Jump to content

[1.0.5] Atomic Age - Nuclear Propulsion - Red Hot Radiators

Porkjet

By Porkjet
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

leoxc

leoxc

Posted
Posted

i'm not sure if it's just my setup, if i'm getting some interference from some other mod, but to get the fuel switch to work like you intended i had to do this to each tank to prevent it from reloading the original values of the tank + the setup chosen


[SIZE=1]@PART[fuelTank3-2][/SIZE][SIZE=1]{[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]RESOURCE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]{[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] !name = LiquidFuel[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] !amount = 2880[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] !maxAmount = 2880[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]}[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]RESOURCE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]{[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] !name = Oxidizer[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] !amount = 3520[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] !maxAmount = 3520[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]}[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]    MODULE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]    {[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        name = FSfuelSwitch[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        resourceNames = LiquidFuel,Oxidizer;LiquidFuel;Oxidizer[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        resourceAmounts = 2880,3520;5760;7040[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        basePartMass =4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        //tankMass = 0;0;0[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        //tankCost =0;0;0[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        displayCurrentTankCost = false[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        hasGUI = true[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        availableInFlight = false[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        availableInEditor = true[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        showInfo = true[/SIZE]
    }

if anyone else is having the same issue with the tanks reloading their setup on launch let me know if i'm the only one idk >.>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whirligig Girl

Whirligig Girl

Posted
Posted
Porkjet! Your mods are beautiful pieces of work! I am most impressed.

I placed your mods in the Atomic Rocket Seal of Approval section:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/sealofapproval.php#id--Computer_Simulation--Porkjet's_Nuclear_Lightbulb_KSP_Mod

I actually gave Porkjet +Rep with the comment "Nyrath would be proud." I was not mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zorbaq

Zorbaq

Posted
Posted
i'm not sure if it's just my setup, if i'm getting some interference from some other mod, but to get the fuel switch to work like you intended i had to do this to each tank to prevent it from reloading the original values of the tank + the setup chosen


[SIZE=1]@PART[fuelTank3-2][/SIZE][SIZE=1]{[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]RESOURCE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]{[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] !name = LiquidFuel[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] !amount = 2880[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] !maxAmount = 2880[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]}[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]RESOURCE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]{[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] !name = Oxidizer[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] !amount = 3520[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] !maxAmount = 3520[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]}[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]    MODULE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]    {[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        name = FSfuelSwitch[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        resourceNames = LiquidFuel,Oxidizer;LiquidFuel;Oxidizer[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        resourceAmounts = 2880,3520;5760;7040[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        basePartMass =4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        //tankMass = 0;0;0[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        //tankCost =0;0;0[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        displayCurrentTankCost = false[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        hasGUI = true[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        availableInFlight = false[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        availableInEditor = true[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]        showInfo = true[/SIZE]
    }

if anyone else is having the same issue with the tanks reloading their setup on launch let me know if i'm the only one idk >.>

I'm letting you know you're not ;) Symptoms similar, occurred after replacing firespitter module bundled with AA with the one from MKS/OKS/Karbonite (AA is 7.0.5463 and MKS/OKS/Karbo is 7.0.5503).

See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/79588-0-90-USI-Kolonization-Systems-%28MKS-OKS%29-%280-22-4%29-2015-01-27?p=1708978&viewfull=1#post1708978

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghostshark27

Ghostshark27

Posted
Posted
I've got the slightly related issue of TAC fuel balancer thinking they're on their default setup, though in all other ways behaving as if they're switched out.

I figured this was Kerbal construction time doing this to me, hadn't thought of TAC. Gives me a route to tweak when I get home tonight. Annoying when all my gets get their intended fuel capacity halved on launch...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leoxc

leoxc

Posted
Posted
I'm letting you know you're not ;) Symptoms similar, occurred after replacing firespitter module bundled with AA with the one from MKS/OKS/Karbonite (AA is 7.0.5463 and MKS/OKS/Karbo is 7.0.5503).

See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/79588-0-90-USI-Kolonization-Systems-%28MKS-OKS%29-%280-22-4%29-2015-01-27?p=1708978&viewfull=1#post1708978

AHHH omg it was bugging me so much i could not figure out why it wasn't working.. properly at least. ok i'm very new at this, where do you see which version it is?

- - - Updated - - -

i think the firespitter verion from "Ramerren" on github fixed it , im' not sure exactly if it's in the release dll or not though. and if you check out the link zorbaq posted (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/...=1#post1708978) the latest mks version of firespitter might have the issure fixed as well.

but here is a link to the most updated and fixed .dll from ramerren that should fix the issue without editing your config file

https://github.com/Ramarren/Firespitter/tree/master/For%20release/Firespitter/Plugins

thirdly this was shown to me as a much more elegant way to what i was doing

Code:


@PART[SomePartName]
{
    !RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] {}
    !RESOURCE[Oxidizer] {}
    MODULE
    {
        name = FSFuelSwitch
...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
passinglurker

passinglurker

Posted
Posted
Isn't a nuclear-lightbulb engine supposed to have a vacuum ISP of 3000 seconds?

