Remove ads

Per Aspera (Space Agency Plan Quest)

Reader mode
[] Plan: Realistic Strategy, Pragmatic Execution
Resources: 455/475
Political Support 100/100
Operations (3/5 dice, +3 bonus, -55R)
-[] Construct an R-4 Dawn (77/120) (1 die, -35R)
--[] And launch it (1 die)
--[] Curiosity-class Satellite (1 die, -20R)

Facilities (8/8 dice, +10 bonus, -165R)
-[] Expand the Assembly Complex (182/350) (2 dice, -40R)
-[] Build a Scientific Complex
--[] Beijing Institute for Chemical Research (CHEM) (347/450) (2 dice, -50R)
--[] New Delhi Institute for Physics (PHYS) (388/450) (1 die, -25R)
-[] Big Ear [PHYS] (271/300) (1 die, -20R)
-[] Spacefarer Training Facilities (175/300) (2 dice, -30R)

Engineering (6/6 dice, +9 bonus, -95R)
-[] Observation Satellites (3/4 turns) (1 die, -15R)
-[] Human-rated Rocketry (3/8 turns) (1 die, -20R)
-[] Nuclear Power Plant Design Studies (2/8 turns) (1 die, -25R)
-[] Balloon Tanks [MATSCI] (179/200) (1 die, -15R)
-[] Lifting Body (30/150) (2 dice, -20R)

Science (5/5 dice, +9 bonus, -120R)
-[] Conduct Materials Research (Phase 5) [MATSCI] (134/400) (4 dice, -100R)
-[] Photovoltaic Investigations (1/4 turns) (1 die, -20R)

Politics (4/4 dice, +10 bonus, -20R)
-[] Rocket Boxes (Phase 5) (0/250) (3 dice, -15R)
-[] The Right Stuff (282/300) (1 die, -5R)

A little too much laying fallow in Ops for my taste but so it goes.
 
Last edited:
[] Plan: Realistic Strategy, Dramatic Execution
Resources: 460/475
Political Support 100/100
Operations (3/5 dice, +3 bonus, -55R)
-[] Launch the stockpiled R-2 Gale (free)
-[] Construct an R-4 Dawn (77/120) (1 die, -35R)
--[] And launch it (1 die)
--[] Curiosity-class Satellite (1 die, -20R)

Facilities (8/8 dice, +10 bonus, -165R)
-[] Expand the Assembly Complex (182/350) (2 dice, -40R)
-[] Build a Scientific Complex
--[] Beijing Institute for Chemical Research (CHEM) (347/450) (2 dice, -50R)
--[] New Delhi Institute for Physics (PHYS) (388/450) (1 die, -25R)
-[] Big Ear [PHYS] (271/300) (1 die, -20R)
-[] Spacefarer Training Facilities (175/300) (2 dice, -30R)

Engineering (6/6 dice, +9 bonus, -85R)
-[] Observation Satellites (3/4 turns) (1 die, -15R)
-[] Human-rated Rocketry (3/8 turns) (1 die, -20R)
-[] Nuclear Power Plant Design Studies (2/8 turns) (1 die, -25R)
-[] Balloon Tanks [MATSCI] (179/200) (1 die, -15R)
-[] Vacuum Nozzles (0/200) (2 dice, -10R)

Science (5/5 dice, +9 bonus, -120R)
-[] Conduct Materials Research (Phase 5) [MATSCI] (134/400) (4 dice, -100R)
-[] Photovoltaic Investigations (1/4 turns) (1 die, -20R)

Politics (4/4 dice, +10 bonus, -35R)
-[] Creative Sponsorships (141/400) (3 dice, -30R)
-[] The Right Stuff (282/300) (1 die, -5R)

Stealing heavily from @Etranger. I have been pressured against my will into making a terrible plan name.
 
Last edited:
[] Plan: One Step Forward
Resources: 470/475
Political Support 100/100
Operations (5/5 dice, +3 bonus, -105R)
-[ ] Construct an R-4 Dawn (17/120) (3 dice, -105R)
--[ ] And Launch it (1 Die)
--[ ] Curiosity-class Satellite (stockpiled)
--[ ] And launch an R-2 Gale (Stockpiled) (1 die)

Facilities (8/8 dice, +10 bonus, -165R)
[ ] Expand the Assembly Complex (182/350) (2 dice 40R)
-[ ] Build a Scientific Complex
--[ ] Beijing Institute for Chemical Research (CHEM) (347/450) (2 dice, -50R)
--[ ] New Delhi Institute for Physics (PHYS) (388/450) (1 dice, -25R)
-[ ] Big Ear [PHYS] (271/300) (1 die, -20R)
-[ ] Spacefarer Training Facilities (175/300) (2 die, -30R)

