Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'nuclear'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website
  • KSP Pre-release
    • 1.2.9 Pre-release Branch
    • 1.2.9 Pre-release Modding Discussions
    • 1.2.9 Pre-release Bug Tracker


  • Developer Articles

Found 14 results

  1. So a friend and I were discussing the Orion drive, and we disagreed over what would happen if one of the nuclear bombs went off inside the "fuel tank". I though that that would start a chain reaction, and blow up the other nuclear bombs in the tank, since the explosion of the first would be enough to compress the material inside the other bombs, but my friend said that to blow up a nuclear bomb a very specific set of conditions had to be met, and a nuclear explosion, big as it might be, wouldn't set off the other bombs (Yes, people gave us strange looks as we discussed this). Anyways, what do you think? Would the other nuclear bombs go off, or would they simply rupture?
  2. Thank you for checking out my Dev Thread. I will be releasing updates of my progress into modding for KSP. I am familiar with 3D modeling and texturing (Although I am very rusty), but not so with Unity so I appreciate any and all help. I am currently finishing up my first model to learn KSP. Here is the current mission plan: This is the main part of the mod. This is a stock-alike (ish) probe expansion pack inspired by real missions from the mid-1960s to now. I will start with basic probe cores, and utility parts and the move on to animated science parts and solar panels. Expect parts inspired by (but no realistic replicas of) Voyager, Galileo, Pioneer 10, Venera, Hubble, Kepler, New Horizons, Juno, And more! WIP Part list: IMGUR ALBUM (embedding is broken) Beta v0.14.2 Download: To prevent issues, please remove any previous versions of the mod before updating Also available on: Requires: Dmagic Orbital Science(For some science experiments to work), DMagic ScienceAnimate (included) Mod configs included: Remote Tech by @rakol AntennaRange by @rasta013 Tweakscale by @Jso Phase 3 - Rovers and Landers Pack: Phase 3 is Very well down the line since these parts will be more complex (Animated wheels and legs). This will add stock-alike parts inspired by Lunokhod, Viking, Beagle, Rosetta/Philae, And the many mars rovers Here is the WIP Parts list: Sample Crafts v0.1: (Two Barquetta Communication Satellites, Barquetta-Odyssey, Deep Space 1, Evera, Mariner, Quetzal, Tatsujin, Tatsujin-Express, Torekka) Nerva HT Engine 1.0 Released! Link to release thread or download below: Spacedock Dropbox Real Plume config by @VenomousRequiem. Module Manager required for RealPlume configs. License: CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 Please let me know if you release anything based on my work. I'd love to check it out!
  3. I'm working on a mod that goes on top of Nertea's DecayingRTGs add-on from Near Future Electrical. It adds three new types of RTGs with different decay rates and power ratings. - Polarium RTG (red) gives a staggering 190 ec/s, but decays with a half life of 0.03 years. (real-life analog: Polonium-210) - Kerbium RTG (blue) gives only 0.15 ec/s, but decays with a half life of 40 years. (real-life analog: Americium-241) - Boppium RTG (green) is cheaper than other RTGs, but has a half-life of 2.5 years and only gives 0.60 ec/s. (real-life analog: Strontium-90) - For reference, the regular Blutonium RTGs give 0.75 ec/s and have a half-life of 8 years. (real-life analog: Plutonium-238) These RTGs are just crude recolors of the stock model. Download on CurseForge Any comments questions are of course welcome!
  4. Hi. I've been thinking about this configuration of a nuclear reactor, a set of nozzles and a turbine generator. The Expansion-Condensation Closed-Cycle Nuclear Turbine Generator. A nuclear reactor heats a coolant such as nitrogen to high temperatures and pressures, like a nuclear thermal rocket. Efficiency 90%. The coolant is expanded through a nozzle to moderate temperatures, low pressures and high velocity, like a propulsive nozzle. A multi-stage turbine converts the gas's energy into mechanical energy. This slows down the gas. Efficiency over 80%. Electric generator converts turbine motion into electricity, efficiency 90%. Second expansion nozzle condenses and liquefies the gas. This creates near-vacuum pressures, reducing back-pressure at the first nozzle. The liquid coolant is collected and pumped back into the reactor. Overall efficiency is 65% to 80%. Nuclear reactor can have GW/ton specific power. Turbine can have several dozen MW per ton specific power, coupled with electric generator. Can this work? Will it compare favourably to Stirling engines and thermocouples? Is the concept sound? Is there something I am missing as to why direct-cycle nuclear turbines have not been used for power generation? In space, specific power is very important, especially when several MW of power is needed for electric rockets, such as VASIMR. So far, concepts have described thermocouples or Stirling engines for electric power. Can this concept compete with current designs? After discussion: -Expanding the gas to hypersonic velocities is not desireable. Using a very-high-pressure, sub-Mach flow is much more efficient. -A radiator will be needed at the end of the Brayton cycle to remove the residual waste heat. At low temperatures, this radiator will be huge. Therefore a much lower temperature difference is needed between the reactor and the second nozzle, to be compensated for with a large pressure difference... much like actual nuclear reactor. -A similar concept has been tested. -Overall, this concept will be more effective due to the direct-cycle involving the nuclear reactor shooting directly into the turbine, rather than because of the possible temperature difference.
