

Preface





Submodules





Turbopumps



Rotational Speed Pump Radius Radius / Speed Power Consumption Total Reactor Weight Total Reactor Price Total Reactor Power 1 RPM 2 m 200 cm/RPM 3.14 W 21.6 t 46.7 kc 10.2 MW 10 RPM 89 cm 8.9 cm/RPM 54.7 W 2.16 t 15.4 kc 10.4 MW 100 RPM 41 cm 0.41 cm/RPM 1.13 KW 457 kg 12 kc 10.4 MW 400 RPM 26 cm 0.065 cm/RPM 7.45 KW 355 kg 12.2 kc 10.4 MW 1 kRPM 20 cm 0.02 cm/RPM 31.3 KW 398 kg 13.1 kc 10.2 MW 10 kRPM 8.9 cm 0.00089 cm/RPM 546 KW 815 kg 18.8 kc 9.82 MW 18 kRPM 7.30 cm 0.0004056 cm/RPM 1.18 MW 1.09 t 22.4 kc 9.20 MW

Material: Lithium Polyethylene Calcium Boron Amorphous Carbon Diamond Density (kg/m3) 530 910 1600 2100 2100 3500 Cost (c/kg) 4.04 21.3 5.86 17.4 22.4 21.8 Density / Cost 131.19 42.72 273.04 120.69 93.75 160.55



Injectors





Gimbal/Turrets



Material Lithium Polyethylene Calcium Magnesium Boron Diamond Selenium Zr Copper Zinc V.C. Steel Cadmium Nickel Lead Platinum Osmium Density (kg/m3) 530 910 1600 1700 2100 3500 4800 5700 7100 7500 8700 8900 11000 21000 23000 Cost (c/kg) 4.04 21.3 5.86 4.56 17.4 21.8 2.59 23.4 3.51 42.6 2.73 9.67 5.13 16 27.6 Cost per Volume 131.19 42.72 273.04 372.81 120.69 160.55 1853.28 243.59 2022.79 176.06 3186.81 920.37 2144.25 1312.5 833.33

Test\Material Silica Gel Amorphous Carbon Diamond Boron Osmium Vanadium Chromium Lasers highest survival (10 seconds) 90% of Silica gel 45% survival 30% survival 15% survival 10% survival time Nukes 12/12 40x10MT (ship died because diamond radiators melted) 83% survive 4x10MT 83% survive 2x10MT Boron: 60% survive 2x10MT 0% survival 1x10MT 0% survival 1x10MT Shrapnel 0% this stuff wont survive a harsh sneez even if you put 1m on... 5cm, 4t 3cm, 4t Boron: 3.9cm, 3t 5.3mm, 4.5t 1.1cm, 3t



Rocket Engine Nozzles





Propellants & Propulsion





Propellants (non-chemical) for NTR and Resistojet Propulstion



Propellant Exit Speed (Max.) Mass Flow Rate / Density * Thrust

(credit apophys Notes NTR Resistojet Decane ~5.4km/s 25.8 N/KW @ ~6.4km/s 0.254 m3/(MN*s) Good balance, most dense.

This is the most viable fuel for resistojets as main propulsion, nothing else gets decent thrust. (credit: apophys

Ethane ~5.77km/s 4.66 N/KW @ ~6.13km/s 0.203 m3/(MN*s) (credit: erik

Heavy Water ~4.5km/s 2.49 N/KW @ ~4.54km/s 0.153 m3/(MN*s) (credit: targetx Methane ~6.35km/s 3.3 N/KW @ ~7.53km/s 0.375 m3/(MN*s) Good balance, cheap. Hydrogen Deuteride ~9.18km/s 0.893 N/KW @ ~11km/s 0.903 m3/(MN*s) Actually cheaper than Hydrogen, as Hydrogen leaking, among other things, is taken into account when calculating Hydrogen cost. (credit apophys

It gets very expensive to armor, as it's not too dense. (credit erik

May breaks canon a bit for being hard to produce. Hydrogen ~9km/s 0.504 N/KW @ ~10.5km/s 0.749 m3/(MN*s) Requires a lot of volume, expensive to armor, worse than Hydrogen Deuteride in every way.



Propellants (Chemical)



Fuel Mix Mixture ratio Maximum Exhaust Velocity Oxidiser Density Fuel Density Average Density Oxidiser Cost Fuel Cost Average Cost Volumetric Impulse Cost-specifc Impulse Fluorine-Hydrogen 18.8 5150 m/s 1696 kg/m^3 70.85 kg/m^3 1613.921717 kg/m^3 0.802 c/kg 6.16 c/kg 1.072606061 c/kg 8311696.843 Ns/m^3 4801.389988 Ns/c Fluorine-Methane 9.47 4030 m/s 1696 kg/m^3 422.62 kg/m^3 1574.378223 kg/m^3 0.802 c/kg 1.06 c/kg 0.8266418338 c/kg 6344744.241 Ns/m^3 4875.146448 Ns/c LOX-LH2 7.94 4630 m/s 1141 kg/m^3 70.85 kg/m^3 1021.296421 kg/m^3 0.697 c/kg 6.16 c/kg 1.308073826 c/kg 4728602.427 Ns/m^3 3539.555574 Ns/c LOX-Methane 3.99 3450 m/s 1141 kg/m^3 422.62 kg/m^3 997.0360721 kg/m^3 0.697 c/kg 1.06 c/kg 0.769745491 c/kg 3439774.449 Ns/m^3 4482.000922 Ns/c



