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

[Donziboy2]

Did you install 6.1 onto 6.0 cameroon?

That seems to be the biggest problem with alot of mods is people just dropping new versions on the old.

[cameroon]

That is not actually the case. 100 science is the maximum that you can send with one click but you should be able to send packets of less than 100 if that is all you have. Quite a few people have reported some problems with transmitting science but it consistently works perfectly for me which makes the problem very hard to diagnose, it's possible that there is some interaction with another mod going on. What mods do you have installed?

Ok, I've removed all but the plugins that would break my save due to parts, which leaves me with the mods below and I still can't transmit science:

Procedural Fairings

Procedural Wings

MechJeb2

[cameroon]

Did you install 6.1 onto 6.0 cameroon?

That seems to be the biggest problem with alot of mods is people just dropping new versions on the old.

I can't recall, but on the chance that was the cause I deleted and replaced the WarpPlugin directory, but that didn't help.

[cameroon]

I noticed the WarpPlugin.cfg in the game save directory. It is updating, and the packets are apparently being written as being 0 science even though the science lab shows 0.06.

DATA_PACKET

{

science = 0.000000E+000

UT_sent = 3.0857999988323217E+005

}

Edit:

I went to my rover that has 4.27 science and clicked Transmit Science and it also wrote a 0 science packet:

DATA_PACKET

{

science = 0.000000E+000

UT_sent = 3.0870873988335265E+005

}

Edited October 12, 2013 by cameroon

[Donziboy2]

Noticed I got some of the 2.5m Nuclear Argon numbers wrong. So here is the updated version.

EDIT: Managed to upload an old version bah...

Edited October 12, 2013 by Donziboy2

[Fractal_UK]

I noticed the WarpPlugin.cfg in the game save directory. It is updating, and the packets are apparently being written as being 0 science even though the science lab shows 0.06.

I think I *might* have figured out why this happens but I'm not 100% sure. Regardless, the possible fix won't do any harm so I'll include it in the next version and we'll see if it resolves the issues.

---

In other news, I'll be introducing a new feature in 0.6.2: the ability to perform electrolysis on Duna.

Unlike the ocean or the water ice surface of Vall, on Duna it isn't simply a matter of electrolysing a direct supply of water: the water must be baked out of the soil first (you could call this a topical update after Curiosity's confirmation of ~2% water by mass in the Martian soil). Anyway, this baking process requires quite a lot of energy - just over 1/4 of the energy required to perform the electrolysis, which means the process will be a little slower on Duna but still very achievable. I've also upped the amount of power that the science lab can make use of while electrolysing, which should speed up the process if you have the extra power available.

It works the same way as normal - producing about 8x the amount of oxidiser as it does liquid fuel just a little slower than in other locations.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Fractal_UK

[forsaken1111]

Out of curiousity, why does electrolyzing water produce more oxygen than hydrogen?

[Fractal_UK]

Out of curiousity, why does electrolyzing water produce more oxygen than hydrogen?

It's a by mass measure so although water has two Hydrogens, the Oxygens are 16 times as heavy as one Hydrogen. So 9 units of mass of water will give you 8 units of mass of Oxygen and 1 unit of mass of Hydrogen.

[forsaken1111]

It's a by mass measure so although water has two Hydrogens, the Oxygens are 16 times as heavy as one Hydrogen. So 9 units of mass of water will give you 8 units of mass of Oxygen and 1 unit of mass of Hydrogen.

Ahh alright. Makes sense.

[cameroon]

I think I *might* have figured out why this happens but I'm not 100% sure. Regardless, the possible fix won't do any harm so I'll include it in the next version and we'll see if it resolves the issues.

The science crew looks forward to the firmware update

[Xentoe]

That is real cool.

To sad Squad will never add your mod into KSP.

the whole science and resource harvesting stuff would fit sooo brilliant into the R&D Stuff that comes out now

But nooo "We want only 60`s Rocket technology" *memememememememe*

Is in my eyes a bit pfff how is the word, for people who do not allow other ideas?

