Nuclear fuel should cost and require Reputation. Kerbonauts should gain fame.

[Smurfy987]

From the developer videos, there will be a new resource called "reputation". I think that, in order to launch a rocket from Kerbin with a nuclear fueled engine or power source, it should require larger than a certain reputation score in order for the public to "trust" you with fissionable materials. Mods that add more nuclear options like KSP Interstellar would impose similar requirements.

Each nuclear fueled launch would "cost" reputation as well, or you should get a very limited allocation of it. This would reflect how in real life, NASA has a heck of a time even getting ahold of decaying Plutonium for their RTGs. NASA can only dream of getting enough HEU for a nuclear thermal rocket.

I also think that kerbonauts should have a fame stat that will govern how much money you get for completing a manned mission using a particular kerbonaut. The more missions they complete, the more famous they get. Obviously, Jeb would start out with near maxed fame stat. Getting a kerbonaut killed who is famous would cause a bigger reputation hit than getting someone killed who is a nobody.

If you crash a vehicle with nuclear materials onboard into Kerbin, it should result in a gigantic loss of reputation. Crashing into land would be worse than crashing into water.

The game would need an "iron kerbal" mode for this new system to actually work. In this mode, you would not be permitted to revert or load a quicksave.

Of course, when and if they ever add resources, you would be able to mine other planets for things like fissionable materials, and resources gotten this way would not cost you reputation or money.

[goduranus]

+1 for nuclear components costing reputation to obtain, and reputation loss if anything nuclear crashes on Kerbin

[M3tal_Warrior]

+1 for nuclear components requiring a certain threshold of trust/reputation to obtain, and too to the massive reputation loss if something nuclear crashes down on Kerbin. I just don't see the point of nuclear components actually costing reputation; why would you lose reputation when getting your hands on nuclear material and everything works out fine?

As for Kerbals, there's a thread.

[aleis]

I'm not advocatin one side or the other but i prefer this not be in the game, because nuclear stuff costing/requiring reputation opens the forum to the political side of the issue.

And I really don't want that to be a part of the game.

[Jouni]

I'm not advocatin one side or the other but i prefer this not be in the game, because nuclear stuff costing/requiring reputation opens the forum to the political side of the issue.

Having nuclear engines in the game already opened the debate, as is evident from recurring threads like this.

[Ruedii]

I definitely like the idea of having reputation for each Kerbal as well as the whole space program.

As of nuclear engines only being available when you have high reputation, that just doesn't match up to the reckless nature of Kerbals in my opinion.

As much as that would apply on earth, this is Kerbin, where space travel doesn't take any safety precautions.

[Apature rocket science]

This is a great idea, but one question dose this mean I can not just meaningless kill every every kerbal excepect for jeb,bill or bob

[Red Iron Crown]

I like to think that Kerbals don't share humanity's irrational, uninformed fear of all things nuclear.

Nuclear propulsion is efficient and safe. Even if you want to be close to the real world, I must ask this question: How much reputation has the US Navy lost for fielding a fleet of nuclear warships?

Also, nice necro! Surprising that this suggestion got no attention originally.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I don't have a problem with having some scarcity in an advanced technology. It can make it more fun collecting it up. But I wouldn't think reputation should be spent. It's fine if you need enough to get the access, but I think something else should be the expenditure. But I'm a little open-minded about this anyway.

I really like the idea of having some resource scarcities. (read: bottlenecks)

[regex]

I like to think that Kerbals don't share humanity's irrational, uninformed fear of all things nuclear.

Nuclear propulsion is efficient and safe. Even if you want to be close to the real world, I must ask this question: How much reputation has the US Navy lost for fielding a fleet of nuclear warships?

Sums up my thoughts quite nicely. This doesn't really fit into the game.

I don't have a problem with having some scarcity in an advanced technology.

Nuclear engines like the one you see in KSP aren't "advanced" technology, they're pre-moon landing tech..

[coolitic]

IMO bad idea.

Nuclear engines should be usable without much consequence (other than price). Besides the average kerbal is too dumb to see radiation as a bad thing.

[pizzaoverhead]

If you're chasing all things atomic, the RTGs would be affected by this also. There are better ways of discouraging the use of the LV-N than reputation. It's height being more than the landing legs is the most obvious one.

[Sky_walker]

RTGs should hit your reputation only if you destroy them within Kerbin atmosphere or orbit.

Otherwise - it shouldn't make an impact on reputation, or a very small one.

IMHO LV-N is a win-win engine with no disadvantages or problem that exist in a real life. If the fact that nuclear engines are a horrible idea in a real life can be represented at least by a very high cost and reputation - than so be it (let's face it - both: money and reputation is borderline pointless in it's current implementation where you get so much of both that you have no idea what to do with them), but TBH: I wouldn't mind even more catastrophic penalties for failing with nuclear devices anywhere near KSP or Kerbin at all. This game is suppose to have some educational value in it, and what it is doing right now is teaching people that nuclear engines are an ultimate solution to the space flight - which is complete BS.

[Yakuzi]

I'm not too fussed either way, however it would be nice if reputation would be more integrated in the game.

I like to think that Kerbals don't share humanity's irrational, uninformed fear of all things nuclear.