Resistojet Propulsion





Suggested Materials Table



Coil Composition Tantalum Hafnium Carbide (credit apophys



MPD Propulsion



10 x more MW/g

Power Mass Flow Rate Efficiency Gain Notes 22 GW 2.1kg/s +320 MW/kg/s per dGW input energy Still outperforms any conventional engine, but not really that great 28 GW 2.3kg/s +290 MW/kg/s per dGW input energy 35 GW 2.5kg/s +260 MW/kg/s per dGW input energy 47 GW 2.75kg/s +250 MW/kg/s per dGW input energy Sweet spot is around here, additional efficiency gains fall off below +250 MW/kg/s per dGW input energy 55 GW 2.9kg/s +230 MW/kg/s per dGW input energy 155 GW 4.0kg/s +190 MW/kg/s per dGW input energy



Suggested Materials Table



Cathode Composition Potassium Anode Composition Depleted Uranium Insulator Composition Boron



Propellants



Sulfur Dioxide Compromise Neon This is the cheapest MPD, but its has less acceleration per GW, its a straight up trade, cost and dV for burn time and acceleration (+40% dV, -45% g0, +45% burn time) Mercury This has the best density and acceleration of all MPD, if you need to get a lot of mass going very fast this should be your go-to



Modules



Name Author Thrust Exhaust Velocity Propellant Mass Flow Rate Power Use Gimbal Dimensions Image Code --- amimai 558 kN 192 km/s Mercury 2.91 kg/s 53.7 GW 20° 59.6cm x 59.6cm x 34.6cm --- pastebin.com/Mz9TzubV --- amimai 383 kN 274 km/s Neon 1.40 kg/s 52.6 GW 20° 46.6cm x 46.6cm x 58.2cm --- pastebin.com/LgqtHPza --- amimai 2.83 N 36.9 km/s Methane 76.6 mg/s 100 KW 10° 19.3cm x 19.3cm x 6.25cm --- pastebin.com/SxYsg7P1



Propellant Tanks



Best Composition for Weight UHMWPE Best Composition for Price Boron



Thermoelectric Fission Reactors





Reactors





Modules



Name Author Power Temp. Heat Price Weight Shielded Screenshot Code Inexistent Power Requirements (~10 W) 13.9 W Hydrogen jasonvance 13.9 W 453 K 46.9 W 24.6 c 118g NO link --- --- jasonvance 24.3 W 453 K 47.2 W 24.8 c 126g NO link link Extremely Low Power Requirements (~200 W) --- jasonvance 250 W 871 K 643 W 27.5 c 120g NO link --- --- jasonvance 538 W 1114 K 1.73kW 27.4 c 133g NO link link Very Low Power Requirements (KW range) Snickers kaiserwilhelm 1.33 KW 2400 K (?) 58.1 c 160g NO link --- Snickers MkII ash19256 1.45 KW 2400 K 8.84 KW 57.4 c 162g NO link link --- --- jasonvance 1.68 KW 2400 K 10.2 KW 43.5 c 170g NO link --- LRR 25 KW (Long Rod Reactor) tessfield 25 KW 2000 K (?) 538 c 9.13kg NO link --- 70 KW GPR ash19256 70 KW 2400 K 425 KW 836 c 8.04 kg NO link link Low Power Requirements (MW range) 1 MW 2400 K jasonvance caiaphas 1.01 MW 2400 K 6.14 MW 298 c 15.7kg NO link --- SAF 1 MW (Small As F**k)

