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

[Fractal_UK]

^ vicinity

Yikes, I'll fix that now.

[sober667]

I was planning on working on upgrading reactors today but ended up doing something different.

The hope with this change is that, in the future, the Telescope, Interstellar Science Lab and Computer Core will all be integrated with the stock science system. They will continue to generate science in the background but instead of just incrementing the research pool value, you can harvest and transmit the data like any other science experiment.

In previous versions, the telescope has been a source of ongoing problems so I decided to rewrite the code from scratch to support the science system and it seems to work!

http://i.imgur.com/NG1jzmp.png

is some plans to make sesmic experiment not beeing losed after loading game?

[Northstar1989]

@FractalUK

Great work so far! I'm glad to see that you're back on the project and working at updating KSP-Interstellar! I hope you keep an eye on the 0.25 development, though- it's likely that'll be out before you get Interstellar fully up-to-date for 0.24.2, and it may be worthwhile for you to just to skip 0.24.2 entirely and go straight to developing for 0.25!

Also, a couple questions/comments:

First of all, I'd like to impress upon you the importance of properly adjusting part costs for 0.24.2/0.25 so that they are realistic. I don't know how much you've been playing KSP since 0.24.2 came out, since it sounds like you've been rather busy with real life- but it's really quite essential to correctly balance the costs of any mod if you want it to be realistic or balanced now...

Along those lines, I also don't know if you were following this thread some weeks/months back, but I got into a bit of a discussion about this with WaveFuncnctionP about his "Lite" version of KSP-Interstellar because the costs (at least in the version I discussed with him then) were so incredibly unrealistic. As in, the thermal rocket nozzles (which in the lower temperature ranges used by a Microwave Beamed Power system would realistically be little more than a cheap, dumb metal cone that should cost almost nothing...) costing more than some entire rocket designs I've built that can get small payloads into orbit in my Real Solar System 6.4x + FAR + RealFuels game... Obviously, these costs need to be more realistic than this if you want to have any kind of realism- which everything else you've done in this mod, from the WasteHeat management system, to the fission fuel energy densities, leads me to believe you are ardently pursuing; and is one of the factors that has led me to so strongly praising, "upping", respecting, and trying to share your mod whenever I discuss it with other players.

Second, I was wondering: what are the chances of this mod working correctly with my RealFuels/FAR/DRE/TAC Life Support/Real Solar System 6.4x mod grouping that I've come to see as my "core" of indispensable mods of late? I know there are already a number of configs to help this work with RealFuels and TAC, but would Real Solar System 6.4x have any trouble using the In Situ Resource Utilization system (would the Crustal resources be buried deep beneath the actual surface of planets, for instance, instead of normally accessible?) The RSS 6.4x config also seems to be one of the less common configs to play with- but one I favor as it doesn't require any re-scaling of stock or mod parts for them to be balanced correctly, as most parts in KSP are at approximately 60-70% of real-life scale... (compared to medium-payload lifters, although heavy lifters such as for the real SLS system are much bigger- 8.4 meters in diameter instead of 3.75 for SLS.)

Regards,

Northstar

[WaveFunctionP]

Concerning cost:

I went through a few iterations of cost before lite was released. The main method I settled upon was a multiplier that scaled per MJ, additionally multiplied by power to weight. The price roughly intercepted the cost of an LVN for whatever reactor/nozzle combo was closest in performance. I wasn't too concerned with "realism". (This was just for hardware, resource balance would come later.)

My reasoning was thus: KSP doesn't have an actual market economy. There is a bounded rate by which you can gain funds, so unless you intend to players to perform some task to generate funds, which will need to be designed, all costs need to be reasonable within those bounds. With this is mind, the focus of funds to me should be about influencing player behavior. I had a lot of offers from people to trying to adjust costs based on real world values, which is ludicrous frankly. Are we talking dollars, euros, doubloons... There is no United Kerbal States with set budget for KSP funds. There is no stock exchange. The inputs the funds system are arbitrary. The outputs will always be just as arbitrary.

With this in mind, you will run into an issue where it becomes more cost effective to use higher tier reactors over lower tier reactors because the scaling is no linear. You will either have reactors that are entirely unreasonably priced for their performance or too expensive for the stock incomes to support.

