For Roleplayers: How do you dispose of the LV-N engines?

[AntonioAJC]

I just let them drift in space. It isn't as if these are real hazards right? Right?!

[Skorpychan]

Generally, I don't dispose of my interplanetary drives. The interplanetary burns are performed by tugs, which dock to the mission craft and can be refueled later.

They're left where they run out of fuel, and refueled for reuse later.

[Madrias]

I tend to either return them to Kerbin on SSTO's, or if it's a real danger for landing, I pull a good old fashioned eject-and-chute on 'em so they land safely-ish near the plane.

Interplanetary ones tend to either be shot toward the sun or toward deep space if the fuel is left but the engine has no potential for gentle landing.

Crashed engines lead to a 3 day "no go zone" placed in the rough area where landing cannot be done. After all, Kerbals are radiation resistant, but we don't want them thinking the radioactive debris is a snack.

As for those that have to crash-and-burn into Kerbin Atmosphere, but have some method remotely resembling control, I try to point them toward an ocean. One, it's not a landing zone I'd normally consider for a craft, and two, it's far enough away that the guys at KSC won't be scooping it up and eating it. They're already green, we don't need 'em glowing.

[Taki117]

In My current Total Conversion Save I am refueling and reusing them until I can unlock faster/better modes of travel (Playing with KSP Interstellar) at which point they will be disposed of by either smashing them into the Mun (Or Minmus) I will Never Dispose of a Nuclear device (Be it Reactor or NERVA) by dropping it through Kerbin's Atmosphere.

[rpayne88]

Not so much land as crash them into the Mun.

[architeuthis]

With constant use neutron poisons would gradually build up inside a LV-N reactor core until they reached a concentration which snuffs out fission reactions. If they are anything like NASA's NERVA2 then this would have happened after around 80 engine restarts, which for me corresponds with about 10 Duna missions. It's a waste of delta-v to bother landing a derelict atomic rocket on a planetary surface, so I use a space tug to offload any remaining surplus propellants, and then shoot it into a heliocentric orbit.

From an early 1970's NASA technical report on Reusable Nuclear Shuttle disposal modes:

[Bobnova]

Mine typically end up drifting. There have been a few incidents during liftoff on kerbin, but other than those it's still pristine.

I typically just use them for transfers and leave 'em in orbit around whatever they got to.

I think on my 0.24 save, when it comes out, I'll take special care of them RP style, cause that sounds fun.

[StrandedonEarth]

I splatter, er, lithobrake them wherever convenient. How else can my Kerbals keep that healthy green glow?

[Lexif]

My house rules are that LV-Ns are not to be crashed into bodies with an atmosphere. I use Deadly Reentry, so aerocapture is generally not considered. That means I often need to inject my interplanetary transfer stages into an orbit around the target body anyway, so that's where they generally end up. (Unless it makes sense to plan a seperate stage for injection around the target body.) Stages using the LV-N are always equiped with a docking port, so that I can reuse them or depose them if I want to. As I use Remote Tech too, I often give those stages a probe core and some antennas, so that they can be repurposed as a communication satellite for future missions.

I still have to do a manned interplanetary mission, but I think those that use the nukes will return them into a Kerbin-orbit if enough fuel is left, so that they can be reused. But if the reserves have to be used, they will end up in a solar orbit and never be seen again.

[SSSPutnik]

There's a great trout lake north of KSC, after dumping there I no longer need camp lights at night, the Cherenkov radiation makes it such a lovely blue colour.

[NeoMorph]

I accidentally detached a couple of nukes while the engine was running at the lowest velocity and the things went interplanetary... Seems a good way to get rid of them hehe.

The thing that most people don't realise is that the exhausts of a nuke aren't highly radioactive. They see "NUCLEAR" and immediately think the exhausts are going to cause FLK syndrome.

One thing that bugs me about nukes in this game... Why haven't we got nukes that use a proper hydrogen propellant as they don't use oxidiser at all.

[magnemoe]

My orbitally assembled crafts have one of two types of propulsion segments. Now, like you, dumping nukes into an atmosphere just seems wrong, so I do a few different things.