tessfield 1 MW 2500 K (?) 967 c 12.7kg NO link --- 10.1 MW 2400 K jasonvance 10.1 MW 2400 K 61.4 MW 2.39 kc 132 kg NO link --- 10.2 MW 2500 K jasonvance 10.2 MW 2500 K 64.2 MW 2.83 kc 190 kg NO link --- High Power Requirements (100 MW range) 100 MW v3.0 apophys 101 MW 2400 K 615 MW 21.8 kc 1.16 t NO link link 100 MW v3.0 Heavy apophys 101 MW 2500 K 638 MW 25.3 kc 1.6 t NO link link Very High Power Requirements (1 GW range) 1 GW v3.0 apophys 1.01 GW 2400 K 6.21 GW 214 kc 10.4 t YES link link 1 GW v3.0 Heavy apophys 1.01 GW 2500 K 6.48 GW 238 kc 14.4 t YES link link --- ash19256 randomletters 2.72 GW 2400 K 17.8 GW 630 kc 40.7 t NO --- link link --- kjakker 5.15 GW 2500 K 34 GW 1.30 Mc 79.2 t YES --- link Extremely High Power Requirements (10 GW range) 10 GW v3.0 apophys 10.1 GW 2400 K 64.1 GW 1.98 Mc 98.6 t YES link link 10 GW v3.0 Heavy apophys 10.1 GW 2500 K 70.6 GW 2.33 Mc 142 t YES link link Obscenely High Power Requirements (~25 GW+) 25 GW v3.0 apophys 25.1 GW 2400 K 164 GW 4.99 Mc 247 t YES link link 25 GW v3.0 Heavy apophys 25.1 GW 2500 K 187 GW 6.04 Mc 377 t YES link link 40 GW Standard ash19256 apophys 40.2 GW 2300 K 264 GW 10.3 Mc 1.60 kt YES link link ---

Reactor Submission Template:



[tr]

[td style="padding: 5px;border:1px solid #bbb;"]10 GW Standard[/td]

[td style="padding: 5px;border:1px solid #bbb;"]@apophys[/td]

[td style="padding: 5px;border:1px solid #bbb;"]10.1 GW[/td]

[td style="padding: 5px;border:1px solid #bbb;"]2500 K[/td]

[td style="padding: 5px;border:1px solid #bbb;"]5.29 Mc[/td]

[td style="padding: 5px;border:1px solid #bbb;"]152 t[/td]

[td style="padding: 5px;border:1px solid #bbb;"]YES[/td]

[td style="padding: 5px;border:1px solid #bbb;"]---[/td]

[td style="padding: 5px;border:1px solid #bbb;"][a href="http://pastebin.com/tspdYQ5w"]http://pastebin.com/tspdYQ5w[/a][/td]

[/tr]



I strongly prefer links for code or images due to readability issues when trying to edit this post. Having many lines of code within a single table row makes it difficult to edit. I also use multiple cursors on Sublime, actual code text within those tables would make this impossible or very difficult.



Please use code tags when submitting these.





Reactor Temperature



Radiator Temp Relative radiator area per thermal output Reactor efficiency (electrical per thermal) Comparative radiator area (area per electrical) Relative radiator area (area per electrical) 2900 K 75% ~4% 1878% 185% 2800 K 86% 7.09% 1219% 120% 2700 K 100% 9.83% 1017% 100% 2600 K 116% 13.10% 888% 87% 2500 K 136% 14.60% 932% 92% 2400 K 160% ~15% 1068% 105%

Original info:



temp

reactor mass

hull cross section

heat signature

reactor cost

total mass

total area

total cost

2700

252.6%

346.5%

194.3%

334.6%

168.5%

136.6%

214.5%

HV2700

293.4%

219.8%

163.0%

240.8%

169.8%

114.4%

162.8%

2600

158.8%

170.3%

134.2%

173.3%

120.1%

109.6%

131.3%

HV2600

205.4%

127.9%

122.0%

148.6%

130.4%

99.6%

115.5%

2500

117.2%

104.3%

105.0%

111.9%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

2400

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

101.3%

112.3%

101.3%

2300

71.7%

103.6%

96.7%

98.5%

101.1%

128.5%

109.1%

2200

69.5%

100.7%

93.3%

93.3%

111.8%

147.9%

117.0%

2100

56.6%

103.6%

90.0%

95.2%

121.9%

172.6%

130.6%







Neutron Reflectors / Radiation Shiels



Reactor too hot



Coolants



Name Density Thermal Conductivity Specific Heat Viscosity Notes Sodium 970 kg/m3 142 W/m K 1.23 kJ/kg K 286 uPa s Best coolant, has no competition. Ethane 540 kg/m3 18 W/m K 1.75 kJ/kg K 8.61 uPa s Ethane acts as a good Moderator, so it's more useful than plain Sodium, but is a worse coolant Heavy Water 1100 kg/m3 585 mW/m K 3.77 kJ/kg K 1.25 uPa s Just a comparison with what we usually use in real life.



Radiators



Material Temperature Weight / 100,000m2 Cost / 100,000m2 Lithium 0 K - 452 K 59.1 tons / 100,000m^2 239,000 c / 100,000m^2 Calcium 425 K - 1110 K 172 tons / 100,000m^2 1,000,000 c / 100,000m^2 RCC* 1110 K - 2270 K 194 tons / 100,000m^2 14,700,000 c / 100,000m^2 Boron 2270 K - 2348 K 230 tons / 100,000m^2 4,000,000 c / 100,000m^2 Boron Nitrade 2349 K - 3244 K 233 tons / 100,000m^2 4,890,000 c / 100,000m^2 Amorphus Carbon 3245 K - 3913 K 233 tons / 100,000m^2 5,200,000 c / 100,000m^2 Pyrolitic Carbon 3913 - 3920 K 249 tons / 100,000m^2 5,580,000 c / 100,000m^2 Halfnium Carbide 3920 K - 4158 K 1,410 tons / 100,000m^2 86,800,000 c / 100,000m^2 Tantalum Halfnium Carbide 4158 K - 4486 K 1,620 tons / 100,000m^2 282,000,000 / 100,000m^2

