[WIP] Nert's Dev Thread - Current: various updates

[Pthigrivi]

On 5/22/2020 at 4:29 PM, Nertea said:

So yes, I am working on FFT again. I seem motivated and no more KSP2 for a year gives me some time to finish it. However, a major scope and content restructuring will be happening to make this reasonable. Expect little to no compatibility between older versions and this one.

• All antimatter mechanics are getting removed: this is necessary to keep the scope reasonable.
•  All inertially confined engines are getting removed for a considerable rework and should not be even considered part of the mod for the time being. This includes the z-pinch driven engines.
•  Magnetically confined fusion engines are being reworked artistically as can be seen, but also mechanically with different sizes and capabilities. Probably more on that as they get done. 
•  Fusion reactors are sticking around and should stay largely the same as they are currently.
•  Exotic fission propulsion systems are getting strongly reworked but should still be in the mod. This means the NSWR and FFRE.
•  Metallic hydrogen propulsion might be going away.If not it's getting a similar treatment to the inertially confined engines and getting taken out for a heavy conceptual rework. 
•  ISRU equipment is being revised and edited where appropriate. Some of the models are salvageable, others will need a rethink conceptually and artistically. 

I'm concurrently developing three utility mods that are required to make the mod work the way I want. These will not be optional. 

•  SystemHeat, which overhauls heating
•  Waterfall, which is something I and a few others have been working on to drive better engine effects
•  SpaceDust, which is a piece of work to overhaul the buggy garbage mess that is atmospheric and exoatmospheric harvesting in stock. 

An initial release will be available when the fusion, fission and ISRU systems are done, and the three support mods have reached a sufficient level of stability. 

What would we do without you? 

Other me: Have you ever considered building a proper LS mod?

[Nertea]

 

10 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Other me: Have you ever considered building a proper LS mod?

Not really, I don't enjoy playing with LS, and I generally make things I want.

 

11 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

is that a nuclear saltwater rocket engine

That's the right answer

On 5/27/2020 at 12:29 AM, coyotesfrontier said:

Ooo! Nice! Any clues on what kind of engine it is?

BTW, by atmospheric, I didn't mean a jet engine, I just meant able to be used in-atmosphere.

I used to have the NSWR and the meth engines, but... I mean the problem is that these engines are big, and even if you convert them into higher thrust versions by injecting LH2 or something, you don't generally solve the heating problems which are vast. It's then hard to get the heat out in the atmosphere

[KeaKaka]

On 5/30/2020 at 3:32 PM, Nertea said:

On 5/30/2020 at 4:06 AM, SpaceFace545 said:

is that a nuclear saltwater rocket engine

That's the right answer 

Does that mean that a resource gatherer will be added for harvesting the oceans of Kerbin (maybe Laythe)? 

DRAIN THE OCEANS!

 *insert evil laughter*

Edited May 31, 2020 by Mountain Parrot

[SpaceFace545]

17 hours ago, Nertea said:

 That's the right answer

Are we going to get more streamlined tanks for it then, the current tanks are kinda bare looking.

[Nertea]

On 5/29/2020 at 11:14 PM, Mountain Parrot said:

Does that mean that a resource gatherer will be added for harvesting the oceans of Kerbin (maybe Laythe)? 

DRAIN THE OCEANS!

 *insert evil laughter*

 

On 5/30/2020 at 2:33 PM, SpaceFace545 said:

Are we going to get more streamlined tanks for it then, the current tanks are kinda bare looking.

I'm reducing the scope guys, not adding to it

[SpaceFace545]

10 hours ago, Nertea said:

 

I'm reducing the scope guys, not adding to it

darn.

final question, will the inertial confinement fusion engine be larger, the daedalus? It's only 3.75m what seems a bit small

Edited June 2, 2020 by SpaceFace545

[KSPrynk]

@Nertea, I love that you've revamped SCANsat's parts.  Were you planning to collaborate on something similar for DMagic's Orbital Science parts?

[Clamp-o-Tron]

On 6/1/2020 at 7:38 PM, Nertea said:

 

I'm reducing the scope guys, not adding to it

Exception, please? Probably going to be shot down, but beamed power? KSPIE doesn't cut it in the visual category.

[Nertea]

19 hours ago, KSPrynk said:

@Nertea, I love that you've revamped SCANsat's parts.  Were you planning to collaborate on something similar for DMagic's Orbital Science parts?

People keep asking for that specific thing, maybe once I've finished with this one. I mostly did the Scansat parts because I work in that industry and there was a fateful alignment of hobby and work. 

11 hours ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

Exception, please? Probably going to be shot down, but beamed power? KSPIE doesn't cut it in the visual category.

I want to, but that's a huge piece of code, plus half a dozen models that have a complexity on par with the massive antennae in NFX which took a week of work each.

[Nightside]

28 minutes ago, Nertea said:

I work in that industry and there was a fateful alignment of hobby and work. 

I’m so glad to hear you get paid for your talent! Probably some kind of Comsat company? I wouldn’t be surprised if you know more about orbital mechanics than some of the designers...

