For a Moment, There Was Hope [Space Vehicle Design Quest]

What's stopping Team 3 from borrowing Team Basilisk's orbital sweeper chassis? It's a failed project but we still own the IP?

You can, it's just not useful for what you're doing. An orbital sweeper isn't designed to carry enormous mining hauls, it's designed to burn debris out of orbit with a laser broom or recycling tender.

Similarly, A-Team's near-sun construction vehicle wouldn't be useful because it's far too heavy thanks to all the safety features you need for mercury.
 
What's stopping Team 3 from borrowing Team Basilisk's orbital sweeper chassis? It's a failed project but we still own the IP?
We are building our product around the arms tech our guy has, the Basilisk team weren't using the tech so we'd lose out on the main advantage we bring to the table. Add on that orbital sweeping is different than an asteroid miner and it just isn't suited for the role.
 
Both Segmented stay in moderate, both Pods drop to Low.
It bumps the price up more than Two-crew Pod, but still in Moderate range, and...hrm.
2C Pod is Low, not Moderate. (And 1C Segmented is Moderate as well) I do feel like it might be useful to have "per-unit cost" as a specific stat since Budget is mostly unrelated.

If we're ignoring budget the 2-Crew Segmented is probably slightly better, but that +1 budget is fairly significant and is significantly worse value than the 8-arm design we passed up on anyway.
 
Adhoc vote count started by Havocfett on Dec 1, 2023 at 10:34 PM, finished with 58 posts and 30 votes.
 
2112: Prokect Abilkhan (Loadout)
2112: Project Abilkhan (Loadout)

The two-person pod swiftly proved itself the most popular option and as the new year hit Baikonur, Project Abilkhan took its final shape.

It was an eighteen meter long ovoid pod built around its central drill. Arms rung the pod's equator, each equipped with a full-featured manipulator and a single hardpoint for specialized equipment. A thruster dominated the rear, while maneuvering jets dotted the hull.

Though tight, the cockpit was spacier than most contemporaries. The Neuro-Rig allowed massive control panels to be simplified into a handful of heads up displays and drone control systems, concentrated around the co-pilot. The rest of the hull was tightly packed with sensors, fuel tanks, life support, grapnel launchers, drone docking ports, and other necessities.

It was done.

Or at least was until Nabil Al-Farabi, the engineer in charge of designing the actual mining equipment for Abilkhan, pulls the entire team in for an emergency all-hands.

A month ago, an astro-mining accident killed three people and scattered ten thousand tons of debris over Ceres. Investigation revealed that Rio Tinto, and several other mining, systematically underestimated the risks involved in canopy strip-mining (the most common form of asteroid mining currently in use. It involves strip mining asteroids and propelling the debris into a canopy which is used to move the payload and separate out useless material) in ways that directly lead to the accident. Demand for canopy strip mining has plummeted, and there's talk of an international treaty banning the practice.

Abilkhan was a canopy strip-miner.

The company had to completely rework its loadout.

The good news: Abilkhan was designed to be fairly flexible, and there are legal options you can pivot to. The bad news is that you don't currently have a production line for those options and making one would be expensive.

Nabil runs you through the options.

First off is KazakhCosmos (KC). KC was the perpetually underfunded federal Kazakh space program and one of several successors to Roscocosmos. Though relations with them aren't historically great, they were offering to provide tunnel-mining equipment and cargo pods at a reasonable rate. They think Abilkhan's promising, and are hoping that helping you with production will smooth over past troubles. KC's equipment is bulky but effective, and represents a significant boost in payload at a reasonable price.

Second up, Rio Tinto Interstellar (RTI) is now offering very, very cheap and cutting edge magnetic-chain extraction technology. It's impossibly light, very high payload, and the magnets are theoretically multi-purpose. Rio Tinto also just got three people killed in a very high profile accident caused by them lying systematically about their products and processes. The Mag-Chain may not do what its advertised to, or may depress sales because of RTI's reputation.

Chadormanu Mining and Industrial Company (CMIC) has a line of modular equipment that'd be perfect for tunnel construction. It'd be expensive to import and adjust the design for, but it'd allow every hardpoint besides the drill to be customized by the end consumer for the circumstances of a specific site. The need for customers to stock that extra equipment for hotswaps would increase the functional weight of the Abilkhan as a package.

Finally, you could take the risk of making your own Magnetic Chain Extraction option. Your engineers are certain they could make it, but they're not sure about the timeline or if the technology will quite live up to the current public hype. However, instead of magnifying the Abilkhan's performance, modifying the hull to fit the new approach would let them maintain current performance with a reduction in weight.

Equipment Manufacturer

Remaining Budget: 5

[ ] KC (+2 Payload, +1 Weight. 2 Budget.)

[ ] RTI (+3 Payload, +1 Utility, -1 Weight. 1 Budget. 3 Hazard. Unpopular.)

[ ] CMIC (+1 Payload, +3 Utility, +1 Weight. 3 Budget.)

[ ] Internal Development (-2 Weight, 1 Budget. 2 Hazard.)

Current Design

Payload: 7
Utility: 7
Weight: 7
Maintenance: 4
Unit Cost: Low
Hazard: 0
 
Last edited:
While I would like to take KC in the hopes that improving our home countries space economy might see some overflow benefits to us in addition to whatever improved relations might bring, I'm leaning towards either Internal Development or CMIC right now.

Internal Development is the civilian market option, keeping fairly high Payload and Utility while dropping Weight. Exactly what the criteria was from when we first joined the team. CMIC is the Quebec contract option, significantly boosting Utility at the cost of Weight they don't much care about. Even if all those extra equipment swaps brings up the total unit cost a level, it's still only at Medium which is what they were hoping for originally.
 
[X] Internal Development (-2 Weight, 1 Budget. 2 Hazard.)

Look, we avoided every other hazard. I'm willing to roll the die on one hazard.
 
systematically underestimated the risks involved in canopy strip-mining (the most common form of asteroid mining currently in use. It involves strip mining asteroids and propelling the debris into a canopy which is used to move the payload and separate out useless material) in ways that directly lead to the accident. Demand for canopy strip mining has plummeted, and there's talk of an international treaty banning the practice.
So miners dig out ore and shoot it into a communal bag?
 
[X] Internal Development (-2 Weight, 1 Budget. 2 Hazard.)

I think a little hazard is okay, and if it fails it won't be a PR scandal at least.
 
RTI I'm dismissing on the spot. Outright lying about capabilities and getting people killed because of it, no way do I want that on our design. Sure, if they're telling the truth it's an amazing system, but we already have proof that they're liars.

KC: 9P/7U/8W, 3 Budget remaining
CMIC: 8P/10U/8W, 2 Budget remaining
Internal: 7P/7U/5W, 4 Budget remaining, 2 Hazard

All three of these seem reasonable, but I'll go with
[X] CMIC (+1 Payload, +3 Utility, +1 Weight. 3 Budget.)
it should nearly guarantee us the Quebec contract and still be a respectable option overall.
 
[X] KC (+2 Payload, +1 Weight. 2 Budget.)

I don't want any Hazard if we can avoid it, and I think the cheaper option that gives more Payload is just a good deal overall.
 
[X] KC (+2 Payload, +1 Weight. 2 Budget.)

If prototyping tech via building a tech demonstrator is an option, I would've pick the in-house production option, but alas.
 
[X] KC (+2 Payload, +1 Weight. 2 Budget.)

Not a fan of taking Hazards when we are still establishing ourselves since one of the two other teams has already floundered.
 
Back
Top