At just 10 funds per MW, the range is 150 (cheaper than an RTG) to 4.05M (the likely working budget for entire playthrough) funds. Dry cost. Before even considering resource costs. And before considering power to weight. This was one of many reasons that I linearized reactor outputs for kspil.

Just something to keep in mind.

[Stevie_D]

Obviously, these costs need to be more realistic than this if you want to have any kind of realism-

He said, when describing the act of buying a rocket fueled by microwave beamed power, to push along the aliens in the cockpit. XD No offence, just always makes me chuckle.

The costs of parts in both Lite and standard Interstellar have to naturally be higher than the parts that came before them, because they are more advanced technology. It is part of the difficulty curve in the game's progression. Even in the stock parts, the final size 4 rockets cost as much if not more than some day 1 basic designs ive made. I imagine the more Squad release down the line to further their base-game research tree and give us more advanced parts, the same will hold true.

Yes, Interstellar's parts are OVERLY priced, because no one was about to seriously fix them as Fractal would've wanted. But the fact remains, if you go to the Chinese Institute of Science and ask to buy their experimental fusion reactor, it will cost WAY more than most NASA or Russian rockets.... and here's a direct quote...

...The building costs are now US$50 billion, roughly 10 times the original figure...

Even at it's ORIGINAL cost of $5 billion dollars, that is STILL over 1/3rd of NASAs ENTIRE annual budget.

...NASA's 2015 budget would remain essentially flat at $17.5 billion...

It would take NASA 2.8 years of sitting around doing nothing, just to save up for the current, most workable plasma fusion reactor.

So when you talk of realism, it smacks of a lack of basis in the real world.

I'm not saying the prices shouldn't be reduced, they should. What i am saying is scaling for gameplay is what is required when it comes to costings of parts, plain and simple. Because if you based it on realism, then the parts in KSP-I are already scaled to the real world, that's the problem.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Stevie_D

[ABZB]

On the other hand, NASA's budget is about 0.5% of the USA's budget (Fiscal year 2011, total budget ~3 trillion (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s.3729:)) - so such a cost is well within reason, assuming a Kerbal nation with a roughly equivalent GDP that places more funding in the direction of KSP - come to think of it, it would make sense for there to be some constant budget flow inward from that - maybe that will be part of that new feature planned for .25...

[Fractal_UK]

Great work so far! I'm glad to see that you're back on the project and working at updating KSP-Interstellar! I hope you keep an eye on the 0.25 development, though- it's likely that'll be out before you get Interstellar fully up-to-date for 0.24.2, and it may be worthwhile for you to just to skip 0.24.2 entirely and go straight to developing for 0.25!

Also, a couple questions/comments:

First of all, I'd like to impress upon you the importance of properly adjusting part costs for 0.24.2/0.25 so that they are realistic. I don't know how much you've been playing KSP since 0.24.2 came out, since it sounds like you've been rather busy with real life- but it's really quite essential to correctly balance the costs of any mod if you want it to be realistic or balanced now...

Along those lines, I also don't know if you were following this thread some weeks/months back, but I got into a bit of a discussion about this with WaveFuncnctionP about his "Lite" version of KSP-Interstellar because the costs (at least in the version I discussed with him then) were so incredibly unrealistic. As in, the thermal rocket nozzles (which in the lower temperature ranges used by a Microwave Beamed Power system would realistically be little more than a cheap, dumb metal cone that should cost almost nothing...) costing more than some entire rocket designs I've built that can get small payloads into orbit in my Real Solar System 6.4x + FAR + RealFuels game... Obviously, these costs need to be more realistic than this if you want to have any kind of realism- which everything else you've done in this mod, from the WasteHeat management system, to the fission fuel energy densities, leads me to believe you are ardently pursuing; and is one of the factors that has led me to so strongly praising, "upping", respecting, and trying to share your mod whenever I discuss it with other players.

I will be trying to cost things up reasonably sensibly but as you suspect, I haven't really played 0.24.2 very much at all so trying to do that is going to be really tricky. I'd be willing to listen to suggestions on the subject, otherwise I'll just do my best but this is something that you should expect to be more polished in future versions of Interstellar rather than something that will be there from the start of the next update.

