[0.90] KSP Interstellar port maintance thread

[etmoonshade]

Thank you for you your feedback, I will look into if it can be eased somewhat

I think I understand what you were trying for. I'd suggest maybe leaving the small heat radiators at the 300 tech level, putting the medium/normal ones at 550 tech, and the huge radiators at 1000+. Basically, you could match the small radiators to when you initially get reactors (letting you get a decent generator output with two of them,) medium radiators for the highest fission/initial fusion, and then the huge radiators for once you get into higher-end fission.

Another thought might be to tweak up the efficiency of the small flat static radiator a little bit instead - the ultimate goal in my mind would be to make it so you could dissipate the heat of a reactor idling at 25% with a sane number of radiators.

For the SAFE-1500, this would only be 3.25MW - if I remember right, that'd be 3 of the small flat radiators at a bit over 1MW each. Once you hit the KIWI at 128MW though, that's 32MW you have to dissipate... at 1.5MW per flat radiator, that's... a lot! By contrast, the small heat radiator only has a base dissipation of 18MW. That's not enough to run the KIWI or a Sethlans going at max output, but you could keep the idle heat managed with 2 or 3 of them. For the higher-end fission reactors, you'd need the better heat radiators - which you get around the same tech level anyway.

A similar argument could be made for spreading the thermal nozzles around, based on when you get the various reactors - instead of making me research something at 550 tech to get all the thermal rockets (including the 3.75m one, which I can't use until I get the 3.75m reactor at a 1000 tech node,) let me have the little ones at 300 with Nuclear Propulsion (to match getting the SAFE-1500 and the KIWI in the nuclear power node) and then the 2.5m and 3.75m ones in the next two propulsion nodes.

Edit: And I should say, by the way: thank you for listening to feedback.

[Yemo]

I think that Boris balanced solar panels so that they don't produce heat until they are quite close to the Sun. But I found that my solar powered stuff doesn't really need radiators. It might be a different thing if you're going for solar power satellites early on though.

Ah, ok.

But it is not only the solar panels. Other mods have reactors as well (MKS/OKS) and they might need/want to introduce heat mechanics as well.

So for compatibility (with unknown mods), at least the minor radiators would be nice to have around the electrics nodes

[Northstar1989]

Sounds like a good solution, I will implement it

Do you know the formula for converting ISP between different propellants at the same temperature?

V₂ = SqRt(M₂/M₁) * V₁

V₁ = Exhaust Velocity of first propellant (directly proportional to Vac ISP, can can replace velocity terms with Vac ISP)

V₂ = Exhaust Velocity of second propellant (same relation to Vac ISP)

M₁ = Molecular Mass of first propellant

M₂ = Molecular Mass of second propellant

So, at a given temperature, the Vacuum ISP of Methane should be the Vacuum ISP of Hydrogen divided by the square-root of 8 (the ratio of Molecular Masses: 16/2 = 8)

Since the ISP-cap represents the maximum operating temperature of a Thermal Rocket nozzle, this equation holds true for the ratios of Vacuum ISP values: where Hydrogen/LiquidFuel should have an ISP of 3000, and all other fuels should be less in proportion with this value.

Note that combustible fuel-mixes (such as Hydro/LOX and Meth/LOX) get additional Thrust for the same Fuel Consumption- in essence they get higher ISP than you would expect for their Molecular Mass due to the combustion reaction- but Fractal_UK handles these fuels with a unique Thrust multiplier if I remember correctly...

Regards,

Northstar

[FreeThinker]

Do you know the formula for converting ISP between different propellants at the same temperature?

V₂ = SqRt(M₂/M₁) * V₁

V₁ = Exhaust Velocity of first propellant (directly proportional to Vac ISP, can can replace velocity terms with Vac ISP)

V₂ = Exhaust Velocity of second propellant (same relation to Vac ISP)

M₁ = Molecular Mass of first propellant

M₂ = Molecular Mass of second propellant

Looks good to implement, however, the problem is that there is no definition for all propellant, only a resource density and Propellant ISP modifier (perhaps I can use this?).

One solution would be to extend the propellant definition with a Molecular density property. Could you figure out the densities of all propellants?

Edited February 14, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Northstar1989]

Looks good to implement, however, the problem is that there is no definition for all propellant, only a resource density and Propellant ISP modifier (perhaps I can use this?).

