why are there people who stick more than one nuke on their ships?

[boomerdog2000]

Yep main reason for me is generally weight balancing and burn time. Or just because I feel like it.

[Silverchain]

It would be interesting to do a practical investigation of the different delta v requirements to move a big ship from LKO to some high orbit using different numbers of nuke engines. Stick a couple of big oranges in 100x100 with a single central nuke and mounting arms for extra pairs of nukes. Fly (or in this case for consistency maybe let an autopilot do its best) up to ~Minmus orbit, check what dV is required. Restart and dock a couple more nukes, repeat the test. And so further. (Or do it the other way round, start with lots of nukes and jettison them before retrying)

(if you're reading this and thinking "no need to do that, just get the different dV numbers from Kerbal Engineer / MechJeb / whatever" then I suspect you'll be surprised by the result ^^)

[Epthelyn]

It would be interesting to do a practical investigation of the different delta v requirements to move a big ship from LKO to some high orbit using different numbers of nuke engines. Stick a couple of big oranges in 100x100 with a single central nuke and mounting arms for extra pairs of nukes. Fly (or in this case for consistency maybe let an autopilot do its best) up to ~Minmus orbit, check what dV is required. Restart and dock a couple more nukes, repeat the test. And so further. (Or do it the other way round, start with lots of nukes and jettison them before retrying)

(if you're reading this and thinking "no need to do that, just get the different dV numbers from Kerbal Engineer / MechJeb / whatever" then I suspect you'll be surprised by the result ^^)

The dV to get from LKO to 46.4MM is exactly the same for every rocket in the game whether it's powered by an ion engine, LV-N or a mainsail, or even a Kerbal.

The total dV for any given rocket using a single LV-N will decrease if you add any more LV-Ns; this decrease will be a fairly small percentage.

No surprises there.

If MechJeb/KE/paper says a dV value, then that dV value will be true and remain the same regardless of where you are going (in space obviously, atmospheres are anomalous destroyers of !!SCIENCE!!).

[jwenting]

symmetry...

I place my nukes on outriggers, to keep things symmetrical that means I need multiple. At least 2, and for larger ships I tend to use 4 to provide a bit more oompfh as well.

[Tank Buddy]

Because more is better. End of story.

[Madrias]

Returning again after an SSTO flight on a plane that should never have made orbit (one engine, a nuke, and nothing else).

If you really cared about your delta-V requirement, you'd make all of your designs infinigliders, with one nuke engine and the smallest possible flight weight. To do that effectively, they must use the MK1 Cockpit and be flown from IVA view at all times. Docking ports aren't allowed, so if you run out of power in space, your Kerbal is dead.

If you can't tell, I'm being kinda troll-ish about it because I find it a rather pointless debate. Nuke engines are fun even if slightly impractical. It's like making anything with an Ant engine. It's fun to do, even if impractical. I've made an infinigliding SSTO with either Ant engines or Nukes, you just need patience and flying skills. The thing is, it's incredibly impractical, but a splash of fuel gets you through to orbit, making it lots of fun.

What it has boiled down to is the "Why are people having fun this way? It's wrong. My way is the only way to have fun," peeing match that you see in playgrounds during elementary school recess.

Plus, it's fun to brag to friends that you've landed infinigliders.

[rkman]

The same is true for non-nukes engines.

Yet people prefer a twr in space that gives them burn times that are practical (with varying degrees of what is considered to be practical).

[radonek]

I second Clockwerewolf, exploding fairings and center docking port are main reasons why my tankers use 2 radial nukes. Shorter burn times are just nice bonus.

I made quad-nuke heavy pusher once for planned Moho expedition, but it proved to be useless in the end. But it looked kinda cool :-)

[I_Killed_Jeb]

A lot of people seem to be concerning themselves with how other people are playing their games...

[Psycix]

The dV to get from LKO to 46.4MM is exactly the same for every rocket in the game whether it's powered by an ion engine, LV-N or a mainsail, or even a Kerbal.

The total dV for any given rocket using a single LV-N will decrease if you add any more LV-Ns; this decrease will be a fairly small percentage.

No surprises there.

If MechJeb/KE/paper says a dV value, then that dV value will be true and remain the same regardless of where you are going (in space obviously, atmospheres are anomalous destroyers of !!SCIENCE!!).