[Nertea]

9 minutes ago, Nightside said:

I’m so glad to hear you get paid for your talent! Probably some kind of Comsat company? I wouldn’t be surprised if you know more about orbital mechanics than some of the designers...

Oh, I don't do art, I do... I don't even know what my job is anymore. Ground station software architecture I guess. 

[Nightside]

23 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Oh, I don't do art, I do... I don't even know what my job is anymore. Ground station software architecture I guess. 

Ah, well, whatever it is, they should pay you more!

[ssd21345]

lol was finding info for how FFT works, just got back to this thread and see you're working (reworking actually) on FFT.

Good for you to find compromises to work on it! Looking forward to it. Currently I only use tokamak jet engine. 

Nuclear salt water engine seems op in all mods  no matter your mods or interstellar extended. But actually not that op if you think of the isp on both mods.

Edited June 5, 2020 by ssd21345

[panarchist]

6 minutes ago, ssd21345 said:

lol was finding info for how FFT works, just got back to this thread and see you're working (reworking actually) on FFT.

Good for you to find compromises to work on it! Looking forward to it. Currently I only use tokamak jet engine. 

Nuclear salt water engine seems op in all mods  no matter your mods or interstellar extended. But actually not that op if you think of the isp on both mods.

NSWR is like Orion - seems OP but actually that's how the tech works / would work. Both are effectively useless in an atmosphere due to all the radiation, but super efficient in orbit - just don't point the back end of the rocket at anything / anyone you want to keep intact. Orion NPP is the only future tech that's actually been partially tested. (other than NERVA, which isn't so much "future tech" anymore. Technically both NERVA and Orion are 50-year old technology. There's no reason (other than the political) why NSWR can't work in theory, but no one's tested it yet, so no one actually knows what practical factors might nix it, or make it challenging.

Any kind of fusion propulsion is purely pie-in-the-sky. None of it has been tested, no one has ever made fusion work other than via stellar conditions (impractical for both power generation AND propulsion)

[Guest]

Actually, the problem with NSWR is that it relies on a very particular arrangement of nozzle and reaction fuel, and we're not quite sure if injecting the propellants into the plenum in such a way that it won't destroy the whole thing can be done. It's a plausible concept, but it's not closer to being realized than fusion. It's also not useless in atmosphere because of radiation, but because of thermal energy of the plume. In space, you can redirect heat away from you, but in atmosphere, convection means that the plume will also heat the air around it, quickly engulfing the vehicle in a cloud of plasma. Orion doesn't have this problem, and could be used on liftoff if it was either on a large graphite pad, or some place (like Venus) that we don't mind irradiating. Indeed, Venus sample return would be a nice application for Orion (it's not like it's gonna make things any worse planetside).  

1 hour ago, panarchist said:

Any kind of fusion propulsion is purely pie-in-the-sky. None of it has been tested, no one has ever made fusion work other than via stellar conditions (impractical for both power generation AND propulsion)

None of this is true. First of all, fusion propulsion had been tested. This is a very interesting, entry-level fusion drive concept. Now, this thing doesn't produce power, so it's essentially an electric engine on steroids, but it is a working fusion engine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Fusion_Drive
Second, fusion has practical applications which are in use right now. Not for power generation, not for propulsion, but for making neutrons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator
They're either fusors or ion accelerators, this article focuses on the latter. We have made fusion "work" a long time ago. There are thousands of fusion devices in use right now, mostly for a wide variety of research applications, and not just plasma physics, but material science and biomedical as well (neutrons are a bit of a red-headed stepchild when it comes to radiology, so nothing is in hospitals yet, but work is ongoing).

[panarchist]

2 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Actually, the problem with NSWR is that it relies on a very particular arrangement of nozzle and reaction fuel, and we're not quite sure if injecting the propellants into the plenum in such a way that it won't destroy the whole thing can be done. It's a plausible concept, but it's not closer to being realized than fusion. It's also not useless in atmosphere because of radiation, but because of thermal energy of the plume. In space, you can redirect heat away from you, but in atmosphere, convection means that the plume will also heat the air around it, quickly engulfing the vehicle in a cloud of plasma. 

I alluded to that and was simplifying. The plasma cloud issue severity would be dependent on the TWR of the rocket.

2 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

None of this is true. First of all, fusion propulsion had been tested. This is a very interesting, entry-level fusion drive concept. Now, this thing doesn't produce power, so it's essentially an electric engine on steroids, but it is a working fusion engine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Fusion_Drive
Second, fusion has practical applications which are in use right now. Not for power generation, not for propulsion, but for making neutrons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator
They're either fusors or ion accelerators, this article focuses on the latter. We have made fusion "work" a long time ago. There are thousands of fusion devices in use right now, mostly for a wide variety of research applications, and not just plasma physics, but material science and biomedical as well (neutrons are a bit of a red-headed stepchild when it comes to radiology, so nothing is in hospitals yet, but work is ongoing).

