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

[Fractal_UK]

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

Did you update to 0.10.3 yet? This should've already been fixed.

[unWinged]

Sorry if it was asked before, but can somebody write me quick guide how use seismic sensor?

How far from it can I crash and if vessel with sensor has to be active?

[Fractal_UK]

Sorry if it was asked before, but can somebody write me quick guide how use seismic sensor?

How far from it can I crash and if vessel with sensor has to be active?

1) Deploy the sensor on the ground and select the "Record Seismic Data" option.

2) Crash a ship into the surface on the same planet.

3) Switch back to the sensor and select "Collect Impact Data", then you can transmit the data about the collision.

The sensor only has to be active and on the ground. You can record data from impacts anywhere on the same planet.

[NeoAcario]

Did you update to 0.10.3 yet? This should've already been fixed.

Damnit, no.. sorry. Let me update and test it again.

1) Deploy the sensor on the ground and select the "Record Seismic Data" option.

2) Crash a ship into the surface on the same planet.

3) Switch back to the sensor and select "Collect Impact Data", then you can transmit the data about the collision.

The sensor only has to be active and on the ground. You can record data from impacts anywhere on the same planet.

Do you have this set up per biome or just a single total possible science per planet?

~Steve

[unWinged]

-snip-

Quick and sufficient answer

Thanks :-)

BTW I only started playing with that mod, so can't say much, but it looks great!

Thank you for your effort to give us such great toys!

[Rizendell]

ahh, well that would do it. Thanks for the quick response. I had cloned part of the rocket out of my subassemblies.

[ctbram]

Something seems a bit off with the seismic impact sensor again. I installed 0.10.3. Now yesterday I did to impacts into minmus and mun and got 500,300. Today before installing 0.10.3 I did a third and forth impact into mun I did not see the science from the third I had gui's covering the readout but the forth got 67.7.

I installed the update 0.10.3 and crashed the third impactor into minmus got a message about collecting the data. Went to one of my 8 stations with seismic recorder running and clicked collect data there was roughly 800 being reported as collected. I could not make out which was from previous impacts and what was from this last one. I transmitted the data and got 3 science? That cannot be right?

Did you change the curve again? Based on the 0.10.2 readings I was expecting something over 120 and over 40 for the next two impact but only got 3 science for the 3rd impact into minmus???. I am going to do the 4th impact now to see if I get any science at all. Kind of bummed if you changed the curve again as I was just 200 away from finishing the 2nd to last thing in the science tree and this kind of boned me!

Edited February 6, 2014 by ctbram

[InfinityArch]

Hey fractal, are there any plans to add helium 3 mining on the Mun and through aeroscooping Jool's atmosphere? It's honestly harder to get than anti-matter as things currently stand, given that there's no way to get it other than leaving tons of breeder reactors lying around and waiting for the tritium to decay into helium 3.

[kiwiak]

WHy uranium pocket display does not uses kethane API for resources (this hex grid)?

[InfinityArch]

As I understand it, it's because Kethane's creator won't let Fractal package the kethane plugin with KSPI because of reasons related to the license he uses for Kethane.

[Fractal_UK]

As I understand it, it's because Kethane's creator won't let Fractal package the kethane plugin with KSPI because of reasons related to the license he uses for Kethane.

It wouldn't matter if it was, the two systems aren't compatible, the kethane grid is nowhere near dense enough to reveal all the resource changes. A different display system is needed.

I installed the update 0.10.3 and crashed the third impactor into minmus got a message about collecting the data. Went to one of my 8 stations with seismic recorder running and clicked collect data there was roughly 800 being reported as collected. I could not make out which was from previous impacts and what was from this last one. I transmitted the data and got 3 science? That cannot be right?

Was it definitely the impact data that got sent? I tested this quite heavily and every time I got the same amount back at the science centre as I sent, i.e. you should have received 800.

[NeoAcario]

So.. I'm confused. Are the new dusty plasma fission reactors only running at a maximum of 72.75% intended when using a Direct Conversion generator? Is it because I'm not also collecting the 1/2 GW thermal with another generator?

UPDATE: Holy ****... yeah. One of each generator makes a HUGE difference in the amount of beamed power. From 4.18 GW to 8.35 GW. Is this right?! I'm pretty sure this should only be about 6 GW.

~Steve

EDIT:

I notice that producing Hydrazine (monoprop) doesn't produce water. I am disappoint. Also.. the ratios are still off. It's currently using 80 units of peroxide and 180 units of Ammonia to make 60 units of Hydrazine. Shouldn't the peroxide and Ammonia numbers be the same?

Edited February 6, 2014 by NeoAcario

[NeoAcario]

Hey Fractal... might want to make a small tweak to the Microwave Transmitter code. When using one of each generator type with a dusty plasma fission reactor and beaming power... it will gradually drain out ALL power from the vessel. All thermal power, all mega-joules... gone.

I can still run my refineries tho....

~Steve

Edited February 6, 2014 by NeoAcario

[Fractal_UK]

So.. I'm confused. Are the new dusty plasma fission reactors only running at a maximum of 72.75% intended when using a Direct Conversion generator? Is it because I'm not also collecting the 1/2 GW thermal with another generator?

UPDATE: Holy ****... yeah. One of each generator makes a HUGE difference in the amount of beamed power. From 4.18 GW to 8.35 GW. Is this right?!

You should be getting about 6GW with both generator types. You might get more temporarily until charged and thermal power values stabilise.

I notice that producing Hydrazine (monoprop) doesn't produce water. I am disappoint. Also.. the ratios are still off. It's currently using 80 units of peroxide and 180 units of Ammonia to make 60 units of Hydrazine. Shouldn't the peroxide and Ammonia numbers be the same?

No, the ammonia value should be roughly double (which it is) because it is around 1/2 the mass and 1/2 the density of a hydrogen peroxide but you need 2 ammonias.

[NeoAcario]

You should be getting about 6GW with both generator types. You might get more temporarily until charged and thermal power values stabilise.

I see the problem. When you have only a solid state reactor on a dusty plasma fission reactor.. it still generates the same power that a Direct Conversion Gen does.. 4.18 GW. This is obviously the error (isn't it?). Not only that, but the transmitter takes the code from the Solid State Gen that it would have if it were alone.. as well as the Direct Conversion Gen numbers. Thus... doubling the output and causing all of your mega joules and thermal power to drain out to zero.

No, the ammonia value should be roughly double (which it is) because it is around 1/2 the mass and 1/2 the density of a hydrogen peroxide but you need 2 ammonias.

I need to stop assuming you display equivalent values in the storage tanks. Just ignore me from now on with this topic. 3:1 Ammonia to Hydrazine...as displayed. All I need to know. Thanks!

~Steve

Edited February 6, 2014 by NeoAcario

[InfinityArch]

@Fractal: Another thing I've recently noticed is that when attempting to use beamed power off of fusion reactor power, or indeed, doing pretty much anything with high but variable power demands (including antimatter production), the reactors' power requirements aren't properly prioritized above everything else; while it says in the display that they're top priority, they seem to inevitably run out of power and shut off due to the power sink putting the ship into a power deficit.

Also, I think you might have missed the question I asked last page, so I'll post it again: "As things stand, there's no way to get helium 3 in KSPI other than leaving tritium around to decay. Are there any plans to eventually make it so Helium-3 can be harvested from say the Mun and Jool's atmosphere?"

Edited February 6, 2014 by InfinityArch

[NeoAcario]

Also, I think you might have missed the question I asked last page, so I'll post it again: "As things stand, there's no way to get helium 3 in KSPI other than leaving tritium around to decay. Are there any plans to eventually make it so Helium-3 can be harvested from say the Mun and Jool's atmosphere?"

Mun has no atmo... I could definitely see Jool as a possibility. What about below a certain orbit around Kerbol? Perhaps something suicidally low?

Speaking of HE3: Has anyone done the math on what it would take to produce enough HE3 to keep one of the Antimatter Intiated Reactors running non-stop? 10.5 kg/day seems like it could be a problem. I'm assuming there's no way this thing can breed enough tritium for decay into HE3 to keep itself supplied? Or could it if we started it off with a big enough surplus?

EDIT: NVM... it just doesn't appear to be practical for the type of base I want to build to use a AMI reactor.

~Steve

Edited February 6, 2014 by NeoAcario

[Fractal_UK]

Also, I think you might have missed the question I asked last page, so I'll post it again: "As things stand, there's no way to get helium 3 in KSPI other than leaving tritium around to decay. Are there any plans to eventually make it so Helium-3 can be harvested from say the Mun and Jool's atmosphere?"

