Whats wrong with my nukes?

[Snark]

They haven't been nerfed at all. Quite frankly, they needed a push in the right direction.

I suppose it depends what you mean when you say "nerfed." When I say nerfed, I don't mean "useless" or even "ill-advisedly." I simply mean that their numbers aren't as good as they used to be, and that's unambiguously the case: They mass more, which is worse for performance. They generate lots of heat, which is worse for using them. They use LF only, which limits tankage option, which is also worse for performance, and also makes them more awkward to use if you have different types of engines present on one craft (since you now have to think about balancing LF and oxidizer, which never used to be necessary).

That said: I think it's good that they gave LV-N's a serious once-over. IMHO, they were too easy in the past, they were the simple go-to answer for pretty much anything that didn't involve heavy lifting off a high-gravity celestial body. Nerfs can be great, if they introduce more interesting engineering choices to the game. The important thing is that they be interestingly nerfed, which in LV-N's case, I think they are.

Really, the only aspect of the LV-N changes that I don't like is the extreme lack of LF tanks that are rocket-friendly. Pretty much all the LF tanks are designed for spaceplanes. Yes, Mk3 has some decent LF tanks, but those are ugly / unwieldy on rockets and don't match anything else and there aren't any lightweight structural Mk3-2.5m adapters (the only options are enormous heavy things that pack huge amounts of LFO). There's just nuthin'. I really wish they'd included one or two rocket-friendly LF-only tanks, such as an LF version of the FL-T800 and Rockomax X200-32. The lack is one of those things that's annoying without actually adding interesting challenge.

I also wish that there were a smaller/lighter nuke option, perhaps with a nerfed Isp to compensate for the added convenience. The way nukes are now, they're pretty much pointless for anything under 20 tons. It seems like there's an interesting space in the game for small, low-thrust, high-Isp probes (short of going to ion propulsion). E.g. I'd love to have a nuke engine that's 1/3 the mass, maybe 1/4 the thrust, and an Isp of 700ish. Make 'em expensive if need be.

[ajburges]

How are nukes not still a go to option. IMHO the true nerfs of the nuke were three fold:

- The reduced TWR (increases dry mass and lowers stage TWR/nuke)

- Fuel tank rebalance so Mk3 no longer has the best dry to wet mass ratio

- The continuing lack of appealing Mk2 and Mk3 structural or LF only adapters, couplers, or ends.

ISP and thrust are the same but a â…“ engine mass increase on top of a 2-20% (additive) disadvantage in tank dry mass percentage means nukes took a huge mass penalty to operation.

Just like with small engines, that mass penalty means that there are scenarios where the light inefficient engine outperforms the more massive but efficient one. The only reason more folks don't use ion for tugs is the cost of fuel and the part cont issues.

[colin_in_space]

Wow guys thanks for the great discussion. I haven't been following the forums and just upgraded recently. I never noticed the change. It makes a lot of sense.