* RCC is more expensive than the step up, but less massive nonetheless

Credit jasonvance



Payloads





Nuclear Payloads



Name Author Yield Cost Weight Screenshot Code Smallest Nuke Zorbeltuss 95t zorbeltuss cubit32 95.0 t 18.0 c 564g i.imgur.com/2YsbysV.jpg --- Jsonvance 95t jasonvance zorbeltuss cubit32 95.0 t 15.1 c 390g i.imgur.com/HAPgw3e.jpg --- Small Yield Nukes (~1 kt) --- jasonvance 1.00 kt 131 c 2.88 kg --- pastebin.com/n0HW0YUu --- cubit32 1.42 kt 216 c 5.62kg prnt.sc/d8sfs2 --- --- redparadize 2.66 kt 624 c 8.86kg imgur.com/BxZ4B9N --- --- jasonvance 5.00 kt 571 c 11.0 kg --- pastebin.com/Uz09XCKT --- randomletters 6.07 kt 6.26 kc 11.2kg puu.sh/sxrdD/2453138019.png --- --- jasonvance 10.00 kt 1.07 kc 19.0 kg --- pastebin.com/PvXz7h7s --- jasonvance 50.00 kt 4.59 kc 64.3 kg --- pastebin.com/3dpwd6yu --- jasonvance 100.00 kt 8.54 kc 102 kg --- pastebin.com/KmfDeCK9 Large Yield Nukes (~1 Mt) --- jasonvance 500.00 kt 35.3 kc 220 kg --- pastebin.com/TGXiZ1NY --- jasonvance 1.00 Mt 64.4 kc 185 kg --- pastebin.com/xFkgZujL --- jasonvance 1.33 Mt 80.8 kc 158 kg --- pastebin.com/TLp60HHk --- tessfield 1.60 Mt 103kc 196kg imgur.com/aQOEZHi --- --- newageofpower 1.69 Mt 105kc 208kg i.imgur.com/88TpyMx.jpg --- --- jasonvance 5.00 Mt 310 kc 671 kg --- pastebin.com/GJcQZMgU --- jasonvance 9.64 Mt 604 kc 1.39 t --- pastebin.com/7U1dL0uq

Nuclear Payload Submission Template:



[tr]

[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"]---[/td]

[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"]@cubit32[/td]

[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"]1.42 kt[/td]

[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"]216 c[/td]

[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"]5.62kg[/td]

[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"][a href="http://prnt.sc/d8sfs2"]http://prnt.sc/d8sfs2[/a][/td]

[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"]---[/td]

[/tr]



I strongly prefer links for code or images due to readability issues when trying to edit this post. Having many lines of code within a single table row makes it difficult to edit. I also use multiple cursors on Sublime, actual code text within those tables would make this impossible or very difficult.



Please use code tags when submitting these.





Weaponry





Lasers



Green

Purple

Green

Green

Purple

Purple

Green

Green

Purple

Purple

Purple

Green

Purple

Green



Turret Sizes



Aperture (m) Radius (m) MW/m2 output at 200km

for 10 MW beam [m2 = 3] Spot diameter (cm) Turret Mass

(Using Lithium Flywheels) .41 0.87 11.7 104 1.67 0.8 1.7 44.6 53 1.78 1.6 3.4 179 27 2.32 2.4 5.1 402 18 3.53 3.2 6.8 714 13 5.63t 4.1 8.7 1170 10 4.89t (45.0deg) 8.0 17.0 4460 5.3 50.7t 16.0 34.0 17900 2.6 395t



Ablation and Critical Intensities





Coolants



Name Density Thermal Conductivity Specific Heat Viscosity Hydrogen Deuteride 120 kg/m3 119 mW/m K 9.76 kJ/kg K 10.7 uPa s Hydrogen 71 kg/m3 108 mW/m K 14.3 kJ/kg K 8.76 uPa s



Design Guidelines/Philosophies





Apophys: Dedicated Offence Glass-Cannon Lasers



Outlet Temperature High temperature lasers get a huge hit to efficiency, and the savings in radiators is not worth it.

You lose ~55% of laser efficiency while saving ~90% of the laser's radiators; this looks great at first glance. But you have to think about the whole power system; total radiator area (laser+reactor) only scales down ~55%. And you continue to use the same cost/weight of laser & reactor, so it's strictly worse. Oddly enough, silver cavities with their 1234 K temperature remain superior. Aperture 45° degrees traverse (the minimum possible) is enough, regardless of the yellow warning thrown by the game.

