Show and Tell - New LANTR engine

[JadeOfMaar]

@KSPStar I happen to have some Romulan (Trekkie) sounding name ideas:

• TAHAR: Trans-Atmospheric Hybrid Atomic Rocket
• TAMMAR: Trans-Atmospheric Multi-Mode Atomic Rocket

[MeatyBoi]

23 minutes ago, Shbibe said:

Call it the Lox-Augmented Nuclear Thermal high Efficiency Reconfigurable Nozzle, or LANTERN for short (the h is silent because I'm too lazy to find a better acronym)

That is actually really good I should be that

[The Aziz]

34 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Methane and Hydrogen bot independently (and indirectly) confirmed as fuels, and Oxygen used instead of the more generic Oxidizer, unless this is just background lore used for part descriptions and engine design it seems we'll have different base fuel to deal with.

Methalox was already confirmed a while ago. So I guess fuel tanks can have, like in ksp1, a mix of both or have them separate. So methane and oxygen aren't new.

Liquid hydrogen though, is something new. And according to mentioned earlier announcement, there's only one kind of unknown fuel left.

[Dr. Kerbal]

This is Kerbal Space Program 2 right? As we know Kerbals are professionals as naming engines. SO. We could say Super Nerv. But I dont know. 

[Zaffre]

Oh my goodness that's larger than I thought it would be. It looks great, and is that a retractable nozzle I spot?

As for the name... LANTERN as previously stated fits the bill perfectly.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Zaffre

[An Amongus Sussy Player]

@KSPStar K.E.R.B.A.L = Kerbal Engine with Retractable Box-like nozzle Augmented by LOX
well . . .
it looks kerbal so i made a sentence of it 

[Dr. Kerbal]

1 minute ago, Zaffre said:

Oh my goodness that's larger than I thought. It looks great, and is that a retractable nozzle I spot?

As for the name... LANTERN as previously stated fits the bill perfectly.

Now that you say it large, it looks as wide as a 2.5 meters parts. 

The  Large Inflatable NERV Atomic Rocket Motor. I think that's a good name. The LINARM. Linarm! 

[Zaffre]

1 minute ago, Dr. Kerbal said:

Now that you say it large, it looks as wide as a 2.5 meters parts. 

It is indeed a 2.5 meter part as noted in the description.

[kerbalboi]

NEVUS %100

[Slyfoxien1]

Name it NERVUS (credit u/Combatpigeon96)

[JKIUYHB2]

59 minutes ago, linecrafter said:

Name it Jack the LANTR and have a pumpkin hidden on it somewhere 

Combine this and one of the LANTERN acronyms, and call it the "Jack o' LANTERN"

 

[Pthigrivi]

One thing I've found once you've built up a bit of a local fuel economy with ISRU and lots of reusable craft is its nice to get a lot of versatility out of a given fuel type so you can streamline your tankers and depots. So I love what we're seeing here.  I'd love to see a small suite of Nervas, a big boy like this, a mid and small size H2 only high ISP variant, and a squat or extendable 1.25m variant for mid-size landers that could also be LOX-aug. 

The other thing Im interested to find out more about is how radiation will work. I'm guessing with an engine like this you're not going to want to land right next to a base or fire up right next to a station?

Edited June 25, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[TLTay]

Using this in atmosphere will cause another Kernobyl incident, for sure.

[PlutoISaPlanet]

I wonder what the lore is for ksp. Game Theory should do a vid on it for ksp 2.

[The Physics Engineer]

8 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

The other thing Im interested to find out more about is how radiation will work. I'm guessing with an engine like this you're not going to want to land right next to a base or fire up right next to a station?

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).

[Souptime]

2 hours ago, KSPStar said:

We're still adding engines to our part roster, and here's a peek at one that's still in the early whitebox phase -- we still haven't come up with a Kerbal-fied name for this LOX-Augmented Nuclear Thermal Rocket (or LANTR). Super NERV? SNERV? Suggestions welcome!

A few details for our forum friends: This is a 2.5m part that, like the new NERV, runs on liquid hydrogen fuel. This engine also has a hidden talent: liquid oxygen can be injected into the nozzle to create a high-thrust mode, and its vacuum nozzle can be retracted for use in atmosphere.

