More Development for Nuclear Mechanics?

[GreeningGalaxy]

The nuclear stuff in KSP, as it stands, is obviously well-liked. The LV-N is the go-to engine for getting kerbals out to the most interesting places in the game, like Jool's moons, and the RTG is the main way to get power to vehicles where solar panels would be too cumbersome or ineffective as electrical power sources. However, at present, nuclear technology in KSP is still pretty much treated as magic - you never have to worry about fuel life, reactor control, deadly radiation, or anything more than the most basic thermal management. Furthermore, one of the most logical things to have around in a world with nuclear technology, a true nuclear power reactor, still doesn't exist in KSP, which seems a bit odd given how the LV-N puts out power while burning - the technology's clearly there! - and how much use there is for RTGs in large numbers when it comes to exploring the outer planets.

Nuclear stuff in KSP seems like it was added as a bit of an afterthought, but given how much use it sees in the kinds of ships KSPers like to build, it might really do well with a bit of an overhaul. To be clear, I'm not asking for KSP to turn into [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vziIgAtD66s"]Rogue System[/URL], or for it to adopt KSP Interstellar into stock, or even for anything particularly fancy at all - I just think the game should provide a little bit more of a reminder to the player that nuclear rockets are not magic super-efficient thrust makers that require no maintenance or consideration for upkeep.

This could take the form of one or more of the following:

- Nuclear fuel, which costs a significant amount and is slowly turned into depleted fuel by nuclear engines/reactors.
- Gradual loss of nuclear engine thrust and specific impulse as nuclear fuel is used up (restoration through reprocessing optional).
- Ability to run the reactor without running the engine to make electrical power, given sufficient radiator area to dissipate the waste heat.
- A separate nuclear reactor module that only includes the electrical generation functions without the engine part (still produces waste heat and uses nuclear fuel).
- Kerbal death due to radiation - being aboard the nuclear-powered ship or far enough away from an operating engine is fine, but standing 5 meters away from an engine or reactor operating a full power is not. Non-instant acute death and chronic effects optional.
- Radiation shielding for pods and hardware. Reactors and engines should have built-in shadow shields that protect the rest of the ship when mounted inline, but pods and probe cores should not be safe with multiple nuclear engines or reactors mounted radially to them.
- More nuclear engines. Need not be anything especially futuristic or overpowered, but a 2.5m nuclear engine has been a long-wanted feature.

Note that I don't necessarily mean that [I]all[/I] of the above should be implemented. My argument is simply that the nuclear mechanics in KSP are, at present, very lacking, and portray nuclear power like magic, which is not something I feel is constructive or interesting.

So what does the community think? Is the game already complicated enough as-is with nuclear engines how they are, or should they be improved to add a bit more of a challenge to large-scale late-game career missions? Let me know! Edited November 18, 2015 by GreeningGalaxy

[KrazyKrl]

IMO this is out-of-scope for stock KSP, sounds like a lot of "what" and not a lot of "why" for gameplay. The NERVA is one engine out of many, and has one use. There is no really power-hungry application for a reactor in space, that can't be solved by solars/fuel cells/RTGs and battery-capacitor type setups.

Also, what would this add to gameplay? Needing to ship nuclear fuel rods to a ship every 5 years of MET doesn't seem like it adds much. Same with the gradual reduction of efficiency (which takes [I]years[/I], even with the reactor running continuously.) The radiation mechanic makes no sense, you're already suggesting automatic shielding; and space suits already have quite a bit of shielding from cosmic radiation. KSP is first a game; and adding more complexity without a reason for it, sounds like a low-reward high-effort tradeoff.

A 2.5m NERVA would be useful though.

[GreeningGalaxy]

[quote name='KrazyKrl']There is no really power-hungry application for a reactor in space, that can't be solved by solars/fuel cells/RTGs and battery-capacitor type setups.[/quote]
Ion-powered crewed vehicles far from Kerbol (Dres, Jool, Eeloo) are the prime example of such an application. With the new larger xenon tanks, this would be a potentially excellent propulsion system for the late game, and RTGs/solar cells simply won't cut it when the sunlight is low.

[quote]Also, what would this add to gameplay? Needing to ship nuclear fuel rods to a ship every 5 years of MET doesn't seem like it adds much. Same with the gradual reduction of efficiency (which takes [I]years[/I], even with the reactor running continuously.)[/quote]
Since the very point of KSP is to push boundaries, lots of players will keep missions out for long enough periods of time for this to come into play. I know I've already launched multi-decade missions to Jool (mostly because I'm bad at launch windows, but I doubt I'm the only one).

