[Tutorial] Adding Aerospikes to Nuclear Engines - and short profile Nuclear Engines

[Octobomb]

Sometimes your interstellar BattleCruiser just doesn't have enough thrust. Not even your patented method of MOAR BOOSTERS solves this issue. Time to call in the big boys. 12 Nuclears produce 600 units of thrust. Said engines with Aerospikes tacked on produce 2100 units of thrust. That works out to be a whole mainsail more in lifting power!

Anyway, down to business. Take your 1.25m (or 2.5m if you want multiple engines (use radial attachment points or cubic struts (I like the former (This is too many brackets)))) fuel tank, then add on your nuclear engine. Next, add on a TR18-A Stack Decoupler on the end (The one with the yellow stripes) and then an Aerospike. Finally, take a fuel line and carefully lead it from the tank to the aerospike's sticky-out-bit. It should attach like usual. And you're done! This also works for other 1.25m engines to replace the nuke, although I don't believe any engine but the Aerospike has the required sticky-out-bits.

Now: Short profile Nuclear engines (Disclaimer: Not my idea): Useful for landers or just good looks. Requires no debug menu, either. Take the X-16 tank or the FL-T400 tank and just place it on top of the tank, then use W or S twice to flip it over so it will hopefully stick out the bottom. If you want multiple engines, use the X-16 tank and mount the engines on radial attachment points, before repeating the process with symmetry on. This pick shows a step by step guide:

And it also works with the Aerospikes, although the FL-T400 requires a bit of careful fuel line placing, and you can't see the fuel lines as they are on the other side in the second pic

I hope this helps you.

I'm not Scott Manley, fly safe.

[Tripod27]

Yeah there are a few places you can put engines and fuel if you wiggle the part a bunch of times till it turns green. My favorite is filling the inside of the large cubic struts with Oscar fuel tanks to make both a strong base and fuel storage for my lander rovers

Just avoid having a decoupled separate two parts that are clipping, or the parts will (usually) jam/explode on decoupling

[Jaedinator]

I've seen those "engine-stacking" designs on the forums a few times, I just have to ask now. Is it just for saving space on the rocket or does it affect efficiency in any way ? Would it be the same to just stick the aerospikes via trusses to the side of the rocket?

[Tripod27]

It's mostly to make the ship more compact and easier to control, but done incorrectly it can cause "deadly decoupling destructionization disease" (that means it rips your rocket apart during a standard decoupling stage)

Oh, you mean just the rocket stacking thing? it actually makes it less efficient since you can't use all of the rockets at the same time, but if you don't need to then it doesn't matter so you can get away with it sometimes

Edited June 2, 2013 by Tripod27

[Octobomb]

The design is mostly for hauling large, nuclear powered constructions to orbit. Like warships especially. It's mostly for liftoff, when you've already added as many boosters as you can and aero spikes are still more thrust efficient than nuclears.

[Giggleplex777]

Are you getting thrust from the LV-N? Engines don't produce thrust if there's something attached to its bottom node. I made mine by using a long rod that it attached to the top of the LV-N. The aerospike is attached to the rod, not the LV-N.

I also made one with a LV-909:

[Octobomb]

Very nice. But can you shed the aero spike? That's the reason I like my design - it's an aero spike, then the aerospike disappears. Dit wanna be carting 12x1.5t around.

[Octobomb]

Very nice. But can you shed the aero spike? That's the reason I like my design - it's an aero spike, then the aerospike disappears. Don't wanna be carting 12x1.5t around.

[Giggleplex777]

If you put a decoupler before the aerospike, then yes.