Yes, my statement stands - it is true. DFD has, as of 2019, only been modeled - nothing's been actually tested. Modeling is a long way from anything practical, or able to provide either power or thrust.

Neutron generators aren't producing power or thrust. Fusion has, for the last 50 years, only been accomplished in specific circumstances where stellar conditions can be reproduced (as I mentioned above) - in particle accelerators, mostly. Unity has not been achieved, and a self-sustaining reaction is still, after 70 years of trying, only possible within a nuclear fusion bomb. Orion is the only practical method of nuclear fusion propulsion that currently is able to be implemented - the parts have all been tested, not merely modeled, and even that's not a guarantee, because there could be effects and interactions between the components that we won't know or see until the first real system test.

EDIT: Apologies for the OT post - I'm happy to take further discussion on the practicalities of various propulsion systems to a more appropriate venue.

Edited June 5, 2020 by panarchist

[Nertea]

1 hour ago, panarchist said:

I alluded to that and was simplifying. The plasma cloud issue severity would be dependent on the TWR of the rocket.

Yes, my statement stands - it is true. DFD has, as of 2019, only been modeled - nothing's been actually tested. Modeling is a long way from anything practical, or able to provide either power or thrust.

Neutron generators aren't producing power or thrust. Fusion has, for the last 50 years, only been accomplished in specific circumstances where stellar conditions can be reproduced (as I mentioned above) - in particle accelerators, mostly. Unity has not been achieved, and a self-sustaining reaction is still, after 70 years of trying, only possible within a nuclear fusion bomb. Orion is the only practical method of nuclear fusion propulsion that currently is able to be implemented - the parts have all been tested, not merely modeled, and even that's not a guarantee, because there could be effects and interactions between the components that we won't know or see until the first real system test.

EDIT: Apologies for the OT post - I'm happy to take further discussion on the practicalities of various propulsion systems to a more appropriate venue.

Mmm, I'd disagree. The subcomponents of some fusion propulsion systems (notably mirror and magnetic inertia systems) have been tested to a degree that I think it's clear they would work with sufficient investment (note that these kind of systems are fundamentally easier to build than self-sustaining fusion power reactors). They're certainly at the same TRL as Orion systems, which have a large amount of internet wankery thrown at them as 'possible to build soon', typically based on the idea that sub-scale testing has been completed. Which is silly, it's the same scaling problem: can you scale a lab experiment up by several orders of magnitude with no issues?

Really though - they're all FAR future. Whether you need a breakthrough in plasma physics, material science or heat radiators is immaterial to me. Can you build something that can withstand the fiery radioactive death cloud of an NSWR in atmosphere? Can you build a pusher plate and shock absorbing machinery that can survive a hundred nuclear explosions? Can you build a magnetic nozzle that can survive years of neutron activation and still function? They're all pretty messy. 

 

Anyways here's a thing that's cool, I hope.

 

 

[Misguided Kerbal]

3 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what exactly are those?

[panarchist]

2 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Mmm, I'd disagree.

Really though - they're all FAR future. ... They're all pretty messy. 

Anyways here's a thing that's cool, I hope.

 

 

We actually don't disagree.

"Orion NPP is the only future tech that's actually been partially tested"
"There's no reason (other than the political) why NSWR can't work in theory, but no one's tested it yet, so no one actually knows what practical factors might nix it, or make it challenging."
"Any kind of fusion propulsion is purely pie-in-the-sky. None of it has been tested"

I might have been a little out there with "pie-in-the-sky", but they're all technologies at least 50 years off. Orion *might* work because essentially it's just blowing up nuclear bombs behind a shock absorber. But as you say, the devil is in the details. I just take exception to the idea that Nuclear fusion power, or fusion propulsion like the tandem mirror, are 20 years away - they've been saying 20 years away for 50 years. GCR, LENR, LANTR, PBR - I think those are all doable in the next 20 years, and honestly I'd love to see a PBR modeled in NFT/FFT since I think they're really cool. (and potentially have a TWR >1)

Those are some seriously nice models. Every time you post these pics I start drooling over the next release.

[personaleyrie]

38 minutes ago, Misguided_Kerbal said:

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what exactly are those?

Unless there's been a pretty radical redesign they look like the NSWR and nuclear salt water tanks. They look beautiful and having a tank size smaller than 2.5m available should be really useful.

[GrandProtectorDark]

46 minutes ago, Misguided_Kerbal said:

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what exactly are those?

A NuclearSaltwaterRocket (NSWR) and its propellant tanks

[Nertea]

A couple of variants for the NSWR, plus a heat glow version. 

[SpaceFace545]

9 minutes ago, Nertea said:

A couple of variants for the NSWR, plus a heat glow version. 

Just to clarify are nswr supposed to be used in the atmosphere or in a vacuum 

[RyanRising]

Foil? Didn’t you have some choice words about making foil variants of parts a while ago?

[Clamp-o-Tron]

1 hour ago, Nertea said:

A couple of variants for the NSWR, plus a heat glow version. 

Yay! Simultaneous nuclear explosions!