[Quote]The radiation mechanic makes no sense, you're already suggesting automatic shielding; and space suits already have quite a bit of shielding from cosmic radiation. KSP is first a game; and adding more complexity without a reason for it, sounds like a low-reward high-effort tradeoff.
[/QUOTE]
The built-in shielding would not contain [I]all[/I] radiation on a realistic spaceborne nuclear reactor; the weight would be impractical. Instead it would be a "shadow shield" in which only a small cone (the ship) is protected by placing a small, heavy shield close to the reactor in order to cast a radiation shadow on the habitat. Nearby vessels are not protected, nor are crew in spacesuits - spacesuits and multilayer insulation only provide any meaningful protection against charged particles, [I]not[/I] gamma rays, and the dangerous radiation produced by a nuclear reactor is pretty much entirely gamma rays since the charged particles don't escape the reactor's containment vessel anyway. Blocking gamma rays requires a lot of heavy metal, and a spacesuit won't provide any protection from them at all.

Once again, I'm not asking for these mechanics to be extremely detailed, just that there be something more to nuclear stuff in KSP than "just another engine, this time with magic." People have frequently accused nuclear engines of being overpowered (at least before career made them cost money) and there's still talk of giving them absurd reputation penalties for their use to "balance them out." Instead of mucking around with all that, why not give the player some direct, tangible reasons - namely danger and complexity - why using them isn't a perfect rainbows-and-happiness solution to every delta-V problem?

[KrazyKrl]

[quote name='GreeningGalaxy']Once again, I'm not asking for these mechanics to be extremely detailed, just that there be something more to nuclear stuff in KSP than "just another engine, this time with magic." People have frequently accused nuclear engines of being overpowered (at least before career made them cost money) and there's still talk of giving them absurd reputation penalties for their use to "balance them out." Instead of mucking around with all that, why not give the player some direct, tangible reasons - namely danger and complexity - why using them isn't a perfect rainbows-and-happiness solution to every delta-V problem?[/QUOTE]

The NERV is already pretty balanced. The dry mass is already very high; means you're using lots more fuel, and mass, than you need to in most cases. And the engine does already create lots of heat, for the amount of thrust it provides. Just because the NERV has the highest ISP, doesn't mean it's the best in all cases.

Adding an entire subsystem of radiation poisoning, to something that is already performing on-par; seems like a lot of work, for so little added gameplay. Because once you fire up that nuclear reactor, the fission products keep it radioactive for decades. Then it just becomes a matter of "don't stand there, ever."

[MaxL_1023]

I would like to see a nuclear reactor in stock - basically all it would do is produce a set amount of power (maybe 50 ec/second) forever, but be really heavy (~20 tons?). It would be useful for very large ion probes or permanent bases which need a lot of charge, but are out near Dres/Jool/Eeloo and solar arrays are not very effective.

[EditorRUS]

I'd say no. Not in the stock game, at least.
For now nuclear engines are mostly for orbital stuff where their ISP shines and they have little use for landing or ascending. If all of these features had been implemented, nuclear engines would still have no use beyond that. And even more, they'd require tons of additional components and complicate and weigh down rockets. If you by any means make them do what they originally didn't do then they will become way too powerful and the rest of the game becomes too weak. They'd simply be better in all ways to common types of engines. For now we have distribution of roles as follows:
Jet engines are for atmospheric flights, vastly superior to any other type of engines, but limited to atmospheric flight.
Solid fuel engines are for, well, gaining initial speed. They only give initial boost and act as a cheep ascent unit. They become obsolote after that, except for serpatron of course.
Liquid fuel engines is what this game is about. They are universal, jack of all trades, master of none. They are fit for every role, but they exceed at none.
Ion engines are for orbital control. They are like jet engines in space (even their ISP matches jet engines' a bit) becoming absolutely useless at anything else.
Nuclear engines are somewhat between liquid fuel engines and ion engines. They have more ISP that all liquid engines, but not as robust for orbital control as ion engines, however, they are more fit for near-body orbital corrections, exchanging ISP for thrust.

And let me repeat myself: "Exchange ISP for thrust". In real world that's what's happening for most engines (not taking in mind Orion which is one insane idea). You either get high thrust or high ISP. Getting both of these is a wet dream of scientists out there, but the point is that currently nuclear engines (or, to be more exact, engine) are pretty balanced for their roles and adding more complexity to them requires a lot of rebalancing for them to still be where they belong. And your proposed features are mostly "maintenance" part which... does not exist in current game at all. Heck, you can fly for centuries and not have to worry about your spaceship. It just doesn't match game's content. That's why I said it's fine for a mod, but it's not needed in stock game. Although I agree on your statement that they seem to lack their "nuclearity". Edited November 19, 2015 by EditorRUS

[juanml82]

A reactor could be useful for running mining rigs beyond Dres, and it could be a nice addition.

As for radiation shielding, it's sort of "add cpu cycles to cause damage, add more cpu damage to reduce damage, end up where you started but with a performance hit"

What I'd like to see is a huge reputation penalty for crashing Nervs on Kerbin

[KerbMav]

I once wrote a mini config mod for the nuke engines. Basically I lowered the weight of the engines by x and added two fuel modules that held either the active fuel or the depleted waste, so the weight would stay the same. But I never figured out a good consumption rate for the fuel to neither get ships stranded to easily nor having a limitless capacity.

[More Boosters]

Keep this to mods.