At first I also thought he was wrong, but what he is getting at is that a longer burn can be less efficient, therefore requiring more delta-V.

[Liowen]

I have a question that will answer your question in a way. Why does it matter what someone else does within the confines of their own personal game? It has no effect on you at all, or do you feel there is only one way for everyone to have fun in the game? This has baffled me about gaming in general, other take it upon themselves to tell others what they should do or not do, even when no advice was asked for in the first place. If the player is enjoying the game with using 9000 nuke engines that is great for them, if you enjoy doing something that doesn't that is great for you. This changes though when you try and force players to play your way just because you feel it is the best way to play the game. There is no right way for a person to have fun, so long as they are enjoying what they are doing.

[ComradeGoat]

You try sending a flat pack space station to Laythe with only one LVN from LKO when an orbit only takes a few minute. By the time you've done your orbit burns, you're probably on to the next launch window!

but then, why would you need to fly a 100t to begin with?

you can basically go to EVE and return with less than 50t if you staring point is Kerbin low orbit

Some of us don't do out and back missions. Some of us build deep space orbital stations.

Edited January 22, 2014 by ComradeGoat

[The Error]

Simple answer: burn times. I had to shift a 50 ton ship to Duna, and I had 4 nukes because waiting 3 hours to make the burns wasn't my idea of gettin' stuff done.

[Comrade Jenkens]

On my military ships I can have as many as 12 Nervas as I want to keep the acceleration as high as possible. Sure it damages the efficiency but its still preferable to a mainsail.

[Fiddlestyx]

Why does it matter how someone else plays their game?

[Kasuha]

The dV to get from LKO to 46.4MM is exactly the same for every rocket in the game whether it's powered by an ion engine, LV-N or a mainsail, or even a Kerbal.

Surprisingly enough, it's not true.

The dv needed to get from LKO to 46.4 MM is the same only as long as you burn it all in periapsis.

with ion engine, burning it all at periapsis might get very tricky. If you perform a long burn, you spend more dv because you lose on Oberth effect.

Now, to get from LKO to Minmus, you can phase your burns and burn at periapsis multiple times. Not so much on travel to Eeloo - at certain time your orbit exits the SOI and after that you got to spend your dv out of the optimal place. And in that case, more nukes may actually mean you spend less fuel.

[Col_Jessep]

OP forgot about the player equation:

boredom = e^(burn time / possible physics timewarp)

[Flixxbeatz]

Aesthetics. Also to cut burn times.

[FITorion]

1 Nuke = long burns.

this can cause several problems.

1. player boredom.

2. a burn longer than the encounter needed for capture.

3. a burn so long that it can't be done in its entirety at peri and must be broken up into multiple burns so as not to waste fuel.

For small craft the thrust of one nuke is usually quite enough. For large 500+ part motherships... not so much.

[JimmyAgent007]

2. a burn longer than the encounter needed for capture.

This is my reason, more nukes let you slow down a whole lot faster when you finally get to where you are going. Im wondering, would it be better to burn a single nuke on your way out and only turn on the others when you get there or have them all burning the whole time? I think all of them would be better but the math in my head has been wrong before.

[Carter]

The only reason I ever put more than one of any engine on a spacecraft (not a launcher) is for balance if I can't place just one engine centered behind the COM. Station tugs and landers are good examples of when I might radially mount a pair of engines, but I try to use just one whenever I can.

[mythbusters844]

The only reason I ever put more than one of any engine on a spacecraft (not a launcher) is for balance if I can't place just one engine centered behind the COM. Station tugs and landers are good examples of when I might radially mount a pair of engines, but I try to use just one whenever I can.

Exactly. It even saves vertical space on the launch vehicle if you put them radially.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

This is my reason, more nukes let you slow down a whole lot faster when you finally get to where you are going. Im wondering, would it be better to burn a single nuke on your way out and only turn on the others when you get there or have them all burning the whole time? I think all of them would be better but the math in my head has been wrong before.

No, the ISP (i.e. your efficiency) does not change with more engines of the same time firing

[Joonatan1998]

Why do people use nukes at all? They could just use 1 ion engine to get the best effiency.

[leax256]

this is over-engineering.

and it's another issue... people just cant build smaller, more efficient craft.

you really haven't met wackjob have you.