Second, I was wondering: what are the chances of this mod working correctly with my RealFuels/FAR/DRE/TAC Life Support/Real Solar System 6.4x mod grouping that I've come to see as my "core" of indispensable mods of late? I know there are already a number of configs to help this work with RealFuels and TAC, but would Real Solar System 6.4x have any trouble using the In Situ Resource Utilization system (would the Crustal resources be buried deep beneath the actual surface of planets, for instance, instead of normally accessible?) The RSS 6.4x config also seems to be one of the less common configs to play with- but one I favor as it doesn't require any re-scaling of stock or mod parts for them to be balanced correctly, as most parts in KSP are at approximately 60-70% of real-life scale... (compared to medium-payload lifters, although heavy lifters such as for the real SLS system are much bigger- 8.4 meters in diameter instead of 3.75 for SLS.)

You should be fine with RSS, the planetary resources are defined only by latitude/longitude, the absolute height of the surface doesn't actually matter so long as the spacecraft's landed flag is set to true. Using RealFuels should also be not too difficult, you'll just need to search the .cfg files in Interstellar's base directories and replace all reference to LiquidFuel with LiquidH2 or whatever the name of the resource than RealFuels is using these days.

[forsaken1111]

Will antimatter collection altitudes change in the 6.4x scale?

[Sophistry]

On the other hand, NASA's budget is about 0.5% of the USA's budget (Fiscal year 2011, total budget ~3 trillion (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s.3729:)) - so such a cost is well within reason, assuming a Kerbal nation with a roughly equivalent GDP that places more funding in the direction of KSP - come to think of it, it would make sense for there to be some constant budget flow inward from that - maybe that will be part of that new feature planned for .25...

On the third hand attached to one's Mechanicus servo-arm, without modding the game's contracts, how the hell are we supposed to raise √5 billion in-game?

Personally, while authenticity (not "realism") is cool, I'm much more in favour of the pricing of Interstellar parts to be based on what's fun, or rather, based on balance rather than "realism". Sure, Interstellar parts should be more expensive than stock parts, because they're much more useful. Just please don't make them so expensive that I can't be arsed using them!

[ABZB]

Presumably, by using stock ksp parts that have RL analogues, and comparing their prices to real prices in a given RL currency, we can then create a reasonable function that maps RL prices to KSP-economy prices.

Essentially create a CPI of space-parts, referencing value of USD at a fixed date to KSP-radical-currency.

[oktav]

@Fractal

I tried merging the changes I did on Wave repository but I am having a ton of issues managing it, I don't have VS for instance

For the red radiators it looks like you did everything already, and I guess you took the textures from Wave branch too, so that should be fine.

He-3 requires a copy paste mostly and just to add one function in the FNReactor class (to get the tritium breeding rate), I hacked it together (I am a C++ dev.. not C#..) so maybe it's better if you take the code and push it in :s

[undercoveryankee]

On the third hand attached to one's Mechanicus servo-arm, without modding the game's contracts, how the hell are we supposed to raise √5 billion in-game?

Personally, while authenticity (not "realism") is cool, I'm much more in favour of the pricing of Interstellar parts to be based on what's fun, or rather, based on balance rather than "realism". Sure, Interstellar parts should be more expensive than stock parts, because they're much more useful. Just please don't make them so expensive that I can't be arsed using them!

Once a reactor design matures enough to where you can build several of the same model without a lot of project-specific engineering, the price should come down from "non-trivial percentage of GDP" to "too much to spend on an expendable stage, but attainable if it's going to be reusable." If somebody comes up with a couple of contracts that make it faster to acquire funds using the early Interstellar parts, I'd be happy with that overall.

[Northstar1989]

Presumably, by using stock ksp parts that have RL analogues, and comparing their prices to real prices in a given RL currency, we can then create a reasonable function that maps RL prices to KSP-economy prices.

Essentially create a CPI of space-parts, referencing value of USD at a fixed date to KSP-radical-currency.

That's basically what I'm suggesting.

Obviously, because the prices are in a different currency, on a fictional planet, the prices can't be accurate in ABSOLUTE terms. But what I *would* like to see is prices that are accurate in RELATIVE terms. I.e. a cheap metal thrust nozzle for a Microwave Beamed Power Rocket shouldn't cost as much as an entire RSS 6.4x orbit-capable rocket.

Adjusting the prices so the right *relation* in prices is maintained between the parts is the key.

@WaveFunctionP

Oh, by the way, I think what you're missing is that it makes absolutely no sense for there to be a linear relation between power output and cost. In real life, fission reactors (the only nuclear reactors we can really make reasonable inferences to, since everything else is highly experimental) are more cost-effective the higher their output. I.e. a reactor with 4x the power output might only cost 2x as much.

