Jump to content

Do you want more nuclear engines?  

64 members have voted

  1. 1. Choose here.

  2. 2. Cryogenic Fuel Tanks?



Recommended Posts

Why do we need more? Like really, you can just cluster more engines for bigger and use another type of engine for smaller probes. The ion, perhaps.

Also, about LH resources - No. That would mean another fuel type. It could be nice, but It might be too complex having many types of fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

...but this is the sub-forum for Suggestions and Development Discussion of the stock game.

Of course there's a mod for it.  There always is. 

The most needed missing nuclear engine is a 2.5m version equal to a cluster of 4 LV-Ns in all respects except for part count. Both Modular Rocket Systems and Vens Stock Revamp include such a part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Norcalplanner said:

The most needed missing nuclear engine is a 2.5m version equal to a cluster of 4 LV-Ns in all respects except for part count. Both Modular Rocket Systems and Vens Stock Revamp include such a part.

This I could agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2017 at 2:45 PM, Norcalplanner said:

The most needed missing nuclear engine is a 2.5m version equal to a cluster of 4 LV-Ns in all respects except for part count. Both Modular Rocket Systems and Vens Stock Revamp include such a part.

Honestly, what is needed is a big honkin 3.75m nuke.

Because as it currently stands, a truckload of Rhinos are the only way to move anything huge around the Kerbol system, without taking decades for each burn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a 2.5-m or 3.75-m LANTR. Two operating modes; can run on fuel alone or on fuel + oxidizer. Slightly higher specific impulse than the LV-N in fuel-only mode, with a lower TWR, but massively improved thrust in fuel+oxidizer mode. Enough to make pure-nuclear SSTOs at least vaguely feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16.8.2017 at 2:22 AM, qzgy said:

Why do we need more? Like really, you can just cluster more engines

Because part count. Just have a look at this from the current weekly challenge ("collect several asteroids on one place"):

loopholer.jpg

That's 20 nukes already; it can move a king-size asteroid at an incredible 300mm/s² (TWR=0.03 in common parlance). Beyond the 4x adapter, every additional engine requires one adapter piece to mount it, so part count really balloons.

Something considerably more powerful would be much appreciated. I'd say on the order of 500kN apiece, and with a form factor or suitable adapter to match our large LF tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoping we'll see a whole range of engines in the 1.8m size that already been shown as part of Making history. 

A nuc in that size should be equivalent to 2.5- 3 1.25m units. Plus 3 of them should still fit on MK3 tank.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2017 at 6:22 PM, qzgy said:

Why do we need more? Like really, you can just cluster more engines for bigger and use another type of engine for smaller probes.

To keep part count down. Sometimes it's not about making our ships inside the game more efficient as it is making our computers that run the game more efficient XD
 

On 8/15/2017 at 6:22 PM, qzgy said:

Also, about LH resources - No. That would mean another fuel type. It could be nice, but It might be too complex having many types of fuel.

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2017 at 5:22 PM, qzgy said:

It might be too complex having many types of fuel.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Anyway...

A nuclear engine in each form factor (even better a few of them using the "no form factor" paradigm PJ set up) for stock KSP would be Nice To Have but I don't see that happening. I mean, we still don't have proper space fuel tanks for nukes to begin with, have to use those awkward spaceplane fuselages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MinimalMinmus said:

To cross the "better difficulty" suggestion, how about the nuke(s) requiring LH, but only on hard?

 

By the way, nothing to add to the suggestion, except maybe that I would like big ions too.

I don't think difficulty changes should make that much of a difference in gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/08/2017 at 7:45 PM, Norcalplanner said:

The most needed missing nuclear engine is a 2.5m version equal to a cluster of 4 LV-Ns in all respects except for part count. Both Modular Rocket Systems and Vens Stock Revamp include such a part.

