Opinion from roleplayers: Does the LV-N release "radioactive" exhaust?

[PDCWolf]

Wow, there's people that think the LV-N is not radiactive? jesus.

Anyways, haven't touched LV-Ns since 0.19, I consider them easymode.

[MeticulousMitch]

Anyways, haven't touched LV-Ns since 0.19, I consider them easymode.

Good luck getting to Moho and back.

[Othuyeg]

Good luck getting to Moho and back.

Some people just want to watch the ions burn.

[The Jedi Master]

Yes and no. Technically the engines do emit radiation, but kerbals are far more resilient than humans, and they find the radiation level negligible, though it would be fatal to a human.

[stupid_chris]

No.

The LV-N is a nuclear thermal rocket. Thermal as in it heats up it's propellant to expulse it at high velocities.

In such an engine, the nuclear core only serves as a high temperature heat source. The nuclear matter from the core never leaves it, and the propellant is never in direct contact with the core, so no, the exhaust of an LV-N would not be radioactive one bit. Some nuclear rockets like those working on radioactive salts do expell some nuclear matter and it's better not be anywhere near their exhaust, but the LV-N isn't one of them.

[LethalDose]

Wow, there's people that think the LV-N is not radiactive? jesus.

Well, there are people that think the LV-N does not produce radioactive thrust. Because the real world equivalent engines also do not produce radioactive thrust.

[NERVAfan]

In such an engine, the nuclear core only serves as a high temperature heat source. The nuclear matter from the core never leaves it, and the propellant is never in direct contact with the core, so no, the exhaust of an LV-N would not be radioactive one bit. Some nuclear rockets like those working on radioactive salts do expell some nuclear matter and it's better not be anywhere near their exhaust, but the LV-N isn't one of them.

^ This.

I wish they'd remove the radioactive exhaust bit from the engine's description. It is misleading, and nuclear propulsion technology already gets too much bad press.

[Brotoro]

^ This.

I wish they'd remove the radioactive exhaust bit from the engine's description. It is misleading, and nuclear propulsion technology already gets too much bad press.

I agree with NERVAfan. I think SQUAD should remove the bit about radioactive exhaust from the part description. Where do I sign the petition?

They could replace it with a warning that it "Emits copious amounts of neutrons when operating, so don't stand too close when it's running"... because it certainly would do that.

[razark]

They would be fine to use in real life except that people are irrationally paranoid about radiation.

Nuclear engines operating normally aren't so much of a problem. The problem would be the accidental release of nuclear material.

Of course, rockets never fail during launch, and what are the chances that a nuclear powered satellite would undergo an uncontrolled re-entry, scattering nuclear material over a wide area?

[r4pt0r]

interesting input guys. Chris made a good point.

[NERVAfan]

Nuclear engines operating normally aren't so much of a problem. The problem would be the accidental release of nuclear material.

Of course, rockets never fail during launch, and what are the chances that a nuclear powered satellite would undergo an uncontrolled re-entry, scattering nuclear material over a wide area?

Oh, it could happen. But a failure during launch from Cape Canaveral or the ESA site in French Guiana (though not Baikonur) would drop it in the ocean, which isn't a big deal for human health (probably not entirely environmentally ideal... OTOH radiation isn't so much of an ecological problem, it's more of a human health/quality/length of life thing; Chernobyl is pretty ecologically OK. You aren't going to cause enough cancer to make animal populations non-viable short of something like a nuclear war.)

And there's not much point in using nuclear propulsion if you're not going beyond the Moon, so such a spacecraft shouldn't be very likely to crash on Earth (EDIT: after launch).

It's a risk/reward thing. The risk isn't zero, but it's small enough that the benefits for spaceflight are worth it, IMO.

Also, the chances that even potentially-lethal radioactive fragments (like the Kosmos 954 thing you link to) would actually harm someone are probably not that high. Most of the Earth is ocean, where they would sink and be lost; much of the rest is unpopulated or nearly so, desert, tundra, icecap etc. The Kosmos 954 bits fell in Northern Canada; what are the chances someone would actually have encountered the potentially-lethal bits if they hadn't been actively searched for?

EDIT: So the risk of it actually failing in a way that would drop dangerous debris onto Earth, combined with the risk that that debris would fall in an area where they would actually harm people, is not very high.

[NERVAfan]

I agree with NERVAfan. I think SQUAD should remove the bit about radioactive exhaust from the part description. Where do I sign the petition?

