Nuclear engines

[Javster]

I think that if nuclear engines are crashed into Kerbin's atmosphere (despawn inside atmosphere), you should get a reputation penalty, and possibly a fine.

[Sirrobert]

Why? What's the functional difference between a NERVA crashing and a L909?

There is no effect of any kind. If you want to RP about it being dangerous, go ahead. But this has no purpose in the stock game

[jfull]

Why? What's the functional difference between a NERVA crashing and a L909?

There is no effect of any kind. If you want to RP about it being dangerous, go ahead. But this has no purpose in the stock game

The difference is that one is supposed to contain a nuclear reactor, and the other doesn't.

I don't think there's any reason that this kind of penalty wouldn't make sense in game.

[Sirrobert]

No, it would make sense in OUR universe

But this is KSP we're talking about, not our universe.

Kerbals can stand directly under an active NERVA and the only thing effecting them is the thrust. So why would a NERVA crash be any different than any other crash in the KSP universe?

[M3tal_Warrior]

Kerbals can stand directly under an active NERVA and the only thing effecting them is the thrust.

Sure. And then there's no reentry heat, funny behaving water and stuff. Well, it's another universe, and as we all know physics is not what we want in this game. So why making an effort?

I like the idea, it makes sense for ALMOST every living organism in every universe. After all we do want to think we're on a populated planet.

[r4pt0r]

kerbals are immune to radiation and love explosions. a nerva crashing into ksc would earn cheers.

[Sirrobert]

So aside from 'realism', you really don't have a single reason this should be implented in this GAME about little green man that launch rockets before they figure out how to put a batery on it

[M3tal_Warrior]

So aside from 'realism', you really don't have a single reason...

Nope, I got quite a lot:

- realism (as stated before)

- game depth (which means the feeling someone wanted to create a living virtual world instead of animating Excel simulations)

- head scratcher for non-newbies (there are quite few atm)

- more risk, more fun

- breaking the line of thought where 'too little thrust' is always answered with 'add more/more powerful boosters' without any consequences

Now what's your reason of rejecting, apart from 'it's not implemented'?