What I think you're missing is that larger rockets SHOULD be more cost-effective. Their fuel tanks should (realistically) have better mass ratios. They should be more aerodynamic due to their better ballistic coefficients. And, if they utilize nuclear reactors, their reactors should be more cost-effective for their power output as well.

Some mods have already managed to captures this dynamic, which is present in real life, with better fuel fractions on larger fuel tanks (in TweakScale, for instance- although many mods still commit the realism atrocity of giving larger fuel tanks the same mass ratios as their smaller counterparts instead of respecting the square-cube law...), better ballistic coefficients on larger rockets (FAR currently realistically favors larger rockets with relatively lower drag-losses and higher terminal velocities), etc.

In the case of larger vs. smaller rockets, realism aligns with FUN. Larger rockets are more fun, and in real life they are also more efficient (due to the square-cube law and better ballistic coefficients). Watching a 5 meter rocket liftoff is both a lot cooler and a lot more realistic than watching a puny 1.25 meter one, and the hard work of earning larger rocket diameters should be rewarded with more efficient larger rockets...

SLS, in real life, is being designed to be 8.4 meters in diameter. Saturn V was 10 meters. The stock KSP rockets are puny by comparison.

Regards,

Northstar

[undercoveryankee]

Will antimatter collection altitudes change in the 6.4x scale?

AM collection locations are based on the current size of Kerbin and the current planet's size and rotation rate relative to Kerbin. So they should remain safely in space under any RSS config unless you give a planet an atmosphere height of several times its radius.

[forsaken1111]

AM collection locations are based on the current size of Kerbin and the current planet's size and rotation rate relative to Kerbin. So they should remain safely in space under any RSS config unless you give a planet an atmosphere height of several times its radius.

Thank you for the comprehensive answer!

[undercoveryankee]

Some mods have already managed to captures this dynamic, which is present in real life, with better fuel fractions on larger fuel tanks (in TweakScale, for instance- although many mods still commit the realism atrocity of giving larger fuel tanks the same mass ratios as their smaller counterparts instead of respecting the square-cube law...), better ballistic coefficients on larger rockets (FAR currently realistically favors larger rockets with relatively lower drag-losses and higher terminal velocities), etc.

The square-cube law also works against you in terms of strength versus mass, limiting how much acceleration a larger structure can take. For KSP tanks that survive in excess of 10 G at any size, full or empty, similar mass ratios at different sizes feel reasonable.

[Fractal_UK]

Oh, by the way, I think what you're missing is that it makes absolutely no sense for there to be a linear relation between power output and cost. In real life, fission reactors (the only nuclear reactors we can really make reasonable inferences to, since everything else is highly experimental) are more cost-effective the higher their output. I.e. a reactor with 4x the power output might only cost 2x as much.

What I think you're missing is that larger rockets SHOULD be more cost-effective. Their fuel tanks should (realistically) have better mass ratios. They should be more aerodynamic due to their better ballistic coefficients. And, if they utilize nuclear reactors, their reactors should be more cost-effective for their power output as well.

Some mods have already managed to captures this dynamic, which is present in real life, with better fuel fractions on larger fuel tanks (in TweakScale, for instance- although many mods still commit the realism atrocity of giving larger fuel tanks the same mass ratios as their smaller counterparts instead of respecting the square-cube law...), better ballistic coefficients on larger rockets (FAR currently realistically favors larger rockets with relatively lower drag-losses and higher terminal velocities), etc.

My impression is that when game design is concerned, people will favour linear relations because it's a very low risk strategy. You don't risk breaking your game by having lots of linear relationships between different values because you have a uniform scaling but, at the same time, I don't really like it because, in the real world, almost nothing scales linearly. Even things that appear to scale linearly often don't when you move beyond the very specific range that people are used to seeing. Interstellar-type technologies are even less likely to do so, all types of nuclear reactors tend to scale extremely quickly with increasing size.

By adopting a non-linear approach to scaling parts in KSP, it does risk that certain parts will be significantly more likely to work out being unarguably better than other parts and I admit that is a risk with my general approach to design. At the same time, there are often real world choices that are unarguably than other options yet the inferior option is sometimes still used anyway. I'm also inclined to agree that bigger = more efficient makes a lot of sense generally speaking, trying to miniaturise a technology is often a very expensive business. It might be the case that smaller items in Interstellar actually have a higher entry cost than larger items but a significantly smaller per-unit cost.