One solution would be to extend the propellant definition with a Molecular density property. Could you figure out the densities of all propellants?

Molecular Mass of a given propellant is constant- it never changes. Therefore, the math for it is not something you figure out in-game, but rather out-of-game, and program in for any time a given propellant is used...

The "Propellant ISP modifier" is accurately based on the relative Molecular Mass of each propellant. The only problem is that it doesn't interact with the ISP-cap the right way. So, currently, Hydrogen and Methane both have an ISP cap of 3000.

The relationship of Specific Impulses as defined by the "Propellant ISP modifier" just needs to be applied to the ISP-cap. That's all.

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

I think I understand what you were trying for. I'd suggest maybe leaving the small heat radiators at the 300 tech level, putting the medium/normal ones at 550 tech, and the huge radiators at 1000+. Basically, you could match the small radiators to when you initially get reactors (letting you get a decent generator output with two of them,) medium radiators for the highest fission/initial fusion, and then the huge radiators for once you get into higher-end fission.

Another thought might be to tweak up the efficiency of the small flat static radiator a little bit instead - the ultimate goal in my mind would be to make it so you could dissipate the heat of a reactor idling at 25% with a sane number of radiators.

For the SAFE-1500, this would only be 3.25MW - if I remember right, that'd be 3 of the small flat radiators at a bit over 1MW each. Once you hit the KIWI at 128MW though, that's 32MW you have to dissipate... at 1.5MW per flat radiator, that's... a lot! By contrast, the small heat radiator only has a base dissipation of 18MW. That's not enough to run the KIWI or a Sethlans going at max output, but you could keep the idle heat managed with 2 or 3 of them. For the higher-end fission reactors, you'd need the better heat radiators - which you get around the same tech level anyway.

A similar argument could be made for spreading the thermal nozzles around, based on when you get the various reactors - instead of making me research something at 550 tech to get all the thermal rockets (including the 3.75m one, which I can't use until I get the 3.75m reactor at a 1000 tech node,) let me have the little ones at 300 with Nuclear Propulsion (to match getting the SAFE-1500 and the KIWI in the nuclear power node) and then the 2.5m and 3.75m ones in the next two propulsion nodes.

Edit: And I should say, by the way: thank you for listening to feedback.

It doesn't necessarily make sense to put different size radiators (or reactors for that matter) at different tech levels. It isn't like a rocket engine, where there are technical and engineering challenges to scaling it up based on the fluid dynamics involved. Once you know how to build a small deployable radiator, you know how to build a deployable radiator of ANY size...

This is one of those things that Fractal_UK grasped and used to design the KSP-Interstellar tech tree. Putting larger radiators and reactors at higher tech levels is not only unrealistic- it's also just too much complexity from a game design standpoint. This is why I am a fan of the original KSP-Interstellar tech tree, and do NOT see the Community Tech Tree (which was designed by other people than Fractal_UK with different ideas about realism and game design) as a step forward...

KSP-Interstellar is the only mod I use that re-designs the tech tree. I see no need to add any more complexity than Fractal_UK originally designed into the mod...

Regards,

Northstar

[ABZB]

I would like to make MM configs to adapt the Simian Endeavors Engines (radial engines made to look like the 'warp nacelles' of various Star Trek Ship) to function as various KSPI engine-types. I have found that a Magnetic Nozzle or a Thermal engine radially attached to a reactor does not function properly. Is this a hardcoded thing? Is it possible to change the main release, or barring that (realism issues?) have an optional alternate. Or if there is a quick-and-easy code change, if you could let me know, I could make my own version for myself, i guess....

Thanks!

[FreeThinker]

in the new Community Tech Tree (CTT) techtree there are 3 new technodes for Nuclear Power reactors (Nuclear Power, Large Scale Nuclear Power and High Energy Nuclear Power) and it would be a waste not to use them to the fullest.

(basic) Nuclear Power (300 Science, same as Nuclear Propulsion) could introduce Experimental Molten Salt Reactor and Experimental Particle Bed at 0.625m and 1.25m sizes

Large Scale Nuclear Power (550 Science, essentialy offers bigger reactors) could introduce larger and more efficient Experimental Molten Salt Reactor and Experimental Particle Bed at 2.5m and 3.75 sizes

High Energy Nuclear Power (1000 Science. represent the cutting edge in nuclear reactors)

- allow all Experimental Molten Salt Reactor and Particle Bed to upgrade to their Mature (full power) version

- introduce Experimental Dusty Plasma Reactor (allows magnetic noozle and maxumum fuel efficency) and Experimental GasCore (allow significantly higher ISP themal noozle), which can be upgraded to their Mature version with Fusion technology

All of this could effectly give the player a much smoother technological progression from Nuclear Stock to [Molten Salt/Particle] to [Dusty Plasma/Gas Core] to Fusion.

