Nuclear Reactors... Need to be risky.

[TheKurgan]

Using nuclear reactors needs to come with much more risk.

I use nuclear reactors from 2 different mods, Solaris Hypernautics, and Near Future Electrical, and using them is risk free...

Unlike solar panels, which are very "unlikely" to kill you, Nuclear reactors built by Kerbals should be very risky to use... IMO.

I would LOVE to see a mod that patched all the common nuclear reactors in such a way, that if they over heated or were destroyed by impact, they explode in a similar fashion as the nuclear weapons in North Kerbin Dynamics.

What do you guys think?

@Nertea

@Carbonjvd

@harpwner

[Van Disaster]

Kerbals have a lot of technology we don't, I suspect their engineering to be far ahead of ours. Their control software not so much, perhaps.

Kerbals are not W40k Orks, reactors are safe

[TheKurgan]

Read my post with a smile, it is friendly and in jest

You do play KSP right?  You have read the descriptions of the parts in the game right? The engineers and scientists are nutz! lol the things they build are bound to not work as intended, especially when they get more and more complicated. Solar panels and fuel cells are fairly safe, I believe nuclear reactors should be risky... I would still use them alot, but I wish they would melt-down and explode if not handled and utilized correctly.

If you overload one, or allow it to overheat to a certain extend, or crash them into something, they should explode... VIOLENTLY.

[Dreadthrone]

I think this would only really be interesting if the reactors had a "Melt down" phase before exploding, which would gradually overheat and destroy everything on the ship and then explode after five minutes or so. That way there'd be time for evacuation if you have escape pods or landers, but the mothership/colony would still be destroyed (unless you have a way to decouple the reactor and get away from it). Running away from a reactor that's going to blow in a rover with all your Kerbals in it would be amazing fun 

 

Otherwise, this wouldn't do much. Most of the time when something crashes hard enough for a reactor in the middle of the ship to be destroyed, the ship's beyond repair and stranded anyways, or even already completely destroyed.  

Edited September 12, 2016 by Dreadthrone

[Mikki]

yupp, reactors should have a random risk of unplanned meltdown, or measuring excessive g-forces accumulating for later damage... or ecxeeding g-forces at all make them run overcritical....

[steve_v]

19 hours ago, TheKurgan said:

Nuclear reactors built by Kerbals should be very risky to use... IMO

RL reactors are no less reliable than rocket engines, and kerbal rocket engines never spontaneously explode, so I dunno about this.
Movie plots aside, actual reactors are very difficult to cause to explode, violently or otherwise. Much more difficult than say, a large tank of explosive fuel...
Seems that despite using rubber bands to hold things together, kerbal engineers can churn out large numbers of 100% reliable engines, so why not reactors too?

19 hours ago, TheKurgan said:

they explode in a similar fashion as the nuclear weapons in North Kerbin Dynamics.

Entertaining perhaps, but not particularly realistic. Nuclear reactors ≠ nuclear weapons.

27 minutes ago, Mikki said:

yupp, reactors should have a random risk of unplanned meltdown, or measuring excessive g-forces accumulating for later damage... or ecxeeding g-forces at all make them run overcritical....

By this logic, engines should have a random risk of exploding too, fuel tanks of leaking, command pods of catching fire, etc. etc. I'd quite like to see something like this, but applying it only to reactors seems a bit silly IMO.

Edited September 12, 2016 by steve_v

[TheKurgan]

My idea has been slightly skewed... Not looking for realism, not looking for malfunctions, we have mods for both of those.

Here's the thing; What happens to an engine in KSP when it overheats to critical? it explodes...

what happens to an engine when it hits the ground too hard?

Many of the parts in KSP just shut down when they overheat, reactors included. I just want them to explode when they are neglected and allowed to overheat to critical... and explode a bit bigger than when a regular part explodes. Not like the biggest nuke in NKD... maybe the smallest.

Reactors are much much more complicated than a rocket engine... but maybe not so fragile... and like I said, not looking for random malfunctions, I'm looking for a reactor biting you in the a__ when you misuse it.

It just needs to be more risky then a solar panel... that's all I'm saying... a bigger explosion when you ____ it it up would just be eye candy.

Edited September 12, 2016 by TheKurgan

[panzer1b]

Exploding nuclear reactors, gimme a break.

 

Movies aside, the primary risk of a meltdown is in the radioactive release and not any sort of explosion.  Nukes are made of very pure radioactive material and are specifically designed to explode in such a way as to create a critical mass, which in turn explodes and causes massive damage to anything nearby almost instantly (and irradiates the surroundings long-term).  While im no nuclear engineer, reactors are designed specifically to have a slow long-term reaction that generates heat, which is then used to create power in the exact same way burning coal would (boil water and push that through a turbine).  Every one of the historical meltdowns was primarily a radiation problem.  Chernobyl released clouds of radioactive steam (the main threat and the reason teh town became irradiated), while the other fairly catastrophic japanese plant released radioactive coolant into the surrounding area and into the ocean.  Not a single nuclear reactor meltdown actually resulted in a nuclear explosion or anything more then localized damage near the reactor and possible radioactive particle release (almost always coolant). 

