[1.x+] Community Resource Pack

[RoverDude]

Side note. If at any point we are able to override ISRU flow modes, I have no problem moving fuels to STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH and handling exceptions on the ISRU side. That will prevent RO from having to do anything funky, as my preference would be to have this encompass RF/RO/KSPI/NFT/USI

Also Nertea - will ping you on IRC. I have an idea on power scaling.

[Northstar1989]

For the moment, please keep Antimatter with their original stats. The exact weight will not be very important, the storage is often going to have much more mass than whatever you store, which will never be much. So for the sake of continuality. Keep this very special resource what it is, special. Meaning 1 unit = 1g

I'm going to have to actually disagree on this one- it wouldn't be too hard to use 1 unit = 1 liter (with Antihydrogen there are what, about 95 grams/liter?) and we need to compromise on this in order to get some other fixes made...

Speaking of which, on FreeThinker's request I took a look at the working document. I don't have time to go through all the documents right now, but here are some things I spotted in the first document. IS this the right document to look at, btw?

https://docs.google.com/a/cornell.edu/spreadsheets/d/1F2NYLj47O6VdThCXqBcI_hB-bDIMh4ZWB2FFyrjMLkg/edit#gid=650840806

ArgonGas is also a KSP-Interstellar resource (currently called "Argon" in KSP-I). It is used for Plasma/ATTILA Thrusters, alongside XenonGas, Lithium, and several other resources...

LiquidCO2/LqdCO2 is a KSP-I resource as well, as we've been discussing

Water is a KSP-I resource (used in Thermal Rockets)

LiquidHydrogen is a KSP-I resource (although KSP-I currently uses LiquidFuel as a Hydrogen placeholder)

I'll have to look for other documents later- something tells me this was not the document I should have been looking at...

Regards,

Northstar

[Raptor831]

We can just use a standardized "uranium fuel" resource and its "used" counterpart, no need to make it more complicated than it has to. Don't care much what you call it, but EnrichedUranium and SpentUranium might be better, if "spent" is more correct than "depleted".

[RoverDude]

@Northstar - that doc is out of date. Use Nertea's from earlier in the thread.

@Raptor831 I am fine with either, I'll follow whatever anyone else agrees to on that front.

[regex]

I am open to either using the density of uranium oxide (UO2) at 10970 kg/m^3 (the current one in the sheet) or uranium carbide (UC) at 13630 kg/m3 for those two fuels. Both are qualfied solid core (or pebble bed) reactor fuels both for power and thermal rocket applications, though UC may be a better choice for NTRs (was used in late KIWIs). Though, like I said, either works .

Let's go with UO2 for now and, when someone wants to actually use that in NTRs (aside from just being there), we can discuss adding UC.

Also, do we have some sort of distinction between Methane and LqdMethane? Could someone make a Methane resource, I can't edit the document and I can see using that as an intermediary for fuel ISRU. ofc, could go straight to cryo, but I'd rather not.

Edited March 7, 2015 by regex

[RoverDude]

I agree we should have Methane and LqdMethane for consistency. Toss up some numbers so Nertea can tweak 'em

[regex]

RESOURCE_DEFINITION

{

name = Methane

density = 0.000717

flowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH

transfer = PUMP

isTweakable = true

}

Density given is for STP (0C, 1atm), which I do believe is what anything in RF tries to use.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hello,

I see ya'll been busy at this so I thought I would chime in. Attached are updated gases and Lqd(Gas) densities, ALREADY converted; ie I understand your convention; I dont know how or why 0.001 is set to 1kg; it is not a standard way of setting a 'Standard'; AND from what I can tell REAL WORLD values must be divided by 1 Million; this gets the KSP Densities as you have 0.001 set to = 1kg; IE 1000kg of REAL World Density / 1 Mil.

The GAME itself sees 100units as 0.1t; or 1000 units as 1t but converting backwards does not give the REAL WORLD KG; I couldnt sort all this out and gave up and just made sure the RW conversions were right.

You can have someone double check them.

Densities in the list gave a bioling point number; whether these are the safe 'liquid phase' storage densities I dont know.

Also in colder temps on other planets densities will be lower (?); some values suggested a 1/4th reduction just prior to the bioling point of the gases; it will actually require heating systems on other planets for storage HAHA (!); and I have that planned in my KSP mix !

