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

[zzz]

I'm slapped together something like very-very small radial radiator

http://www./download/1gkgw1c1ab95euc/HeatRadiator.7z

[Tharios]

I'm slapped together something like very-very small radial radiator

http://www./download/1gkgw1c1ab95euc/HeatRadiator.7z

Produces models that on their worst day are at least 2 or 3 times the quality of the stock game's models...says he "slapped it together".

That...is modesty, people.

[Scotius]

Zzz is like Santa - just works faster than dude in red hat

[Tharios]

Also, I'm starting to notice a prevailing theme develop in zzz's work. It's most obvious now in the way the Thermal turbojet and the new kiwi reactor line up. Very snazzzy (pun intended).

[srn]

I've got a weird problem with the thermal rockets - basically, the model looks like there's thrust coming out the side and bottom regardless of the state of the engine (even when off). The thermal rocket nozzle also seems to clip through the ground. It also doesn't show up in staging.

On the ground, motor not turned on - https://www.dropbox.com/s/x17oqxa3684gp6a/Screen%20Shot%202013-10-26%20at%2011.21.17%20am.png

Engine running in flight. - https://www.dropbox.com/s/hd980ooedrtal2d/Screen%20Shot%202013-10-26%20at%2011.21.36%20am.png

Stock 0.22 with just this add-on.

[Fractal_UK]

I've got a weird problem with the thermal rockets - basically, the model looks like there's thrust coming out the side and bottom regardless of the state of the engine (even when off). The thermal rocket nozzle also seems to clip through the ground. It also doesn't show up in staging.

On the ground, motor not turned on - https://www.dropbox.com/s/x17oqxa3684gp6a/Screen%20Shot%202013-10-26%20at%2011.21.17%20am.png

Engine running in flight. - https://www.dropbox.com/s/hd980ooedrtal2d/Screen%20Shot%202013-10-26%20at%2011.21.36%20am.png

Stock 0.22 with just this add-on.

Check your installation, almost every time this happens it's because the plugin has been installed in the wrong folder. The easiest thing to do is simply unzip the mod zip file into your KSP main directory because all the directory structure is already made for you.

It should be [KSP Main Directory]\GameData\WarpPlugin and then a bunch of files and folders in the Warp Plugin directory. If it isn't installed exactly like that, it won't work.

[Thogapotomus]

I'm slapped together something like very-very small radial radiator

http://www./download/1gkgw1c1ab95euc/HeatRadiator.7z

Nice. I've been waiting for something like this.

[srn]

Check your installation, almost every time this happens it's because the plugin has been installed in the wrong folder. The easiest thing to do is simply unzip the mod zip file into your KSP main directory because all the directory structure is already made for you.

It should be [KSP Main Directory]\GameData\WarpPlugin and then a bunch of files and folders in the Warp Plugin directory. If it isn't installed exactly like that, it won't work.

Yep, that fixed it.

The zip file, though, puts everything under another folder - so I moved that into the GameData directory, which was wrong.

[forsaken1111]

Yep, that fixed it.

The zip file, though, puts everything under another folder - so I moved that into the GameData directory, which was wrong.

The zip file has a gamedata folder in it. You're meant to drop that into the ksp folder. The install instructions are pretty clear.

[Imca]

Oh wow ZZZ that is amazing.

Any chance you could work on the AI core next /is totaly not asking since that is her favriote part >.>

[Cairan]

Attaching two generators to one reactor will definitely give you double resources until the reactor is drained - that's not a problem. Once the resources are drained though, you should see either both generators at 50% or one at 100% and the other at 0%. I'll check this out.

I tried attaching two reactors to a single generator (a nuclear sandwich ) but the second reactor was always idle, no matter how much power I required out of the stack. Some power plant schemes use common heat exchangers to take up heat from a group of boilers to drive a single turbine/generator group. Would it be possible to achieve without too much code mingling? Nuclear power plants have not used this arrangement but coal and oil fired ones are.

My idea was to place a nuclear reactor as a baseload, a nice huge generator in between, and an antimatter reactor on top for peak power.

[sanoj688]

Fractal, if I have a science lab in orbit somewhere that generates like 0.176 science a day, does that vessel HAVE to be active? Or will it still generate science regardless if you are controlling it/are near it?

[Fractal_UK]

I tried attaching two reactors to a single generator (a nuclear sandwich ) but the second reactor was always idle, no matter how much power I required out of the stack. Some power plant schemes use common heat exchangers to take up heat from a group of boilers to drive a single turbine/generator group. Would it be possible to achieve without too much code mingling? Nuclear power plants have not used this arrangement but coal and oil fired ones are.

My idea was to place a nuclear reactor as a baseload, a nice huge generator in between, and an antimatter reactor on top for peak power.