Now if you want to have massive detonation after failure, then you shouldn't call it a nuclear reactor but some sci-fi tech that behaves this way.

Also, a little off topic, i would like to see explosions actually damage weak components that are very close by.  if 1 fuel tank explodes then realistically all the nearby tanks would go too.  I know right now its purely an effect, but the explosions should deal damage to low impact tolerance parts that are nearby and create a force that pushes stuff away from the explosion center...

[TheKurgan]

2 hours ago, panzer1b said:

Exploding nuclear reactors, gimme a break.

Necessary? 

Just spit in my face for my idea and opinion...

Tiny green men on some tiny little planet flying outrageous contraptions into outer space, "gimme a break".

MANY parts like structural and aerodynamic parts in KSP explode on impact when in reality they wouldn't... why not a tiny, cobbled together nuclear reactor powered by "Blutonium" Why not? The game is based very loosely on reality... my idea is not that far of a stretch for an average Joe playing a computer game.

 

Anyway, all that aside, I do honestly like your idea at the end of your post... your opening statement though... a little bit rude man.

[JadeOfMaar]

However unnerving, I rather like this idea. There's already a module I know of that could be adapted for this. It's in the KIS Explosive device and its max range is 10m, good for annihilating several surrounding parts at once. And I just got an idea for a Thorium or otherwise exotically fueled reactor part that could do too well to threaten to explode if mishandled. Imo, it's scary enough that a Near Future reactor would merely decay and become powerless if mishandled.

Threaten to explode...or violently leak core heat into the surrounding parts! This is genius. It'd be a wicked good emulation of irradiation.

Edited September 14, 2016 by JadeOfMaar

[Core]

On 9/11/2016 at 9:45 AM, TheKurgan said:

Using nuclear reactors needs to come with much more risk.

I use nuclear reactors from 2 different mods, Solaris Hypernautics, and Near Future Electrical, and using them is risk free...

Unlike solar panels, which are very "unlikely" to kill you, Nuclear reactors built by Kerbals should be very risky to use... IMO.

I would LOVE to see a mod that patched all the common nuclear reactors in such a way, that if they over heated or were destroyed by impact, they explode in a similar fashion as the nuclear weapons in North Kerbin Dynamics.

What do you guys think?

@Nertea

@Carbonjvd

@harpwner

Sounds fun, but from what I understand, nuclear reactor use unrefined uranium/plutonium. This makes the reactions and decay slow, in comparison to nuclear weapons, which use highly refined uranium/plutonium and release their energy quickly. But someone has answered this by now, I am sure.

So, really, I think it would just depend on how refined the materials are in the reactors. In reality, anyway.

But for KSP reasons, this would sound fun. Besides, it would be nice to have more active reactors, and launching the stinkers when they go nuts.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Core

[damerell]

On 11/09/2016 at 8:38 PM, TheKurgan said:

You do play KSP right?  You have read the descriptions of the parts in the game right? The engineers and scientists are nutz! lol the things they build are bound to not work as intended, especially when they get more and more complicated.

As far as we can see everything they build works flawlessly. Kerbals might be foolhardy but their engineering is perfect (which perhaps is why they are foolhardy).

[Nertea]

The CC-BY-NC-SA license that is used by NFE allows whatever you like to be done by anyone as long as the license terms are expected. Better yet, a second mod using MM to do what you want!

That being said, super explody nuclear reactors will never happen in any version of NFE developed by me. 

[Hodari]

2 hours ago, damerell said:

As far as we can see everything they build works flawlessly.

Not to mention being able to be built almost instantly.  I always pictured them as having something similar to the replicators on Star Trek.  General-purpose ones capable of making any item require a facility the size of the VAB or SPH, though a smaller "portable" version capable only of recycling waste matter into snacks is built into all crewed pods.  Once the part pattern is perfected(through researching the appropriate tech node), that part can be replicated instantly and perfectly every time, so the only difficult part of rocket design is figuring out how to put those parts together in the right way.  In fact, a whole semester in the engineering program is devoted solely to "Which way is up?", despite which they STILL occasionally get this wrong when placing decouplers or docking ports.

[Tyko]

The game currently doesn't include part failure. Unless they implemented part failure across the board I don't it makes any sense to single out nuclear reactors. Especially since historically nuclear reactors have been pretty safe and Kerbals seem to embrace nuclear power more than humans - more use = more experience = more reliability

As a side note, I don't think part failure should be part of the base game anyway.

[TheKurgan]

I give up...

 

I had no idea that posting an idea like this would attract so much nonsense... lesson learned.