Thanks to the CTT techprogression we will be able to diffentiate 4 Families of Nuclear Reactors, each excelling in a particular way (and therefore most fit for certain functions)

- Particle Bed reactors excel in high TWR (achieved by high trust and lower weight like Timberwind) , can function as part of laucher

- Molten Salt reactors excel in long lifetime electric power generation using Urananium. Function as reliable, low mainenance power source

- Dusty Plasma reactors offers early adoption of Magnetic Noozles or Direct Conversion Power Generator at maximum fuel Efficency , multifuncyional

- Gas Core reactors excel in generating maximum electric power with short lifespan (using Thorium) and High ISP from Thermal Noozle , function as strongest powersource for electric engines or high ISP thermal rocket

I really think you should re-think your idea to add "experimental" and "normal" versions of the KSP-Interstellar fission reactors.

There are 3 really big reasons for this:

Realism- I am sure you want KSP-Interstellar to fit with real life to at least some degree. However I am not sure you are aware just how far having "experimental" flight-certified nuclear engines would be in real life. Not only do nuclear engines in general face a HUGE amount of ill-informed public opposition and political oversight, which would make it VERY hard to get approval to fly an "experimental" version of a nuclear engine- it is also just not common practice in ANY type of rocket science, generally speaking, to fly engines until they have been THOROUGHLY designed and tested on the ground. Thus, having an "experimental" version of an engine with inferior specifications just strikes me as chokingly, glaringly unrealistic- and I don't think I could ever make peace with that and still want to play KSP-Interstellar. None of the other engine in KSP are "experimental" (INCLUDING the NERVA- which was actually tested and tested and refined until it was flight-ready with 1960's technology), and I don't see "experimental" engines as having ANY place in a space program simulation game like KSP.

Timelines- In order to add "experimental" and "normal" versions of the KSP-Interstellar fission reactors, you proposed moving the versions with real-life specs (similar to the Timberwind or current Molten Salt Reactor designs) to later tech nodes. However, I don't think you get just how incongruous this would be with real rocketry timelines, or those in KSP. We had the NERVA engine *even before* we had the Saturn V rocket, to the point where NERVA was proposed for use as the Saturn V's upper-stage engines. We also had the Timberwind engine designs long before Space Launch System was even a twinkle in an engineer's eyes (in fact, the program had already been shut down before SLS was even conceived). Yet, you want to move the Timberwind-like engines to an even later tech tier than SLS engines? I don't think you realize just how incredibly unrealistic that would be. It would also eliminate the consideration of the engines for many mission-plans that they might otherwise be considered for, such as an early manned Duna mission- most players running FAR probably won't try such a mission until they at least have SLS-sized parts, but will probably be impatient to get out of the Kerbin system by that point, and unwilling to wait for Timberwind-style engines if they occur at an even later tech node...

Balance- The very thing you are striving for would, in my humble opinion, be completely ruined by introducing an additional tier of "experimental" nuclear engines/reactors before the Timberwind-style engine/reactor tier... Why? Because a balanced part has to have some actual USE in a game- and already Timberwind-style reactors are far more worthless than I think you realize. Not only do they produce relatively little Thrust for their mass, and have very large overall mass- thus REQUIRING a player to use them on very large spacecraft for them to even be efficient, they ALSO are *EXTREMELY* expensive compared to chemical engines. When Funds are as tight as they already are in KSP, it doesn't make sense to splurge on a nuclear reactor for a mission when it would be MUCH cheaper just to send up a larger spacecraft with more empty fuel tanks and fuel up a larger all-chemical rocket in-orbit... And PLEASE don't suggest the "experimental" reactors be cheaper than the standard ones- not only is this blatantly unrealistic (prototypes are ALWAYS more expensive in real life), it would also completely eliminate the utility of the standard reactors, causing cost-conscious players to just launch the "experimental" versions all the time, which completely defeats the purpose of their only being "experimental" if they become the most-used version...

