions have already been addressed - I did a quick search of this thread and didn't find answers.

1. I'm working on a low-Kerbol microwave power network using the Balka solar wings from the KOSMOS pack, but it appears that they aren't affected by the KSPI inverse square law? In a ~1500 Mm Kerbol orbit, the stock Gigantors produce about 50 times what they do at Kerbin (i.e., ~1000 rather than ~20 charge/sec), whereas the Balkas produce only 10 times what they do at Kerbin (~4000 rather than ~400 charge/sec). So it seems that the stock panels are obeying KSPI's inverse square law, but the Balkas are obeying the stock distance mechanic. I tried poking around at config files but couldn't figure much out - is there anything I can do to make the Balkas obey KSPI's inverse square law?

2. Just to check a few things I read in the thread but want to make sure I understand - the large phased away transceiver IS more efficient than the small transceiver at receiving power, but IS NOT any different in terms of relaying or transmitting power - right? Likewise, the transceiver DOES have to be physically pointed at a source to receive power, but DOES NOT have to be in order to transmit or relay power - right? There is no limit of how much power a transceiver can transmit - right?

Thank you, Fractal, for an incredible & totally engrossing playing experience!

[bonesbro]

I think I've encountered and bug (I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed) but I finally made it out of the atmosphere! everything is fine and dandy but I realize I need to burn a bit more with LFO to circularize (used liquid for the circularization burn) but when i cycle through the different modes my 2 thermojets explode when I tab past atmosphere mode, is this because of the precoolers? I had problems with my engines exploding before i attached the intakes to them instead when flying at high altitude and i know that's intentional, is there a upper limit for heated gases in the intakes?

Do you still have the problem if you close your intakes first, or if you shut down the engines prior to cycling through modes? And at what height were you when you blew them up?

[bonesbro]

I ve got a question: How can I make sure my powerplant satellites always send to one of my relay satellites?

Neither transmission nor relaying care about the direction of your transmitters, so as long as your power satellite has a clear line of sight to your relay then it will work. Of course you'll need to make sure that it can always see a relay satellite - there's a guide on the wiki at https://github.com/FractalUK/KSPInterstellar/wiki/Basic-Microwave-Powered-Plasma-Spacecraft that should help.

[CrazyOdd]

Oh thanks I thought they had to be facing the right way.... that makes things so much easier

[The_Mini]

Dual Technique Magnetometer not giving science, what's going on?

PART

{

name = DTMagnetometer

module = Part

author = Fractal

mesh = model.mu

rescaleFactor = 1

node_attach = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0

TechRequired = electronics

entryCost = 3400

cost = 200

category = Science

subcategory = 0

title = Dual Technique Magnetometer

manufacturer = MagProbe Inc.

description = A device used to measure the magnetic field of the planet it is placed in orbit of. It is also capable of detecting the abundance of useful antimatter particles in the magnetosphere.

attachRules = 0,1,0,0,1

// --- standard part parameters ---

mass = 0.005

dragModelType = default

maximum_drag = 0.2

minimum_drag = 0.2

angularDrag = 1

crashTolerance = 8

maxTemp = 3200

MODULE

{

name = DTMagnetometer

animName = deploy

}

MODULE

{

name = ModuleScienceExperiment

experimentID = magnetosphericExperiment

experimentActionName = Log Magnetopsheric Data

resetActionName = Delete Data

useStaging = False

useActionGroups = True

hideUIwhenUnavailable = False

resettable = True

resettableOnEVA = False

xmitDataScalar = 0.6

rerunnable = True

}

}

[Makeone]

Those working on (fusion) thermal planes/SSTO's (SSTO isn't always a plane, it can be a rocket too). If you can, use upgraded reactors, as the Isp greatly improves on those in such way, that using LFO is quite meaningful choice.

[ss8913]

We really need a separate forum just for this mod, not a single thread... My question is two-fold:

1. What affects the efficiency of my KTEC generators? it seems to be high on the ground, but .. less good in space, and it varies based on factors that I cannot seem to determine..?

2. Fusion reactors must always be driven by a fission reactor driving an electrical generator, is this correct?

[Boamere]

We really need a separate forum just for this mod, not a single thread... My question is two-fold:

1. What affects the efficiency of my KTEC generators? it seems to be high on the ground, but .. less good in space, and it varies based on factors that I cannot seem to determine..?