[sober667]

My impression is that when game design is concerned, people will favour linear relations because it's a very low risk strategy. You don't risk breaking your game by having lots of linear relationships between different values because you have a uniform scaling but, at the same time, I don't really like it because, in the real world, almost nothing scales linearly. Even things that appear to scale linearly often don't when you move beyond the very specific range that people are used to seeing. Interstellar-type technologies are even less likely to do so, all types of nuclear reactors tend to scale extremely quickly with increasing size.

By adopting a non-linear approach to scaling parts in KSP, it does risk that certain parts will be significantly more likely to work out being unarguably better than other parts and I admit that is a risk with my general approach to design. At the same time, there are often real world choices that are unarguably than other options yet the inferior option is sometimes still used anyway. I'm also inclined to agree that bigger = more efficient makes a lot of sense generally speaking, trying to miniaturise a technology is often a very expensive business. It might be the case that smaller items in Interstellar actually have a higher entry cost than larger items but a significantly smaller per-unit cost.

Bigger=Better its VERY kerbalish and yes some technologies like tokamak reactors (biggers have much much biger eficjency(ofc in teory for practise we need wait ..some time) small reactors are still intackt for some points (backup power for beamed powered ships or even startup for Tokamak i could find more ) in wich power not mater-mater size (even smalest reactor is enough for stock-ich power hungry ship).

[mcrpntr67]

@Fractal_UK,

Hopefully a quick question, I would like to return the seismic accelerometer to the normal setting, but can not find current info on doing that. The information on GitHub points to a file that doesn't exist and when I remove the science.cfg file in the Interstellar directory, nothing changes. Is there updated info on doing that? Sorry if this has been posted recently, the thread is too big to read through from the beginning..

[Northstar1989]

My impression is that when game design is concerned, people will favour linear relations because it's a very low risk strategy. You don't risk breaking your game by having lots of linear relationships between different values because you have a uniform scaling but, at the same time, I don't really like it because, in the real world, almost nothing scales linearly. Even things that appear to scale linearly often don't when you move beyond the very specific range that people are used to seeing. Interstellar-type technologies are even less likely to do so, all types of nuclear reactors tend to scale extremely quickly with increasing size.

By adopting a non-linear approach to scaling parts in KSP, it does risk that certain parts will be significantly more likely to work out being unarguably better than other parts and I admit that is a risk with my general approach to design. At the same time, there are often real world choices that are unarguably than other options yet the inferior option is sometimes still used anyway. I'm also inclined to agree that bigger = more efficient makes a lot of sense generally speaking, trying to miniaturise a technology is often a very expensive business. It might be the case that smaller items in Interstellar actually have a higher entry cost than larger items but a significantly smaller per-unit cost.

Wow, it seems like you put a LOT of thought into these kinds of decisions- I'm impressed! Your thoughts also mirror mine more or less exactly, with one exception...

What do you mean by "smaller per-unit cost"? Are you suggesting that the smaller reactors, etc., should be cheaper for the power they provide? Since entry cost isn't really implemented into the game yet, I'm not sure I'm in agreement with that... Plus, unless you're mass-producing the reactors (which is unlikely, on the tiny scale of demand of a space program) I can't see any reason why the smaller reactors would be more cost-effective...

Anyways, with regards to suggestions for balancing costs for 0.24.2/0.25, I *strongly* suggest paying careful attention to make sure the Microwave Beamed Power and In Situ Resource Utilization parts aren't overpriced.

While some of the advanced stuff like antimatter reactors and DT-Vista engines would likely be incredibly expensive in real life, and are desirable for the improved performance they allow; Microwave Beamed Power and ISRU work off technologies that have already been around for decades (or in the case of ISRU, over a century- many of the relevant chemical cycles were worked out and widely-utilized in the 1800's and around the the turn-of-the-century...), and one of the main attractions about using these technologies in real life is the cost-savings they enable.

ISRU, for instance, allows use of a moderately-priced chemical reaction chamber to save on use of a whole bunch of at least equally-expensive rocket engines and fuel tanks. Like with rocket engines (which are inherently cheap), the majority of the cost comes from the fact that the ISRU system has to work in space and on very narrow mass margins, rather than anything inherently expensive about the technology...