Good Luck with CRP (I dont use the Regolith portion).

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14CmAKZWqbB_bWYMFRQ8jOtFQI22XY9rJXeGUaFsPgIo/edit?usp=sharing

Cmdr Zeta

Edited March 7, 2015 by Cdr_Zeta

[futrtrubl]

Hello,

I see ya'll been busy at this so I thought I would chime in. Attached are updated gases and Lqd(Gas) densities, ALREADY converted; ie I understand your convention; I dont know how or why 0.001 is set to 1kg; it is not a standard way of setting a 'Standard'; AND from what I can tell REAL WORLD values must be divided by 1 Million; this gets the KSP Densities as you have 0.001 set to = 1kg; IE 1000kg of REAL World Density / 1 Mil.

The GAME itself sees 100units as 0.1t; or 1000 units as 1t but converting backwards does not give the REAL WORLD KG; I couldnt sort all this out and gave up and just made sure the RW conversions were right.

You can have someone double check them.

Densities in the list gave a bioling point number; whether these are the safe 'liquid phase' storage densities I dont know.

Also in colder temps on other planets densities will be lower (?); some values suggested a 1/4th reduction just prior to the bioling point of the gases; it will actually require heating systems on other planets for storage HAHA (!); and I have that planned in my KSP mix !

Good Luck with CRP (I dont use the Regolith portion).

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14CmAKZWqbB_bWYMFRQ8jOtFQI22XY9rJXeGUaFsPgIo/edit?usp=sharing

Cmdr Zeta

0.001t is 1kg, that's where the density comes from. One unit in game is one liter. Also you may be looking at densities in kg/m^3 not per liter.

[FreeThinker]

I'm going to have to actually disagree on this one- it wouldn't be too hard to use 1 unit = 1 liter (with Antihydrogen there are what, about 95 grams/liter?) and we need to compromise on this in order to get some other fixes made...

If fear the problem is a technical one, if you give Antimatter the same 1 unit = 1L, you end up with quantities of antimatter that cannot be represented well IN Stock KSP resource GUI. The Gui only represent 2 decimals, that means even you might use a lot of Antimatter, it will not be visible due to rounding.

Besides that, Anitmatter is not a resource in the traditional scene. You can consider it partly Ethereal, like Exotic Matter and Electric Charge. Electrons have mass as well, but nobody is nuts enough to convert them into a 1 unit / L. Mass is not the issue, representation is.

Edited March 7, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Raptor831]

I'd propose at least making the KSP "unit" be some kind of volume, and not mass, to keep it somewhat inline with the rest. So, 1 Unit = 1 mL instead. Personally, I'd rather just stick with L if we can since it'd be nice to have the "unit" be the same dang thing for every resource. But, if the normal amounts we're talking about are too small to be accurately represented within KSP, I think at least making it a volume would be acceptable.

NathanKell also mentioned a hard limit on non-STACK flow modes a few pages back (anything below 0.0005 units gets returned as empty). If 0.0004 units of antimatter is an appreciable amount and we're not using STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH then we'd have to make some kind of accommodation for it. Which, if my math is right, at 70g per liter (current working density on the sheet), 1mg of antimatter is around .000014 L. If we use 1mL = 1 Unit, 1mg of antimatter becomes .014 Units, which is a lot more stable.

As for uranium resources, I vote we just go with EnrichedUranium and SpentUranium. Simple enough, and technically more accurate.

[FreeThinker]

I'd propose at least making the KSP "unit" be some kind of volume, and not mass, to keep it somewhat inline with the rest. So, 1 Unit = 1 mL instead. Personally, I'd rather just stick with L if we can since it'd be nice to have the "unit" be the same dang thing for every resource. But, if the normal amounts we're talking about are too small to be accurately represented within KSP, I think at least making it a volume would be acceptable.

NathanKell also mentioned a hard limit on non-STACK flow modes a few pages back (anything below 0.0005 units gets returned as empty). If 0.0004 units of antimatter is an appreciable amount and we're not using STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH then we'd have to make some kind of accommodation for it. Which, if my math is right, at 70g per liter (current working density on the sheet), 1mg of antimatter is around .000014 L. If we use 1mL = 1 Unit, 1mg of antimatter becomes .014 Units, which is a lot more stable.