I have considered it, it's not a major problem to implement provided that the two reactors are the same, using two gas core nuclear reactors to drive a single generate, for example. Problem is, things get much more messy when the two reactors have different power outputs and different temperatures, that's why I've persisted with a one reactor to one generator model. This might change at some point but there are other features that I want to focus on more at the moment.

Fractal, if I have a science lab in orbit somewhere that generates like 0.176 science a day, does that vessel HAVE to be active? Or will it still generate science regardless if you are controlling it/are near it?

It doesn't have to be active, but you will need to switch back to the science lab after you've been time accelerating on other vessels before all your science will be retroactively added to the R&D centre.

[Yaivenov]

First off, thanks for this awesome mod! Been having a blast with it, and I haven't even progressed very far past thermal rockets yet (career mode).

Now for my silly question that has probably already been asked, please forgive me; Is it possible to refuel the nuclear reactors at the end of their useable life to include reprocessing operations? I've got one exploration ship that has racked up 10 years of flight time and I was curious if I'd eventually have to permanently park it (so that I could dock a fresh reactor to it and keep its labs running) or otherwise dispose of it.

[forsaken1111]

You'll want to make your reactor/generator combos replaceable on long duration ships as there is currently no way to refuel them.

[Yaivenov]

Alright, I'll keep that in mind for future construction. As this was my earliest exploration ship I didn't have the available parts to make it as modular as I would have liked. Guess it'll be getting parked permanently in Jool orbit then.

[AshRagnorok]

Fractal,

Quick question, is there a way to make amny of the parts use stock equivalent fuels for simplicity?

[Fractal_UK]

Fractal,

Quick question, is there a way to make amny of the parts use stock equivalent fuels for simplicity?

I'm not really sure what you mean, almost everything uses stock fuels by default. Which non stock fuels are you talking about?

[AshRagnorok]

antimatter, exotic matter, ect.

[Cairan]

That's the whole point... Antimatter is far from "standard chemical" fuels. Idem for exotic matter. Even today, we need $%#$%loads of power to even create a single Higgs boson in a matter accelerator such as ones operated by CERN. In the stock game, LiquidFuel and SolidFuel are different for a reason: they are far from being the same stuff. In my book of things, even LiquidFuels is too much "generic", there's a difference between RP1 (rocket fuel) and LH2 (liquid hydrogen) in terms of mass density and energy density, but the game does smooth it out for gameplay. That's for stock. The fun with Kethane, Interstellar mod, and other devices is to increase the difficulty level by providing incentive for achievements: in these cases, science research and resource discovery and gathering.

As for stock fuels, the basic plasma thrusters do use LiquidFuels. Same goes for the thermal rockets and jets, which use stock LiquidFuel as well for their propellant needs.

[Yaivenov]

Well that was fun! Decided to bring that research ship back home to Kerbal to collect the final Science from it's trip to Jool. Kind of disappointed though, the expendable probe I dropped into Jool's atmo worked great....except there was no land/impact, it just fell through the surface.

Anyways, I just wanted to chime back in regarding the nuclear reactor since I asked a question about it just a little while ago... the 2.5m reactor, after approximately 14 years of operation (approximately because a docking/undocking of a resupply ship reset the flight clock) had permanently expended one quarter of it's fissile material. Talk about some nice life expectancy.

Now, just some thoughts and suggestions I thought I'd toss your way, if you don't mind Fractal. Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) is a Uranium compound used primarily during the enrichment process, but is not the form used as fuel. The form "burned" in reactors is Uranium Dioxide. That is kind of neither here nor there however as the process you have in the game, of reprocessing your fuel for continued use, seems closest to the real world counter-part of Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel, where spent fuel rods are reprocessed and subsequently contain both Uranium and Plutonium isotopes which are re-burnt, reprocessed, and so on.

So the first suggestion is that the fuel in the reactors be renamed from UF6 to MOX Fuel. The second suggestion, which may be more trouble that it's worth as I'm not sure how you have the code for this written at the moment, is in regards to being able to tell the current life-state of the reactor core in a more readable form. Simply put, adding a third fuel measure if you will, for the permanently expended fuel. The readouts thus would be: "MOX Fuel", "Depleted Fuel", and "Waste Isotopes". As the MOX is expended it converts to Depleted, from this the player can immediately infer that 20% of that will be lost during reprocessing to the "Waste" category. The "Waste Isotopes" (or perhaps "Fuel Waste"?) measure will give an immediate and easily discerned measure of how much of the reactor's life has been expended.

*shrug* Just something I thought I'd toss out there, hope it can be of use.

[Umlüx]

is there a way to deactivate waste heat for solar panels? just installed the mod and lost probes... they retracted the panels and went dead.

edit: NVM found it!