Microwave Beamed Power, similarly, is attractive in real life for the cost-savings it offers- this time in the form of leaving the expensive parts on the ground (ground-based nuclear reactors and beamed power transmitters) rather than sending them up into space (chemical rocket engines or NERVA systems). The ground systems are quite expensive in real life, and should be in KSP-Interstellar as well, but the rectennas necessary to turn the beamed power into electrical power (power transmission on the other hand requires a gyrotron or magnetron- which is MUCH more expensive than a rectenna), or the thermal receivers to turn it directly into thermal energy, are both relatively cheap compared even to a rocket engine.

The actual base technologies of Microwave Beamed Power are inherently more expensive that rocket engines, but the costs increase MUCH less steeply when scaling them to use space-quality materials and mass margins: resulting in a much cheaper rocket power/propulsion system than chemical rocket engines (although any electrical engines utilizing the beamed power will still be quite expensive). A space-grade thermal receiver (which contains no moving parts, and is basically just a pressure-fed heat exchanger built of microwave-absorptive materials: most likely semiconductors which can easily be made with some of the same technology/equipment as solar panels or circuit boards, according to current feasibility studies) is *MUCH* cheaper than a space-grade chemical rocket engine in real life.

A thermal rocket nozzle for a Microwave Beamed Power system is even simpler/cheaper than the receiver- it's little more that a hollow metal cone the thermal receiver's exhaust passes through (and the exhaust temperatures it has to withstand are in fact *lower* than those for the nozzle a chemical rocket- the superior ISP comes from the lower molecular mass, and thus higher velocity, of the exhaust gasses, not from the chamber/exhaust temperature; and superior TWR to chemical rockets can be obtained due to the potential for the thermal rocket to have at least 2-3 times higher fuel mass-flow rates with much lighter equipment than a turbopump-fed chemical rocket...) It annoyed me to no end that WaveFunctionP decided to make this relatively cheap/simple exhaust nozzle part more expensive than some of my RSS 6.4x orbit-capable rockets... (which have approx. 9 km/s Delta-V)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited September 19, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Sophistry]

@Fractal_UK,

Hopefully a quick question, I would like to return the seismic accelerometer to the normal setting, but can not find current info on doing that. The information on GitHub points to a file that doesn't exist and when I remove the science.cfg file in the Interstellar directory, nothing changes. Is there updated info on doing that? Sorry if this has been posted recently, the thread is too big to read through from the beginning..

I'm hardly an expert, but my solution was to copy and paste the vanilla accelerometer experiment text into the same document under a separate module heading, and this gives you access to both. (which I like, because in my head it's giving me the choice of passive listening to the celestial's innards vs active scanning with impactors)

As in interim measure till you get yourself sorted out, if you use B9, their radial sensors and science nosecones have vanilla accelerometer functionality

[ABZB]

I'm hardly an expert, but my solution was to copy and paste the vanilla accelerometer experiment text into the same document under a separate module heading, and this gives you access to both. (which I like, because in my head it's giving me the choice of passive listening to the celestial's innards vs active scanning with impactors)

As in interim measure till you get yourself sorted out, if you use B9, their radial sensors and science nosecones have vanilla accelerometer functionality

In the WarpPlugin folder (also true for the lite version - look in Interstellar/) open science.cfg

remove the lines:

!MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]

{

}

the part will then not have the stock experiment removed.

[sober667]

In the WarpPlugin folder (also true for the lite version - look in Interstellar/) open science.cfg

remove the lines:

!MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]

{

}

the part will then not have the stock experiment removed.

check stock sesmometer(in SQAD folder in game data cofig file) and add the same module under one presentet above so will have both on it or coppy hould stock part and chenge its name in config and its name so u will have twice of them one with sesmic scan and one interstellar

Edited September 19, 2014 by sober667

[RoverDude]

check stock sesmometer(in SQAD folder in game data cofig file) and add the same module under one presentet above so will have both on it or coppy hould stock part and chenge its name in config and its name so u will have twice of them one with sesmic scan and one interstellar

Probably the neighborly thing to do would be to, in a future release, not break the stock part and just add it as a separate experiment.

[Thorbane]

Any chance of us getting 5 meter diameter (or maybe even bigger) reactors? That'd be awesome.

Also how exactly is Tritium decay handled? Does each part containing it require a Decay module?