Aperture should only be dictated by the intensity you desire at 1 Mm range (because there really isn't any downside to extending your range as far as it can go). For 100 MW green, the aperture should be at least around 1m to get usable intensity at 1Mm range. Armour/Turret Size A smaller cavity is a reduction in mass. This reduction would be fairly significant if you had very little armor, like I do.



Amimai: Compact Secondary Weapons



Thermostable Materials Diamond, Molybdenum, Tungsten (focusing mirror should be Silver since it does not have heat issues.) Optical Nodes As few as you need to get [m2 = 3.01] Rod Radius For green lasers, smaller is better, larger rods simply add cost. Outlet Temperature 2000 K+ Aperture First set up your turret ball to match mass, then set up aperture so you have 65deg ark (6 lasers for 360 coverage with overlaps).

Doubling the Aperture Diamerter increases the intensity by 4x, the cost by 5x and the mass by 6x its really not a good trade off.

Another thing to note, using a 16m aperture turret using a 5 MW laser, I created a death star that vaporised its way through 15m or boron armour without much issue. Armour/Turret Size Boron, aim for around 20cm armour for every 100cm turret so they don't break off so easily.

A 1m diameter turret with several cm of boron can take a hit from some really nasty things like highV shrapnel bombs, remember once the turret goes you have a hole in your armour which is bad... if said hole is 30m across. Reaction Wheel Polyethylene, cheap, light and perfect for lasers (better then lithium because you can get rpm>10)



Modules



Name Author Weight Price Size Wavelength m2 Efficiency Power Input Power Output Output Temp Waste Heat Intensities Screenshot Code ---

cubit32 --- 9.01 m

9.01 m

10.01 m 395 nm

3.00 m2

4.24% 8 MW

339 KW 1232 K

7.66 MW --- link link

--- ---

someusername6 14.8t

250kc --- 395 nm

3 m2

4.40% 8.00 MW

352 KW --- @1000 Km 0.775 MW/m2 (454.19 mm2)

@100 Km 77.5 MW/m2 (4.54 mm2)

@10 Km 7750 MW/m2 (0.05 mm2)

@1 Km 775000 MW/m2 (0 mm2) ---

link ---

amimai 4.47t

78.5kc --- 532 nm

3.01 m2

1.86% 90.00 MW

1.68 MW --- @1000 Km 0.0222 MW/m2 (75675.68 mm2)

@100 Km 2.22 MW/m2 (756.76 mm2)

@10 Km 222 MW/m2 (7.57 mm2)

@1 Km 22200 MW/m2 (0.08 mm2) ---

link ---

David367th 5.56t

130kc --- 532 nm

3.07 m2

3.66% 480.00 MW

17.6 MW --- @1000 Km 11.9 MW/m2 (1478.99 mm2)

@100 Km 1190 MW/m2 (14.79 mm2)

@10 Km 119000 MW/m2 (0.15 mm2)

@1 Km 11900000 MW/m2 (0 mm2) ---

link Completely Gratuitous Blue Laser

David367th 17t

533kc --- 475 nm

3.00 m2

0.399% 990.00 MW

3.95 MW --- @1000 Km 11.6 MW/m2 (340.52 mm2)

@100 Km 1160 MW/m2 (3.41 mm2)

@10 Km 116000 MW/m2 (0.03 mm2)

@1 Km 11600000 MW/m2 (0 mm2) ---

link Regular Infra

inbrainsane 4.67t

98.6 c 14.9 m

4.68 m

6.46 m 1060 nm

3.02 m2

4.58% 8 GW

366 MW 1103 K

7.63 GW @1000 Km 30.5 MW/m2 (12000 mm2)

@100 Km 3050 MW/m2 (120 mm2)

@10 Km 305000 MW/m2 (1.2 mm2)

@1 Km 30500000 MW/m2 (0.01 mm2) ---

link Regular Green

inbrainsane 4.69t

99.7kc 14.9 m

4.68 m

6.46 m 532 nm

3.02 m2

4.42% 8 GW

354 MW 1103 K

7.65GW @1000 Km 118 MW/m2 (3000 mm2)

@100 Km 11800 MW/m2 (30 mm2)

@10 Km 1180000 MW/m2 (0.3 mm2)

@1 Km 118000000 MW/m2 (0 mm2) ---

link Regular Ultra

inbrainsane 4.64t

98.6kc 14.9 m

4.68 m

6.46 m 266 nm

3.02 m2

4.33% 8 GW

346 MW 1104 K

7.65 GW @1000 Km 461 MW/m2 (750.54 mm2)

@100 Km 46100 MW/m2 (7.51 mm2)

@10 Km 4610000 MW/m2 (0.08 mm2)

@1 Km 461000000 MW/m2 (0 mm2) ---

link Cheap Infra

inbrainsane 2.87t

28.7kc 4.68 m

4.68 m

6.68 m 1060 nm

3.02 m2

4.56% 8 GW

365 MW 1103 K

7.63 GW @1000 Km 30.4 MW/m2 (12006.58 mm2)

@100 Km 3040 MW/m2 (120.07 mm2)

