|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 17, 2018 23:48:59 GMT
One could argue that the standard modules should not be using diamonds in high temperature applications and that the safe use temperature for diamond should be changed in the base game -- or that the mod should not alter the properties of a base game material, instead. I'd argue for both - diamond in base game should account for graphitization, but it's not mod's business changing that. In my opinion, that's the very reason why mod exist. Having more option doesn't bite anyone but saves the very life of the game. Excuse me saying KSP again, but form the very beginning of the game there was tons of super cool, necessary, realistic mods which break the stock game totally. Deadly Reentry, simulates reentry heat which wasn't modelled in early development, breaks every single stock crew capsule design. Ferram's Aerospace Research, which reconstruct the shitty early stock aerodynamics (it even uses voxel mapping to check out the shape and cross section, on which game doesn't have a single voxel calculation!) so sent every single stock airplane into the grave. Ven's Stock Revamp, it even declared "Hey I'm gonna rebuild the shitty stock things" from the title. Prinkipia, introducing the N body sim into the patched conic game, even shatters the very star system in stock which isn't gravitationally stable(intentionally for difficulty reason)! The modders reversed the orbit of a moon to fix it. Real Fuel introduced tons of real life materials into the game which only have "fuel" and "oxidizer" so you have to rebuild stock ships with proper fuel to work again. I can still name a several thousands of mod break stock game but made nobody unhappy. So did these harm anyone? No. Stock game still alive with all the casual random cute shittyness, and it still has large community playing it. Super heavy modded KSP, namely Realism Overhaul, also has a large (yet smaller) community playing it. Original developers took advantage of taking some cool-yet-vanilla-friendly mod into their regular updates. Everyone's happy. It's just like the freedom of speech: Let them speak whatever, and let the audience decide what to survive. Democracy, shortly. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 18, 2018 0:14:59 GMT
anotherfirefoxSeparation of concerns. It would be fine IF diamond graphitization was a separate mod, something like stock materials fixes or more detailed material modelling. Sticking it into material pack is awful, because you either break half of the -often interesting and worthwhile - designs out there or lack the materials for the other half. This kind of change has no place in a mod that seeks to simply expand material selection.
|
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 18, 2018 0:17:42 GMT
anotherfirefoxSeparation of concerns. It would be fine IF diamond graphitization was a separate mod, something like stock materials fixes or more detailed material modelling. Sticking it into material pack is awful, because you either break half of the -often interesting and worthwhile - designs out there or lack the materials for the other half. This kind of change has no place in a mod that seeks to simply expand material selection. ah okay, that totally makes sense. That can hurt people :< |
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 18, 2018 0:23:37 GMT
Personally I would be happiest if graphitization was part of the core game - it's not like every patch doesn't break pretty much everything and this way it would be non-optional and force people to adapt.
It's also not like there is much philosophy involved in converting diamond engines into AC ones - you get pretty much the same performance at the cost of a bit extra mass.
|
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 18, 2018 1:09:40 GMT
Personally I would be happiest if graphitization was part of the core game - it's not like every patch doesn't break pretty much everything and this way it would be non-optional and force people to adapt. It's also not like there is much philosophy involved in converting diamond engines into AC ones - you get pretty much the same performance at the cost of a bit extra mass. I just used graphite before I know of the graphitication issue and it seems work fine at least on the caralogue spec matter |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 18, 2018 9:08:08 GMT
Okay, found out that bigger reactors which needs moderator can't get along with graphite as one as-is. It needs some bigger dimension to fit graphite, lower neutron reflux not to run to fast.
Recalling the smaller one didn't need moderator, I guess your "JasonVance" method is something related to it. Can I get more info? I was to shoock my 1MW reactor makes more than a coal powerplant and still fit into my room, and guess know why. (evil but silly smile)
+ No water for moderator? but why?
