Landing with nuclear engine

[Andrew Hansen]

If I'm delivering a heavy payload to a planet with a nuclear-powered lander, I usually try blowing up the nuclear engines and leaving the payload intact. Like in the video below:

For dedicated landers that aren't supposed to be blown up, I generally don't use nuclear engines because they're so heavy. If I did use them, I'd do what allmhuran said.

[-Velocity-]

There are some nice LV-N landers for Tylo where the high Deltav requirement starts making them an attractive option despite the weight.

I do get tired of all these incorrect blanket statements about the nuclear engine being a bad lander engine. However, nuclear engines WOULD be bad for Tylo. When working in a high gravity environment, you need high TWR. In actuality, I think the best engine for Tylo is the 48-7S- you know, the 0.1 ton, 30 kN thrust, 0.675 meter diameter engine (vac Isp = 350). I believe that the LV-T30 is the second best, and the LV-909 is third best.

Where the nuclear engine shines as a lander engine is in airless, lower gravity environments, especially like, g = 2 m/s/s or less. So, if you're landing on like Mun/Vall and lower (Moho too, I think), the nuclear engine is BY FAR the best lander engine, as there is very little "gravity drag" in such environments. The TWR in such environments is very high, even for the nuclear engine. I once made a nuclear engine powered rocket rover that could have hovered for two hours over Minimus, if I had had the patience to sit there for two hours, that is. And that was a complete lander/rover in one package spacecraft. If it had had just landing legs, that endurance time would have been even longer.

It's pretty ridiculous to say that the LV-N makes a bad lander engine, when so many bodies in KSP have such low gravity.

Edited May 27, 2014 by |Velocity|

[SSSPutnik]

However, nuclear engines WOULD be bad for Tylo. When working in a high gravity environment, you need high TWR.

Uhm, a lot of people use them, yes the TWR is an issue, but you save a lot of weight on fuel than using a high TWR engine. If you land using horizontal braking the low TWR doesn't matter.

Check these out:

[Sirrobert]

I do get tired of all these incorrect blanket statements about the nuclear engine being a bad lander engine. However, nuclear engines WOULD be bad for Tylo. When working in a high gravity environment, you need high TWR. In actuality, I think the best engine for Tylo is the 48-7S- you know, the 0.1 ton, 30 kN thrust, 0.675 meter diameter engine (vac Isp = 350). I believe that the LV-T30 is the second best, and the LV-909 is third best.

Where the nuclear engine shines as a lander engine is in airless, lower gravity environments, especially like, g = 2 m/s/s or less. So, if you're landing on like Mun/Vall and lower (Moho too, I think), the nuclear engine is BY FAR the best lander engine, as there is very little "gravity drag" in such environments. The TWR in such environments is very high, even for the nuclear engine. I once made a nuclear engine powered rocket rover that could have hovered for two hours over Minimus, if I had had the patience to sit there for two hours, that is. And that was a complete lander/rover in one package spacecraft. If it had had just landing legs, that endurance time would have been even longer.

It's pretty ridiculous to say that the LV-N makes a bad lander engine, when so many bodies in KSP have such low gravity.

The LV-N makes for a bad engine on a DEDICATED lander on small gravity bodys.

For that, a lighter engine outweighs the advantages of an efficient one

[StrandedonEarth]

Of course, if mass is no issue, this is the heavy nuke lander I sent almost everywhere. Couldn't quite do both ways on Tylo. 5k dV, 48 tons, with a pair of Mark 55 radials that double the thrust for "emergency power"

Edit: The 4 LV-N's also augment the ones on the tug/fuel barges to reduce the burn times

Edited May 30, 2014 by StrandedonEarth

[maltesh]

This would be my Cheddar-Class lander. The class is so named becauseusing radial attachment poitns to hide the red-hot bells of LV-Ns inside cryogenic fuel tanks is kind of cheesy.

Lands six kerbals and some KAS gear, and has close to 2000 m/s of delta-V. As a lander for Mun-Class worlds or lighter, it tends to be my most commonly used personell lander.

Because it's capped with a clamp-o-tron Sr, it can attach to a Cantanker, and use the fuel inside it. When full, the entire combination has close to 7 km/s of delta-V, which is more than enough to take it interplanetary to any world from Eve to Jool (haven't sent one to Eeloo yet)

This would bne the lifter I use for it, which tends to get the central Jumbo tank to orbit almost entirely full. Ignore what Mechjeb says about its total delta-V, for this particular construction, and its flight plan its assumptions are incorrect. I haven't yet had to refuel a Cheddar-class between launch and arrival at its destination.