Edited October 26, 2013 by Umlüx

[cy-one]

I browsed the last few pages of the thread... Is there a pic of the new nuclear reactors? I can't play right now, but I _really_ would love to see it.

BTW: Is there also a new model for the am-tanks? Just asking. Both parts are the only remaining "meh" kinda looking stuff in comparison with zzz's work.

[Fractal_UK]

Haha, well, I *could* an option to power things with LiquidFuel and Oxidiser. A little maths tells me that's about 88 orange tanks of fuel per 1 unit of antimatter, or 88,000 orange tanks for one unit of Exotic Matter. So, I don't really think this option is useful to anyone.

Well that was fun! Decided to bring that research ship back home to Kerbal to collect the final Science from it's trip to Jool. Kind of disappointed though, the expendable probe I dropped into Jool's atmo worked great....except there was no land/impact, it just fell through the surface.

Anyways, I just wanted to chime back in regarding the nuclear reactor since I asked a question about it just a little while ago... the 2.5m reactor, after approximately 14 years of operation (approximately because a docking/undocking of a resupply ship reset the flight clock) had permanently expended one quarter of it's fissile material. Talk about some nice life expectancy.

Now, just some thoughts and suggestions I thought I'd toss your way, if you don't mind Fractal. Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) is a Uranium compound used primarily during the enrichment process, but is not the form used as fuel. The form "burned" in reactors is Uranium Dioxide. That is kind of neither here nor there however as the process you have in the game, of reprocessing your fuel for continued use, seems closest to the real world counter-part of Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel, where spent fuel rods are reprocessed and subsequently contain both Uranium and Plutonium isotopes which are re-burnt, reprocessed, and so on.

So the first suggestion is that the fuel in the reactors be renamed from UF6 to MOX Fuel. The second suggestion, which may be more trouble that it's worth as I'm not sure how you have the code for this written at the moment, is in regards to being able to tell the current life-state of the reactor core in a more readable form. Simply put, adding a third fuel measure if you will, for the permanently expended fuel. The readouts thus would be: "MOX Fuel", "Depleted Fuel", and "Waste Isotopes". As the MOX is expended it converts to Depleted, from this the player can immediately infer that 20% of that will be lost during reprocessing to the "Waste" category. The "Waste Isotopes" (or perhaps "Fuel Waste"?) measure will give an immediate and easily discerned measure of how much of the reactor's life has been expended.

*shrug* Just something I thought I'd toss out there, hope it can be of use.

I actually wondered if anyone would ask about this. Because the reactors are used for both solid core and gas core designs, I didn't want to pick out a pick a fuel that would only be useful in the former design, as something like a MOX reactor would. I actually had in mind something more like a molten salt reactor using Uranium Tetraflouride (UF4) fuel, which is easily converted from Uranium Hexaflouride (you wouldn't want to store UF4 fuel). This design would have the advantage of being able to operate at very high temperature as a solid core reactor as well as having passive safety features. They also have much higher specific power than most traditional solid core designs, which is obviously good if you want to use it in space.

When you then upgrade to the nuclear gas core, you are using the Uranium Hexaflouride directly as fuel inside a casing of solid fused silica, which is transparent to the UV radiation coming out of the ultra-high temperature reactor core.

Although these are more advanced reactor concepts, there isn't neccessarily any reason that Kerbals would go down the same path of developing nuclear technology. Our technology has been heavily influenced by the need for production of material for nuclear weapons, whereas Kerbals could easily have decided to focus on reactors better suited to civilian power generation first.

I thought about using some kind of Thorium fuel cycle instead but eventually decided against it. I don't know if there is any point doing something with options for both fuel cycles but I'll certainly keep the idea on the table in case I or some else comes up with a good idea for something interesting to do with it. Thorium might be a better refueling option for certain celestial bodies so there may be mileage in that.

I browsed the last few pages of the thread... Is there a pic of the new nuclear reactors? I can't play right now, but I _really_ would love to see it.

BTW: Is there also a new model for the am-tanks? Just asking. Both parts are the only remaining "meh" kinda looking stuff in comparison with zzz's work.

There is only one new nuclear reactor model so far, unfortunately - the 1.25m version but it's a really nice model. There are, however, new models for all of the antimatter tanks.

[Yaivenov]

Fair enough on the fuel material. Any thought on the third "expended fuel" category so a player can easily tell how much fuel has been permanently used?

Also, I need to ask as I'm having trouble with this right now, exactly how does one get a 3.25m reactor off the ground? The problem I'm facing is that the reactor model in game has NO attachment points on it's surface for reinforcement struts, thus it's only attachment to the lifter is the single point which immediately snaps under the 43 ton burden at even the slightest hint of acceleration (I attempted a slow take off throttle up with a mechjeb limited acceleration of 15m/s, and even that was too much for the single attachment point and on a few occasions just loading in was enough stress to collapse it).