I guess you didn't fully understand why I want to split up the sensan into a 2 seperate families. It's because it would allow me to balance them fulfill different functions! The Particle Bed reactors would be "realsiticly" balanced as a "Nuclear Tractor" with the highest TWR (by drastically lowering the reactors weight) The Dusty plasma reactor on the other-hand will specialize as a "nuclear economy car" with the highest ISP (by using magnetic noozles) but also with the lowest TWR. As you you see , they are the complete opposite of each other! This I why I needed to split them up, it doesn't make sense that a maximum nuclear engine with TWR would turn into the rocket engine with lowest TWR, they fulfill separate functions, which are both intrinsically valuable.

The term "experimental" is just a word I used to differentiate the "initial" version with "upgraded" version. In the game they are both called Particle Bed, where the first has the postfix Mk1 and the upgraded version Mk2. Initially I wanted to make all Particle Bed upgrade with "High Energy Nuclear Reactor", but beside technical reasons, your "historical" arguments gives me another reason to split them up in small Particle Beds (0.625, 1.25, 1.875) and large particle beds (2.5m,, 3.75m, 5m). The smaller versions will be introduced earlier (with nuclear power), but also can upgrade earlier (when the larger particle beds become available). This means it it would only require 550 science instead of 1550 science to to experience the full power of the Particle Beds with high TWR. I also have an idea of about giving the Particle Beds a configuration option to increase trust further at the expanse if ISP. The engine "Trust Limiter" could be used to modify the engine core heat, thereby reducing the ISP and increasing Thrust.

Edited February 15, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Northstar1989]

It only requires 300 Science to unlock "Nuclear Propulsion" in the stock or original KSP-Interstellar tech tree. Which is the tier it *SHOULD* be in, because by that point players already are messing around with SLS engines...

*ALL* first-generation fission reactors should be available at this point, as a LARGER than SLS-sized (8.7 meter) Timberwind Reactor/Engine was actually designed BEFORE anyone ever thought of SLS (which was 8.4 meters). See below...

There's no logical reason for larger nuclear reactors to not become available until later tech nodes- I thought I was *very* clear about this before.

In real life, larger versions of the "Kiwi" NERVA such as the "Pewee" were developed IN PARALLEL with the smaller version- which was only *slightly* ahead in development timeline for financial reasons... With Project Timberwind, a SLS-sized (8.70 meter) "Timberwind 250" reactor/engine pair was developed at *EXACTLY* the same time as the 2-meter "Timberwind 75" I have been talking so much about...

Unlike with chemical rockets, there are NO MAJOR ENGINEERING BARRIERS to scaling up a Nuclear Thermal Rocket as large as you might want it.

Also, let's do some more research on the actual mechanics of Dusty Plasma Reactors before we go assuming they should have low TWR, shall we?

My current understanding of them is that they merely carry smaller particle size to an extreme (from macroscopic "pebbles" down to nano-particles...) in order to maximize the surface area:volume ratio of the reactor fuel and allow it to exist as a colloidal suspension inside the reactor. Thus, these reactors should have a *HIGHER* Thrust-Weight-Ratio than Pebble/Particle Bed Reactors, if anything. Just because they also emit enough charged particles to run a magnetic nozzle (like in KSP-Interstellar) doesn't mean they don't also have *EXCELLENT* TWR when used in a standard Nuclear Thermal Rocket. It's the nozzle that reflects the specialization here in-game, not the reactor type.

Anyways, in other news, I noticed a while back that the KSPI_RF config file that integrates KSP-Interstellar and RealFuels was not working as intended for adding Water and Argon to all appropriate tank types. Even after replacing the "&" symbol with a "," symbol in my own personal config, testing revealed it still did not work. Here's why...

The original code:

//Add water tank using KSPI water. (TO-DO: integration with TACLS water without trampling KSPI or TACLS)
@TANK_DEFINITION[*]:HAS[@TANK[Kerosene],!TANK[LqdWater]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	+TANK[Kerosene]
	{
		@name = LqdWater
	}
}

//Add Argon to all tanks that have XenonGas, as they function and store similarly.
@TANK_DEFINITION[*]:HAS[@TANK[XenonGas],!TANK[Argon]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	+TANK[XenonGas]
	{
		@name = Argon
	}
}

The problem is actually very simple- the resource names are wrong. The CORRECT resource names are "Water" (NOT "LqdWater") and "ArgonGas" (NOT "Argon").

