Remove "radioactive exhaust" from the part description of the LV-N

[NERVAfan]

The "radioactive exhaust" bit in the LV-N part description is misleading; solid-core NTRs working properly do not emit radioactive material.

And nuclear propulsion (and even stuff like RTGs) faces enough political opposition already, largely due to people expecting it to spew radiation everywhere. Probably more people play KSP than would otherwise hear about solid-core NTRs.

So can this please be changed?

[FenrirWolf]

Frankly I never heard of nuclear thermal engines until playing this game, myself. At first I thought it was some kind of hypothetical tech when I saw there was a nuke rocket of some sort.

As amusing as the stock description is, I would support changing it to something a bit more accurate too.

[Brotoro]

Yes, please, SQUAD. Remove the reference to radioactive exhaust in the description of the NERVA-like LV-N motor.

It's bad enough that the general public gets exposed to silliness like nuclear reactors exploding as atomic bombs in movies. Let's not add to the misinformation -- it only makes it harder for NASA to ever use nuclear engines to explore space.

[TerLoki]

Well, on the one hand it seems like a very minor thing, but then again there's no real reason for it to be incorrect and this would be a very simple change. Maybe just change it to something like "Don't let the trefoil and radioactive core fool you, this engine doesn't give off any radiation (usually)."

[FenrirWolf]

Well, on the one hand it seems like a very minor thing, but then again there's no real reason for it to be incorrect and this would be a very simple change. Maybe just change it to something like "Don't let the trefoil and radioactive core fool you, this engine doesn't give off any radiation (usually)."

I like this. True to both what an NTR is but also true to the slightly haphazard way of kerbal life.

[Sirrobert]

Yes please

[Superfluous J]

And while you're at it remove the "As a result of its small size, it's usable for transferring resources, but not crew." from the Clamp-o-tron Jr. It suggests that the other docking ports CAN transfer crew

[FenrirWolf]

That is supposedly something that will be implemented, but who knows when.

[Whirligig Girl]

Don't they emit radioactive exhaust only in the atmosphere?

[Javster]

To be fair, they shouldn't use liquid fuel and oxidizer, should they?

[Seret]

Guys, if you want stuff like this changed in the game you're much more likely to get a result from filing a bug than you are from making a forum post.

[airbus a320]

To be fair, they shouldn't use liquid fuel and oxidizer, should they?

If I recall right, it works like "ground fission power plants". The core generates heat during the fixing reaction, the heat expands the liquid hydrogen and then liquid hydrogen escapes through the exhaust, generating thrust... So there should be only a tank with some kind of fluid.

[Xaelath]

To be fair, they shouldn't use liquid fuel and oxidizer, should they?

The devs didn't have time to make another resource/fuel tank for the NTE, I believe. I saw it in the KSP readme, I think.

[r4pt0r]

I Agree with NERVAfan. minor, not code-breaking change.

[Alchemist]

To be fair, they shouldn't use liquid fuel and oxidizer, should they?

Nothing actually prohibits burning fuel first and then heating the combustion products n the reactor. (For typical hypergolic fuels it could even be plausible, however it's probably more efficient to just take liquid ammonia or something similar). The thing is that light small molecules are much more efficient at converting rector's heat into exhaust momentum, so it's better to take O2 instead of O2/kerosene, and even better to take H2 instead of H2/O2, but then it's cryogenics with their own problems.

I think, for something long term like N2O4/UDMH performance of combustion products in NTR could be similar to something like liquid ammonia monopropellant, and while not extremely optimized, such case could be really good from Kerbal point of versatility - just fuel everything from the same tanks and be free to transfer fuel if needed.

[Kasuha]

Guys, if you want stuff like this changed in the game you're much more likely to get a result from filing a bug than you are from making a forum post.

It's better to not use that tool too often. It has a lot of duplicate and triplicate entries already, making things unnecessarily complicated for devs and the test team. That's why there's the bug report part of the forums where nobody is offended if fiftieth report of the same bugs appears, but when someone comes with something new, mods ask him to post it on the bug tracker as well.

I am positive that devs do visit forums and do scan the suggestions section time to time and sometimes do implement or at least get inspired by what is suggested here.

[The Error]

I'm in agreement with this - the nuclear core of the LV-N should be contained. No radioactive exhaust, though maybe a bit of leakage if shoddily shielded.

But given that Kerbals can build super-ion engines, badly-constructed parts aren't actually a thing in KSP.

[Scoundrel]

To be fair, they shouldn't use liquid fuel and oxidizer, should they?

The LVN was supposed to only run on liquid fuel - as noted in the LVN config file - but they kept it LF/OX as the devs said they were waiting to get tweakablesâ„¢ implemented (there's a post by NovaSilisko a couple years ago about it, unfortunately I believe it was lost in the Great Forum Derp of 2013). I guess they just forgot to fix the LVN config file. Maybe this will get them to fix it?

[lajoswinkler]

Well, on the one hand it seems like a very minor thing, but then again there's no real reason for it to be incorrect and this would be a very simple change. Maybe just change it to something like "Don't let the trefoil and radioactive core fool you, this engine doesn't give off any radiation (usually)."

This would be a good description.

[regex]

tbh all of the part descriptions need some work, but this is a quick and easy one that really should be done.

[sgt_flyer]

Don't they emit radioactive exhaust only in the atmosphere?

no, if the reactor containment unit works correctly, they should never emit radioactive exhausts.

the 'basic' method of operation of a solid core NTR is to superheat the fuel passing in tubes near the nuclear rods. (the fuel is never in direct contact with the nuclear rod) - the fuel can be heated from as low as 22k to 3000k - the resulting liquid to gas expansion of the fuel in the nozzle produce thrust.

[Sun]

Guys, if you want the incorrect information removed early, go into the part.cfg of the NTR and take the info out, put what you want in.

[NecroBones]

Highly in favor of a more accurate description here!

[Canopus]

no, if the reactor containment unit works correctly, they should never emit radioactive exhausts.

the 'basic' method of operation of a solid core NTR is to superheat the fuel passing in tubes near the nuclear rods. (the fuel is never in direct contact with the nuclear rod) - the fuel can be heated from as low as 22k to 3000k - the resulting liquid to gas expansion of the fuel in the nozzle produce thrust.

Could you please name your source? All i see every time is that the propellant passes in-between the fuel rods. If that wouldn't be the case than there wouldn't be the problems with pressure differences or corrosion of the fuel rods. Edited April 22, 2014 by Canopus

[The Jedi Master]

It's a joke, in line with the other part descriptions. If anything, it actually makes fun of the irrational fear of radiation. In addition, it's a nuclear reactor.