Yes but you can already harvest Helium-3 from Jool's atmosphere.

[TheTom]

Mun needs no Atmo. He3 should be minable from the mun and other non atmospheric objects that are not too far away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

Let me quote:

Materials on the Moon's surface contain helium-3 at concentrations on the order of between 1.4 and 15 ppb in sunlit areas,[42][43] and may contain concentrations as much as 50 ppb in permanently shadowed regions.

Or better:

Cosmochemist and geochemist Ouyang Ziyuan from the Chinese Academy of Sciences who is now in charge of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program has already stated on many occasions that one of the main goals of the program would be the mining of helium-3

So, depending how much gameplay/realism is wanted, the mun - and minimus - would be prime places for fusion reactors with the proper mining infrastructure. I personally think it would be nice to be able to set up a permanent self sufficient power base on the mun, with long term people there and the occasional resupply run from home for food and some consumables

[Jasmir]

Hi Fractal_UK,

the "Enable Trit Breeding" Option on the 65cm Fusion-Reactor seems not working.

[Fractal_UK]

Mun needs no Atmo. He3 should be minable from the mun and other non atmospheric objects that are not too far away.

Yes but mining something that is measured in parts per billion needs some pretty specialised mining equipment and that doesn't exist yet in the mod. I'm hoping to get something suitable.

the "Enable Trit Breeding" Option on the 65cm Fusion-Reactor seems not working.

Is your reactor in He-3 mode because if so, it won't work because it's aneutronic. Otherwise, it works fine.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Fractal_UK

[Lightwarrior]

UF4/ThF4 mining is now working, and also fuel reprocessing seem to work better. Thanks for quick fix.

[NeoAcario]

Think I found another bug for you, Fractal.

First off, the dusty plasma reactor + dual generator + transmitter combination seems to function properly.. mostly.. when in space (it was giving me double output on the launchpad). That said, once I finally reach a heat equilibrium all of my power from my 7 reactor and 14 generator combination (7 of each) seems to funnel all of the power through a single generator of each type. The Direct Conversion lists max correctly, but shows giving power from all 7, while the Solid State lists it's max as the combined max from all 7 at the current temp.. as well as providing the power from all 7.

You want the quicksave or anything to check this yourself?

~Steve

EDIT:

Also, should 7.5% heat really be dropping Solid State Generator efficiency all the way down to 32.8%? That seems a bit harsh. Heck, my AM station has 0.5% heat and the gens are down to 26.3% eff... I'm confused. My Moho Science base is at around the same 0.5% heat and still at 56% eff.

Edited February 6, 2014 by NeoAcario

[Fractal_UK]

Think I found another bug for you, Fractal.

First off, the dusty plasma reactor + dual generator + transmitter combination seems to function properly.. mostly.. when in space (it was giving me double output on the launchpad). That said, once I finally reach a heat equilibrium all of my power from my 7 reactor and 14 generator combination (7 of each) seems to funnel all of the power through a single generator of each type. The Direct Conversion lists max correctly, but shows giving power from all 7, while the Solid State lists it's max as the combined max from all 7 at the current temp.. as well as providing the power from all 7.

I'm not really sure what you mean. When the reactors throttle down, it's quite possible that you'll get a couple of generators working at 100% rather than a bunch of them running at 10% (just as arbitrary figures for example purposes) but ultimately, the result is the same so it doesn't matter.

EDIT:

Also, should 7.5% heat really be dropping Solid State Generator efficiency all the way down to 32.8%? That seems a bit harsh.

It's not about how full the waste heat bar is, it's about hot bath temperature and cold bath temperature (i.e. compare reactor temperature to average radiator temperature). The dusty plasma reactor is pretty cold for an upgraded reactor so expect low efficiency with a solid state generator compared to other generators, its thermal rocket Isp is poor for the same reason.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Fractal_UK

[NeoAcario]

It's not about how full the waste heat bar is, it's about hot bath temperature and cold bath temperature (i.e. compare reactor temperature to average radiator temperature). The dusty plasma reactor is pretty cold for an upgraded reactor so expect low efficiency with a solid state generator compared to other generators, its thermal rocket Isp is poor for the same reason.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know heat management was zero sum. So basically, looking around my other ships in space... it appears that if your reactor core temp is around 10x the temp of your radiators.. you're getting about 55% Solid State Eff. Makes sense.

~Steve