The 1 Unit = 1mL = sounds like an excellent solution for AntiMatter, that would solves my technical/interface concerns.

Edited March 8, 2015 by FreeThinker

[RoverDude]

I'm ok with a standard of 1ML as a third option specifically for very very tiny resources.

[Northstar1989]

The 1 Unit = 1mL = sounds like an excellent solution for AntiMatter, that would solves my technical/interface concerns.

I'm ok with a standard of 1ML as a third option specifically for very very tiny resources.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

On an entirely different note, has anyone managed to dig up any data for the density of liquid CO₂ at 1 atm of pressure and -70 Celsius? We know it's higher than 1256.74 kg/m³ (since that's the density at -20 Celsius and 20 atm pressure), but the question is how much higher...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited March 9, 2015 by Northstar1989

[futrtrubl]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

On an entirely different note, has anyone managed to dig up any data for the density of liquid CO₂ at 1 atm of pressure and -70 Celsius? We know it's higher than 1256.74 kg/m³ (since that's the density at -20 Celsius and 20 atm pressure), but the question is how much higher...

Regards,

Northstar

The problem is that at anything below ~5.1 atm it is either a solid or a gas and never a liquid. http://www.teamonslaught.fsnet.co.uk/co2%20phase%20diagram.GIF

Edited March 9, 2015 by futrtrubl

[Northstar1989]

Oh wait, just came across this on Wikipedia:

"Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 standard atmospheres (520 kPa)."

I'm, uhhh, not 100% sure this is accurate (it is Wikipedia after all), as there is a 21-degree difference between the listed melting-point (-78 C) and boiling-point (-58 C) of CO₂ at 1 atm of pressure according to some other sources (that is, there seems to be some disagreement about where the triple-point lies), but if it *is* true it means that we either need to store CO₂ as a solid (which is trivial- just cool it to -78 C and you get dry ice at a density of just over 1562 kg/m³) or as a gas (which is probably a bad idea due to the very low density- less than 3 kg/m³ at its boiling point).

If you stored it as a solid, you'd have to heat it up in a slow+controlled manner before using it in a Thermal or Electric rocket...

Alternatively, if Wikipedia is correct, you could still pressurize to 5.1 atm and store it as a cryogenic liquid. This would still give better mass-fractions than storing the gas at 1 atmosphere of pressure, as 1 L of tank volume would require 5.1 times more tank-mass but store more than 400 times as much propellant mass... (density less than 3 kg/m³ vs. more than 1200 kg/m³)

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that at anything below ~5.1 atm it is either a solid or a gas and never a liquid. http://www.teamonslaught.fsnet.co.uk/co2%20phase%20diagram.GIF

That's only if the triple-point is really at 5.11 atm. There seem to be a handful of conflicting sources on this- although the overwhelming majority do concur with that number...

EDIT: Looks like the other figures on the triple-point all date back much further, and were probably inaccurate. So, it looks like Wikipedia was correct. The question then is whether it's wiser to store the CO2 as a solid or as a pressurized liquid... The former has much better mass-fractions, but could cause the tank to rupture if temperature is not kept below the sublimation-point... (-78 C at 1 atm, which is still over 100 degrees Celsius warmer than your average LOX tank...) The latter is much easier to store, but requires enough tank-mass to maintain at least 5.1 atm of pressure with a reasonable safety-margin...

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

@NathanKell

OK, a quick question whenever you come across this post...

How much pressure are the standard (non-Service Module) fuel tanks supposed to be able to hold in RealFuels?

As I understand it, they are capable of holding "moderately pressurized" cryogenic liquids, just not highly-pressurized gasses such as pressurized Nitrogen for RCS... Is 5.1 atmospheres of pressure within the range that a standard tank should be able to hold, or should KSP-Interstellar Extension Config only add Liquid CO2 (or rather LqdCO2 or whatever name we settle on here...) to Service Module tanks to reflect the need to keep it pressurized at 5.1 atmospheres of pressure? (maybe 5.4 atm for a bit of a safety-margin)

Also, could I convince you to add liquid/cryogenic CO₂ as a standard resource to RealFuels when this is all over and we've settled on an official CRP density for the resource? It could be used with the LV-N rockets in the engine configs (such as Stockalike) as an alternate (high-thrust, low-ISP) propellant with higher fuel-density than Methane or Ammonia and very few issues with boil-off... (as it is a liquid at -56 C at the triple-point)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited March 9, 2015 by Northstar1989