  5. Includes a 5m USAF Orion as well as a 5m Medusa variant. Note that this is a pre-release - you can pick it up here: Post bugs and whatnot Configuration files and code are licensed under the GPL v3 license. Assets, including Models (*.mu) and Textures *.png/*.dds) are All Rights Reserved. If you wish to use any of these assets in your project, just ask nicely
  6. Nuclear Aircraft Engines Download Thermonuclear Turbines on SpaceDock! A new hot way to get into orbit! This is a small engine mod that adds nuclear turbine aircraft engines based off of this concept, Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion, Project Pluto and the similar Soviet program Tupolev Tu-95LAL, also with a little influence from the Choujikuu Yousai Macross anime series and sequels to give two of the engines space capability. The concept behind the engine is that thermal energy is transferred through a heat exchanger into the "can" (combustion section of a turbine) instead of using combustion to rapidly heat up gasses to turn the turbine and provide thrust. Features: Four Engines: M.A.S.A.M.U.N.E., Back Draft, Fire Storm, and Fire Whirl. Example Crafts Custom Sounds Custom FX Current Issues: A few minor bugs I'm working on fixing, otherwise the engines work as it says on the tin. Example Crafts: Harron Sky Fire Corporate Flyer Corporate Flyer II Corporate Flyer III Tin Goose Soru Krane Dragon CHANGE LOG 1.0.12: 1.1.2 Compatible, Updated Module Manager Dependency 1.0.11: 1.1 release, updated packaged *.dll plugins (Module Manager, FireSpitter, Smoke Screen). Minor changes to the Example Craft. 1.0.1P: Fixed location of FX folder, Fixed some issues with Example Craft. 1.0.0P: Release for 1.1 pre. Additional Credit: nli2work: for his awesome propeller meshes. Nazari1382: Hot Rockets (And the tutorial to make my own.) Snjo: for FireSpitter (*.dll Packaged with Thermal Nuclear) sarbian: for Module Manager, & Smoke Screen (*.dll Packaged with Thermal Nuclear) RoverDude: for Community Resource Pack (Packaged with Thermal Nuclear) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
  7. Using nuclear reactors needs to come with much more risk. I use nuclear reactors from 2 different mods, Solaris Hypernautics, and Near Future Electrical, and using them is risk free... Unlike solar panels, which are very "unlikely" to kill you, Nuclear reactors built by Kerbals should be very risky to use... IMO. I would LOVE to see a mod that patched all the common nuclear reactors in such a way, that if they over heated or were destroyed by impact, they explode in a similar fashion as the nuclear weapons in North Kerbin Dynamics. What do you guys think? @Nertea @Carbonjvd @harpwner
  8. I've been toying with vertical SSTO rocketships over the last few days. In particular, I had quite high hopes for @Nertea's pebble bed lOx-augmented modded NTRs, however, they still turned out to be more mass than wallop at take-off. So I have this non-KSP question: why do vacuum-oriented chemical and nuclear rockets lose this much thrust ASL, and why then are nuclear lightbulbs frequently touted as the SSTO engine of choice in hard sci-fi?
  9. Alright here's my second post. Firstly, I would like to thank everybody who gave me such good ideas in the previous discussion. I'm working on getting all the mods that were suggested and also opening up a thread where I'll tell about my journey. Sadly, progress has been halted and this post should clear up why. Anyway, I've started creating my mudpack with all the good mods and then a few I found. I started with Kerbal Atomics, mainly because it was small and useful, but also because I like the mods and features. So I moved the Game Data folder into the correct position, and started up KSP. When I got there, none of the actual mod items were there, but it was still giving me options to use things such as Liquid Hydrogen and other subtypes. So this raises my question: what am I doing wrong? I've got all the mod setup correctly and got all the essential plugins, but it just won't give me the items. Please help.
