JtPB Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 its always at full power(1). shouldnt it go down after a while? or being variable at all? else why its there anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Kerbin Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Yes it would go down but on the scale of decades. Now technically many people play games that manage to warp through that kind of time but that runs into another thing which is that it's a game. Just like how the atmosphere suddenly stops (instead of extending far out and slowly eroding orbits of any near kerbin object) it's just not part of the game to make people micromanage stuff over large time scales. If you've got something working (a craft in stable orbit, a ship powered by an RTG) it's expecting that it will continue working while you go off and do something else instead of requiring on going baby sitting.But ultimately missions (even grand tours) normally end in 10 years or less so having an RTG slowly degrade is an edge case anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biohazard15 Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 That's the way RTG works for now in KSP - an infinite power supply If you want "finite" nuclear power sources, try mods like Near Future Propulsion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DovahMarat Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 It says on the wiki that it takes decades for the nuclear reactors to degrade. But once they start degrading, their degradation speed increases constantly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathair Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 RL Plutonium powered RTGs lose about 0.8% of their capacity each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JtPB Posted March 12, 2014 Author Share Posted March 12, 2014 So it is degrade. is there a way to refuel it or replace the finished reactor? Cause if, we say, we going to build a ground base with that kind of power plant, we need to renew it. Currently the only way i can think to do this is as following:- detach the unefficient plant and move into suborbital trajectory until it crash on the ground; - than, launch new plant and dock it at the plant port. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhaserArray Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) 100% divided by 0.8% per year = 125 years to reach 0%, sweet! Edited March 12, 2014 by PhaserArray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceGremlin Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Wouldn't a decay of 0.8% per year be (1-.008)^x? So after 125 years it would be operating at 36.6% efficiency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhaserArray Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Wouldn't a decay of 0.8% per year be (1-.008)^x? So after 125 years it would be operating at 36.6% efficiency.Maybe I did something wrong but see this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabada Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Wouldn't a decay of 0.8% per year be (1-.008)^x? So after 125 years it would be operating at 36.6% efficiency.Correct! Half life is exponential Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radonek Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 So it is degrade. is there a way to refuel it or replace the finished reactor? …Technical sidenote: it's not a "reactor". There is no chain reaction going on, just natural decay. You could refuel it, but why? After some hundred years, whatever it is powering is gonna be well beyond service life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsalis Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 its always at full power(1). shouldnt it go down after a while? or being variable at all? else why its there anyways? Yes it should go down. I believe when the part was added that code handling the going down bit would be added later. I suspect that feature has been shelved though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MockKnizzle Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I assume that it would be pretty trivial to just replace an aging RTG, seeing as any permanent surface base is going to need restocking well within the operational lifetime of the the RTG anyways. However I doubt that an RTG would even be used in such an application, since it's a very inefficient means of power generation and the power requirements of a manned base would likely be much greater than an unmanned satellite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 So does it go down over time or does it not go down? Make up your mind guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pizzaoverhead Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 So does it go down over time or does it not go down? Make up your mind guys! It was a planned feature that was never implemented. As of 0.23, RTGs are indefinite sources of electricity.Before the original resources plan was abandoned, it was planned to have RTGs and LV-Ns degrade over time and require being refuelled using blutonium extracted from Eve's oceans or by mining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Wow, that was quite a complex feature. Not surprised they weren't happy with it... I can see at a glance that this would basically require a planetary building mode to pull off properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now