+ The more I explore your designs, the denser the smell of corruption! What have you done, High Command!
|
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 18, 2018 9:37:12 GMT
Personally I would be happiest if graphitization was part of the core game - it's not like every patch doesn't break pretty much everything and this way it would be non-optional and force people to adapt. It's also not like there is much philosophy involved in converting diamond engines into AC ones - you get pretty much the same performance at the cost of a bit extra mass. I just used graphite before I know of the graphitication issue and it seems work fine at least on the caralogue spec matter I mean nozzle and chamber material. Ideally it's something both refractory and strong. |
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Aug 18, 2018 10:41:10 GMT
Okay, found out that bigger reactors which needs moderator can't get along with graphite as one. Recalling the smaller one didn't need moderator, I guess your "JasonVance" method is something related to it. Can I get more info? I was to shoock my 1MW reactor makes more than a coal powerplant and still fit into my room, and guess know why. (evil but silly smile) + No water for moderator? but why? + The more I explore your designs, the denser the smell of corruption! What have you done, High Command! The method he used for small reactors has a certain amount of control rod in the moderator slot. This appears to me like a strange hack of game mechanics, but is necessary to get small amounts of fissile fuel to reach criticality. I use it for cost reduction, since I could simply waste fissile fuel if I didn't want to use the hack. Water is an absolutely terrible coolant for space reactors; its thermal conductivity is much lower than other options, resulting in you needing to use way overpowered turbopumps. It is also limited to lower temperatures in real life due to its low critical point. It has moderating activity, but forms of carbon (diamond, pyrolytic carbon, graphite) are an excellent moderator for high temperature. Diamond is merely the most dense form.
In the large reactors, it is possible to make some minor changes in order to have no moderator (indeed, my realistic modded counterparts have none): reduce neutron flux and increase fissile & control mass until errors go away, while maintaining the same waste heat. The moderator is mostly there to allow a slightly higher neutron flux, which saves fissiles and marginally reduces cost. Do note that reactors have multiple bugs and inaccuracies: - Reactors can be made that produce more heat over their lifetime than is actually possible to extract from their onboard fuel. My reactors would burn through their fuel in about a day or two, not the 6 months that the game counts them to work. To be realistic, neutron flux should not exceed 1.37e+18 . Note that even some stock reactors exceed this.
- Electricity generated is not taken from heat output. I.e. the game creates energy from nothing, forcing you to have bigger radiators than you truly need. There is nothing we can do about this.
- Critical point of coolant is not taken into account; it doesn't even have an entry in material data. The sodium coolant in my reactors would not have the same properties due to being above its critical point, and also would burst its pipes due to its tremendous vapor pressure at this temperature. The appropriate coolants to use for this temperature are liquid aluminum or liquid silicon, which are mods. Due to the multiple problems that are difficult to address in the base game, I do not bother with any realism for vanilla modules, only for modded ones (which I am currently in the process of making). Incidentally, my modded reactors are a fair bit smaller and lighter than vanilla counterparts, though significantly more expensive due to having an actually appropriate amount of fission fuel. (Also, limits need to be edited for realistic modded 10 GW and 100 GW in order to put in more fuel and control rod mass.) Expect my modded reactors to be posted within a few days, as I have them, I'm generally satisfied with them, and I'm just refining them at this stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 18, 2018 10:59:47 GMT
Okay, found out that bigger reactors which needs moderator can't get along with graphite as one. Recalling the smaller one didn't need moderator, I guess your "JasonVance" method is something related to it. Can I get more info? I was to shoock my 1MW reactor makes more than a coal powerplant and still fit into my room, and guess know why. (evil but silly smile) + No water for moderator? but why?
The method he used for small reactors has a certain amount of control rod in the moderator slot. This appears to me like a strange hack of game mechanics, but is necessary to get small amounts of fissile fuel to reach criticality. I use it for cost reduction, since I could simply waste fissile fuel if I didn't want to use the hack.
Water is an absolutely terrible coolant for space reactors; its thermal conductivity is much lower than other options, resulting in you needing to use way overpowered turbopumps. It is also limited to lower temperatures in real life due to its low critical point. It has moderating activity, but forms of carbon (diamond, pyrolytic carbon, graphite) are an excellent moderator for high temperature. Diamond is merely the most dense form.