  10. Nerva HT Engine v1.0 Late-game 2.5m Nuclear Engine. I was originally asked to model an engine for this mod, but unfortunately the mod was halted and I never got to finish it. I went back to my original draft and started over to release the engine model on my own and use it to learn how to mod KSP from Unity. Download: Spacedock Dropbox Real Plume config by @VenomousRequiem. Module Manager required for RealPlume configs. Please check out my Development Thread for my new ProbesPlus mod! License: CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 Please let me know if you release anything based on my work. I'd love to check it out!
  11. So, we know that the technology for the NERVA has existed for a long time now, and fully functional test engines were built. Now we all know how much easier Interplanetary travel is with these things, so how come they have never actually been applied to a real space mission? Is it because of radiation concerns?
  12. If you're going to build an actual spaceship -- a craft you can take to another planet as easily as a pirate could sail across the Mediterranean -- there are a few things to keep in mind. Gravity. You're going to need artificial gravity if you want to be able to manage long trips, so you'll need to either have a spinning hab, or you'll need to spin the whole ship. Power. You need high-thrust engines to get on and off of planets, high-impulse engines to make your transfer burns propellant-efficient, and energy to run your ship in transit. Trimodal nuclear thermal engines are your only real choice (a trimodal NTR has three modes: high-impulse, where low-density propellant is heated and ejected by the nuclear core, high-thrust, where LOX is injected into the propellant stream to increase thrust at the expense of impulse, and thermal-electric, where the circulation of coolant generates electricity). Shielding. Your hab needs to be shielded from both solar radiation and the nuclear radiation of your engine(s). Volume. You need a large internal volume to carry an enormous amount of fuel if you're going to be able to make a transfer, land, take off again, and head back. Granted, you'd use in-orbit refueling wherever possible, but you need the flexibility to make a round-trip to unvisited worlds. Surface area. Although you need a large volume, you also need a form factor with a blunt-body surface area, allowing re-entry heating to be as minimal as possible. Further, large surface area will help with radiating heat away in space. Finally, a lifting-body shape will make launch and re-entry a bit nicer. What, then, is the optimal shape and configuration? Here you go. Yep, it's a flying saucer. The hab is located in the center column and is a single floor, preventing any unpleasant gravity gradients. Because the center is open, it allows windows to be embedded in the ceiling, which will feel more natural. The hab is far more "open" overall than most designs, while still being well-protected from radiation and micrometeoroid strikes due to its location in the center of the ship. It will feel very natural to have the sky "up" and the ground "down". The hab is shielded by wrapping the ship's tankage completely around it. The triangular cross-section maximizes internal volume while also having the optimal shielding profile. Obviously, the entire ship rotates. The ship is powered by six small nuclear reactors, feeding three linear exhaust nozzles: Each of the three exhaust nozzles is capable of running on a single reactor, so you still have maneuverability even if you need to scram one or two of your reactors. The coolant cyclers and generators are also in this area. Only minimal shielding is necessary, due to the placement of the large internal tanks. For on-orbit burns, the three nozzles all fire together, providing moderate thrust even at the highest operating impulse: During any such burn, there will be a slight misalignment of the apparent gravitational field, but it will likely be no more disorienting than standing on a train while it starts to move. It is also likely that in most cases, the ship will only "spin up" after its transfer injection burns, relieving this issue entirely. Takeoff and landing use the same orientation as on-orbit burns, but with the injection of liquid hydrogen or another oxidizer to dramatically increase thrust at the expense of specific impulse: During takeoff, however, maintaining this thrust orientation would make drag losses altogether unmanageable. For this reason, the nozzles are able to change orientation in order to thrust backward during in-atmosphere climbs (for reaching orbit from Terra, Mars, etc.): Because the "flying saucer" shape is one of the only shapes which is capable of achieving reasonable lift in subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic flight, this allows for the higher-specific-impulse burn to be used (when applicable) to achieve orbital velocities. Obviously, on worlds without atmospheres, liftoff would be purely vertical without any intermediate horizontally-oriented burn stage. Re-entry uses the large blunt surface area underneath to dissipate heat passively (although active cooling could be used, in principle): Passengers are seated in the upper ring during takeoff and landing, both for gravitational orientation and for safety reasons. Launch abort escape would be achieved either through individual ejection seats or through the ejection of the entire upper ring using built-in thrusters. It is possible that the upper ring could also be configured to serve as an ejectable lifeboat in the case of an on-orbit accident. \ Attitude control could be achieved either by vectoring the thrusters, or by venting coolant. Placing the heavy engines at the outside isn't ideal, but given that this is going to be designed with enough structural integrity for powered landing, it shouldn't prove too problematic. The hab would have nearly 8500 square feet of floor space under artificial gravity, with more than 30 times the pressurized volume of the Space Shuttle crew cabin. I'm estimating a nominal dry weight of 1200 tonnes. The body encloses enough space for 9800 cubic meters of tankage; using a dense propellant like hydrazine, this corresponds to 9,900 metric tonnes of fuel. With pebble-bed reactors giving a specific impulse of around 520 seconds, you get a lovely 11 km/s of dV. Enough to reach orbit as SSTO (if you use LOX-injection augmentation). Also enough to fly to the moon, land, take off, and come back. Now to build the damn thing...