[kerbiloid]

According to Vargaftik Handbook of Physical Properties of Liquids and Gases, the density of Liquid CO2 at 220 K (i.e. -53 C)

pressure = 10 bar: density = 1/0.8566 = 1.167 kg/l

pressure = 600 bar: density = 1/0.8118 = 1.232 kg/l

So, probably, as there is no much difference with a solid CO2 density (1.56 kg/l) and there is no any refernce data for < -53 C, probably you can either just interpolate (anyway you would get only data already interpolated but somebody else) or treat -50..55 as the lowest stable point for liquid CO2 storage.

Btw for comparison several real-world ground-based LCO2 tanks for ~25 bar

http://www.uigi.com/co2tanks.html

Empty Weight,kg Product Weight,kg

3398 3015

4620 5053

5300 7307

6475 9302

11350 12501

15000 19521

18000 23993

20666 27522

29751 45195

Regression:

Empty Weight = 0.6517139 * Product Weight + 1620.135711 ~= 0.65 * Product Weight + 1.6 t

r ~= 0.98

As 10 bar and 600 bar densities are almost the same, no need to use high pressures, 10 bars are good enough.

Due to the shell thickness is proportional to the pressure, for 10 bar pressure such tanks empty weight would be ~2..2.5 times less.

So, for pressure=10 bar tank the empty tank mass would be ~= 1.6 t + 0.3 LCO2 Mass (tons)

That also means that CO2 propellant tank would be at least 10-20 t, because lesser ones would consist mostly of the tank itself.

Edited March 9, 2015 by kerbiloid

[Starwaster]

According to Vargaftik Handbook of Physical Properties of Liquids and Gases, the density of Liquid CO2 at 220 K (i.e. -53 C)

pressure = 10 bar: density = 1/0.8566 = 1.167 kg/l

pressure = 600 bar: density = 1/0.8118 = 1.232 kg/l

So, probably, as there is no much difference with a solid CO2 density (1.56 kg/l) and there is no any refernce data for < -53 C, probably you can either just interpolate (anyway you would get only data already interpolated but somebody else) or treat -50..55 as the lowest stable point for liquid CO2 storage.

This document has some interesting data on the ranges of temperatures / pressures that liquid CO2 can exist at.

http://www.ascoco2.com/es/suministro-de-co2-y-de-hielo-seco/?no_cache=1&cid=2740&did=642&sechash=708bd4ce

[Northstar1989]

OK, so according to this website's thermodynamic calculator, which I actually also used to help figure out the density for the Liquid Nitrogen resource before (which should be 824.907 kg/m³, not 810.6 kg/m³ as is used in the working document posted by Nertea earlier), the density of Liquid CO2 at 5.6 barr and -54.8 C should be 1173.25 kg/m³.

1173.25 kg/m³ isn't all that far from the figure of 1200 kg/m³ I had been using as a placeholder in KSPI- and means that 1256 kg/m³ is actually too dense (it's the density at 20 barr of pressure, which would be much less mass-efficient in space due to the nearly 4 times higher tank-mass...)

http://www.peacesoftware.de/einigewerte/co2_e.html

Also, to go back to LqdNitrogen for a moment, it's not a resource currently used in RealFuels, only in KSP-Interstellar Extended. RealFuels uses compressed Nitrogen gas instead. So there should be no input required other than that of FreeThinker to adjust it back to a density of 824.907 kg/m³ from its current density of 810.6 kg/m³ in the working document. The higher density is more accurate to real life (it's at a slightly lower temperature than the density currently used in the CRP working document- but still quite a bit warmer than LH₂ and thus perfectly reasonable for rocketry applications...) as rocket designers will typically choose the temperature for their fuels that gives the best mass-fraction, and thus we get the density currently used in KSP-Interstellar Extended...

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

According to the same thermodynamics calculator as before, the density of N₂ at 1 barr and -200 C is:

-824.9 kg/m³

Which is the same as the slightly more precise figure of -824.907 kg/m³ we've been getting from other sources (at slightly lower temperatures still) and using for KSP-Interstellar Extended.

