RussPixie Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Ok, this is driving me bonkers:There used to be a table, or a graphic, or a spreadsheet that I had / bookmarked. I can no longer find it and 10 google searches bring up nothing. I'm specifically looking for optimal altitudes and values of antimatter flux per body.Anyone help me out here?~SteveThis one? http://imgur.com/a/g313g#0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoAcario Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) This one? http://imgur.com/a/g313g#0a bit hard to read and no.. not what I was looking for. And is that accurate? It appears to me to be saying that the best altitude to farm Kerbol is 390Mm. I thought it was 3.9Gm.. or was it 3.2Gm?~SteveEDIT:Seems that IS accurate... did Fractal change it in the past couple months or something? I don't recall needing 20k dV to get down and circularize at the optimal altitude. Odd. Edited January 31, 2014 by NeoAcario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussPixie Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 a bit hard to read and no.. not what I was looking for. And is that accurate? It appears to me to be saying that the best altitude to farm Kerbol is 390Mm. I thought it was 3.9Gm.. or was it 3.2Gm?~SteveEDIT:Seems that IS accurate... did Fractal change it in the past couple months or something? I don't recall needing 20k dV to get down and circularize at the optimal altitude. Odd.Well, the best place is still Jool, as far as I'm aware.Russ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivaii Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 That is fairly accurate, because I use 942km orbits for my Kerbin AM farms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomatoSoup Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) RCS fuel is hypergolic. It doesn't require heat.I'm rather aware of that as I stated in my post. I am suggesting that there be more efficient or powerful RCS blocks and fuels based on a different fuel system.Problem with RCS is that this thrusters need to "ignite" a lot of times, may be few times a second. They need to have very, very fast reaction time and do not need high thrust. Fot this purpose simple thrusters using monopropelant may be the best, because plasma thrusters will defenitely have problems with restart time / restart count, and some kind of thermal nozzles probably will have same issues.What about a system where water is kept pressurized as steam and the RCS blocks are little more than nozzles with valves? I'm thinking about a system described in the novel Leviathan Wakes which is very hard science fiction so long as you accept "very efficiently" as the answer to "How do the ultra-high thrust and specific impulse engines work?" Edited January 31, 2014 by TomatoSoup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LORDPrometheus Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 RCA fuel is labeled as mono propellant meaning it decomposes after meeting a catalyst hypergolic fuels are bipropellants that vaporize eachother on contact therefore RCS is not hypergolic and DOES need some heat source to function Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LORDPrometheus Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I'm rather aware of that as I stated in my post. I am suggesting that there be more efficient or powerful RCS blocks and fuels based on a different fuel system.What about a system where water is kept pressurized as steam and the RCS blocks are little more than nozzles with valves? I'm thinking about a system described in the novel Leviathan Wakes which is very hard science fiction so long as you accept "very efficiently" as the answer to "How do the ultra-high thrust and specific impulse engines work?"Steam thrusters were considered but rapidly scrapped because it takes a lot of power to keep water at a boil compared to a monopropellant which uses none and only a few watts to fire. Energy density is also an issue and although I don't have the numbers with me I can guarantee that the specific impulse of hydrazine (the real world monopropellant represented in KSP) is far greater than water. Plus having water inboard is probably much more useful for drinking than flying. Good thoughts bad concept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightwarrior Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Also those PPT-s mentioned above look promising, they still have lots of disadvantages.We already have very powerfull reaction wheels, which solve all problems with attitude control using ElectricCharge.RCS is only needed for docking or precise orbital maneuvers, and only very small amount of fuel is needed. For such usage monopropelant thrusters may be not only enough, but more efficient and reliable than some complex plasma thrusters or something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forsaken1111 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Steam thrusters were considered but rapidly scrappedScrapped by whom? I never saw the mod author echo your sentiments. Can you provide a source or are you just assuming he agrees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivaii Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Scrapped by whom? I never saw the mod author echo your sentiments. Can you provide a source or are you just assuming he agrees?I'm thinking he's talking about real life. Not a mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boamere Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I noticed that too. I have 2 pc-s i play KSP on, first is old GF 9600GT + Phenom2 x4 965, KSP work slow but without shutter. And new one 2*GTX660 + i7-3770, KSP works much faster but sometimes i see those freezes you are talking about and even sound shutter. It seems to me that this is caused by CPU (one its core obviously) being fully loaded, because on first pc i always have 99% GPU load (GPU bottleneck here), and on second (as in your case) GPU is way too powerfull for this game and is no more limiting FPS, so CPU becomes bottleneck here, causing such problems. But i may be wrong...I sure do hope so, because that can be fixed, i have a AMD fX-4100 (but i thought this game doesn't need a good CPU to run, and it was running fine until when i installed the new PSU and GPU) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forsaken1111 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I'm thinking he's talking about real life. Not a mod.Ah, well the suggestion was for a mod so I was confused by the abiguous response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballistic Idiot Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Steam thrusters were considered but rapidly scrapped because it takes a lot of power to keep water at a boil compared to a monopropellant which uses none and only a few watts to fire.I'm betting that with a fusion reactor on board, or any reactor for that matter, super heated gas would become a pretty attractive alternative.Of course a massive supply of thermal energy on board a vessel would completely rewrite the priorities of space travel, I suppose.That's probably why I love this game and I love this mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colseg Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Also those PPT-s mentioned above look promising, they still have lots of disadvantages.We already have very powerfull reaction wheels, which solve all problems with attitude control using ElectricCharge.RCS is only needed for docking or precise orbital maneuvers, and only very small amount of fuel is needed. For such usage monopropelant thrusters may be not only enough, but more efficient and reliable than some complex plasma thrusters or something else.Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thrusters are being researched for use in RCS systems by NASA, it could be set up such that you unlock the first stage of plasma thruster RCS with or shortly after the plasma thrusters that will give you similar flexibility in propellant to the normal plasma thrusters in terms of tuning your ISP to thrust ratio and then unlock quantum vacuum capability for them slightly before or at the same time as the quantum vacuum capability for your normal plasma thrusters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forsaken1111 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I'm betting that with a fusion reactor on board, or any reactor for that matter, super heated gas would become a pretty attractive alternative.Of course a massive supply of thermal energy on board a vessel would completely rewrite the priorities of space travel, I suppose.That's probably why I love this game and I love this mod.In point of fact, superheated gas is what the thermal rocket ALREADY does. There is no practical reason I can think of which would prevent the same principle from being used for an RCS-like system with insulated pipes and nozzles all over the craft.Boiling water is likely a byproduct of cooling the reactor. Sure these reactors use a closed coolant loop but open cycle cooling (ie thermal rockets) is already in the mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTom Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 This is actually a valid response. I would assume the original designs for steam RCS did not really consider this energy source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fractal_UK Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share Posted January 31, 2014 The main problem with having reactor powered thermal RCS is heat transfer, hence the direct attachment rules for thermal rockets and reactors. You might be able to pump heat around your spacecraft at modest temperatures, similar to those that the unupgraded nuclear reactors produce but much beyond that and you're asking for trouble. You could use heat exchangers to transfer heat at the right temperature but for reaction control, an all electric system is probably better.Electrical RCS is something I've looked at in the past but I didn't have much success modifying the existing KSP RCS system in a way that worked brilliantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forsaken1111 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 The main problem with having reactor powered thermal RCS is heat transfer, hence the direct attachment rules for thermal rockets and reactors. You might be able to pump heat around your spacecraft at modest temperatures, similar to those that the unupgraded nuclear reactors produce but much beyond that and you're asking for trouble. You could use heat exchangers to transfer heat at the right temperature but for reaction control, an all electric system is probably better.Electrical RCS is something I've looked at in the past but I didn't have much success modifying the existing KSP RCS system in a way that worked brilliantly.I can't imagine that the superheated steam would cool appreciably as it blasts its way through the abstracted pipes to the RCS block... have a central 'boiler' attached to the reactor which boils the fluid. Have water tanks on the craft which the fluid is drawn from. Water becomes steam with the input of thermal energy (and stays steam through an ongoing input of said energy) and steam is removed as RCS fires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fractal_UK Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share Posted January 31, 2014 I can't imagine that the superheated steam would cool appreciably as it blasts its way through the abstracted pipes to the RCS block... have a central 'boiler' attached to the reactor which boils the fluid. Have water tanks on the craft which the fluid is drawn from. Water becomes steam with the input of thermal energy (and stays steam through an ongoing input of said energy) and steam is removed as RCS fires.It may not lose much heat but superheated steam is highly corrosive and not something you want to be being pumped around your spacecraft, especially at high enough temperatures to produce reasonable specific impulse. For high temperature heat transfer you need an inert material, you could transfer heat to the thruster via such a mechanism or transfer the energy there electrically but then you could use a propellant with better propulsive characteristics than water.I prefer the electrical RCS approach because it requires less complex internal plumbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forsaken1111 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 It may not lose much heat but superheated steam is highly corrosive and not something you want to be being pumped around your spacecraft, especially at high enough temperatures to produce reasonable specific impulse. For high temperature heat transfer you need an inert material, you could transfer heat to the thruster via such a mechanism or transfer the energy there electrically but then you could use a propellant with better propulsive characteristics than water.I prefer the electrical RCS approach because it requires less complex internal plumbing.I'm amused that you're arguing against something on the grounds of safety considering the things in your mod. There are materials which could safely contain the steam without corroding I am sure... a plasma/ion based RCS is interesting to me as well though. Will we get an endgame vaccuum plasma upgrade for it as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boamere Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I've asked this question earlier but no one answered it, I've seen people's relays and they have yellow lines showing the transmission, how can i do this?(unless it is a remote-tech thing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModZero Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I've asked this question earlier but no one answered it, I've seen people's relays and they have yellow lines showing the transmission, how can i do this?(unless it is a remote-tech thing)It's a remote tech thing. It's an obvious feature request. Please don't make it, I want 0.10 soon :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fractal_UK Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share Posted January 31, 2014 It's a remote tech thing. It's an obvious feature request. Please don't make it, I want 0.10 soon :-)Don't worry, I won't be adding any more of those nasty new features that delay releases My list of things to finish/repair before the update is nearly complete so hopefully it will be ready soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LORDPrometheus Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 if you have water on a spacecraft your likely using it for either drinking or as a coolant. both are definitely things you do NOT want to just dump into space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forsaken1111 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 if you have water on a spacecraft your likely using it for either drinking or as a coolant. both are definitely things you do NOT want to just dump into space.That depends entirely on how much water you have. And it doesn't have to be water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts