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

[bonesbro]

A lot of people seem to forget, that even if He-3 would be available in the VAB, the only place where it is useful is the Antimatter Initiated Reactor. And for that you also need Antimatter... (By that point, why not use the antimatter itself in a way lighter 1.25 reactor?)

It teaches the player to start producing and handling minute quantities of antimatter. Once the player has learned how to do that they get the choice of further developing their infrastructure to allow using smaller and lighter pure antimatter reactors.

"Why do you think so?"

Well, if you try to pump He-3 into 3.75m Fusion reactor instead of Deu-Trit, its power output suddenly drops from 55GW (11 of which are charged particles) to about 2.4GW (yes, two gigawatts)... So even with ChargedParticles generator, it's still better to use D-T... (proof at the bottom)

He-3 in Tokamak reactors = useless.

That sounds like a bug. Could be the reactor throttling itself way down to avoid burning unneeded fuel, but sounds more like a bug.

[Deredere]

That sounds like a bug. Could be the reactor throttling itself way down to avoid burning unneeded fuel, but sounds more like a bug.

It's a function of the physics behind the two fusion reactor types. The smaller ones are laser-initiated, the larger two magnetically contained. He-3 apparently isn't ideal for magnetic bottle type reactors.

Another example of too much realism murdering gameplay. I mean realistic simulations are fun, but you have to draw the line somewhere or actually launching a rocket in KSP would be a 140 million dollar DLC.

I think that line is being drawn a little too far north of fun.

[TheGatesofLogic]

What is the purpose of the deuterium-tritium cryogenic container? It seems to lack any use as of right now...

[InfinityArch]

If I've read up on things correctly, He3-D has the advantage of producing power significantly longer than D-T, and doesn't have to deal with the issue of radioactive decay for long term missions, so it has a purpose there.

As for the AMI reactor, it has a hideously large power to weight ratio, compared to previous generations of reactor technology and lasts a lot longer than pure AM reactors, but unfortunately, there's not really anything to do with all that power, as its simultaneously well above what you need for a vista, can't refuel the engine's tritium supply IIRC, and, IIRC, it's beaten by clusters of inertial fusion reactors+generators for that purpose.

That said, when 0.24 comes out, the costs of KSPI technology should provide a balancing factor; even if players don't care about spewing radioactive waste everywhere since the game doesn't simulate that, the sheer cost of the reactor-generator complex ought to make it extremely inefficient from a financial standpoint to use them on disposable craft.

[xfrankie]

If I've read up on things correctly, He3-D has the advantage of producing power significantly longer than D-T, and doesn't have to deal with the issue of radioactive decay for long term missions, so it has a purpose there.

-snip-

Hate to break the news to you, but... Even in D-He3 mode, the thing scales down to 4.3GW, which is better than 2.3GW in pure He-3 mode, but still a ridiculous amount compared to 55GW D-T.

As for the reactor life-span, I'd like to see a mission lasting longer that ~5 years (a trip to Eeloo and back). Also all reactors can be shut down for the interplanetary transfer itself and restarted without any penalty (and if you transfer "off-focus", the fusion actually breeds a lot of tritium because the T-He3 decay mechanic doesn't work properly).

[artforz]

Hmm.

The UN consumption rate of the AIM seems off. With its 20 units of UN it can run flat out for 339692 earth days... low by 3 orders of magnitude due to unit confusion(informed guess, the tooltip talks about m^3. UN comes in liters)?

Also, when resource limited (e.g. running off a trickle of He3 from T decay) the consumption rates are completely off due to consumeReactorResource consuming the full amount of everything and then returning the minimum of received/wanted over the different resources.

AM consumption rate seems reasonable, 0.007320937AM for basic and 0.007059476AM for upgraded to burn through 500 D/He3. That's not quite 8 small AM bottles worth, easily produced with a lab on the launchpad or in flight.

D/He3 consumption rate and runtime also look ok, 500 units D/He3 is enough to run flat out for ~148 days for the basic and ~47 days for the upgraded. Well, that's assuming you can somehow *get* 500 units of He3...

[Fractal_UK]

As for the reactor life-span, I'd like to see a mission lasting longer that ~5 years (a trip to Eeloo and back). Also all reactors can be shut down for the interplanetary transfer itself and restarted without any penalty (and if you transfer "off-focus", the fusion actually breeds a lot of tritium because the T-He3 decay mechanic doesn't work properly).

Not everything is a mission that goes somewhere and comes back, the value of the reactor in those lower power configurations is really in the deployment of fixed reactor infrastructure that you can use to power refineries, antimatter factories, etc. Often you won't want to be powering those down but running a fusion reactor at the minimum power in DT mode can mean you are wasting a lot of fuel producing amounts of power that you don't need unless you're in flight.

[Fractal_UK]

Hmm.

The UN consumption rate of the AIM seems off. With its 20 units of UN it can run flat out for 339692 earth days... low by 3 orders of magnitude due to unit confusion(informed guess, the tooltip talks about m^3. UN comes in liters)?