@10 Km 304000 MW/m2 (1.2 mm2)

@1 Km 30400000 MW/m2 (0.01 mm2) ---

link Cheap Green

inbrainsane 2.90t

30.2kc 4.68 m

4.68 m

6.68 m 532 nm

3.02 m2

4.41% 8 GW

353 MW 1103 K

7.65 GW @1000 Km 118 MW/m2 (2991.53 mm2)

@100 Km 11800 MW/m2 (29.92 mm2)

@10 Km 1180000 MW/m2 (0.3 mm2)

@1 Km 118000000 MW/m2 (0 mm2) ---

link Cheap Ultra

inbrainsane 2.92t

34.2kc 4.68 m

4.68 m

6.68 m 266 nm

3.02 m2

4.32% 8 GW

345 MW 1104 K

7.65 GW @1000 Km 460 MW/m2 (750 mm2)

@100 Km 46000 MW/m2 (7.5 mm2)

@10 Km 4600000 MW/m2 (0.07 mm2)

@1 Km 460000000 MW/m2 (0 mm2) ---

link



Kinetics





Conventional Guns





Rail Guns





Coil Guns



Hello everyone!I'd like to make a thread to compile all player-made standards/presets/etc. for the different modules in the game, in a place where it can be kept updated and organized, so one can always come here to get the latest advice, recommendations, presets, modules, etc.There are some modules that don't really benefit from presets or user-submitted modules, for instance, Crew Modules, for these kind of modules, it's better to list what materials perform the best, and/or any advice to go with it.Let me know what you think and feel free to give me any suggestions you may have!For the sake of not making this post super long, I'll link to pastebin or to the screenshot image, so as to keep all designs in one lineIdeally, the least amount of discussions going on over here, the better; the conclusions are more useful/easier to compile than having to comb over discussions to get the right numbers/suggestions.Lastly, this threads'sBBCode, is hosted over [here] on GitHub, feel free to submit pull requests, or take it over if I ever disappear.Turbopumps are used for cooling modules, such as Reactors, Launchers, and Lasers, or as the main mechanism, Pumps, in Refueler modules.There are two things that are important for these, the composition, which ideally should be the cheapest material that can handle the forces involved in the submodule, and the Pump Radius/Rotational Speed ratio, which controls how the weight/cost to efficiency ratio.For low temperature Turbopumps, Lithium is by far the best material, for being the cheapest available; once its limits are broken, or when high temperature is rquired, materials such as Diamond/Amorphous Carbon should be used instead.On my LRR 10 MW Reactor (not the most optimized), the inner loop (2500 K) uses Diamond as the material, here's a table describing the efficiency of the turbopump. I changed the Rotational Speed only, and adjusted the Radius until the reactor stopped having issues due to inner loop overheating.I would love to know how to process this data to get the best ratio, but I've no idea how to do so.Getting anything cheaper than 12 kc seems impossible with fiddling with the values manually, so it seems a ratio of ~0.5 cm/RPM is the best for price.Getting anything below 355 kg (@ 26cm / 400rpm) seems impossible fiddling with the values manually, so it seems a ratio of 0.065 cm/RPM is the best for weight (with a price of 12.2kc, so it seems ~0.06cm/RPM is pretty close to an ideal ratio).Perhaps the ratio changes depending on the power level of the reactor?Perhaps the ratio changes depending on the composition of the turbopump?According to, optimum rotating speed in reactors is usually somewhere between 400-600 RPM. Too low, and the coolant in the pump adds mass. Too high, and the bracing adds mass. For different reactors, the optimum is different. (Factors that affect this are unknown.)Applications other than reactors can use slower rotating speeds, because there is less penalty on a larger size.Below is a list of useful materials for turbopumps:In order to find the optimal ratio for a turbopump for your own specific reactor, you'll have to inch the size of the pump up (if starting with a small pump radius) or down (if starting with a large pump radius), then the rpm adjusted until you get the results you want (e.g. efficiency, weight, cost, watch whatever you want to optimize against) and/or you get rid of the warnings.You can do this with a few different sizes, and you'll find there's a most efficient/sweet spot. If sizing up makes things worse size down or vice versa, at some point the improvements get reversed, and that's where the sweetspot is.Same thing as Turbopumps, except these aren't affected by temperature.Similar to Turbopumps, Lithium is the best material for reaction wheels due to its weight. However, in turrets, reaction wheels consume power, and lots of it, and ideally, one would go for the most power-efficient material and turret diameter combination.While Li seems to be the best as far as weight/cost for rotation wheels it's very difficult to get decent speed on low power turrets. So far the best I've found for <1 Mw designs is Magnesium.Tests per mass equalized on turret armor:Lasers: (12x 1.5 MW output, 5 MW intensity) (measured as time to kill 20 turrets)Nukes: 10MT nukes at 6km detonationShrapnel: 20 missiles carrying 600m/s 700x6g + 10x500g frags detonating at 1.5km range (: Could you clarify what the Shrapnel test results mean?)Conclusion: For general purpose you want Amorphous Carbon, its cheap, its strong, its a wonder material, and you only need around 4mm to stand up to most things.For money and 'murrica and EXTRA FREEDOM!, you can use Silicon Aerogel, it is as good vs lasers, balls at stopping any projectile, but will survive the Soviet Nuclear Alpha Strike.Boron is pretty good as armour if you are particularly working to counter kinetics, but otherwise fairly bad.