Here's the FIXED code:

//Add water tank using KSPI water. (TO-DO: integration with TACLS water without trampling KSPI or TACLS)
@TANK_DEFINITION[*]:HAS[@TANK[Kerosene],!TANK[LqdWater]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	+TANK[Kerosene]
	{
		@name = Water
	}
}

//Add Argon to all tanks that have XenonGas, as they function and store similarly.
@TANK_DEFINITION[*]:HAS[@TANK[XenonGas],!TANK[Argon]]:NEEDS[WarpPlugin]:FOR[RealFuels]
{
	+TANK[XenonGas]
	{
		@name = ArgonGas
	}
}

I will be play-testing that it works momentarily. If it does, I would appreciate it if you could make a Pull request for this over on the RealFuels thread (I don't know how to make Pull Requests...)

More code for some of the other fixes I mentioned before coming soon...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 15, 2015 by Northstar1989

[FreeThinker]

There's no logical reason for larger nuclear reactors to not become available until later tech nodes- I thought I was *very* clear about this before.

In real life, larger versions of the "Kiwi" NERVA such as the "Pewee" were developed IN PARALLEL with the smaller version- which was only *slightly* ahead in development timeline for financial reasons... With Project Timberwind, a SLS-sized (8.70 meter) "Timberwind 250" reactor/engine pair was developed at *EXACTLY* the same time as the 2-meter "Timberwind 75" I have been talking so much about...

Unlike with chemical rockets, there are NO MAJOR ENGINEERING BARRIERS to scaling up a Nuclear Thermal Rocket as large as you might want it.

Well, this is KSP, the existing stock Techtree is far from realistic. I'm just trying to integrate KSPI fully into the CTT techtree (which extends stock KSP). It's imperfect (and unrealistic) but at least it offers some gradual progression. Perhaps we can also integrate KSPI in more realistic tech-tree (with separate downloads) but my hands currently full.

Also, let's do some more research on the actual mechanics of Dusty Plasma Reactors before we go assuming they should have low TWR, shall we?

My current understanding of them is that they merely carry smaller particle size to an extreme (from macroscopic "pebbles" down to nano-particles...) in order to maximize the surface area:volume ratio of the reactor fuel and allow it to exist as a colloidal suspension inside the reactor. Thus, these reactors should have a *HIGHER* Thrust-Weight-Ratio than Pebble/Particle Bed Reactors, if anything. Just because they also emit enough charged particles to run a magnetic nozzle (like in KSP-Interstellar) doesn't mean they don't also have *EXCELLENT* TWR when used in a standard Nuclear Thermal Rocket. It's the nozzle that reflects the specialization here in-game, not the reactor type.

Yes, but the Dusty Particlle reactor is the first reactor capable of producing charged particles and can therefore be used for direct conversion or magnetic noozles. I guess you have never seen it working but it offers high ISP (8000+) at a thrust about 3 times as high as you would using Electric Engine (powered by the reactor). This is exist KSPI functionality, you only need to add a Charged particle store to make it function. Originaly they would become available with Fusion Energy (and therefore were inferior), but with CTT I can make them available sooner with High Energy Nuclear reactors.

Edited February 15, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Northstar1989]

Well, this is KSP, the existing stock Techtree is far from realistic. I'm just trying to integrate KSPI fully into the CTT techtree (which extends stock KSP). It's imperfect, but at least it offers some gradual progression.

Perhaps we can also integrate KSPI in more realistic tech-tree (with separate downloads) but my hands currently full.

Just leave the KSP-I parts on their original nodes, at least with the nuclear reactors. It's more realistic, easier, and makes KSP-I vets like me happy.

Just because you have access to new tech nodes doesn't mean you have to USE them... I could draw some power real-life analogies to that, but I hope you get my point...

ALSO: Play-testing confirms that the name-change fixed the resource-storage issues for "Water" and "ArgonGas" using RealFuels tanks. The code I posted is good to go!

Regards,

Northstar

[FreeThinker]

Just leave the KSP-I parts on their original nodes, at least with the nuclear reactors. It's more realistic, easier, and makes KSP-I vets like me happy.

