Nuclear reactor

[Capt Snuggler]

On topic, I would like energy to be a more important aspect, especially in 'late game'. That includes power hungry parts such as mining equipment and refineries. I would also be thrilled if we get a vasimir. Fission reactors and fuel cells could both have their role

yeah, mods aside, their should be more uses for electricity in the game as a whole but especially the "late game". gives you more reason to construct infrastructure in the mid game.

the scary part for allot of people and Squad, is that life support is the main feature that demands all the electrical infrastructure in the first place. a feature that we're not going to get through fear of complexity.

[Renegrade]

I have to wonder what the OP is doing that requires so much electricity. Aside from ion-powered craft a couple of panels or RTGs is almost always enough.

Me too.

Me three.

A-ha! If you have a problem only because of a mod, it doesn't seem fair to ask for a stock solution. Though I agree with others that some energy-hungry appliances (ISRU etc.), and something to power them, would be a nice addition to the stock game. Also, if solar arrays tapered off more quickly (as they rightfully should)...

Yeah, I'd like to see that too. More stock uses for electric charge. You can pretty much get away with a pair of ox-stats on almost any (non-ion) mission right now..

I think it wouldn't be too bad if solar arrays are almost useless near jool, not entirely though. In stock you would turn slower and run out of energy more frequently, but it shouldn't be too bad if you're not dependent on ions. Some additional sentences in the part descriptions and a warning once you pass, lets say, duna's orbit and you're done.

I was inspired by the inverse-square profile that stupid_chris's Stock Rebalance has, so I scribbled up my own curve:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
	{
		!powerCurve {}
		powerCurve
		{
			key = 0 10 0 0
			key = 13599840256 1.0 0 0 // Kerbin
			key = 19233078536 0.5 0 0 // Duna-ish range
			key = 27199680512 0.25 0 0
			key = 38466157072 0.125 0 0 // 40-46gm is Dres
			key = 54399361024 0.0625 0 0
			key = 76932314145 0.03125 0 0 // 68-72 is Jool
			key = 108798722048 0.01562 0 0
			key = 153864628289 0.00781 0 0 // beyond Eeloo high orbit
			key = 6963118211072 0 0 0
		}
	}
}

It's basically the same curve mathematically, but as you can see, it has data points at every halving of the light, rather than doubling of the distance (at least past Kerbin, I couldn't be bothered closer in so it has the stock values between Kerbol and Kerbin).

Jool is about 4%, which is interestingly enough, the same value Jupiter gets (approximately).

Has the realism of inverse-square law PLUS the gameplay bonus of making RTGs meaningful (aside from people with battery-phobia). OX-STATs have the highest e/mass ratio of 150e/ton (ignoring their masslessness for the moment...#lolstats), but at Joolian ranges, they're only around 6/ton, vs the 9.375/ton for RTGs - solars are clearly losing out at that range, even without their disadvantage of darkness time.

[Bill Phil]

Fuel cells too!

[Alias72]

Fuel cells seem like a good alternative to solar panels for situations where sunlight may be erratic and power requirements are constant. I also feel that a more powerful alternative to the RTG is warranted.

[zekes]

RTGs aren't reactors, there's no fission or fusion going on.

I have to wonder what the OP is doing that requires so much electricity. Aside from ion-powered craft a couple of panels or RTGs is almost always enough.

I use about 40+ RTGs for my Nuclear Reactors on my naval ships.

[zypofaeser]

Make the reactors single use. In real life you wouldnt refuel a nuclear reactor in space. Same with RTGs, they should degrade over time. The nuclear reactor should provide 100 E/s for maybe an ingame year (Or less if producing fuel only takes 5 minutes). The reactors should be throttleable in order to last longer or save for a few large kicks later on.

[Laie]

In real life you wouldnt refuel a nuclear reactor in space. Same with RTGs, they should degrade over time.

I agree to the first, strongly oppose the second. RTGs have a lifetime on the order of decades. Many systems on the Voyagers have ceased to work, but the RTGs still provide enough power.

The only mission I can imagine where RTG lifetime could come into play would be a grand tour. And in that case it would be plain cruel if the always-reliable RTGs turned out to be not so realiable after all.

