Modular Fuel System Continued v3.3 (OBSOLETE)

[AbeS]

The link to the realism overhaul release thread in the OP is broken.

Just add the ':' after http, Nathan has the same problem with links on that thread too

[dnulho]

so at present there is no way to say that the part can hold a total of ### resources, regardless of what those resources are?

[dlrk]

On the big radial engine, the buttons don't change/update when they're clicked, and the H2 button sometimes time changes the fuel to UDMH, which is not otherwise available. The smaller radial doesn't seem to work at all.

[Starwaster]

so at present there is no way to say that the part can hold a total of ### resources, regardless of what those resources are?

That's what amount and maxAmount to, they specify how much the tank can hold. I think you're making it harder on yourself than this actually is. You have three resources, You use TANKDEFINITION to define that it can hold those three resources. Then you define the three actual tanks that contain each resource with TANK, one for each. I'd show you examples but I'm on my iPad and cant go from memory righht now. Look at the files inthe RESOURCES folder for examples.

[NathanKell]

Morrigi: thanks. Fixed.

Dragon01: Ah, sorry. Forgot to add. Fixed.

dnulho: If you set the tank volume to 100, you will never be able to exceed 100. That's how MFS works: can't add more than the ModularTank holds in individual resource tanks.

stevron: already in, though hasn't been updated in a couple versions so it doesn't feature any new resource since MMH (it does support LOX, LH2, N2O4, and MMH, in addition to stock resources).

dlrk: I'll check, You mean the white Rockomax one?

[dlrk]

Nathan, affirm, and the little orange one doesn't seem to work at all. I think this issue might be related to Realism Overhaul, or perhaps Module Manager.

[dlrk]

Similar problems seem to exist in the other engines and tanks, and it looks to be caused by RealismOverhaul.

[MNorman]

I am having problems with the interaction between realfuels this and the StretchySRBs. If I build a vehicle with stretchy SRBs of different sizes, if I try to launch the vehicle, or try to change the tech level, they are all set to the thrust of the most recently changed SRB. This did not happen without realfuels installed (removing the ModuleEngineConfigs from the stretchy SRBs)

[NathanKell]

dlrk: I'll try iwth the radials.

Are you sure you deleted Engines.cfg first?

MNorman: I'll check that out. I should be sendmessaging only the given part, but maybe it's bleeding out to the vessel as a whole.

[Dante80]

A question, does anyone have MFS configures for Bobcats russian engines?

[NathanKell]

They already have them. They're backwards compatible with stock, so in the part chooser they have LF/Oxidizer. But if you actually add one, and go to action mode and click on it, you'll see it is correctly configured.

[Dante80]

When I'm in the action group menu and click on an engine, the menu does not show. I just installed from Bobcat and applied the 0.64 size patch.

Am I doing something wrong, or is it supposed to be like this?

[NathanKell]

The 64% patch does not have MFS defines.

dlrk: I just tried the radials and they work fine for me. Are you using RO and forgot to delete MFT/RealFuels/Engines.cfg?

[Dante80]

The 64% patch does not have MFS defines.

Okies, thanks a lot man...C:

[sephirotic]

Ok, so last night i tried a probe mission to Titan using the RSS + PF extra configs. It became clear that realistic manned mission are impossible to be reproduced in the game the way it is. Maneuver nodes are very limited and any gravity assists slightly more complex (more than two bodies, ore multi-moon gravity assists inside jupiter, for example) are nearly impossible to be planned. Partly because there isn't currently a tool that lets you plan launch windows with correct planet alignments, and part simply because of the rounding errors of timewarps. Nasa only needs correction burns in the order of couple of dozens m/s. after I timewarped in some parts of my trip to titan, the trajectory was so much different that I needed over 1k d/v of burn corrections.

Aerobraking in Saturn is also impossible since the realistic atmosphere cuts out abruptly, visiting any atmosphere-less moon is a no-no with conventional levels of d/v and chemical rockets.

Nevertheless i managed to land on Titan (after a final 2k d/v correction witch i needed to activate infinite fuel cheat to do so, nevertheless i managed to be assisted by jupiter's gravity and a intermediate MHN stage for corrections carrying 3k of d/v could be feasible).

Here is some pics about my mission:

<iframe class="imgur-album" width="100%" height="550" frameborder="0" src="http://imgur.com/a/ssgqv/embed"></iframe>

EDIT: How do i add those slides from IMGUR anyway?

This is all stuff related to the Real Solar System Thread, but now I want to discuss an alternate solution to theses serious limitations of the game witch comes in the scope of my previous discussion about the lack of practicality on the NTR here in this thread.