Yes, I think we can both kind of players happy, in the future I intend to make it a conscious decision, which techtree to choose. THey can choose either CTT (recommened), old school KSPI, or another (mod friendly/ realsitic/historic) techtree. Kind of like Real Fuels forces you to choose an engine pack.

Edited February 15, 2015 by FreeThinker

[stellarator]

I have a couple of suggestion:

1- A special docking port that, placed behind a reactor, can transmit Thermal power to a generator, docked with other "Thermal'o Tron? That will made easy to build an orbital ship.

2- A Fusion reactor configuration more estiliced for aircrafts?

[FreeThinker]

I have a couple of suggestion:

1- A special docking port that, placed behind a reactor, can transmit Thermal power to a generator, docked with other "Thermal'o Tron? That will made easy to build an orbital ship.

This actually a quite interesting idea as it would allow the reconfiguration of a reactor. This would be especially be useful for reactors with charged particles as it would allow switching from thermal nozzle to magnetic nozzle. Another possble utility is the ability to upgrade a reactor with a higher efficiency/upgraded generator when it's damaged.

Edited February 15, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Ryds]

Hello, could someone let me know which other mods will have work with this iteration please? For example in the past I played this with NEAR, Deadly Reentry, B9, FAR, Exp Launchpads and Kethane amongst all the other more popular mods.

Are there any popular mods that won't work with this as I'd love to play interstellar again. E.g. I notice there was some talk about regolith, do I download that now and its mods and not use kethane at all?

It's all got a bit confusing for me!

Thanks!

[Yemo]

This actually a quite interesting idea as it would allow the reconfiguration of a reactor. This would be especially be useful for reactors with charged particles as it would allow switching from thermal nozzle to magnetic nozzle. Another possble utility is the ability to upgrade a reactor with a higher efficiency/upgraded generator when it's damaged.

That would be great. Instead of using stock docking ports, you could recommend to install the Non-Androgynous Docking Port mod and (tweak)scale them for the reactors: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/73005

The non-androgynous way would emphasize the need for a special reactor connection.

Hello, could someone let me know which other mods will have work with this iteration please? For example in the past I played this with NEAR, Deadly Reentry, B9, FAR, Exp Launchpads and Kethane amongst all the other more popular mods.

Are there any popular mods that won't work with this as I'd love to play interstellar again. E.g. I notice there was some talk about regolith, do I download that now and its mods and not use kethane at all?

It's all got a bit confusing for me!

Thanks!

Unfortunately, Kethane seems to be not updated for 0.90, so the Regolith based Karbonite is more viable at the moment.

[ABZB]

I have a couple of suggestion:

1- A special docking port that, placed behind a reactor, can transmit Thermal power to a generator, docked with other "Thermal'o Tron? That will made easy to build an orbital ship.

2- A Fusion reactor configuration more estiliced for aircrafts?

1- Isn't there a module within KSPI that allows transmitting thermalpower? I think someone made a radial part using that - would it work for a stack attach too? Then you could make a part with that module and a dockingport module.

2- I agree, a nice aerodynamic reactor and generator model would be REALLY great.

[Northstar1989]

Well, this is KSP, the existing stock Techtree is far from realistic. I'm just trying to integrate KSPI fully into the CTT techtree (which extends stock KSP). It's imperfect (and unrealistic) but at least it offers some gradual progression. Perhaps we can also integrate KSPI in more realistic tech-tree (with separate downloads) but my hands currently full.

If you're just talking about integrating the existing reactors into CTT, that's fine and great- and I encourage that. What I was concerned about is creating NEW/ADDITIONAL reactor parts- which I do NOT think should be done.

Yes, but the Dusty Particlle reactor is the first reactor capable of producing charged particles and can therefore be used for direct conversion or magnetic noozles. I guess you have never seen it working but it offers high ISP (8000+) at a thrust about 3 times as high as you would using Electric Engine (powered by the reactor). This is exist KSPI functionality, you only need to add a Charged particle store to make it function. Originaly they would become available with Fusion Energy (and therefore were inferior), but with CTT I can make them available sooner with High Energy Nuclear reactors.

The Dusty Plasma Reactors are *NOT* strictly inferior to Fusion Reactors at all- unlike Fusion, they don't require another reactor purely to start the reactor up in the first place. The energy-density of Uranium is also actually higher that Deuterium/Tritium on a liter-for-liter basis, as Uranium is MUCH heavier than D/T (which are Hydrogen isotopes), so that's an advantage as well- it's MUCH easier to store a 10-year supply of uranium than D/T on a spacecraft (although at the cost of greatly reduced mass-efficiency for fission compared to fusion).