[Bill Phil]

Make the reactors single use. In real life you wouldnt refuel a nuclear reactor in space. Same with RTGs, they should degrade over time. The nuclear reactor should provide 100 E/s for maybe an ingame year (Or less if producing fuel only takes 5 minutes). The reactors should be throttleable in order to last longer or save for a few large kicks later on.

you would want to refuel a nuclear reactor in space. It's much cheaper to refuel an already present reactor than to build another one.

[Torquemadus]

We haven't really encountered the need for a nuclear reactor yet. The main reasons for using a nuclear reactor are to power a base, power a nuclear electric drive, or for any high power applications in the outer solar system.

A lot of proposals for ISRU at a Moon or Mars base require the running of chemical reactors to produce fuel, consumables, and other useful commodities. Depending on how ISRU works in KSP, it might be very handy to be able to bring along a compact power source for use at a base to power the required hardware.

In the outer solar system, the power requirements for transmission back to Earth are considerable, due to the huge distances involved. This means that probes such as new Horizons can only return data at painfully slow transmission rates. The limited power provided by RTGs also prevents other high power activities such as the use of active sensors, including ground penetrating radars and lasers. This would enormously increase the amount of data that could be gathered and returned. A reactor could also be used to run an electric drive at the same time.

The Kerbol system doesn't have much of an outer solar system yet. Hopefully this will be addressed in a future update!

[Laie]

It's much cheaper to refuel an already present reactor than to build another one.

Less cargo to space, yes. But I don't think one can just go down to the engine room and swap the rods.

In the outer solar system, the power requirements for transmission back to Earth are considerable, [...] prevents other high power activities such as the use of active sensors

For that purpose, bringing 10x the amount of RTG would probably suffice, and be a lot more lightweight than a reactor. I don't know how small a nuclear reactor can conceivably be, but I expect that even the smallest designs would be a thousandfold increase over RTGs, both in power output and weight. Or maybe 1000x power for 100x weight. But still way too big.

[Torquemadus]

For that purpose, bringing 10x the amount of RTG would probably suffice, and be a lot more lightweight than a reactor. I don't know how small a nuclear reactor can conceivably be, but I expect that even the smallest designs would be a thousandfold increase over RTGs, both in power output and weight. Or maybe 1000x power for 100x weight. But still way too big.

Standard RTGs used on most probes produce 300W and weigh 60kg. Programmes to develop small space nuclear reactors have existed in the past. (As have programmes to develop Nuclear Thermal Rockets).

Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct plan shows a mass allocation of 3.5 tonnes for an 80kW nuclear reactor used to provide power for the ISRU chemical reactors used to produce consumables on Mars. By comparison, it also allocates one tonne for a 5kW solar array for each spacecraft used in the plan.

In his book Entering Space, he suggests use of a smaller 30kW reactor to provide power and nuclear electric propulsion for an outer solar system probe. He doesn't specify the exact weight of the probe reactor, but he predicts it would allow payload to be doubled and data transmission to be increased one hundredfold, while also powering active sensors that could increase the amount of data that could be gathered by a similar amount. Increasing the science payoff of a mission by one hundred times is not to be sniffed at!

NASA's Asteroid Redirect Mission advocates development of a solar electric drive to move the asteroid. This drive would then be used to push large cargoes to Mars. The relative benefits of ARM are currently being debated. This drive is obviously a lot bigger than the ion drive we currently have in KSP. If such a drive were to be developed IRL, and subsequently added to the game, players would have to provide large quantities of electrical power to operate it. Large arrays of cheap and heavy solar panels would suffice in Kerbol's inner solar system, but would be useless in the outer solar system.

We don't yet know the precise details of the upcoming ISRU feature, but I'm expecting it to be used to justify the existence of bases and stations in the game. It would make sense if the hardware is heavy and requires a lot of power to operate. A small nuclear reactor might make an ideal power source for a base in the outer solar system.

Outer solar system exploration involves covering enormous distances. If Squad wanted to be realistic, they could reduce the transmission rate of antennas in proportion to the distance from Kerbin, meaning that the transmitter would take longer to send the transmission and use more power. This would make it desirable to bring a high power transmitter for outer solar system mission.

There could also be scope for adding energy hungry active sensors to the game.