More efficient near-future rocket engines: As a more enthusiastic player of kerbal, i was always interested on rockets and interplanetary travel, even before the game, so i obviously read a little about some different types of proposed engine types. After my frustrated mission to Titan revealed so many difficulties on the game mechanics that severely limited the range of Manned missions to Saturn and Jupiter with direct insertion, it became obvious if I still wanted to play RSS + MFS i would have to explore some different experimental and more efficient engine types.

First I took a look at Starwaster extra mixtures and fuel types, because I also researched by myself different types of NTRs and fuel mixtures to come around the problem of limited storage of low density LH2 for more d/v interplanetary stages.

I noticed Starwaster didn´t add one of the most promissing solutions for more pratical NTR: LANTR; LOX Augmented Afterburner NTRs.

By adding a mixture ration of 4:1 of LOX at the exhaust of the H2 from a conventional solid core NTR, the exhaust speed is further increased thus increasing thrust by almost 4 times at the expense of slightly lessened ISP.

This is an interesting solution for more efficient stage-cycled NTR's design, like the used by russia on the RD0140 witch has naturally a higher ISP but lower thrust, 35KN, 2,5tons, 960isp. The thrust would exceed 120kn with this, extra fuel could be carried and the d/v would only be decreased to about 800ish witch is already what we have with the current setting of MFS.

Another option is using liquid and solid mixtures with the standard NTR like Starwaster added. I haven´t tested yet, but LOX and Water are much more denser and still delivers higher ISP than high efficiency conventional LH2/LOX chemical rockets. I would have to test witch one is the best option

I also further researched about other engine options.

The most obviously with we already are tired to know is the VASIMIR. But vasimir is very weak to be effectively used in a larger manned rocket and has problems of being very energy hungry and emitting too much heat.

There is actually a better type of electrical engine witch is actually even more advanced in development being already tested once in the ISS almost 10 years ago.

MPD; MagnetoPlasmaDynamic Thruster. It needs less energy than VASIMIR and gives much more thrust even weighting less: A 200N MPD has already being tested and proved ready for operation and only needs 600kw of energy witch is fairly reasonable for current RTG of large solar panel technologies. It works at over 3000isp and can operate with either argon or xenon.

But the more interesting option I think is again, back into the NTR reign:

This is still haven´t being build, but is a fairly mature concept and the favourite studied by NASA out of several subtypes of Nuclear propulsion: The Closed Quartz Gas Cycle, aka "The Lighbulb". Closed nuclear cores insulated with quartz wall. Differently from Solid core, the radioactive fuel does not enter contact with the LH2. This insulation is due to the core operating at much higher temperatures witch gives higher exhausts speeds than regular SOLID core design and thus, higher ISP. It could operate at efficiency from 1900~3000s however, the problem is that due to the insulation of the cores, it is much heavier, with a TWR barely higher than 1:1. With this weight problem allied with the issue of low density of the LH2, I wonder if they could also be further accelerated with LOX afterbuner like the solid design, or even have different fuel mixtures at all.

So, i'm going to add some fuel mixtures from Starwaster, mine for the LANTR, and I'll also grab the vasimir from the "near-future" mod pack (tough i won´t install all those parts, since my game is already overflowing with too much parts) and the two nice Nuclear engines from Kommit witch I will respec as Gas cycle and MPD's.

After some testing I'll report back witch option is the best.

Anyone has any idea of any other near-futures high efficiency alternative engines that we could use? There is also the ORION, but i'm rather skeptical about that one.

An interesting site with a huge compilation of different proposed efficient engines most of must already know:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php

Edited November 24, 2013 by sephirotic

[Fractal_UK]

Sephirotic: KSP interstellar has NTRs with realistic thermal power/mass ratios ~ 900 Isp and up to ~600kN with the largest reactors. You can probably figure out the real reactors the un-upgraded versions were based upon by their names. With research you can upgrade to nuclear lightbulbs, with no increased thrust but 2000+ Isp. Specific impulse scales with both reactor core temperature and molar mass of propellant. I've also just added a reasonable simulation of the nuclear fuel life cycle in the latest version.

It also has an MPD but due to the realistic power figures, it requires a hell of a lot of power to get useable thrust out of. You can indeed use it with argon, hydrogen, lithium or xenon propellant.

There is a real fuels compatibility file on the first page of this thread, I'll update this soon to take advantage of some of the compatibility features I added in 0.8, this should support electrolysis of LiquidH2/LiquidOxygen and atmospheric scooping of those resources. Hopefully this will be done by the end of today.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Fractal_UK

[ChronicSilence]

Regarding cryogenic fuels, what's the best way to provide insulation to prevent boiloff?