I fondly remember a 2.5m nuclear engine that put out about 300kN. Was ideal for many things. I started using it at the time when every craft I sent inward towards Eve or Moho would just drop the nerva for literally no reason at all. You would go back to your craft and your engine would be floating next to it. This is long fixed now of course but I still miss that engine and would love to see it in the stock game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proposal for a Large Size trimodal LOX-afterburning engine, for any modders out there:

  • Name: LV-3 "Lantern" Atomic Rocket Motor
  • Diameter: 2.5 meters
  • Length: Same as the Nerva
  • Mass: 13 tonnes
  • Alternator: Can be switched on or off independent of throttle setting, provides 33 electric units per second (a quarter the electricity/weight of the PB-NUK), produces enough waste heat to require radiators
  • Modes: Dry, Wet (Dry burns only LF; Wet burns LF+LO)
  • Max Dry thrust (1 atm): 38 kN
  • Max Dry thrust (vacuum): 240 kN
  • Dry Isp (1 atm): 140 seconds
  • Dry Isp (vacuum): 885 seconds
  • Max Wet thrust (5 atm): 995 kN
  • Max Wet thrust (1 atm): 1,095 kN
  • Max Wet thrust (vacuum): 1,194 kN
  • Wet Isp (5 atm): 500 seconds
  • Wet Isp (1 atm): 550 seconds
  • Wet Isp (vacuum): 600 seconds

This is a trimodal nuclear thermal engine with a "wet" mode that allows LO-afterburning. It also functions as a nuclear reactor, providing more electricity per second than any other part in the game (although at a much higher mass cost), enough to run 3 Dawn engines simultaneously. Turning the reactor on requires active cooling to prevent rapid overheating.

The dry atmospheric isp is worse than the LV-N due to the larger, more expanded engine bell. However, this allows the vacuum isp to be greater than the LV-N, though the dry TWR is a little lower than the LV-N.

In wet mode, on the other hand, LO injection fills the engine bell, bringing the exit pressure up much higher and allowing it to reach a specific impulse of 550 seconds at sea level. Because of the high component of pressure thrust, the engine can attain 500 seconds of isp even at the sea level of Eve. Wet TWR is about 75% of the TWR of the Swivel engine, but still high enough that it could theoretically be used for an Eve SSTO. It is highly underexpanded in a vacuum and only reaches 600 seconds of isp in wet mode.

Like the LV-N, it cannot gimbal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2017 at 1:22 AM, qzgy said:

Also, about LH resources - No. That would mean another fuel type. It could be nice, but It might be too complex having many types of fuel.

I disagree. We've already got engines that run on fuel+oxidiser, engines that run on fuel alone, engines that run on fuel but only work in an atmosphere and engines that run on monopropellant. I don't think another fuel type is going to be any big deal. Especially in stock where pretty much all the real-life challenges and compromises involved with using hydrogen as a fuel are abstracted away or not in the game at all.

We'd likely end up with a couple of extra hydrolox tanks that are more expensive than regular LF-O tanks (because cost is about the only relevant trade-off in stock) and that either only work with specific engines (no big deal, we're used to that from the monoprop engines) or work with any engine you like. In which case the added complexity would basically boil down to 'pay more for premium fuel that boosts your ISP'. I'm pretty sure most players could handle the challenge.

I'd say the real reason for not including another fuel type is that its mostly pointless in the stock game because the rest of the game isn't set up to provide any sort of meaningful trade-offs between fuel types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MinimalMinmus said:

By the way, nothing to add to the suggestion, except maybe that I would like big ions too.

There are real problems in real life with making 'big ions', but I still suspect that a single part made of clusters is possible.  The real solution for ions would be allowing them to work "on rails" with their minimal acceleration.  I have no idea if this simply isn't possible or that ions aren't sufficiently popular to warrant such extreme changes to the game (I suspect they would be wildly more popular for probes if they were allowed to work 'in the background', but suspect it isn't worth the serious hackery).

Principia gives all vessels 'the ion problem', and I hope whoever is responsible for ions keeps up with whatever principia is doing.  Last I heard it was doing well enough to be included in many/most RO/RSS games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...