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

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

It's not that they don't like the description, it's that they don't like the effect that it will have on people who only learned of the existence of nuclear thermal reactors through KSP. Changing their personal part.cfg has no effect on this.

Again, it's a game in a fictional universe. Maybe these engines DO emit radiation!

[m4v]

KSP has taught me that everything is better with nukes.

[lajoswinkler]

Again, it's a game in a fictional universe. Maybe these engines DO emit radiation!

They do. Huge amounts of it. What they don't emit, except in trace amounts, are radioisotopes.

[Duxwing]

Would using twin LV-Ns on an LKO tug therefore be a bad idea?

-Duxwing

[gmc21]

i disagree you need more power for the engines cause nobody youses them because of weakness they should be as or more pwerful but the fuel efficent same

[The Jedi Master]

They do. Huge amounts of it. What they don't emit, except in trace amounts, are radioisotopes.

Difference not detected.

[Red Iron Crown]

Difference not detected.

Radiation is the emission. Radioisotopes are the emitters. Because its core is made of radioisotopes a NERVA emits radiation, but it has no chance to build up significantly in the environment around it because the engine doesn't hang around running in one place for very long. If it distributed radioisotopes in significant amounts (it doesn't), areas bombarded by exhaust would accumulate radiation over time as the isotopes decay.

[pizzaoverhead]

Car analogy: A car's engine uses fire to propel the pistons. Heat is a byproduct. The exhaust puts out heat, and any of the engine parts will burn you if you touch them, but it won't start fires around it when it's running.

Open-cycle nuclear thermal rockets on the other hand...

[Robotengineer]

If you have an issue with the part description you can change by opening the .cfg in the part folder. I don't really have a problem with it, I wish that NASA would bring back the Nerva program.

[r4pt0r]

right but op is saying that when little johnny plays ksp, he shouldnt read the description and start thinking that nuclear engines are dangerous.

cuz if johnny grows up and nasa starts planning an interplanetary nuclear engine, we dont want johnny protesting.

Edited April 24, 2014 by r4pt0r

[Robotengineer]

I can see your reasoning, but it also has to do with a cultural misconception of radioactivity. When people hear 'radioactive' or 'nuclear' they think Hiroshima or Chernobyl. Rather than thinking about the good thinks about nuclear power, so I can see what your saying. Nasa has already done nuclear engines, with the Nerva program,the inspiration for the LV-N.

[SpaceGremlin]

Squad should correct the LV-N description and include a second type of nuclear engine that actually spews radioactive exhaust to highlight the differences.

[NERVAfan]

As for sources... where I learned about this stuff was the "Atomic Rockets" website (run by nyrath, who is also on this forum... he does the Orion mod).

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#ntrsolidcore

"The reactor elements have to be durable, since erosion will contaminate the exhaust with fissionable materials" ... IE there is NOT fissionables in the exhaust under normal conditions.

Squad should correct the LV-N description and include a second type of nuclear engine that actually spews radioactive exhaust to highlight the differences.

Yeah, an open-cycle gas-core NTR would be incredibly "Kerbal".

Sadly it would also be very unbalanced, as it'd have really awesome specific impulse (comparable to KSP ion engine) and much better thrust.

[m4v]

Squad should also change the LV-N so it kills the crew when they aren't inside its shadow shield, so KSP players can learn that NERVAs aren't for landing.

[Fail-Man 3D]

NERVA is not for launching, it's for tugging in space.

Projects DUMBO and TIMBER WIND would like a word with you.

Would using twin LV-Ns on an LKO tug therefore be a bad idea?

Only in real life, or if KSP implements radiation-induced structural damage/crew injuries (the KSP Interstellar mod seems to be laying the groundwork for this...).

Radiation is the emission. Radioisotopes are the emitters.

Or, as someone in the U.S. Army put it,

Radiation is stink, contamination is s**t.

[noparse][...Nuclear-thermal rockets][/noparse] aren't for landing.