That being said, I can see some justification for making Dusty Plasma Reactors available earlier than Fusion Reactors. What I CANNOT see a justification for is making larger (2.5 and 3.75 meter) Fission Reactors available later than their smaller counterparts, or splitting up Particle Bed and Dusty Plasma into two separate reactor lines (Dusty Plasma Reactors are and should be strictly superior to Particle Bed Reactors, as they produce more Thermal Power at a higher mass-efficiency, have a higher core temperature, AND produce Charged Particles... Dusty Plasma reactors are an UPGRADE to Particle Bed technology, and are actually fundamentally refined versions of the same thing, not an alternative.)

I can see changing the tech node, but the capabilities should NOT change. Dusty Plasma Reactors are basically just Particle Bed Reactors with much smaller Uranium pellets (and other design improvements). They should produce a LOT more MW of Thermal Power (at a higher core temperature), as well as Charged Particles... It's not that Dusty Plasma Reactors are too strong relative to Particle Bed Reactors, it's that Dusty Plasma Reactors are too weak relative to Fusion Reactors (which, for first-generation designs at least, are currently DRASTICALLY overpowered...)

That (first-generation) Fusion Reactors are currently too high-performance has been a pet-peeve of mine for a LONG time. It shouldn't be until they upgrade that they start to significantly outperform Fission Reactors (like is expected of early vs. late Fusion Reactors in real life...)

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

Also, you might find THIS article on Wikipedia interesting. Apparently our current upgraded reactors are MUCH too cold, and our ISP cap *FAR* too low- it says that it is possible to achieve Nuclear Thermal Rocket Specific Impulses of up to 7000 (rather than 3000) seconds...

Here's the link not embedded in the text:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission-fragment_rocket

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 16, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Ryusho]

Well, I know my post got left in the dust, but I am having an issue with the parts trying to infinately zoom in *last time I played, need to check if there was an update and if it fixed it* but it only happenns on certian parts, normally the generators, and I think the engines, but Does anyone know how to fix this?

[FreeThinker]

What I CANNOT see a justification for is making larger (2.5 and 3.75 meter) Fission Reactors available later than their smaller counterparts,

There several reasons to do this.

reason 1: KSP stock does the same with chemical rockets (bigger engines are available later),

reason 2: the bigger reactors are inherently more powerful. I just did a test with a 3.75 upgraded Reactor. With just 3 upscaled 3.75 NF Hydrogen tanks, I was able to lauch from KSP surface, into orbit, travel to Duna and return back into kerbin orbit. Big nuclear rocket engines are incredible powerful, and should therefore reserved for higher tech.

Reason 3: CTT defines a node that sais Large Nuclear Power. I take the "Large" part very serious.

- - - Updated - - -

splitting up Particle Bed and Dusty Plasma into two separate reactor lines (Dusty Plasma Reactors are and should be strictly superior to Particle Bed Reactors, as they produce more Thermal Power at a higher mass-efficiency, have a higher core temperature, AND produce Charged Particles...

There are technical/integration reasons (more upgrade points, better visibility, modifiable, maintainability) and balance reasons (made fit for purpose, more depth, ease of use) to split them up. Also note they effectively were already split up because you couldn't upgrade them correctly outside the VAB (it would only steal science), you could only build the upgraded version in the VAB.

Confusingly, after fusion tech is researched, you can suddenly use the Particle Bed in a totally different manner (magnetic noozle and direct conversion). This is not only confusing for the user, it's also error prone and hard to maintain for mod developers . As a developer, I'm all about improving maintainability and part that have multiple function are inherently complex. In software development it customary to properly abstract functionality, effectively splitting them up into separate identifiable entities

Edited February 16, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

Also, you might find THIS article on Wikipedia interesting. Apparently our current upgraded reactors are MUCH too cold, and our ISP cap *FAR* too low- it says that it is possible to achieve Nuclear Thermal Rocket Specific Impulses of up to 7000 (rather than 3000) seconds...