Once again, Liquid Nitrogen's density is 824.907 kg/m³ in KSP-Interstellar Extended, and it is not a resource used in any other mods. Out of respect for backwards-compatibility of existing designs (and the mod devs, of which I am one- even if FreeThinker is the primary author) I think we should stick with 824.907 kg/m³ as the density for Lqd Nitrogen...

This way, any spacecraft players designed around the previous density of "LiquidNitrogen" will still work with "LqdNitrogen" as the density will remain the same...

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

Finally, other issues:

- Water is used for KSP-Interstellar, not just TAC Life Support. This needs to be updated on the working document

- LqdCO2 is a KSP-Interstellar resource as well as a BioMass resource (by the way, I found where the density-figure BioMass was previously using came from- it was the density of CO2 at room-temperature and over 300 barr of pressure. No wonder their density was so low!)

- High-Test Peroxide (HTP) is a KSP-Interstellar resource as well as a RealFuels resource. In RealFuels it is used for RCS. In KSP-Interstellar, it is used as an intermediate in manufacturing Monopropellant (soon to be replaced by Hydrazine- which is what KSPI assumes Monoprop actually represents, and is the basis of the ISRU chemistry to manufacture it...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited March 9, 2015 by Northstar1989

[FreeThinker]

The problem is that at anything below ~5.1 atm it is either a solid or a gas and never a liquid. http://www.teamonslaught.fsnet.co.uk/co2%20phase%20diagram.GIF

Perhaps it's an idea to include SolidCO2, then the Kerbals can shovel the stuff in. Should be nice at of mars/duna where dry-ice is found at the poles.

[Northstar1989]

Perhaps it's an idea to include SolidCO2, then the Kerbals can shovel the stuff in. Should be nice at of mars/duna where dry-ice is found at the poles.

But what about impurities? The stuff on the poles is dry ice snow- so it must contain dust particles it originally nucleated around, and it might be covered in some dust that settled there...

It might still be necessary to have a refinery of some sort there to remove impurities... Beside, you need the dry ice to at least be ground into a finely-powdered form if you're going to gassify it in a controlled manner for your engines: the stuff on the poles is likely clumped together like snow gets when it sits out for a few weeks... (from small amounts of melting and re-freezing, or sublimation and immediate re-condensation in the case of dry ice...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited March 9, 2015 by Northstar1989

[RoverDude]

We can always plunk it in later if someone ends up using it and if it makes sense (Right now in CRP the duna caps are mostly a source for water - yes, we know that Mars has CO2 caps).

Anyhoo, we need to button things up so we can all start our collective branches and be ready for a 1.0 release, as that's the trigger point at which I'll be pushing the updated CRP.

What I am going to do is grab all of Nertea's data, plunk it into an updated spreadsheet to re-link in the OP, and leave comments open for one more week. During that time, it will be down to the individual curators (Nertea, FreeThinker, NathanKell, and myself) to raise any outstanding issues, come to any final conclusions, and lock things down. For the other thread participants, your comments are welcome but at the end of the day it's going to have to come down to those of us responsible for our individual mods.

Good news is it looks like the dust has mostly settled, so I think now is as good a time as any to toss out a release candidate based on the feedback/etc.

[Raptor831]

Also, could I convince you to add liquid/cryogenic CO₂ as a standard resource to RealFuels when this is all over and we've settled on an official CRP density for the resource? It could be used with the LV-N rockets in the engine configs (such as Stockalike) as an alternate (high-thrust, low-ISP) propellant with higher fuel-density than Methane or Ammonia and very few issues with boil-off... (as it is a liquid at -56 C at the triple-point)

As I understand it, CRP will be a requirement of Real Fuels, so whatever resources are available in CRP can be used in Real Fuels. That was part of the idea (I assume) of doing a community pool of resources; any mod could pull from well-defined and agreed upon resources. So yeah, engine configs will work with LqdCO2 once it's config-ed.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Raptor831
Better wording.

[RoverDude]

Excellent

[FreeThinker]

OK, so according to this website's thermodynamic calculator, which I actually also used to help figure out the density for the Liquid Nitrogen resource before (which should be 824.907 kg/m³, not 810.6 kg/m³ as is used in the working document posted by Nertea earlier), the density of Liquid CO2 at 5.6 barr and -54.8 C should be 1173.25 kg/m³.

Looks good, use it.