"Switcharoo" is my name for it, cuz it can switch between LH2, LOX, Vacuum, and atmospheric modes

[Alexoff]

Wow! There will be engine!

[Souptime]

Just now, Alexoff said:

Wow! There will be engine!

yes, yes there will be engine

[prestja]

22 minutes ago, Souptime said:

yes, yes there will be engine

Many many engine

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

I'm guessing with an engine like this you're not going to want to land right next to a base or fire up right next to a station?

Probably the same way as you wouldn't use Orion or Daedalus (both very high energy) engines near any bases.

We do know that one of the overlays in the VAB is something related to radiation, most likely an area around a nuclear engine where unprotected things are not safe. I guess it applies to a range of NERVs as well.

[SciMan]

I just hope it will have high enough TWR in augmented mode to be able to launch a rocket with a usable (sizeable) payload into orbit using JUST this engine (perhaps multiples of this engine, but JUST this engine, and switching from atmosphere to vacuum mode at the right time, and then switching from LANTR mode to pure NTR mode at a later right time as well).

Yes, the hydrogen does pass thru the core of a nuclear reactor, but in a properly operating NTR no part of the uranium is exposed to the propellant, the fuel elements are coated in a high temperature ceramic material. Yes, you'd get "some" deuterium and tritium in the exhaust, but if you can measure the radiation output of the engine in anything but the gamma ray spectrum, then that engine is either not a solid-core NTR (instead being liquid or gas core), or something has gone horribly wrong with the engine.

Two things I'm tired of in KSP 1, that have really put a serious damper on me playing the game:

1. LV-N tiny (useless) TWR. Yes, it has a nuclear reactor, and that reactor has shielding, so it's going to be somewhat heavy. But why does it only put out 60kN? That makes it useless for using as the main propulsion method of a Jool-V mission, or a mission to Duna, or really anything. Just use a Poodle or Rhino or Cheetah instead, and you get better numbers to all but pretty much Eeloo, and even then it's not a convincing argument.

2. All the fuel tanks and engines are made out of pig iron and lead. Yes, they need to hold fuel, and yes, they need to carry a structural load. But it's like they made the tank walls a whole inch thick for even the smallest fuel tanks. Fuel tanks are not under that much pressure (with the possible exception of monopropellant and Xenon tanks). Generally fuel tank pressures in IRL rockets are intentionally kept under 4 bar or 50 psi except in pressure-fed rocket engines. Yes, the solar system is 10x smaller than IRL, but it bothers me that I can't get a chemical stage to give me more than about 4.5km/s of delta-V for JUST the rocket stage and no payload. I should be able to get about double that, as IRL you can make an SSTO with '60's tech and engines, and no wings (Atlas I first stage), provided it has no payload. I don't like the fact that it takes two stages to get on a transfer trajectory to Jool with just about any engine except the Nerv, and even then you run right back into the "lol 3.5 tons for 60kn" problem.

[Pulstar]

I would go with either Firefly or Moth or Firemoth or Moth Flame for this one. Moth I think represent quite well the kind of attraction certain kerbals *looks at jeb* should have towards big nucular engines. Maybe Bug Zapper as a name in that case?

Edited June 25, 2021 by Pulstar

[Lewie]

3 hours ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

OINK- Oxygen Improved Nuclear Kreation

YES

[Radical Isotope]

3 hours ago, Shbibe said:

Call it the Lox-Augmented Nuclear Thermal high Efficiency Reconfigurable Nozzle, or LANTERN for short (the h is silent because I'm too lazy to find a better acronym)

LOX-Augmented Nuclear [Nucular?] Thermally-Efficient Reconfigurable Nozzle?

If it weren't for copyright issues, you could stick a "Gets Really Energetically Enigmatic Nascently" in front of it. 

(Edit: Or "Gets Really Enigmatically Energetic Naturally")

Edited June 25, 2021 by Radical Isotope

[The Physics Engineer]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

Probably the same way as you wouldn't use Orion or Daedalus (both very high energy) engines near any bases.

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.

46 minutes ago, SciMan said:

1. LV-N tiny (useless) TWR. Yes, it has a nuclear reactor, and that reactor has shielding, so it's going to be somewhat heavy. But why does it only put out 60kN?

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 .