  13. Hi! I have been much idle time, but I'm back and I'm back with a new idea: more nuclear propulsion. Justification of more nuclear propulsion: In Kerbal no evidence of the existence of a cold war, nuclear testing and non nuclear proliferation treaty; and also the only life there are those green people living in the rocket base, so no problem with nuclear contamination. (forever alone) The atomic propulsion that I suggest: - Nuclear thermic engine (update): Now make use of only hydrogen (more down) instead fuel and oxidizer. - Radioisotope engine: A little engine similar to ionic engine, little more heavy, that make use of hydrogen (instead xenon) and not requires electricity. - Atomic bulb: A big powerful engine that make use of hydrogen and little of uranium (more down), and produces electricity. - Nuclear liquid uranium engine: A medium powerful engine that make use of hydrogen and uranium. - Nuclear gas uranium engine: A big very powerful engine that make use of hydrogen and lots of uranium. - Uranium bubble: A medium very powerful engine that make use of only uranium (need a new animation to represent ioniced uranium bubble), and lots of electricity. - Nuclear pulse engine: A very big and very powerful engine that make use of 0,8 to 25 kilotons range nuclear detonations to propelling (need a new animation to represent engine move and nuclear explosions), make use of nuclear nukes (there is of different types, mass and power). - Advanced nuclear pulse engine: A extremely big and powerful engine that make use of 25 kilotons to megaton range nuclear detonations. - Polywell nuclear thermic engine: A little-medium engine that make use of a controlled fusion reactor to heat up hydrogen (make use of only hydrogen), and produces much electricity. - Antimatter injection thermic engine: A little-medium engine that make use of very low amounts of antimatter to heat up hydrogen (make use of hydrogen and antimatter), and produces much electricity. Fuels and materials to propulsion: - Liquid hydrogen: in containers of similar size to "fuel-oxidant" containers (any size). - Uranium: in little and shorts containers. - Antimatter: in little and shorts heavy containers, with reinforced texture, these containers consumes a lots of electricity to contain the antimatter, if there is no electricity, it will explode. - Nukes (very expensive, care): of various types, in very width and shorts containers: - 0,8 kt (60 units) - 2 kt (30 units) - 5 kt (20 units) - 10kt (10 units) - 25 kt (5 units) - 50 kt (3 units) - 100 kt (1 unit) of various types, in very width and large containers: - 25 kt (30 units) - 50 kt (20 units) - 100 kt (10 units) - 250 kt (5 units) - 500 kt (3 units) - Megaton (1 unit) Utilities: - Big radioisotope battery. - Nuclear isomer battery: like classic radioisotope battery, but with more intensity, less duration and rechargeable. - Nuclear power reactor (produces a lots of energy, consumes uranium). - Polywell power reactor (produces more energy than fission nuclear, consumes hydrogen and requires big quantity of energy to start). Technology tree: After nuclear node (thermal nuclear engine): - Add: little and medium hydrogen containers/tanks After nuclear node (thermal nuclear engine): - Advanced nuclear node: nuclear power reactor, big radioisotope battery, radioisotope engine, little uranium container/tank, big hydrogen containers/tanks. After advanced nuclear node: - More advanced nuclear node: atomic bulb, gas nuclear thermal engine, liquid nuclear thermal engine, medium uranium container/tank. - Basic nuclear fusion: polywell power reactor, isomer battery. After more advanced nuclear node: - Kiloton: nuclear pulse engine, little nukes containers, uranium bubble. After basic nuclear fusion node: - Advanced nuclear fusion: polywell engine. - Antimatter: antimatter containers, antimatter injection engine. After kiloton node: - Megaton: advanced nuclear pulse engine, big nukes containers.
  14. I want to know more about nuclear fission and different kinds of fuels, but all the literature I can find is denser than the fuels themselves. All I really want to know is; what machinery do you need to produce controlled nuclear fission and what wastes are produced by uranium, plutonium, and thorium fission?