2. Fusion reactors must always be driven by a fission reactor driving an electrical generator, is this correct?

Well the efficiency goes down the more wasteheat you have and wasteheat dissapates into the atmosphere much more easily than it would in the vacuum of space (you can make reactors more efficient by putting more radiators on them), and yes fusion reactors need an electrical generator to keep going! hope this helps

[Boamere]

I think I've encountered and bug (I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed) but I finally made it out of the atmosphere! everything is fine and dandy but I realize I need to burn a bit more with LFO to circularize (used liquid for the circularization burn) but when i cycle through the different modes my 2 thermojets explode when I tab past atmosphere mode, is this because of the precoolers? I had problems with my engines exploding before i attached the intakes to them instead when flying at high altitude and i know that's intentional, is there a upper limit for heated gases in the intakes?

This is not a bug (although it is very annoying) basically the engines explode at speeds higher than 1300 ms in atmos, but won't if you close your intakes or are on lfo (or some other fuel mode) so when you switched to atmos mode the engines exploded because of the air getting sucked into the engine at super high speeds!

[merendel]

We really need a separate forum just for this mod, not a single thread... My question is two-fold:

1. What affects the efficiency of my KTEC generators? it seems to be high on the ground, but .. less good in space, and it varies based on factors that I cannot seem to determine..?

2. Fusion reactors must always be driven by a fission reactor driving an electrical generator, is this correct?

In general the efficiency is the result of an equation where the two variables your dealing with is core temperature of the reactor and the temp of your radiators. The greater the difference the higher the efficiency. Conversely if your radiators get so hot that they are the same temp as the reactor you get no power generation so 0 efficiency. In atmosphere thanks to convection you can keep almost any configuration of radiators at ambient temp with no waste heat so you get full efficiency in space however you need to really spam radiators to even get close and its frequently not cost effective to try to get a better efficiency beyond a point.

Fusions do need power to start and continue runing. Normaly if a generator is attached they can maintain themselves for runing cost and you just need to jumper them. Smaller reactors you can actualy start up useing stock EC so with sufficent battery capacity you can jump start them with an RTG or solar and some time. you can also have a small fission on board to provide starting power. The larger reactors need such a high charge that unless you built a giant flying battery your probably going to need another reactor to start them up.

[ss8913]

thanks, that does help. Also what's the best way to deal with nuclear waste? It'd be nice if I could shut down a reactor when I'm not using it... for example I have a spacecraft that carries 3 kerbals "single stage to almost anywhere" - It can take off vertically from KSC, fly to Pol (for example), land there, and return to the KSC in a single stage - but I have to have someone EVA and shutdown the reactor after doing the transfer burn since there's about 157 days waiting for transit from Kerbin to Jool.. and if I leave the reactor on it'll eat its fuel and fill up the waste containers. So I turn it off, then turn it on again for the orbit insertion burn.. etc. (I'm using the DT Vista engine). Would be nice if there was a way to do this from inside the ship..? is there/am I doing something wrong or dumb here?

[xfrankie]

thanks, that does help. Also what's the best way to deal with nuclear waste? It'd be nice if I could shut down a reactor when I'm not using it... for example I have a spacecraft that carries 3 kerbals "single stage to almost anywhere" - It can take off vertically from KSC, fly to Pol (for example), land there, and return to the KSC in a single stage - but I have to have someone EVA and shutdown the reactor after doing the transfer burn since there's about 157 days waiting for transit from Kerbin to Jool.. and if I leave the reactor on it'll eat its fuel and fill up the waste containers. So I turn it off, then turn it on again for the orbit insertion burn.. etc. (I'm using the DT Vista engine). Would be nice if there was a way to do this from inside the ship..? is there/am I doing something wrong or dumb here?

The fission reactors are supposed to work that way, it's a sort of a limitting factor because they are able to run for years. Literary.

They will first burn the fuel (Th/U) and produce Actinides. Those can be reprocessed in a lab/refinery back into usable fuel. Obviously not with 100% efficiency, the rest becomes WasteFuel (or something like that, cannot remember the right name).

To get rid of the unprocessable nuclear waste, you can utilise various thing, eg. decouple-able tanks (fill them, drop them), dock with another ship and transfer the waste, or install TAC Fuel Balancer which lets you dump any kind of "fuel resource" directly.

the first two options require the waste to be pumpable around the ship, I haven't played with fission for a while so I'm not sure if that's true

[WaveFunctionP]

You can start all of fusion reactors with any ec source with a large enough capacity. I usually add ec to the generators and/or transmitters in the VAB (they always start with 0, but you can tweak 1000 into them), add one 2.5 stackable battery, and/or put some large batteries on the docking clamps. The biggest issue is it must be large enough to click multiple times because many time it takes 2 or 3 clicks to start the reactor.

The current ship I'm working starts 5 3.5 fusion reactors with only a single 2.5 battery stack. Takes my action group a couple of presses, but they all start. (I also tweaked extra EC into the generators in the VAB.)

Hope this helps.

Edited March 4, 2014 by WaveFunctionP