[NeoAcario]

The science crew looks forward to the firmware update

I'm just happy I'll be able to collect AM and use CPU cores in the backround! 6.2 can't come fast enough!

That is real cool.

To sad Squad will never add your mod into KSP.

the whole science and resource harvesting stuff would fit sooo brilliant into the R&D Stuff that comes out now

But nooo "We want only 60`s Rocket technology" *memememememememe*

Is in my eyes a bit pfff how is the word, for people who do not allow other ideas?

Maybe they'll add KSP Interstellar when they add another couple stars to explore?

Still love ya, Fractal!

~Steve

[Fractal_UK]

What I feel I really need to do now is give you all some incentive to run energy efficient space programs, you have lots of exciting technologies to use now. At some point, you will be able to develop enough of a science and antimatter economy that you will be able to build a spacecraft with pretty much whatever fuels and propellants you want aboard.

What would be really nice is to give you something for using the right tools for the right job.

Let me explain:

In space travel we tend to think about increased specific impulse being universally a good thing - specific impulse lets us go further on less propellant and that means we have more delta-v but actually specific impulse has a downside too, namely energy consumption. Kinetic energy is proportional to exhaust velocity^2, so let's say we went to Duna with an engine with a 3.75m antimatter engine, which has exhaust velocity = 176,413.23m/s or we went to Duna with a solid core nuclear thermal rocket, with exhaust velocity = 8,976.15m/s. The first approach uses (176,413.23/8,976.15)^2 = 386.26x more energy.

Obviously we save a lot of propellant by using the antimatter reactor but are we really better off saving Hydrogen, the most abundant element element in the universe, at the expense of precious Antimatter that takes enormous quantities of power or time to produce?

I'm open to suggestions about how to factor this in. I don't think I'll make any mechanical changes but I wonder if some kind of "space program data sheet" could be produced, so you could see how efficient your space program is and compare that with other players.

[NeoAcario]

What I feel I really need to do now is give you all some incentive to run energy efficient space programs, you have lots of exciting technologies to use now. At some point, you will be able to develop enough of a science and antimatter economy that you will be able to build a spacecraft with pretty much whatever fuels and propellants you want aboard.

What would be really nice is to give you something for using the right tools for the right job.

Let me explain:

In space travel we tend to think about increased specific impulse being universally a good thing - specific impulse lets us go further on less propellant and that means we have more delta-v but actually specific impulse has a downside too, namely energy consumption. Kinetic energy is proportional to exhaust velocity^2, so let's say we went to Duna with an engine with a 3.75m antimatter engine, which has exhaust velocity = 176,413.23m/s or we went to Duna with a solid core nuclear thermal rocket, with exhaust velocity = 8,976.15m/s. The first approach uses (176,413.23/8,976.15)^2 = 386.26x more energy.

Obviously we save a lot of propellant by using the antimatter reactor but are we really better off saving Hydrogen, the most abundant element element in the universe, at the expense of precious Antimatter that takes enormous quantities of power or time to produce?

I'm open to suggestions about how to factor this in. I don't think I'll make any mechanical changes but I wonder if some kind of "space program data sheet" could be produced, so you could see how efficient your space program is and compare that with other players.

I'm confused by your intention... your entire space program produces (and uses) insane amounts of power. You want us to limit it? Well, to track it anyways. I guess I'm not confused - this is why I started using LFO in my Thermal Nozzles. It has the highest 'isp' with regards to AM. Thus, saving power.

Interesting idea. Only thing that comes to mind is setting up a website to process our uploaded save file for our power usage on active ships. Unless you want to code into your mod a tracker file. Have it upload upon click in game. Just like the Kerbal Alarm Clock has an in game check for updates button.

~Steve

EDIT

Obviously the most energy efficiency in the game is running Plasma Thrusters with Xenon.... that's a lot of thrust per second of reaction!