---Does anybody know what the best diameter to rotational speed ratio is? It seems to be ~0.065 if it's the same as with injectors/turbopumps.I'm fairly sure NASA has some information on these...These vary a lot, but it would be great to know the best ratio/s between added volume vs added exit velocity.What are the best nozzle configuration in your opinion?Do you think we can come up with a few presets?Most efficient vs smallestMissile nozzles vs Capital Ship nozzlesPersonally, I've been using Boron or Amorphous Carbon for cheap nozzle material.For low mass and size, it is very important to keep throat radius small, because that controls the scaling of the entire nozzle.Recommended material:. It has very high thermal conductivity, very low thermal expansion, very high melting point, and high yield strength.Thus, it will not easily crack from thermal stress, and it will have no difficulty spreading and radiating away its heat.In order of usefulness.Feel super extra free to correct and improve this! Starting out with a short/incomplete list for my sanity's sake, as it takes a while to compile all the data.I'm aware people have been using Decane and others, but haven't done so myself so I don't have the information to quickly add it to this list.is the best propellant mix ingame. Delivers up to(at stoichiometric ratio), while beingthan all of the(At an 18.8:1 Fluorine:Hydrogen ratio by mass, the average density of both is ( 18.8 * 1696 + 70.85 ) / 19.8 = 1614 kg/m^3, compared to 422.62 kg/m^3 for methane and 730.05 kg/m^3 for decane).rockets are, however,, due to combustion chamber heat issues.Additionally, the inconvenient mixture ratio constrains the. Also, the. PTFE tanks should realistically be able to hold it, though (as PTFE is already maximally fluorinated).(how much impulse you get out of one cubic meter of propellant, calculated as exhaust velocity times propellant density) for an optimal HF chemical engine (5100 m/s exhaust velocity) is 8.23 MN*s*m^-3, or the normalised volume usage as used by, is 0.122 m^3*MN^-1*s^-1. Thus, Here's a spreadsheet for all chemical fuels in the game, with a methane and a decane NTR for comparison (in light blue.) Credit tofor this whole section, and hats off for making such a complete spreadsheet!These are the most useful four:Vanadium Chromium Steel is very strong, which makes smaller MPDs. However, it reduces the GW/kg fuel you can put in significantlyFor ideal materials, check out's designs. Cost for MPDs are really a non-issue, so you can go wild. (There's also a suggested materials table below based on this as well.)For MPD systems, it's ideal to aim for ~50 GW of power. For Neon and Mercury, the saturation point is about ~45 GW, beyond which gains are flat. Below that point, however, you get more thrust per kg of fuel.If you are going to use MPD as backup thruster for a combat ship useas the main ship propellant, it allowsflow and gives higher fuel efficiency for small MPDs.Propellants for MPDs can be nearly everything, but the best propellants are ideally dense and cheap. Here we list three (feel free to submit more), in order of usefulnessWhilecan burn straight out most planet's gravity wells, withyou will often find you need to slingshot and gravity assist your way out that can add weeks or months to journey time.Some number crunching by: Roughly correlates to dV/m^3 of fuel: More meaningful in some cases: Propellant flow rateWith enough fiddling you can get close to 10 MW (60 MW total heat) out of 100 grams of U-233 dioxide at 97% enrichment. So every value below that is going to be some lower enrichment value of 100 grams U-233 dioxide.To be min-maxed for cost, use the lowest possible enrichment value, with the highest possible neutron flux to generate enough heat to leech the amount of power you want.So if you want ~1 MW at 2400 K you need ~6.06 MW waste heat. You calculate that by taking the power you want and dividing that by the max thermocoupler efficiency rating for your outlet (16.5% for 2400 K so 1/.165 = ~6.06).Max sustainable Neutron Flux is a little more tricky so I just kind of eyeball it based off previous reactor results for neturon flux stability (avoiding the reactor burning through fuel too fast error is the real pain).After you get your reactor outputting the correct amount of waste heat you just need to make it not melt with turbopumps and a large enough thermocoupler. To be the highest efficiency possible you want it to be right on the brink of melt down, and thermocoupler yield strength. If you find yourself more meltdown prone than yield strength prone, reduce the size of the thermocoupler (or vice versa).See Turbopumps above for advice on how to find the best size/rpm ratio.Reactors are best run at 2400-2500 K2300 K most efficient, bigger radiatiors2400 K best tradeoffs2500 K2600 K less efficient, smaller radiators(If I remember correctly, the thermocouple can't reach the best delta-Temperature on 2600 