The Physics Engineer

For me the difference was added to my Steam Wallet.

I’m excited for new nuclear ☢️ engines (and generators), as well as for colonies and resources!

Given the latest episode, I assume you’d enter the galaxy’s SOI

I do expect those factors to affect, at least in a static way (e.g., wind intensity stays fixed in an area), although dynamic wind intensity could be interesting when building a reliable power grid. I hadn’t thought about radiators efficiency when submerged in water or other fluids, might be a good suggestion if not already planned @KSPStar @Nate Simpson.

That mountainous area at the end of the video looks like a great place for a colony with a nice view!

I'm not sure about the KRUSTY-like reactor (Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology), but the other nuclear reactors should not need any additional distance or shielding as the core is already properly shielded. Maybe some distance would be a good idea if rapid unplanned disassembly has radiation effects. On another hand, rocket engines with radioactive exhaust could be considered for this (I'm guessing configurable in the difficulty settings, like re-entry heat). It seems to me that some buildings (like reactors and fuel factories) do have pipes, indicating we should expect some plumbing. I would assume connected segments share resources automatically and we can use pipes to connect nearby extractors / depots / factories / reactors to such network.

It would also be cool if the curved ring parts could be configured to have a custom curvature radius to make them bigger or smaller, that is if we get ring sections as parts and not the whole ring. It also makes me wonder if we will be able to attach together, for example, two separate parts that are themselves attached to something else (allowing us to close rings).

Great post! I had been hoping to see another dev diary about the physics. I think this is addressed at the end of the diary when talking about high speed collisions between vessels. Edit: l originally misinterpreted the question.

It could be nice to have it as some sort of hardcore or legendary mode, but I don't think they will direct their efforts towards it. It's probably better for them to provide an easy way to install mods so that the players who want it don't have major problems getting those mods. This would definitely be a nice addition!

It won't and shouldn't be implemented in the core game, that's what mods are for. Making it part of the game would ruin gameplay for many players as orbiting stations and satellites would start drifting from their original orbits and would require to be adjusted constantly or could end up being accidentally slingshotted away of the orbiting body, which could be frustrating. In a mod this becomes an optional challenge. I haven't used FAR, but from what has been said here, I agree it should stay as a mod too.

I hope it affects geothermal power generation!

I don't think radiation damage will apply to spacecraft. Maybe we get a difficulty option to make it interfere with comms (like in KSP 1 with the re-entry plasma blackout). I'm also thinking they will lean towards something like this. They have confirmed Kerbals won't die if you abandon them in a colony somewhere so that the game does not become a colony micromanagement sim, if I recall correctly, they will indeed underperform when not properly attended.

This makes me think about Kerbal infirmaries (which I doubt will be in the game). We still haven't got any details on life support or any other possible game mechanics related to taking care of our Kerbals (besides the small greenhouses).

But there's a difference with these, both perform the nuclear reaction (fission or fusion, respectively) outside the engine, thus radiation hazard is way greater; in a NTR the reaction happens inside. I wonder if they just came up with the numbers in some random (or pragmatic) way or if they made some quick calculations (how much fuel is being consumed by the engine, how much heat does it get from the core, at what speed does it get ejected given the expansion from the heat, how much thrust does that generate given the mass and speed of the fuel). Could be a nice topic for a dev diary to know how are they considering this for KSP 2 .

It would be interesting to have more information on this. Being a Nuclear Thermal Rocket engine (using the hydrogen as coolant for the reactor core), the exhaust would be slightly radioactive. The hydrogen atoms could absorb one or two neutrons and become deuterium or tritium, respectively. Tritium is radioactive and releases a low energy electron when decaying (which can travel about 6 mm in air, at least on Earth), Kerbals can easily be shielded against that type of radiation. This engine might not be a big radioactive hazard when firing (given the core is properly shielded, the heat from the exhaust could be more dangerous), but making it explode would be dangerous. Now, if the core is not shielded towards the nozzle, it would create a danger zone (shaped like a cone) where neutrons could escape and cause damage. I'm wondering if radioactive hazards are going to be persistent according the radioactive half-life and become safer over time when having an accident with one of these (or when damaging some material with neutrons, but I doubt nuclear damage to materials will be part of the game).