That's possible considering nuclear resources used to be in m^3 but were later changed to litres. I may have missed something in that conversion.

Also, when resource limited (e.g. running off a trickle of He3 from T decay) the consumption rates are completely off due to consumeReactorResource consuming the full amount of everything and then returning the minimum of received/wanted over the different resources.

Yeah, the current consume/return system is a rubbish fudge from the days when reactors were much simpler, I'm going to do a total rework of the reactors (actually that work is already half-done) for the next version to improve the architecture.

[undercoveryankee]

Another example of too much realism murdering gameplay. I mean realistic simulations are fun, but you have to draw the line somewhere or actually launching a rocket in KSP would be a 140 million dollar DLC.

I think that line is being drawn a little too far north of fun.

One of the purposes that Interstellar serves well is to demonstrate that there is no "magic bullet" that will make long-range space travel as routine as flying airplanes between continents. If a few busy-work mechanics or usually-not-useful options help to present a better idea of what technologies have been written about and what the challenges are, I don't mind that much.

Part of the fun for me is the thought that if we ever manage to do this for real, this is what it might look like. There's only so much you can improve the gameplay without losing some of that.

[Aedile]

What is the purpose of the deuterium-tritium cryogenic container? It seems to lack any use as of right now...

It stores fuel for fusion reactors, and it's much lighter than the standard one, but needs a little power and loses a bit resource even when powered. One contains a full refill for 3.75 fusion reactor... or half - I forget easy

Edited May 6, 2014 by Aedile

[db48x]

One of the purposes that Interstellar serves well is to demonstrate that there is no "magic bullet" that will make long-range space travel as routine as flying airplanes between continents. If a few busy-work mechanics or usually-not-useful options help to present a better idea of what technologies have been written about and what the challenges are, I don't mind that much.

Part of the fun for me is the thought that if we ever manage to do this for real, this is what it might look like. There's only so much you can improve the gameplay without losing some of that.

My thoughts exactly.

Also, someone else was complaining/mentioning that they have to use half a dozen small fusion reactors to power their Vista; I think that's just because Fractal_UK doesn't have models for the larger versions of that reactor. In spite of minor deficiencies such as that, KSP Interstellar is really fun.

[crimsonknight3]

I am wondering if anyone knows of any ION engines that would merge well with this mod. The only mod that adds an ion engine that I have found is from ksp .22 and it works only with .cfg edits however I am trying to find an ion engine that can compliment KSPI as a slow efficient means of propulsion, which also is balanced and aesthetically pleasing. the .22 ones are pretty plain and don't suit the KSPI feel

[Kerbonautical]

So, after a bit of playing around with this mod and tweaking designs I finally figured out how to produce megajoules. So of course I decided to set up a power station in orbit with a relay network. Only thing is I can't figure out how that works. My power station has the large extendable relay in transmit mode and has lots of electricity without it decreasing at all, my waste heat is also not climibing. I then have 3 similar satelites minus the reactor/generator setup all set to relay mode but nothing is connected to each other. I've tried facing them toward each other and signal stays at 0 even though the stations is transmitting at 100%. What's going on here? Is RemoteTech a dependancy?

[Fractal_UK]

So, after a bit of playing around with this mod and tweaking designs I finally figured out how to produce megajoules. So of course I decided to set up a power station in orbit with a relay network. Only thing is I can't figure out how that works. My power station has the large extendable relay in transmit mode and has lots of electricity without it decreasing at all, my waste heat is also not climibing. I then have 3 similar satelites minus the reactor/generator setup all set to relay mode but nothing is connected to each other. I've tried facing them toward each other and signal stays at 0 even though the stations is transmitting at 100%. What's going on here? Is RemoteTech a dependancy?

If you want to receive power, you need to be in receive mode, not in relay mode. Relays take power and transmit it onward but the amount that goes through a given satellite is variable depending on where the receiver is so activating relay mode does nothing until you have a receiver that can receive something.

[Kerbonautical]

If you want to receive power, you need to be in receive mode, not in relay mode. Relays take power and transmit it onward but the amount that goes through a given satellite is variable depending on where the receiver is so activating relay mode does nothing until you have a receiver that can receive something.

Oh ok, that makes sense. Yeah I just set up the relay and figured it wasn't working because there was a part I was missing. For some reason actually sticking a rocket on the launch pad anyway and seeing what happens never came to mind :/ oh well, time to try out some of these new engines!

[ABZB]

I think that long-term considerations will come into play - presumably there will eventually be interstellar travel, with corresponding travel times (even with Alcubierre).

[jffr363]

Hey guys, need some help. So i have a ship i build with a 3.75m fusion reactor unupgraded, running a thermal rocket. The thing worked great during launch and during transfer burn to Duna. I brought a docked landing craft with me and landed on Duna, but upon returning and docking with the mothership, the reactor is locked at 10% power, and the rocket is stuck on 1000 isp and 500kn of thrust. Changing fuel mode on the rocket and turning off and on the reactor doesnt seem to work. I have tried saving and loading, and I launched a second one the same ship, and everything is working great on that one. Has anyone encountered this before? Am i just doing something wrong? Ill post some screens if you guys think it will help.