K, making 2500 K the "best" choice for this...? I could be spouting nonsense thoSide notes on reactor designs :- Higher neutron flux is better for radiation, mass and size- Adjusting moderator allows for higher neutron fluxIt's important to note that temperature changes reactor behaviour with size:2400 K: Larger reactors, more efficient.2500 K: Larger reactors, marginaly more efficient.2600 K: Smaller reactors, More efficient. (Significantly so, ~5% gain for every 50% output reduction.)There's also these graphs based on's table/information, based on his [reactor] According to him, for designs over 2500 K, it is possible to make "heavy" reactors, maximizing power/heat at the cost of weight; these were added to data set (under spoiler below) (notably HV2600 reactors are marginally better then 2500 for radiator area). That's pretty much it, it's orders of magnitude better than anything else, use it as an external radiation shield and don't bother with neutron reflectors.On the other hand, if you DO want to bother with Neutron Reflectors, usefor? Use(cost optimized) or(weight optimized).Anything else is not really comparable. Have a graph, graphs are cool!If you want to minimize radiation generation on a reactor, use a skinny reactor design.In order of usefulness. Let me know if you think I should include more/less properties!Best Radiator Material based on TemperatureYou have effectively 2 choices for your laser medium:oris more raw power (higher efficiency), but requires larger apertures to make up for its lesser intensity (is lower frequency than).has somewhat improved efficiency at low power, but still not more thangets its best pumping when arc lamp radius is small.gets its best pumping when arc lamp radius is large. This makesslightly more expensive when optimized, in my experience. (Most of your cost will be turret armor.)Increasing lamp radius requires also increasing lasing rod radius, which worsens M. Higher power input also worsens M, but increases intensity. You want Mto be 3.00-3.02 or else your intensity at range takes a hit.For these reasons, I recommendfor low power (<100 MW) andfor high power (>100 MW, arbitrary cutoff by me).Cavity shape is best when it is asas possible. Keep dimensions small; this saves a lot of mass (mostly as coolant) at a low efficiency cost.Transparent parts areCavity wall and internal mirror are(standard) or(if you want to sacrifice efficiency to push your output temperature up for smaller radiators).Use a frequency doubler for a greatly reduced aperture, and thus greatly reduced weight and cross-section. It is strongly recommended but not essential; you can choose to take the cost of a large aperture if for some reason you really want a laser in the near infrared.always gets you to 100% efficiency here, and it is the only one to do so. Its cost and weight are negligible. ThereforeFocusing mirror is aluminum (for) or silver (foror near infrared).The turret should be as small as possible to hold the aperture, due to reaction wheel mass being added.Crank up engagement range to 1 Mm, because that's what lasers are for. If you're getting terrible intensity, increase the aperture. Aim for at least 1 or 100 MW / m2Following these guidelines, you can get effective lasers in a few tons of weight, or even less.On turret sizes for Offensive Lasers, for 45.1° (minimum turret design for light flywheels), spot diameter is not proportional to laser power output, only m-rating changes spot diameter:: Laser intensity above which more intensity in a single laser results in no more increase in ablation rate.The maximum ablation rates of various materials are calculated under the assumption that the game ignores heat of vaporisation/decomposition (which seems reasonable, as they would likely be otherwise noted for armour materials) and that it has 0 K as the ambient temperature.In order of usefulness. Let me know if you think I should include more/less properties!Hydrogen or hydrogen deuteride are the only coolants that really make sense, because it doesn't need to work very hard and it must take a lot of space.Rail Guns are lighter than Coil Guns.Rail Guns have 2 peaks for velocity depending on bore radius, one at, this is best for projectiles and gives high velocity, the second one at, this gives the best performance when launching payloads.Good Barrel Materials:(Best Speed)(33% less speed, 50% less mass/cost)Good Projectile Materials:: Good for light, Super Velocity Rail Guns; causes minimal barrel stress at 50km/s+ velocities: Good for Heavy Mass Rail Guns; you can safely, and effectively, launch 100g of this at 30km/s+ velocitiesGood Shuttle Materials (for shooting payloads):: For narrow payloads; 100g payload to 20km/s: For wide payloads; expensive but best: For wide payloads; cheap, 5% slower (than Beryllium): For hot payloads (ie, if shuttle material melts); cheap, 15% slower, 100 times more thermostable (than Beryllium)On Rail Gun Warnings:If the projectile shatters, try lowering velocityIf the barrel ruptures, increase projectile mass (which does not decrease velocity)Good Barrel Materials:: It offers 25% lower velocity, but is 4x as light, matching results of rail guns (not that this matters, a 60 MW 1g, 51km/s rail gun has a mass of only 5t)