[Starwaster]

Regarding cryogenic fuels, what's the best way to provide insulation to prevent boiloff?

cryogenic tanks have reduced boiloff. for zero boiloff (ZBO) you need radiators for active cooling. the mod comes with some but they have no texturing. the interstellar mod has nicer ones that I posted a patch file to make them work with this mod. search the thread for radiator and you'll find it. if you cant I'll repost it but I cannot right now because I am posting from my ipad

[Fractal_UK]

cryogenic tanks have reduced boiloff. for zero boiloff (ZBO) you need radiators for active cooling. the mod comes with some but they have no texturing. the interstellar mod has nicer ones that I posted a patch file to make them work with this mod. search the thread for radiator and you'll find it. if you cant I'll repost it but I cannot right now because I am posting from my ipad

I have a similar issue with respect to posting at the moment but I'll look it up later and integrate that into my Interstellar patch for Real Fuels.

[sephirotic]

@Fractal_UK

Hmmm, very nice mod, some of your models looks very cool. I think i'll grab that plasma thruster and that nuclear reactor.

But for now my KSP installation is already running pretty heavy, i recently even deleted all fuel tanks parts that could be switched with theStretchy Tanks parts to save ram, even tough i personally think they look kinda ugly. so I was thinking on relying on most parts i already have and take advantage of the modularity of MFS. I'll take a look at your settings.

@Nathan, Speaking of witch, I noticed the NTR's have a special .cfg file on the Realfuel folders separated from the Engines.cfg I was trying to edit it to add different fuel mixtures like I have already done sucesffuly with the Engine.cfg to some custom engines of my but this time i had no luck. I noticed this cfg does not have a "ModuleEngineConfigs" module so i just trid to add it. THe game loads but when i go to the action groups, there are no options for customizing the game.

My config is like this:

//Squad_NTR_modularEngines.cfg

@PART[nuclearEngine]
{
    @mass = 2.25
    @maxTemp = 2200
    @MODULE[ModuleEngines]
    {
	@maxThrust = 60
	@heatProduction = 300
	@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]
	{
		@name = LiquidH2
        	@ratio = 1.0
	}
	@PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]
	{
		@name = nuclearFuel
        	@ratio = 0.00000000001
	}
	@atmosphereCurve
 	{
         @key,0 = 0 1000
  	 @key,1 = 1 430
 	}
	}
//extra: these are the Lines and the module i added:
 MODULE
 {
  name = ModuleEngineConfigs
  origMass = 2.4
  techLevel = 3
  origTechLevel = 3
  engineType = L+
  configuration = LiquidFuel+LiquidOxygen
  modded = false 
  CONFIG
  {
   name = LiquidH2+LiquidOxygen
   maxThrust = 225
   heatProduction = 1000

   PROPELLANT
   {
    name = LiquidH2
    ratio = 0.73
    DrawGauge = True
   }
   PROPELLANT
   {
    name = LiquidOxygen
    ratio = 0.27
   }
   IspSL = 0.45
   IspV = 0.65
   }
 }

//Extra addition end 

    MODULE
    {
	name = ModuleAlternator	
(... etc)

But had no luck, I can´t seen to add different fuel types to it. Starwaster configs are very nice, I wanted to add SOME of his lines, but not the whole .cfg Because i don´t use Kethane.

Any clues?

Can i also add 3 types of fuel Mixture this way? So i can keep the Nuclear fuel? (LH2+LOX+NuclearFuel)?

Thanks

[NathanKell]

Sephirotic: The NTRs already have modular engines, they're just done with the Hyrbid module (which means the same syntax for configs, but you can switch configs in flight). Look _below_ the Alternator module.

Starwaster is working on revamping the NTRs; that'll be in the next MFS.

[ialdabaoth]

MAKC: Because MFS rounds fuel quantity, and ST rescales in itty-bitty chunks (1% at a time), rounding errors add up during scaling. When you have approximately the right size tank, go into the tank editor, and remove and re-add your MFS fuel tanks; that will correct the ratios. The way it works internally is this:

MFS normally rounds fuel quantities (to 4 sig figures, or to the nearest integer if > 1000). When you start rescaling a ST, rounding is turned off, but the rounded ratio (not the correct ratio) is the starting point. When you move your cursor off the tank, quantities are rounded again. That means you get rounding errors twice, but it's the price you pay for nice numbers in MFS. I'm considering turning rounding off entirely, however, since AFAIK most people who use MFS use ST, and does it really matter if your amount of fuel isn't a nice round number?

It can, when you start with a procedurally filled tank and then want to edit it further. All those extra digits have to be deleted, which can be tedious.

Recommendation: Have a value in the TANK_DEFINITION that determines whether rounding is enabled for that tank type or not, so that stretchy tanks can use a TANK_DEFINITION that disables rounding.

[sidfu]

was looking at the kethane .cfg and it doesnt have all the fuels that modular fuels make. would editing it be good to add the other fuels.

[Morrigi]

For whatever reason you can't run the KSP Interstellar engines off LH2. Is this intended?

[sidfu]

For whatever reason you can't run the KSP Interstellar engines off LH2. Is this intended?

think he hasnt put out a updated interstaller .cfg yet