[philotical]

Hey guys, need some help. So i have a ship i build with a 3.75m fusion reactor unupgraded, running a thermal rocket. The thing worked great during launch and during transfer burn to Duna. I brought a docked landing craft with me and landed on Duna, but upon returning and docking with the mothership, the reactor is locked at 10% power, and the rocket is stuck on 1000 isp and 500kn of thrust. Changing fuel mode on the rocket and turning off and on the reactor doesnt seem to work. I have tried saving and loading, and I launched a second one the same ship, and everything is working great on that one. Has anyone encountered this before? Am i just doing something wrong? Ill post some screens if you guys think it will help.

if you have two of those ships in your SFS - one working, the other not, can you compare those ship's data in the SFS..

maybe that would show something...

[Deredere]

Hey guys, need some help. So i have a ship i build with a 3.75m fusion reactor unupgraded, running a thermal rocket. The thing worked great during launch and during transfer burn to Duna. I brought a docked landing craft with me and landed on Duna, but upon returning and docking with the mothership, the reactor is locked at 10% power, and the rocket is stuck on 1000 isp and 500kn of thrust. Changing fuel mode on the rocket and turning off and on the reactor doesnt seem to work. I have tried saving and loading, and I launched a second one the same ship, and everything is working great on that one. Has anyone encountered this before? Am i just doing something wrong? Ill post some screens if you guys think it will help.

Sounds like at some point your reactor overheated and shut down.

Even if it didn't, turning off a fission reactor leaves it off until the core burns out.

A shut down fission reactor will still produce energy - 10% at first, then decreasing until at 0% you can finally refuel and/or restart it.

[ArcFurnace]

Sounds like at some point your reactor overheated and shut down.

Even if it didn't, turning off a fission reactor leaves it off until the core burns out.

A shut down fission reactor will still produce energy - 10% at first, then decreasing until at 0% you can finally refuel and/or restart it.

True, but he said he was using a fusion reactor, not a fission reactor.

Don't think I've had that happen before. You said you launched a second ship and it worked fine- did you try undocking and redocking from that second ship? If that's what consistently causes the problem, we might be closer to narrowing down what's going on. You've already tried a lot of the "have you tried turning it off and on again?"-style potential fixes, so I can't give much more advice, sadly.

Edited May 7, 2014 by ArcFurnace

[jffr363]

So I tried undocking the lander and still same issue, and redocking the lander didnt help either. I looked at the SFS file and couldnt see any difference between the 2 ships reactors sadly.

Here is a link to my SFS file : https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62514322/persistent.sfs

The vessel is question is called Odessey. Ctrl-f and you can find it.

There is another vessel called odesseyTest, which is identical except for lacking the lander, and it works just fine.

I really only looked at the Fusion Reactor part on each vessel didnt really look at anything else. If there is something else i should post let me know.

[Biotronic]

I'm trying to add KSPI support to a plugin called TweakScale. It lets you right click a part and change its size. Great for reducing part list clutter.

Maybe I'm too ambitious trying to make scaling of reactors just work, but I'm an optimist. However, some of the numbers in the .cfg files have me stumped:

Fusion reactors - for GEKKO and OMEGA, powerRequirements scales with the cube of the radius. For the more 'generic' 2.5m and 3.75m reactors, it scales with the square of the radius. Is one of these wrong, or doesn't it matter a lot, so a number was simply chosen?

Antimatter reactors - thermalPower, resourceRate, and their upgraded counterparts scale with the cube of the radius. reactorTemp scales with approximately radius^1.22. And that's very approximate. Is there some (hopefully simple) formula to follow?

Formulae would be nice for fission reactors and antimatter initiated reactors too. log(26.666)/log(2) might be close enough for thermal power, but just putting in those numbers and not knowing why feels horrible. Same goes for resourceRate.

[undercoveryankee]

Fusion reactors - for GEKKO and OMEGA, powerRequirements scales with the cube of the radius. For the more 'generic' 2.5m and 3.75m reactors, it scales with the square of the radius. Is one of these wrong, or doesn't it matter a lot, so a number was simply chosen?

A few posts back, it was mentioned that the smaller fusions are laser-inertial-confinement and the larger ones are tokamak designs. The different scaling curve is most likely due to the different operating principles.

[Deredere]

True, but he said he was using a fusion reactor, not a fission reactor.

Oh. So he did. I don't know how I missed that. Maybe because it sounds exactly like a fission shutdown scenario.

[Biotronic]

A few posts back, it was mentioned that the smaller fusions are laser-inertial-confinement and the larger ones are tokamak designs. The different scaling curve is most likely due to the different operating principles.

That makes a kind of sense, so I implemented it like that.