No Nukes in space

[ron1n1]

Because of the risks to fellow kerbals health, how about every time you have a failed launch with nuclear material onboard or they fail to burn-up in the atmosphere (RTG, nuclear engines or mystery goo (assuming it is nuclear or somehow very dangerous if it gets out of the cannister), you get a massive fine and reputation drop from the Kerbal government and are prohibited from launching any nuclear-based technologies for 5 years or something.

Or something along those lines.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/10/science/groups-protest-use-of-plutonium-on-galileo.html

[cicatrix]

I think that each failed launch should have an impact on reputation, not just nuclear one.

[RainDreamer]

I think this is better as a mod. We have no idea if radiation even has any effect on kerbals. Or even if the kerbal has a government (KSC is their governing body!).

[Renegrade]

I think this is better as a mod. We have no idea if radiation even has any effect on kerbals. Or even if the kerbal has a government (KSC is their governing body!).

Or even their values.

Maybe they view massive explosions, irradiation and massive property damage as the cost of progress, exploration and advancement. They actually might be fine with exploding spent stages landing in their back yards, as long as the upper stages reach orbit and carries on the mission....or angry if a rocket harmlessly explodes somewhere else, but fails in it's mission.

They might be tiny, but they're ten times the courage, determination, and spirit of exploration than any human.

[Sirrobert]

This adds nothing to gameplay, only limits stuf.

The people that care about this stuf can already care about it, don't force it upon the people that don't care

[KrazyKrl]

I guess you can claim that the practically infinite electricity of the RTG, and the absurd ISP of the LV-N requires some downside. Part-locking should be tied to your game difficulty chosen. But you should always lose rep for failed launches, and even more rep for failed launches causing nuclear fallout. An impactresistance buff to the RTG and LV-N would probably be a wise idea too.

An RTG runs off of the heat of the decaying uranium though, there is no actual nuclear reaction; and iirc, it's mostly (easily shielded) alpha and beta decay. RTGs are honestly not that radioactive.

A nuclear reactor isn't that radioactive until run, lots of the radioactivity from nuclear reactors comes from fission products from, and after, the reaction itself.

A note in-game about a reputation loss if those parts destruct in a sub-orbital trajectory less than 60km or 1,000 m/sec. (Arbatrary numbers I just made up.) And an increased rep loss for a used LV-N destructing under those conditions. The launch itself has a reputation loss, a nuclear payload could add "bonus -rep".

You could even add a "radioactive trefoil" next to the LV-N overheat gauge in the staging tree; and only shows after the engine has been fired at least once, and is meeting the requirements of massive reputation loss. Of course, the hazard indicator has a tooltip stating "massive reputation loss due to radioactive fallout if this part explodes."

This isn't about adding nothing to gameplay in my opinion. It's about making reputation more meaningful in the game.

Edited February 19, 2015 by KrazyKrl