Some of my propulsion modules are the full tank and engines. For these, I usually leave them up for possible re-use later (really to big to land practically). Now, sometimes my engines are on docking ports (yep, just engine, possibly a cluster mount, and docking port). These are undocked. I then dock a parachute module to them and de-orbit them for safe recovery.

The last option I've only done once. I took the 18 nukes of a ship, took just the propulsion stage (and did this only because the phase angle was convenient) and headed out to Jool. I personally have no problem dumping NERVAs into a gas giant.

Like this,

[Comrade Jenkens]

I don't use disposable nukes. Rather I reuse them for later missions.

[celem]

Economy is a false economy. Ecology is for hippies.

They get thrown wherever I damn well please; despite the Kerbals being a green race, the environmental concept of 'green' has never occured to them.

I do roleplay a fair amount when playing KSP, I agonised long and hard over what to do with my nuclear junk (playing with KSPInterstellar so I get more than the average space program). I eventually came up with the idea of making my space program's flag the trefoil nuclear symbol. Anywhere a lander has used a nuclear drive gets flagged up as a hot zone. Theres also a graveyard some 6km west of KSC where all my ground-based un-kerbaled reactors are parked. This patch is surrounded with 30-odd nuke flags to warn off any curious kerbals and a lot of junk gets piled in there alongside the active powerplants.

Safe? Not really, but then I'm quite happy lighting the damn things on the pad and spraying whatever their exhaust is across KSC should the mood take me. Im also not much for re-use. I play a lot of KSP across multiple saves and launch a great many missions, KSPI necessitates a number of maintenance missions due to it's mechanics, and I just cant face the increased workload refueling all my spent stages would entail. So empties get trashed somewhere and replacements are launched from KSC. So far in my current save I am at least taking KSPI's 'depleted fuel' resource seriously and stacking it into the graveyard to decay quietly. (its a useless resource, just fills up your reactors and clogs up the power production, necessitating disposal of some sort)

[palioxis1248]

They're still up there. And up there they will remain.

[TerLoki]

My solution this save? Don't use LV-Ns. Well, okay, I've used them once on a Duna flyby ship, those landed in the ocean on Kerbin. Aside from that however, I've been sticking to LV-909s for Kerbin's SoI and the near future pack's argon-fueled ion engines for interplanetary flights. I plan on making good use of nuclear reactors, but those will just be refueled and reused.

[Arran]

Due the lack of, or maybe better said dispite the lack of a self-destruct system, i just dump on a trajectory out of the system as soon i dont need them, and destroy them from KSC in space..

The debris of this then eventually drifts out of harms way (RP wise), and any radiation coming from them, in space, well is as dangerous as the radiation allready present in space. i might just add a other 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% to the total radiation in space present allready.

Dumping the LV-N's on any planet/moon is for me a no-go i dont want to leave any junk on any planet/moon, except flags

[Javster]

I might do that sort of thing, but I rarely use these engines.

[3_bit]

Kerbol is the best option really... It ensures nothing gets back out.

As far as I know, .24 won't allow us to land there anyways.

[SilentSkills]

I don't dispose of them. I recycle them. They are expensive.

[stupid_chris]

Where is the "set them on an impact course with the Mun" option

[jdmgto]

I believe in high velocity disposal.

And I consider the big impact crater on Kerbin to be a bull's eye.

[NoMrBond]

LV-N's only go up on/in reusable automated-tug 'transfer sections'

Subsequent vessels then go up to LKO without these main drives, and pick up one or more transfer sections there

The transfer sections then return themselves after dropping off a payload or come back to LKO with the crew/command section

[FITorion]

I don't worry about it generally... but if I did...

I would not use them for landers.

I would dispose of them only by sun impact or Jool impact.

I would only use them for reusable orbiting transfer vehicles or anything that is never intended to impact anything other than the sun or Jool.

I'd use them for probes which forever remain in orbit. I'd use them for the space ship which always remain in space and is used to ferry landers to and from destinations and be refueled for later use.

[Nick7892]

I put mine in a blender I use to dispose of evidence so the Kerbal government doesn't cut my funding.