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

[Thahat]

#1) SNIP

the lanters disapoint you? even if it did NOT have the high-efficiency mode its still high efficiency+medium power in vacume, if you go up with a turboyet and trigger two LANTERNS (afterburner just to get you into a nice orbit, so only a little oxidiser needed) all the rest van be liquidfuel, what you need for the turbojets too, the rest it cun run in high efficiency mode, wit ha reasonable amount of power. their damn good if used in that way.. so TLDR: turbojet>afterburner>liquidfuel lantarn

[sashan]

Yep. I've made my own mod for LV-N a while ago. It has 600s Isp and 12 tons thrust on LFO and 900Isp and stock 6 tons thrust on fuel only. More than enough to boost my SSTO to orbit after maxing out B9's VTOL engines at 500m/s and 18 km. The craft has just enough oxidizer to boost apoapsis to 50km, after that comes a long burn on low thrust. Just like the real SSTO's would work. 5 mach in atmosphere, 20 mach in orbit.

[vardicd]

Porkjet, or anyone in the know, I'm trying to borrow the multi-mode code I saw in this mod, to add a new flight mode to the basic jet engine, and I don't seem to understand how to apply the multi-mode function. I can add a second mode, but somehow both engine modes are active at the same time. This is not the result I want obviously. If someone can point me to a guide, or offer me some sort of suggestions, I would appreciate it.

[Mecripp]

Porkjet, or anyone in the know, I'm trying to borrow the multi-mode code I saw in this mod, to add a new flight mode to the basic jet engine, and I don't seem to understand how to apply the multi-mode function. I can add a second mode, but somehow both engine modes are active at the same time. This is not the result I want obviously. If someone can point me to a guide, or offer me some sort of suggestions, I would appreciate it.

Did you see the different One is

engineID = Afterburner

and one is

engineID = Regular

also see it here

MODULE

{

name = MultiModeEngine

primaryEngineID = Regular

secondaryEngineID = Afterburner

}

EDIT- Not much on the wiki but here it is http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Module#MultiModeEngine

Edited February 15, 2015 by Mecripp2

[Hofnarr]

I really like that mod. But I encountered a problem. If I switch the tanks to Liq.Fuel Only, it shows up correct in the VAB with double the LF and no Oxidiser. But as soon as I launch that thing, the tanks show double the LF and normal Oxidiser counts. Any Ideas?

Im Running: Outer Planets, Some of the NEAR Packs, Karbonite and Remotetech.

[vardicd]

Did you see the different One is and one is also see it here

EDIT- Not much on the wiki but here it is http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Module#MultiModeEngine

Yeah I saw all that in the code, and applied it that way, and it does apply the second mode to the part, but it doesn't allow switching between them, BOTH modes are active at the same time. Somehow the basic jet engine runs both engine scripts at the same time, what I wanted was an 'afterburner' for the jet engine, normal mode, and afterburner, where for 3x the fuel I'd get nearly double the thrust. It works, but since the modes are applied together, I get 3x the thrust and 4x the fuel consumption for about 10 seconds, before the engine explodes from overheating because both modes are running and applying double the heat.

[Starwaster]

Yeah I saw all that in the code, and applied it that way, and it does apply the second mode to the part, but it doesn't allow switching between them, BOTH modes are active at the same time. Somehow the basic jet engine runs both engine scripts at the same time, what I wanted was an 'afterburner' for the jet engine, normal mode, and afterburner, where for 3x the fuel I'd get nearly double the thrust. It works, but since the modes are applied together, I get 3x the thrust and 4x the fuel consumption for about 10 seconds, before the engine explodes from overheating because both modes are running and applying double the heat.

Then it's not implemented correctly in your configuration.

Why not post it so people can go over it and find the problem?

Otherwise they're just speculating based on insufficient information about your setup.

[KerikBalm]

the lanters disapoint you? even if it did NOT have the high-efficiency mode its still high efficiency+medium power in vacume, if you go up with a turboyet and trigger two LANTERNS (afterburner just to get you into a nice orbit, so only a little oxidiser needed) all the rest van be liquidfuel, what you need for the turbojets too, the rest it cun run in high efficiency mode, wit ha reasonable amount of power. their damn good if used in that way.. so TLDR: turbojet>afterburner>liquidfuel lantarn

With stock aerodynamics, I can already easily get to space with turbojets and an LV-N, which gets better efficiency than the lantern.

Thrust in AB mode needs to be buffer IMO. Its no better than what would expect from a non-afterburning LV-N with a higher MW propellant.