There was actually a proposal for a (manned) Mars lander that used gas-core engines. IIRC the designers picked a gas-core engine so they could vent the fuel instead of waiting for it to cool off after landing. I'll see if I can dig up more info on it.

[Seret]

Would using twin LV-Ns on an LKO tug therefore be a bad idea?

-Duxwing

Absolutely not. My workhorse for all operations in the Kerbin/Mun/Minmus system is the Space Tractor, which has exactly that.

[BudgetHedgehog]

i disagree you need more power for the engines cause nobody youses them because of weakness they should be as or more pwerful but the fuel efficent same

They're not powerful for a reason - game balance. If they were more powerful and had the same fuel efficiency, why would anyone use anything else? And, I gather you are pretty new to the game because interplanetary travel basically requires nuclear engines. Everyone uses (or rather, should use) nuclear engines for that.`

[lajoswinkler]

Would using twin LV-Ns on an LKO tug therefore be a bad idea?

-Duxwing

If NERVA engine works correctly (no leaking), it only produces lots of radiation. However, because of the bad consequences in the unlikely event of an accident (orbit contaminated by fission products), they should be used outside the parent planet's orbit.

Projects DUMBO and TIMBER WIND would like a word with you.

Nah, just nah.

Difference not detected.

You don't understand or you think there isn't a difference? There is a big difference. Radiation is rays. You shield from them by using matter, distance and time of exposure. Radioisotopes are the matter that emits rays. You can get contaminated by them. Suit, skin, lungs, bones. Some of them have long excretion times. Strontium-90, therefore strontium, is like calcium. Your body prefers calcium, but it will absorb strontium, too. Once radioactive isotope of strontium is locked in your bones, blood production is compromised. Bone cancer and leukemia start to be a viable prognosis.

right but op is saying that when little johnny plays ksp, he shouldnt read the description and start thinking that nuclear engines are dangerous.

cuz if johnny grows up and nasa starts planning an interplanetary nuclear engine, we dont want johnny protesting.

This is exactly the issue.

Squad should also change the LV-N so it kills the crew when they aren't inside its shadow shield, so KSP players can learn that NERVAs aren't for landing.

Not a bad idea. It would be interesting.

[The Error]

I would suggest: "Despite the big scary trefoil painted onto the side of this engine, the exhaust of the the LV-N Nuclear Rocket Motor is hardly radioactive at all--but you do NOT want to hug it when it's operating."

I like this.

Also, while the engines do give off radiation when operating, that might actually be safer in-atmo. Because, y'know, magnetic fields and atmosphere get in the way a bit. Better than vacuum. Sightly.

Or am I way off, and air actually does wizardy things and increases the radiation hazard?

[m4v]

Also, while the engines do give off radiation when operating, that might actually be safer in-atmo. Because, y'know, magnetic fields and atmosphere get in the way a bit. Better than vacuum. Sightly.

no, there will be backscattering and bad stuff will follow.

[lajoswinkler]

I like this.

Also, while the engines do give off radiation when operating, that might actually be safer in-atmo. Because, y'know, magnetic fields and atmosphere get in the way a bit. Better than vacuum. Sightly.

Or am I way off, and air actually does wizardy things and increases the radiation hazard?

Alpha rays - air will block them after few centimetres, tops, but they don't penetrate skin or in fact anything.

Beta rays - air will attenuate them, so soft ones will be stopped by few decimetres, and hard ones after few metres.

Gamma rays - air will both attenuate (poorly, they can travel for hundreds of metres without appreciable weakening) and scatter them in the form of ominous "skyshine".

Neutrons rays - induce radioactivity of its targets and is absorbed better by lighter nuclei. Hydrogen rich compounds are a good shield (water, gasoline, concrete). Scattered by air similar to gamma rays. Brehmstrahlung will occur, sending x-rays all over the place.

So the danger is a complex issue here.