LV-Ns and electricity

[Anton P. Nym]

I'm wondering why LV-Ns don't generate electricity when operating, unlike other liquid-fuelled engines in the game. I researched NERVA and the "real world" nuclear-thermal engines did have tap-offs and turbines to drive generators as well as the fuel pumps, so it's not for historical reasons... is it a balance issue to prevent LV-Ns from becoming *the* engine to use in space, or is it on oversight?

(I'll confess to not having paid adequate attention to the VAB's statistics page and losing my first LV-N powered probe mission to power outage...)

-- Steve

[Comrade Jenkens]

I've always wondered this.

Though the NERVAs are completely overpowered atm, and allowing them to generate electricity would make them even more so, when career is implemented this will be balanced by not having them until researched.

So yes I think that they should generate power.

[chaos_forge]

Though the NERVAs are completely overpowered atm, and allowing them to generate electricity would make them even more so, when career is implemented this will be balanced by not having them until researched.

How are they overpowered? IIRC, real-life NERVAS had the same ISP and more thrust than the KSP ones.

What about having them function as always-on RTGs? I mean, you've already got a bunch of radioactive material right there anyways . . .

[Anton P. Nym]

How are they overpowered? IIRC, real-life NERVAS had the same ISP and more thrust than the KSP ones.

Certainly they're not overpowered compared to the real-world version, but in terms of the game itself there's very little reason to use any engine but the LV-N for interplanetary missions with anything larger than a probe body. (For the wee ones, ion engines get competitive very quickly.)

What about having them function as always-on RTGs? I mean, you've already got a bunch of radioactive material right there anyways . . .

I ended up sticking one RTG per LV-N on my latest designs to reflect that, myself; the weight penalty wasn't terribly welcome, but the thing's a ferry to haul payloads to other worlds so in the end it'll get wiped out by the payloads' masses.

-- Steve

[chaos_forge]

Certainly they're not overpowered compared to the real-world version, but in terms of the game itself there's very little reason to use any engine but the LV-N for interplanetary missions with anything larger than a probe body. (For the wee ones, ion engines get competitive very quickly.)

Well yes, but isn't that what they're supposed to be for . . . ? IDK, maybe once we get career the increased cost of the engines will mean we have to make more liquid-fueled interplanetary missions.

[Psycix]

Certainly they're not overpowered compared to the real-world version, but in terms of the game itself there's very little reason to use any engine but the LV-N for interplanetary missions with anything larger than a probe body.

There is very little reason to use any engine but a nuclear powered one for interplanetary missions in real life as well.

The main reason we do not have a colony on Mars IRL is because people duck and cover when they hear the word nuclear. If NASA had permission to build nuclear engines we could travel to mars in The technology is there, it works; all that rests is to convince the world it is safe to do so.

And it's not crazy at all compared to the Orion project, which aside from sounding like an apocalyptic concept, should actually work.

Nuclear power beats conventional rockets for interplanetary travel, end of.

I'd expect career mode to keep this engine locked until you have proven to build reliable and safe rockets, and generated enough interest in a Mars colony by sending a few rovers there. Crashing a single one would potentially revoke the license, so you could look into safety abort systems.

Back on topic, I'd say I don't see any reason why they wouldn't generate electricity while other engines do.

Thumbs up for the suggestion.