EDIT: and a low-end thrust of sea-level efficiency of 1500 seconds?

An OPEN cycle gas core engine is supposed to have around 3000isp, the lightbulb is a type of Closed cycle gascore which do to the limitations of how hot its allowed to get only gets around half that(so 1500isp) but on the plus side its not spraying uranium vapor and other forms of nuclear death.

speaking of spraying nuclear death has anyone looked at this nuclear salt water rocket thing? probably the most OP and kerbal nuclear engine ever devised as its essentially propelling yourself with a constant nuclear steam explosion. I'm happy we discovered radiation sickness before rocketry unlike the kerbals :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tarheel1999

Tarheel1999

Posted
Posted
So, is there any fix for fuel setup bug resetting the tanks? I've just checked my interplanetary tug, and its dV was halved by liquid fuel partially turning into oxidiser :P

was the liquid fuel turned into oxidizer or was the oxidizer just added to the tank? Put differently, what was the tank capacity for LF and Ox and what should it have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
passinglurker

passinglurker

Posted
Posted
So, is there any fix for fuel setup bug resetting the tanks? I've just checked my interplanetary tug, and its dV was halved by liquid fuel partially turning into oxidiser :P

you could try switching to the "engine only" version which makes the engines run off LFO instead

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scotius

Scotius

Posted
Posted
was the liquid fuel turned into oxidizer or was the oxidizer just added to the tank? Put differently, what was the tank capacity for LF and Ox and what should it have been.

It was orange Jumbo tank. I've changed fuel setup from LF\Oxydiser combo to full load of LF. Tug was put in orbit without trouble, but when i reloaded the game and switched to this ship, everything was restored to stock amount of LF\Oxy. Very annoying, because this tug is halfway to Duna now, and it carries half of dV it was supposed to. I don't want to revert the flight or scrub the mission, so i have to plough along with much smaller safety margin. Welp, such is Kerbal life :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zorbaq

Zorbaq

Posted
Posted
The new Firespitter dll should fix it. The MM change is to prevent oxidizer from being added back to the tank. Links/info here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104855-0-90-Atomic-Age-Nuclear-Rockets?p=1713803&viewfull=1#post1713803

The updated module didn't help in my case but after applying the MM patch everything is fine and dandy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KerikBalm

KerikBalm

Posted
Posted

#1) Dat nuclear lightbulb

me_gusta_by_megustaplz-d30cns2.jpg

As near as I can figure, assuming 100% efficiency of thermal power -> KE of propellant, that lightbulb is producing 5.7 gigawatts of power.

Using FAR, I did a direct SSTO ascent and still had over 4,500 m/s in the tank after achieving a 100x100 km orbit

#2) The LANTERNS disappoint me...

It only produces 60% the power of the LV-N (again assuming 100% conversion of power -> propellant KE).

I wanted to like it, but its TWR is just too low. I can't even SSTO with it... it barely is able to lift itself + a decent LFO tank.

Maybe I'll find a use for it as a lander engine on Tylo... but I already use the LV-N for pretty much everywhere that has less gravity than laythe/tylo.

As I figure it, the power output is only 18% higher (looking at the KE of the propellant/sec) in afterburner mode.

An aerospike is putting out 15% more power... so if you combined the NTR power output + chemical rxn powr output, you'd get roughly 2.15x the power output...

Which just off the KE equation should give an ISP of 570 at the same 175 kN thrust (of course, there are other things to consider, ie temperature of exhaust, if you can't acheive the temp needed for 570 ISP, you'd get a lower ISP, but more thrust, assuming the same efficiency).

This afterburner mode just seems as if you're flushing more mass through the reactor -> higher mass flow, lower temperature -> higher thrust and lower ISP... the energy from a chemical reaction barely seems to be there... and considering that a higher mass flow probably nets you a better efficiency for thermal energy-> propellant KE, it ma be missing entirely....

Of course... its only 1.8 tons, and a lot of that should be a nuclear reactor, so expecting it to have the same thrust as a pure chemical rocket of 1.5 tons is a bit too much...

It just seems anemic.... I propose 530 ISP and 150 kN (which is what I've already done on my instal

#3) This fuel tank tweak is a pretty heavy nerf to the LV-N in most cases. The version you put out where all engines use LFO has engines that enable craft to get much better performance.

A normal orange tank is 4 tons dry mass + 32 tons of fuel+oxidizer.

This tweaked orange tank to carry only LF only carries 26.182 tons of fuel.

The tweaked orange tank to carry only Ox carries 39.11 tons of oxidizer.

I guess they do that so that 1 tank of LF + 1 tank of oxidizer = the right mixture for your standard engines....

But the rocket equation doesn't like the reduced propellant mass in the LF tank... and the only recourse is to use a Mk2 or Mk3 LF only tank

Would you consider stats more like

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...