I'm not talking about random part failure... I'm not even talking about history or even reality... I'm talking about a reactor exploding with more force and a bigger BOOM than a normal part (like an engine) if it over heats to some critical temperature or is physically damaged. PERIOD.

In some version of reality OR science fiction!! a portable nuclear reactor slapped together by crazy little green aliens MIGHT have the chance to explode if misused or mishandled... it's not beyond the grasp of normal human imagination... I emphasise "normal" 

But screw it... I give up on this... WOW.

Edited September 15, 2016 by TheKurgan

[damerell]

5 hours ago, TheKurgan said:

In some version of reality OR science fiction!! a portable nuclear reactor slapped together by crazy little green aliens MIGHT have the chance to explode if misused or mishandled... it's not beyond the grasp of normal human imagination... I emphasise "normal"

An excellent way to get your idea implemented, I find, is insulting everyone who has tried to discuss it. It helps if you write in a sort of stream of consciousness punctuated by ellipses and ideally if your forum name is that of a fictional psychopathic (here was a noun describing someone who commits a certain serious assault).

Edited September 15, 2016 by damerell

[TheKurgan]

It was an idea, that is all it was and It got condemned from the start. It was taken out of context, I was lectured about the nature of REAL nuclear reactors, given history lessons, told about reality... and 4 people preached about Kerbals and/or Kerbal engineers being perfect...

This didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a mod, and I got utterly sick of people talking about random malfunctions, REAL nuclear reactor behaviour and how Kerbal engineers were flawless.

ONE guy, JadeOfMaar tried to discuss it, the rest of you dumped on the idea right from the get go.

I've done nothing but try to be helpful or contribute in some small way since I started posting here, to get such an overwhelming IN MY FACE negative response is a little disappointing.

I didn't directly insult anyone, but your attack on my online name and avatar is uncalled for.

[damerell]

12 hours ago, TheKurgan said:

It was an idea, that is all it was and It got condemned from the start. It was taken out of context, I was lectured about the nature of REAL nuclear reactors, given history lessons, told about reality... and 4 people preached about Kerbals and/or Kerbal engineers being perfect...

This didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a mod, and I got utterly sick of people talking about random malfunctions, REAL nuclear reactor behaviour and how Kerbal engineers were flawless.

ONE guy, JadeOfMaar tried to discuss it, the rest of you dumped on the idea right from the get go.

I've done nothing but try to be helpful or contribute in some small way since I started posting here, to get such an overwhelming IN MY FACE negative response is a little disappointing.

I didn't directly insult anyone, but your attack on my online name and avatar is uncalled for.

You find it surprising that people often like KSP mods to have some reference to reality? Or that people "preached" (or as we say in non-polemic-land, "talked") about Kerbal engineering being perfect just because, er, it is? (Never mind reactors; you can smash a full orange tank into the ground at 100 m/s and nothing will explode).

It didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a mod, indeed, because if you want a mod you have two options: do it yourself, or convince other people it's a good idea. If your response to any criticism is to blow up and insult the critics, you're not going to get anywhere with the second option - and you're not going to get advice for the first option, either.

You did directly insult essentially everyone who replied to this thread. My remarks about your handle are entirely called for; your handle is inappropriate for an all-ages forum. (It's not super appropriate anywhere, to be honest). You should change it.

[TheKurgan]

45 minutes ago, damerell said:

You find it surprising that people often like KSP mods to have some reference to reality?

See, here is exactly what I am talking about. Taking what I said and pushing it further, or skewing it into something else other than what I was talking about. 

I, in no way, implied that a KSP mod shouldn't have a reference to reality. There are some great mods out there that add realism to the game and many mods that have realistic basis. This idea, this very specific idea, does not have to perfectly follow the understood norms for a real nuclear reactor and thus doesn't need to be so tightly bound to reality. There is A LOT of unreal stuff in KSP, and this idea would have been minuscule but amusing.

53 minutes ago, damerell said:

If your response to any criticism is to blow up and insult the critics...

I made my irritation and disappointment obvious... maybe a little too strongly, but if you were insulted by anything I said, than you really need to toughen up there big fellah. Wait... did that insult you too? My apologies.

 

55 minutes ago, damerell said:

My remarks about your handle are entirely called for; your handle is inappropriate for an all-ages forum. (It's not super appropriate anywhere, to be honest). You should change it.

My handle is inappropriate? I have been using The Kurgan as my online name since about 1998 (Quake 1, I believe) I have played dozens and dozens of games, online, MMOs, FPS, RTS, been on many many forums, and you are the very first person to complain about my name or avatar. You are just grasping for something to poke at, something to complain about. 

[TheKurgan]

This topic needs to be closed and/or deleted. Can I do it myself? if so how?

Thank you to those who understood my idea and to those who liked it.

Cheers.

[Vanamonde]

Thread closed by OP's request.