Right here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77404-Remove-radioactive-exhaust-from-the-part-description-of-the-LV-N

[FenrirWolf]

Wow, there's people that think the LV-N is not radiactive? jesus.

Yeah, the people who do their research.

[razark]

So the risk of it actually failing in a way that would drop dangerous debris onto Earth, combined with the risk that that debris would fall in an area where they would actually harm people, is not very high.

It doesn't matter where it lands. It's a big hassle dealing with a reactor that isn't meant to fly. Launch something nuclear from KSC, let it explode over the Atlantic, and watch public opinion and political fallout wrap you in enough red tape to keep you from attempting another launch for a decade. If you did happen to hit a populated area, the legal fees alone would probably bankrupt your space program, not to mention the possibilities of an international incident

[PDCWolf]

Yeah, the people who do their research.

Well, there are people that think the LV-N does not produce radioactive thrust. Because the real world equivalent engines also do not produce radioactive thrust.

Well, we are talking about roleplaying, and the description says there's a radioactive exhaust. Even if the real counterparts don't have it, there is a hint in the description that this one does.

Somehow you are now assuming the "stupid expendable little green guys who build everything with space duct tape and junkyard parts" are capable of creating a nuclear engine so safe that it doesn't emit a radioactive stream even when the description says it does. That's some hardcore nitpicking right there.

Good luck getting to Moho and back.

Probes don't need to get back, unless it's a flyby. Manned missions to a planet that has a very hot surface temperature are not planned on my schedule. Even so, you can do it without Nervas.

[HafCoJoe]

The LV-N engine is supposed to be a nuclear reactor that heats up the fuel before it escapes the novel so yeah it does release radiation but idk how much...

[Kasuha]

Well, we are talking about roleplaying, and the description says there's a radioactive exhaust.

If you follow Kerbal descriptions, then you might want to roleplay Kerbal universe as well. Kerbals clearly don't consider releasing radioactive exhaust an issue, otherwise the description wouldn't say it's mostly harmless.

Of course it's your game so you can choose whatever kind of roleplay you like but I think that playing with Kerbal prerequisities and human concerns results in an unnecessarily restrictive one.

[FenrirWolf]

Docking ports are also described as passages through which crew can cross. That will likely be a thing eventually, but for now its not necessarily reflecting the reality of things as they actually happen in game.

Either way, I suppose the descriptions are as close to canon as anything can be in this game. So maybe they do spew more than the average NTR after all. Who knows really.

[DocMoriarty]

Of course LV-N engines release huge amounts of radiation, especially at full thrust. But Kerbals are green skinned and therefore immune to radiation!

[NecroBones]

But Kerbals are green skinned and therefore immune to radiation!

Heck, they're probably already radioactive themselves.

[Hannu]

I think that LV-N is not allowed on Kerbin's atmosphere for environmental reasons, near surface bases for safety reasons and also I do not use them on landing stages. Not because safety, the radiation is probably not much compared to levels typical in many space environments, but because it would disturb scientific measurements, for example natural levels of surface radioactivity. But I do not play such that using of LV-N would pollute whole surface or atmosphere of target body. However, normally I have chemical engines on landing and ascent stages because LV-N is unpractical massive and tall.

[SilentSkills]

I don't think they will ever launch anything with nuclear based propulsion from KSC.

Imagine if something like this happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_aHEit-SqA

As per the original question. I would think that the LV-N has the potential/risk to release radioactive exhaust, much like contemporary nuclear plants. LV-N is virtually useless anywhere but space anyhow.

[vger]

I don't think they will ever launch anything with nuclear based propulsion from KSC.

Imagine if something like this happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_aHEit-SqA

As per the original question. I would think that the LV-N has the potential/risk to release radioactive exhaust, much like contemporary nuclear plants. LV-N is virtually useless anywhere but space anyhow.

Risk, perhaps, but how much radiation do you think it could possibly release? We probably irradiated our planet more with a single nuke than you could with launching a hundred theoretical LV-N rockets.

Though if you take physical size of Kerbin seriously, it starts to look a bit scary.

But yeah, who would want to use an LV-N in the atmosphere anyway? To do so is just a waste of fuel.

[Rus-Evo]

If these things are nuclear reactors, shouldn't they power my ship even when not thrusting?

[Sirrobert]

If these things are nuclear reactors, shouldn't they power my ship even when not thrusting?

No

A nuclear power reactor doesn't just produce power. It produces heat. Something else than turns this heat into power.

And those extra parts would make it much heavier