IMO humans are very much like Kerbals, the US Air Force didn't lose too many reputation points when it dropped 2 armed nuclear bombs on North Carolina in 1961 after a B-52 bomber experienced FAR-like induced wing separation:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/us/north-carolina-nuclear-bomb-drop/

Thank the gods the parts required for nuclear detonation broke on impact (I sh*t thee not), much like an LV-T45's fate on single parachute touchdown.

[meve12]

I'm not too fussed either way, however it would be nice if reputation would be more integrated in the game.

IMO humans are very much like Kerbals, the US Air Force didn't lose too many reputation points when it dropped 2 armed nuclear bombs on North Carolina in 1961 after a B-52 bomber experienced FAR-like induced wing separation:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/us/north-carolina-nuclear-bomb-drop/

Thank the gods the parts required for nuclear detonation broke on impact (I sh*t thee not), much like an LV-T45's fate on single parachute touchdown.

It sorta helps that these things are really, really hard to set off(with the exception of gun-type bombs, nuclear warheads compress the fissionables into a super-critical mass; you need all the explosive going off in exactly the right way or you spray weapon's grade whatever around instead of gamma-ray death.)

Although NTRs as studied by NASA tend to put out a lot of radiation in operation, with no good way to adequately shield other spacecraft within a hundred kilometers.

Edited August 23, 2014 by meve12

[NERVAfan]

If the fact that nuclear engines are a horrible idea in a real life can be represented at least by a very high cost and reputation - than so be it (let's face it - both: money and reputation is borderline pointless in it's current implementation where you get so much of both that you have no idea what to do with them), but TBH: I wouldn't mind even more catastrophic penalties for failing with nuclear devices anywhere near KSP or Kerbin at all. This game is suppose to have some educational value in it, and what it is doing right now is teaching people that nuclear engines are an ultimate solution to the space flight - which is complete BS.

I strongly disagree. The nuclear engines in KSP actually have their thrust weakened compared to real life, IIRC.

And nuclear engines (NERVA type, which don't emit radioactive material in their exhaust when functioning properly, as opposed to something like an Orion nuclear pulse drive*) are a perfectly good idea in real life.

*Although nuclear pulse drives actually make sense for in-space use for manned missions to the outer planets and beyond.

[Red Iron Crown]

If the fact that nuclear engines are a horrible idea in a real life.....This game is suppose to have some educational value in it, and what it is doing right now is teaching people that nuclear engines are an ultimate solution to the space flight - which is complete BS.

How are nuclear rocket engines a horrible idea in real life? The game is being educational in showing nuclear rocket engines to be much more efficient than chemical rockets which is factually accurate, instead of perpetuating the knee-jerk fear reaction to nuclear power.

Also, LOL at the total lack of surprise at the position taken in the post above given the username. XD

[DaMichel]

Nuclear engines are great until one of them explodes. Just like nuclear power plants, i guess ...

The idea to give extra negative reputation for exploding nuclear devices in Kerbins atmosphere is interesting. It doesn't have to be game changing. But it would be a nice touch and would show that we are are dealing with a dangerous technology.

The LV-N isn't the ultimate solution though. It has low TWR. Or do you launch your stuff with LV-N boosters? And use them on minmus landers?

[Guest]

It'd a good idea to make losing a nuclear engine cost reputation. Also, dropping it in the sea should be punished less than crashing it on land. Water is pretty good at protecting against radiation. Same with RTGs, nuclear reactors and the like.

Requiring a certain level of reputation to unlock anything nuclear would be realistic, too. That could also force the players to rely on solar power and other engine types, as nuclear stuff tends to be quite powerful.

[Laie]

do you launch your stuff with LV-N boosters? And use them on minmus landers?

Launching from Kerbin, if there are LV-Ns on the rocket, and they're in a place where they can help during ascent -- why not?

On Mun and Minmus, I try to visit several sites in one go, and also bring the science equipment for three, four, n biomes (usually I just integrate the lab into the lander and that's that). These landers are large enough to warrant an LV-N.

[SofusRud]

given that Kerbals can survive in deep space without life support for years, it may be that they actually feed off of radiation and such. Perhaps one should stop applying ones' filthy human standards to the superior Kerbal beings.

[Whirligig Girl]

I got you covered on the Kerbal part http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/51831-How-to-make-Kerbals-awesomer

[Whirligig Girl]

Launching from Kerbin, if there are LV-Ns on the rocket, and they're in a place where they can help during ascent -- why not?

On Mun and Minmus, I try to visit several sites in one go, and also bring the science equipment for three, four, n biomes (usually I just integrate the lab into the lander and that's that). These landers are large enough to warrant an LV-N.

It's a waste of fuel. Their atmospheric Isp is 200 seconds. granted, by the time you're at 10 kilometers it's almost at 500 seconds, but still.

[Red Iron Crown]

It's a waste of fuel. Their atmospheric Isp is 200 seconds. granted, by the time you're at 10 kilometers it's almost at 500 seconds, but still.

Check your math, LV-Ns beat any chemical rocket by 1500m on Kerbin. The low atmospheric Isp is only a penalty for less than a minute of any reasonable launch.