Excellent, We can give High Energy Nuclear /fusion/antimatter reactors the ability to increase their maximum ISP to 7000s while the low tech reactors wouldn't be able to go higher than 3000s

Edited February 16, 2015 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

That would be great. Instead of using stock docking ports, you could recommend to install the Non-Androgynous Docking Port mod and (tweak)scale them for the reactors: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/73005

The non-androgynous way would emphasize the need for a special reactor connection.

Yes, this makes a lot of sense. This would finally allow these parts to have a real meaning. I wonder if these parts are also stronger than regular docking port and can be made in different sizes, otherise they will be hard to adapt.

Edited February 16, 2015 by FreeThinker

[Yemo]

Well, I know my post got left in the dust, but I am having an issue with the parts trying to infinately zoom in *last time I played, need to check if there was an update and if it fixed it* but it only happenns on certian parts, normally the generators, and I think the engines, but Does anyone know how to fix this?

Sorry, not ignoring you, I just do not have an idea, but I quoted you for visibility .

There several reasons to do this.

reason 1: KSP stock does the same with chemical rockets (bigger engines are available later),

reason 2: the bigger reactors are inherently more powerful. I just did a test with a 3.75 upgraded Reactor. With just 3 upscaled 3.75 NF Hydrogen tanks, I was able to lauch from KSP surface, into orbit, travel to Duna and return back into kerbin orbit. Big nuclear rocket engines are incredible powerful, and should therefore reserved for higher tech.

Reason 3: CTT defines a node that sais Large Nuclear Power. I take the "Large" part very serious.

Or in other words, game balance ;-).

@Northstar1989: Just wanted to thank you for your input, it is great to have someone with detailed technical knowledge on board.

[Northstar1989]

Excellent, We can give High Energy Nuclear /fusion/antimatter reactors the ability to increase their maximum ISP to 7000s while the low tech reactors wouldn't be able to go higher than 3000s

Sounds great to me! Buffing the second-generation Fission reactors should create a more realistic balance between them and the first-generation Fusion reactors (which are currently too good/powerful in comparison) while also creating more leeway for the current first-generation Fission reactors to fulfill realistic roles without impinging on the territory of the second-gen models...

Since most of this second-gen stuff is theoretical, unlike Particle Bed or Molten Salt Reactors, it will be harder for me to get you good sources on the expected performance specs. There are a few studies that have looked at what could theoretically be accomplished with Gas Core/ Dusty Plasma Reactors, etc., though- so those will be my starting point...

We will need to increase the ThermalPower of the second-gen fission reactors if we increase the ISP merely not to see the Thrust go down with the current equation. Which is fine, because the current ThermalPower numbers for the second-gen fission are much too low...

Also, second-gen reactors with even higher TWR *AND* Vacuum ISP values only create even more urgency for fixing the atmospheric thrust code. Like I've posted before:

Atmospheric Thrust = Vacuum Thrust - Exit Area * Ambient Pressure

Since the second-gen fission reactors should have the same Exit Area as first-gen fission reactors but *MUCH* higher Thrust when used as Nuclear Thermal Rockets, they should experience a pitifully-small loss of Thrust at sea-level (at least with the same rocket nozzle shape/size- one thing it would be nice to eventually implement is larger nozzles for the more powerful reactors, which increase Vacuum ISP even further, but at the expense of Sea-Level ISP...)

This loss should be EVEN LOWER THAN a first-generation Fusion Reactor, because (first-gen) fusion reactors should tend to have higher core temperatures (and thus superior Vacuum ISP) but lower net ThermalPower production (and thus Thrust) than second-gen fission reactors (the actual ThermalPower production may be higher, but one chage we need to make is to SIGNIFICANTLY increase the startup/maintenance cost of the inertial confinement/lasers for the fusion reactors, to be more in line with projected values for early fusion reactors- which would have low ratios of power input to power output...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited February 16, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Yemo]

Yes, this makes a lot of sense. This would finally allow these parts to have a real meaning. I wonder if these parts are also stronger than regular docking port and be made in different sizes

I think they are only standard 1.25m, but they are high quality, so it would be easy to just use the textures/meshes for larger parts as well with simple "rescale factor" changes.

[FreeThinker]

I think they are only standard 1.25m, but they are high quality, so it would be easy to just use the textures/meshes for larger parts as well with simple "rescale factor" changes.

Yes, but would a 2.5 "male" docking port fit into a 1.25m "female" docking port, and vice versa. Does size matter?