Rorie
New Member
Posts: 19 
|
Post by Rorie on Jul 29, 2017 2:26:15 GMT
|
|
Rorie
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by Rorie on Jul 29, 2017 2:40:01 GMT
I have no idea if it is good. I sorta made it after I needed a decane engine and the one I had was way to big. Link To steam work Shop if anyone wants it. It could probably be optimized a bit more but I think its alright. |
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Aug 10, 2017 14:24:52 GMT
Update! Collection is now v1.2
Changelog:
- Added NTRs for HD, methane, and RP-1 (all from 10 kN to 100 MN)
The NTRs can be reduced further in mass and cost with a larger, slower turbopump, but this would increase size, so I have left the balance as it is (with turbos slightly under 100 RPM). You can of course tweak them for your own needs; these NTRs are a great starting point to do that.
Next update will include a full set of thrusters for heavy water (MPDs, NTRs, resistojets). I may also revisit the current resistojets.
|
|
aixqag
New Member
soon CoaDE, soon
Posts: 7
|
Post by aixqag on Aug 18, 2017 4:33:27 GMT
Are you ever planning on having a section on chemical rockets?
|
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Aug 19, 2017 0:59:13 GMT
Update! Collection is now v1.3 Changelog: - Added heavy water MPDs, NTRs, and resistojets - Added nukes! - Added 50.3 GW reactor - Updated 25.2 GW reactor (marginally cheaper, reshaped thermocouple) - Updated 10 kN RP-1 NTR (lighter, slightly larger) Reactor electrical outputs are set up to always successfully power an MPD or weapon of the relevant tier. For example, 100 MW. With the game's rounding, this can be in reality a 100.49 MW electricity requirement. A 101 MW reactor would power it, since it is at least 100.5 MW. 25.2 GW can be 25.15 to 25.25 GW; four of these will be 100.6 to 101 GW. 50.3 GW can be 50.25 to 50.35 GW; two of these will be 100.5 to 100.7 GW. So that's why you have the unintuitive .3 there. Are you ever planning on having a section on chemical rockets? I might. It's a low priority though. |
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Sept 19, 2017 4:31:38 GMT
Update! Collection is now v1.4 Changelog: - Updated all reactors (smallest ones get minor tweaks, all others get hafnium carbide control rods). This made them lighter with almost no cost difference. - Added 10.1 kW reactor, due to a request on Discord. - Added chemical rockets! *pokes aixqag * Next order of business will be to make a series of actually-realistic reactors that have realistic safety margins, with light use of modded materials (at the request of The Astronomer ). I may need to make a material mod or two for this. I'm guessing CoaDE will update before I finish the reactor series. |
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Sept 19, 2017 23:57:06 GMT
Do try a TaHfC-based reactor, using liquid Niobium as a working fluid.
|
|
|
|
Post by SevenOfCarina on Sept 25, 2017 10:52:04 GMT
apophys, Your 100 MW railgun seems to only be capable of firing 15.7 rounds per second, not the 31.4 advertised. Pls gib refund.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Sept 25, 2017 11:38:57 GMT
*cough* 30 rps is the hard cap *cough*
|
|
|
|
Post by SevenOfCarina on Sept 25, 2017 17:34:51 GMT
*cough* 30 rps is the hard cap *cough* Ja. What I'm refering to is that apophys' 100 MW railgun is incapable of 31.4 rounds per second due to insufficient loader power. 37 kW to the loader is only enough for 15.7 rounds per second. Just to be clear, this is not because of the hard limit - the advertised fire rate is not being met due to low loader mass. If you doubt this, I request you to import the railgun and take a look - the module design screen fire rate indicator backs up my claim. |
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Sept 25, 2017 21:30:03 GMT
What I'm refering to is that apophys' 100 MW railgun is incapable of 31.4 rounds per second due to insufficient loader power. 37 kW to the loader is only enough for 15.7 rounds per second. Just to be clear, this is not because of the hard limit - the advertised fire rate is not being met due to low loader mass. If you doubt this, I request you to import the railgun and take a look - the module design screen fire rate indicator backs up my claim. In my game, I see this data for the module:  Reload (i.e. loader time) is 31.7 ms. Charge time (i.e. capacitor time) is 31.8 ms. Firing time is negligible at 136 us. If both the capacitor and loader are powered simultaneously, the longer time (that is 31.8 ms), plus firing time, determines the actual fire rate. So to get the best fire rate, the gun as a whole needs a maximum power draw of 100 MW + 37 kW = 100.037 MW, which is within the rounding error for reactor power (so it should be no problem). The game's stated reload of 63.5 ms is a worst-case scenario when the capacitor and loader cannot be powered at the same time (i.e. the gun only gets 100 MW, not 100.037 MW). The fire rate in my given stats in the table is calculated assuming both loader and capacitor are powered simultaneously. My other guns also similarly have loader time tweaked to be just slightly less than charge time, because there's really no need to make it any faster (excess loader power means more aluminum in the loader, which is wasted mass and cost). |
|
|
|
Post by SevenOfCarina on Sept 26, 2017 4:08:50 GMT
Ah. Okay then. Thank you for enlightening me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Oct 7, 2017 0:01:09 GMT
Do try a TaHfC-based reactor, using liquid Niobium as a working fluid. Is this somewhere I haven't found it or did you mean something else? |
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Oct 7, 2017 5:31:54 GMT
Do try a TaHfC-based reactor, using liquid Niobium as a working fluid. Is this somewhere I haven't found it or did you mean something else? Advantages: -Very high critical point. -Extremely low vapor pressure at max safe operational temp of TaHfC (which does not have exceptional mechanical properties, so requires a low-pressure coolant) -Good thermal properties. -Also makes a good LDR coolant, should you have a module with exhaust that hot. -Melting point below 3000k, fairly rare for low-pressure coolants; lets you possibly (depending on reactor design) leave coolant molten even in 'off' state (without active chain reaction). *Also (vaguely) recall reading a paper that Carbon in Tantalum Carbide does not dissolve into Niobium Carbide; may or may not apply to Tantalum Hafnium Carbide. Disadvantages: -Denser than iron, a shock to players using liquid lithium/sodium other light coolants -Not common, thus not cheap. -Melting point well above 1500k - while expecting lower out of a low-pressure coolant is unrealistic, it is still unfortunate. Most materials tend to melt above 1500k; maintenance/Refuelling of an 'offline' reactor will be... difficult |
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Oct 7, 2017 5:46:18 GMT
www.periodictable.com/Elements/041/data.htmlAdvantages: -Very high critical point. -Extremely low vapor pressure at max safe operational temp of TaHfC (which does not have exceptional mechanical properties, so requires a low-pressure coolant) -Good thermal properties. -Also makes a good LDR coolant, should you have a module with exhaust that hot. -Melting point below 3000k, fairly rare for low-pressure coolants; lets you possibly (depending on reactor design) leave coolant molten even in 'off' state (without active chain reaction). *Also (vaguely) recall reading a paper that Carbon in Tantalum Carbide does not dissolve into Niobium Carbide; may or may not apply to Tantalum Hafnium Carbide. Disadvantages: -Denser than iron, a shock to players using liquid lithium/sodium other light coolants -Not common, thus not cheap. -Melting point well above 1500k - while expecting lower out of a low-pressure coolant is unrealistic, it is still unfortunate. Most materials tend to melt above 1500k; maintenance/Refuelling of an 'offline' reactor will be... difficult Oh, okay. I thought someone might've modded it in already. If it's that good a fit, I'll see about doing it myself. |
|