In the large reactors, it is possible to make some minor changes in order to have no moderator (indeed, my realistic modded counterparts have none). The moderator is mostly there to allow a slightly higher neutron flux, which saves fissiles and marginally reduces cost.
Do note that reactors have multiple bugs and inaccuracies: - Reactors can be made that produce more heat over their lifetime than is actually possible to extract from their onboard fuel. My reactors would burn through their fuel in about 2 days, not the 6 months that the game counts them to work. To be realistic, neutron flux should not exceed 1.37e+18 . Note that even some stock reactors exceed this.
- Electricity generated is not taken from heat output. I.e. the game creates energy from nothing, forcing you to have bigger radiators than you truly need. There is nothing we can do about this.
- Critical point of coolant is not taken into account; it doesn't even have an entry in material data. The sodium coolant in my reactors would not have the same properties due to being above its critical point, and also would burst its pipes due to its tremendous vapor pressure at this temperature. The appropriate coolants to use for this temperature are liquid aluminum or liquid silicon, which are mods.
Due to the multiple problems that are difficult to address in the base game, I do not bother with any realism for vanilla modules, only for modded ones (which I am currently in the process of making). Incidentally, my modded reactors are a fair bit smaller and lighter than vanilla counterparts, though significantly more expensive due to having an actually appropriate amount of fission fuel. (Also, limits need to be edited for realistic modded 10 GW and 100 GW in order to put in more fuel and control rod mass.)
Expect my modded reactors to be posted within a few days, as I have them, I'm generally satisfied with them, and I'm just refining them at this stage.
Sounds super awesome that the awesomeness exceeded critical point and it's glowing like a star That make me feel better, since I was almost dead seeing 2 of your 101MW(with my first aid, 91MW) costs lower than stock 60MW. |
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Aug 18, 2018 11:07:55 GMT
Sounds super awesome that the awesomeness exceeded critical point and it's glowing like a star That make me feel better, since I was almost dead seeing 2 of your 101MW(with my first aid, 91MW) costs lower than stock 60MW. Stock reactors are extremely poorly optimized, and not even realistic.  |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 18, 2018 11:10:59 GMT
Sounds super awesome that the awesomeness exceeded critical point and it's glowing like a star That make me feel better, since I was almost dead seeing 2 of your 101MW(with my first aid, 91MW) costs lower than stock 60MW. Stock reactors are extremely poorly optimized, and not even realistic. With that testimony, a court martial will be held soon to wipe out the corrupt High Command |
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 18, 2018 12:34:30 GMT
I like working with poorly optimized crap. 100km/s railguns are questionably realistic without plasma armature and by the time technology reaches anything resembling [AE] catalogue, NTRs and fission reactors are likely going to only be seen in musea.
|
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Aug 22, 2018 8:47:01 GMT
Update! Modded modules collection v1.0 is finally here, featuring realistic reactors! *pokes The Astronomer * Modded modules are placed in the 2nd post in the thread, along with the mods they require. This is the first time I'm providing a modpack, so please tell me if things don't work out or if there's some conflict with others. Changelog: - Added modded reactors 100 kW - 1 TW - Added modded RTGs 1 kW & 10 kW (because it's not practical to scale realistic reactors down that far) - Added modded laser 100 MW. The 2000 K outlet with 25% efficiency may surprise you. |
|
ghgh
Full Member
Still trying to make kinetics work.
Posts: 136
|
Post by ghgh on Aug 22, 2018 11:21:46 GMT
I'm guessing there's no possible way to make a (practical) 100MW reactor with anything less than 97% enrichment? : (
|
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 22, 2018 12:21:29 GMT
I'm guessing there's no possible way to make a (practical) 100MW reactor with anything less than 97% enrichment? : ( Depends on the definition of "practical", but that's in the scope of real life, commonly used by US Navy: 93% fuel to 100+MW. They also have some plan to transit from High-Enriched Uranium to Low-Enriched one, around 20% or less. |
|