EDIT

Perhaps an the upload in game option... but only for currently active craft? Is there a way to have it include a screen shot? Could be interesting to see a page of user submitted ship creations and their efficiency. Could even sort by category. Mining bases, science labs, AM forges, etc... Could possibly have the site store the .craft for others to DL and test themselves?

Edited October 12, 2013 by NeoAcario

[Bizz Keryear]

That mod is* so good it actually give me chills.

But it will be tons of work to integrate that in 0.22 which will be out really soon. If not within one week then within two (imho /based on what news I have seen on reddit).

I really hope you keep the work on this up even in 0.22, and I hope that it is possible to integrate in the new KSP version without any bigger balancing problems.

-------------

*=Can't say if it really is cause I haven't tried it. So I only can actually only say it looks so good.

[Fractal_UK]

I'm confused by your intention... your entire space program produces (and uses) insane amounts of power. You want us to limit it? Well, to track it anyways. I guess I'm not confused - this is why I started using LFO in my Thermal Nozzles. It has the highest 'isp' with regards to AM. Thus, saving power.

Interesting idea. Only thing that comes to mind is setting up a website to process our uploaded save file for our power usage on active ships. Unless you want to code into your mod a tracker file. Have it upload upon click in game. Just like the Kerbal Alarm Clock has an in game check for updates button.

~Steve

EDIT

Obviously the most energy efficiency in the game is running Plasma Thrusters with Xenon.... that's a lot of thrust per second of reaction!

Basically this is a discussion about things we can do to add more and goals and objectives in the medium to long term. I want to try and give players some alternative goals so that once you reach the mod's "endgame" so to speak, once you have built the infrastructure that you need in order to perform all your missions there needs to be another measure of success to keep things entertaining, i.e. trying to use your new found wealth of energy resources in the most efficient way possible.

Let's say you decide to put antimatter to a very good use by building an Eve SSTO. We know this can't be done with stock parts or the nuclear reactors but we know it can be done with antimatter because we've seen it in this thread. So, what might be interesting to know now is what is the minimum quantity of antimatter that someone can do this with? What about all the interplanetary transfers?

I don't really want to be uploading this stuff or keeping track of it centrally in any way, I'd just like to provide you with some information for your own amusement.

Another really interesting thing might be further down the load as career mode is developed, can we introduce some kind of value to the resources? We have to assume part cost will eventually mean something and you will have to buy the parts. Perhaps, you might be able to receive additional funding for your space program by bringing back rare and useful resources to Kerbin?

[NeoAcario]

Another really interesting thing might be further down the load as career mode is developed, can we introduce some kind of value to the resources? We have to assume part cost will eventually mean something and you will have to buy the parts. Perhaps, you might be able to receive additional funding for your space program by bringing back rare and useful resources to Kerbin?

I do recall something about being able to recover some cost from returned / landed ships on Kerbin. Will this include the remaining fuel? If so, it would make selling AM quite a nice idea for fund raising!

I like the idea

~Steve

[NeoAcario]

So, what might be interesting to know now is what is the minimum quantity of antimatter that someone can do this with? What about all the interplanetary transfers?

1> Use this map...

http://www.skyrender.net/lp/ksp/system_map.png

2> Add up relevant dV numbers

3> Multiply dV by 0.02775

That's the minimum AM required. What do I win?!

~Steve

EDIT

Obviously that's a 1.25m AM reactor + Gen + Plasma + Xenon... with a large enough Xenon tank to go to and from any planet from Kerbin. 23341 total dV.

Edited October 12, 2013 by NeoAcario

[ROFLCopter64bit]

Another really interesting thing might be further down the load as career mode is developed, can we introduce some kind of value to the resources? We have to assume part cost will eventually mean something and you will have to buy the parts. Perhaps, you might be able to receive additional funding for your space program by bringing back rare and useful resources to Kerbin?