[vardicd]

Yeah I saw all that in the code, and applied it that way, and it does apply the second mode to the part, but it doesn't allow switching between them, BOTH modes are active at the same time. Somehow the basic jet engine runs both engine scripts at the same time, what I wanted was an 'afterburner' for the jet engine, normal mode, and afterburner, where for 3x the fuel I'd get nearly double the thrust. It works, but since the modes are applied together, I get 3x the thrust and 4x the fuel consumption for about 10 seconds, before the engine explodes from overheating because both modes are running and applying double the heat.

Then it's not implemented correctly in your configuration.

Why not post it so people can go over it and find the problem?

Otherwise they're just speculating based on insufficient information about your setup.

Sure here's the link to the file I made up, anyone feel free to check it out and offer suggestions: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wmxeyathw9r7vi7/jetEngineBasicmod.cfg?dl=0

[Starwaster]

Sure here's the link to the file I made up, anyone feel free to check it out and offer suggestions: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wmxeyathw9r7vi7/jetEngineBasicmod.cfg?dl=0

Ok, I'll take a look at it, try it out and get back to you

[Der Kosmos]

Is this compatible with Near Future propulsion's liquid hydrogen tanks?

[brusura]

I have found some strange behaviuor , that might be indeed a stock problem that is just more explicit with the high gimbal of nuclear lightbulb...

With gimbal on and sas activated the ship fight to keep the attitude and the lightbul shake a lot, nothing strange so far bu if you let it run for some minutes the orbit start to decay , I was on a return trajectory from mun and the periapsis was set to 50km after some minutes the periapsis was 45km , I raised it up again to 50km and again after 5 minutes 45km .

Then I raised once again to 50km and disabled gimbal on the engine, no more orbit decay.

Anyone else noticed this behaviour?

[Starwaster]

I have found some strange behaviuor , that might be indeed a stock problem that is just more explicit with the high gimbal of nuclear lightbulb...

With gimbal on and sas activated the ship fight to keep the attitude and the lightbul shake a lot, nothing strange so far bu if you let it run for some minutes the orbit start to decay , I was on a return trajectory from mun and the periapsis was set to 50km after some minutes the periapsis was 45km , I raised it up again to 50km and again after 5 minutes 45km .

Then I raised once again to 50km and disabled gimbal on the engine, no more orbit decay.

Anyone else noticed this behaviour?

[Duxwing]

The engine cluster should mass about what an equivalently-powerful group of LV-Ns would: 16.87 tons.

-Duxwing

[brusura]

Well no I think is balanced this way Duxwing, this is more efficient 1500 vs 800 isp

[Tellion]

The engine cluster should mass about what an equivalently-powerful group of LV-Ns would: 16.87 tons.

-Duxwing

But it is not a cluster of LV-Ns. Read the pages of the two on project rho, it is very informative

[WuphonsReach]

The engine cluster should mass about what an equivalently-powerful group of LV-Ns would: 16.87 tons.

-Duxwing

Definitely use the LV-N as a baseline, and the engine cluster should never have a worse thrust:mass ratio then the original (i.e. 3x thrust, 5x mass is just silly).

But my opinion is that for engine clusters there should be some mass reduction due to shared parts and economy of scale. So if a part cluster gives 4x the thrust of the individual parts, the mass should be somewhere in the 3.0-3.6x range. Cost should also be in the 3.0-3.6x range.

(MRS quad-nuke, for instance, the mass is 4x, the thrust is 4x, the cost is only 2.8x.)

[passinglurker]

Definitely use the LV-N as a baseline, and the engine cluster should never have a worse thrust:mass ratio then the original (i.e. 3x thrust, 5x mass is just silly).

But my opinion is that for engine clusters there should be some mass reduction due to shared parts and economy of scale. So if a part cluster gives 4x the thrust of the individual parts, the mass should be somewhere in the 3.0-3.6x range. Cost should also be in the 3.0-3.6x range.

(MRS quad-nuke, for instance, the mass is 4x, the thrust is 4x, the cost is only 2.8x.)

did you miss the part about having double the isp? also the lightbulb isn't an LV-N cluster its a very different type of NTR entirely (the LV-N and LANTERN are solid core type engines while the lightbulb is a closed cycle gas core)

[lurkoholic]

No, but it doesn't surprise me. There is an issue with stock SAS, though as far as I know it only affects ships when you have SAS on in conjunction with one of the new autopilot functions. (i.e. if you use stock SAS + prograde / retrograde, etc etc)

As for orbit decay, obviously that shouldn't be possible since all momentum changes are angular. I haven't SEEN that happen, but, you know: KSP physics.