Maybe use Blutonium instead of Uranium Tetraflouride as nuclear reactor fuel to make it more vanilla-resource friendly?

[Fractal_UK]

EDIT Obviously that's a 1.25m AM reactor + Gen + Plasma + Xenon... with a large enough Xenon tank to go to and from any planet from Kerbin. 23341 total dV.

Well, a thermal rocket is probably better than a plasma thruster for conserving antimatter, it might also be possible to make warp assisted maneouvres more cheaply provided that the drive only needs one or two charging cycles.

Maybe use Blutonium instead of Uranium Tetraflouride as nuclear reactor fuel to make it more vanilla-resource friendly?

Maybe when they add that resources to the game but I don't really want to try and preempt a stock resource, I think that might be inviting incapability problems.

[Aghanim]

Suggestion:

1. Add something to convert electric charge directly into megajoule, or make the science lab able to consume electric charge directly

2. Make something dedicated for electric to antimatter production,unmanned. At first it will be slower than the science lab, but after (insert amount here) science, it will generate antimatter (insert amount here) times more

Both of those thing are preventing me to create a nice low sun orbit (3000 km) antimatter farm, where the solar panel are generating energy like crazy

And this is optional suggestion:

3. Everyone knows that antimatter is a nice explosive, so add a line in the cfg (default off) that when the antimatter tank hits something it will explodes depending on the amount of antimatter inside

And because of the above suggestion I remember one thing:

4. Add a antimatter catalyzed fusion rocket, the idea is to directly use antimatter instead of burning it in a reactor and generator with its waste heat and mass to power the DT Vista engine

Edited October 12, 2013 by Aghanim

[Scotius]

I'm all for space industry, and returning huge, bulky cargo carriers full of valuable ores to Kerbin And building belt of solar power plants to provide abundant, cheap and clean power to all Kerbals. That would be a worthy goal for the endgame. Building self-sufficient colonies in space - capable of building their own ships, providing Kerbals with consummables and options to expand their bases. As for energy usage efficiency: of course you are right Fractal. Any money-driven space program will want to do everything in cheapest and most efficient way. But...In KSP as it is now we can't really use methods working in RL. We can't keep thrusting for days with efficient but weak engines because it's impossible under time warp. To get reasonable burn times we need to use relatively powerful, high-thrust engines.

[DaveStrider]

antimatter consumption for my SSTO spaceplane was 50 antimatter for every flight from Eve. It had two reactors so naturally consumption was doubled. and it used a spaceplane flightpath, which takes a long time, meaning that the reactors were burning for longer. Those are two things i can think of that could improve my AM efficiency

[Jasmir]

Maybe when they add that resources to the game but I don't really want to try and preempt a stock resource, I think that might be inviting incapability problems.

I think a little bit different:

The resources should be harmonize as possible. In a manner, that all uses the same raw material, all uses the same intermediates and all uses the same end-products. (Of course, all uses the same waste). Without that kind of coordination, every mod using a non-stock resource is a "unique snowflake" and not really combinable with each other. (Look at "Ioncross Crew Support" and "TAC Life Support" to see how things can be run bad).

I'd also think, even some "recipes" should be harmonized, like "water can be splittet into 1 Liquidfuel and 2 Oxidizer"...

[forsaken1111]

I think a little bit different:

The resources should be harmonize as possible. In a manner, that all uses the same raw material, all uses the same intermediates and all uses the same end-products. (Of course, all uses the same waste). Without that kind of coordination, every mod using a non-stock resource is a "unique snowflake" and not really combinable with each other. (Look at "Ioncross Crew Support" and "TAC Life Support" to see how things can be run bad).

I'd also think, even some "recipes" should be harmonized, like "water can be splittet into 1 Liquidfuel and 2 Oxidizer"...

Its way too soon to start planning on KSP's resource system.

Also the water splitting thing was addressed previously. Its done by mass, which is the correct way to do it. There is much more oxygen than hydrogen in water by mass.