Every time I try to use stock SAS for anything other than basic attitude hold I regret it. MJ2 Smart A.S.S. FTW.

Assuming the 20T engine wobbles around when SAS is active, I could see it moving an orbit that much or more. An extreme example of this (unless it has been fixed since 0.23.5): I aerocaptured an asteroid with a long wobbly ship attached that later reached escape velocity when flopping around.

Definitely use the LV-N as a baseline, and the engine cluster should never have a worse thrust:mass ratio then the original (i.e. 3x thrust, 5x mass is just silly).

But my opinion is that for engine clusters there should be some mass reduction due to shared parts and economy of scale. So if a part cluster gives 4x the thrust of the individual parts, the mass should be somewhere in the 3.0-3.6x range. Cost should also be in the 3.0-3.6x range.

(MRS quad-nuke, for instance, the mass is 4x, the thrust is 4x, the cost is only 2.8x.)

A cluster of engines would probably require extra shielding between the engines, and possibly above the engines.

[Enceos]

If noone has made a CTT integration for these, here I mixed up a .cfg file

DOWNLOAD

//Community Tech Tree patch for Atomic Age
//Written by Enceos
//2/27/2015
@PART[nuclearEngineLightbulb]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree,TechManager]
{
    %TechRequired = improvedNuclearPropulsion
}


@PART[nuclearEngineLANTR]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree,TechManager]
{
    %TechRequired = nuclearPropulsion
}

Edited February 27, 2015 by Enceos

[FreeThinker]

If noone has made a CTT integration for these, here I mixed up a .cfg file

DOWNLOAD

http://i.imgur.com/tIq4lcS.png

//Community Tech Tree patch for Atomic Age
//Written by Enceos
//2/27/2015
@PART[nuclearEngineLightbulb]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree,TechManager]
{
    %TechRequired = advNuclearPropulsion
}


@PART[nuclearEngineLANTR]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree,TechManager]
{
    %TechRequired = improvedNuclearPropulsion
}

I highly suggest you move them to the first Nuclear Propulsion Node because in comparison to KSPI Nuclear engines (which use the same tech nodes and are based on real engines), they are realy primitive and underpowered.

Edited February 27, 2015 by FreeThinker

[WuphonsReach]

I highly suggest you move them to the first Nuclear Propulsion Node because in comparison to KSPI Nuclear engines (which use the same tech nodes and are based on real engines), they are realy primitive and underpowered.

I don't use KSPI but mostly agree.

The smaller LV-Nc would definitely make sense to be left in the first nuclear engine tech node.

The larger 20t / 1500Isp engine shouldn't be more then one tech node later (in the stock tech tree, I believe it's a 550 tech part, while the LV-Nc is a 300 tech part).

[Enceos]

I highly suggest you move them to the first Nuclear Propulsion Node because in comparison to KSPI Nuclear engines (which use the same tech nodes and are based on real engines), they are realy primitive and underpowered.

Is the Bulb engine also weaker than anything by KSPI in the Improved Nuclear Propulsion node? Cause I'd not put these engines in the same node where the stock engine lies.

EDIT: I moved the both engines 1 node earlier. LANTR in the same node where lies stock.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Enceos

[FreeThinker]

Is the Bulb engine also weaker than anything by KSPI in the Improved Nuclear Propulsion node? Cause I'd not put these engines in the same node where the stock engine lies.

Well it produces about the same thrust as a unupgraded Molten Salt reactor, the weakest reactor, without the ability to used as a power source which is one of the main reason to use Molten Salt reactors in the first place. Their only advantage is that it would be accesable without the Nuclear Power node. Also, they are a kind of cheat since they do not require any nuclear fuel or can overheat. In the past I expirimented by fixing this by replacing the stock engines by the KSPI engines, which seem to work to some degree.

Edited February 27, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Enceos]

Well it produces about the same thrust as a unupgraded Molten Salt reactor, the weakest reactor, without the ability to used as a power source which is one of the main reason to use Molten Salt reactors in the first place. Their only advantage is that it would be accesable without the Nuclear Power node. Also, they are a kind of cheat since they do not require any nuclear fuel or can overheat. In the past I expirimented by fixing this by replacing the stock engines by the KSPI engines, which seem to work to some degree.

I don't think KSPI users need any more engines from other mods except for atmospheric usage.