Engineering (6/6 dice, +9 bonus, -95R)
-[ ] Observation Satellites (3/4 turns) (1 die, -15R)
-[ ] Human-rated Rocketry (3/8 turns) (1 die, -20R)
-[ ] Nuclear Power Plant Design Studies (2/8 turns) (1 die, -25R)
-[ ] Multi-Stage Designs (0/2 Turns) (1 die, -15R)
-[ ] Balloon Tanks [MATSCI] (179/200) (1 die, -15R)
-[ ] Vacuum Nozzles (0/200) (1 die, -5R)

Science (5/5 dice, +9 bonus, -100R)
-[ ] Conduct Materials Research (Phase 5) [MATSCI] (138/400) (4 dice, -80R)
-[ ] Photovoltaic Investigations (1/4 turns, 1 die locked, -20R)

Politics (4/4 dice, +10 bonus, -5R -6PS)
-[ ] Propagandize for Nuclear Power (155/???) (3 dice, -6PS)
-[ ] The Right Stuff (282/300) (1 die, -5R)



So I spend a lot of money. It's fine, I suspect our facilities construction will be winding down next turn. We can afford to open the rocket-taps this turn a bit and build two (hopefully).
 
I think between lifting body, multistage, and vac nozzles, vac nozzles are the best to do first.

Our crew program is probably gonna be a two stager since we only need to get to LEO, so don't need multi stage as urgently there.
Likewise, lifting bodies are unnecessary for our capsules.

Vac nozzles are a great improvement for second stage performance tho.

C_Z has also swayed me with Creative Sponsorships because it's a one and done project, and it improves our propanda arm which might help with nuclear propaganda.
 
As a note, you don't have to launch the Gale. You don't get meaningful flight data out of a single sounding rocket launch anymore. I will be offering a museum option in the future.
 
build a gale or two and start storing the designs and notes on how to build it in a safe place.
reason is that IRL we can no longer build the F1 rocket engines that powered the saturn 5 both because they forgot how to and that they used period part.
they forgot how to because each F1 rocket was unique in its construction.
 
I'd like to strongly advocate for vacuum nozzles. It's a potentially huge boost to specific impulse for second and third stages, and payload to orbit for a given size rocket is to a large extent driven by upper stage performance. I would expect them to make a big difference both in the short term and in the future.
 
Inquiring Mind said:
I'd like to strongly advocate for vacuum nozzles. It's a potentially huge boost to specific impulse for second and third stages, and payload to orbit for a given size rocket is to a large extent driven by upper stage performance. I would expect them to make a big difference both in the short term and in the future.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Preaching to the choir! I just think that third and fourth stages are also broad concept and we don't need to do vacuum nozzles first to get them equipped to any specific third stage.
 
We should also think about getting boosters as they are immediate improvements to our launch capacity and in effect function as an additional launch stage.
 
Vehrec said:
[] Plan: One Step Forward
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I quite like this plan.
Mostly for the choice to go quite hard on Propagandize for Nuclear Power.

IC we know people in the council dislike this and the population at large also dislikes it quite a bit, and have some fearmongering against it.
So if we want for it to be used we have to do some serious work here.
 
I.. really do not get why this thread, about spaceflight wants to keep promoting nuclear power so hard.

ETA: I don't think it's bad, I just don't think it should be prioritized over basic spaceflight at this point.
 
KNakamura said:
I.. really do not get why this thread, about spaceflight wants to keep promoting nuclear power so hard.

ETA: I don't think it's bad, I just don't think it should be prioritized over basic spaceflight at this point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The problem for me at least started with some people inside council now trying to smear it and us having invest to my understanding quite a lot of political capital to even be allowed to get started on it.

For me at least at the moment, a big problem is what happens if we do not fight back/get a head against the smear campaign/fearmongering, considering nuclear has a way worse PR here than it ever did RL.

So i am quite happy with large amounts of dice investment to set a foundation/get a head from where we need to be more so considering that the progress bar is a ???.
 
Last edited:
It's also a case where nuclear power is a stepping stone towards eventually (hopefully) getting permission to design and fly nuclear propulsion. And if nuclear power is key for exploring the parts of the Solar System where photovoltaics are going to be insufficient (Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, etc., are all far enough away that every probe that's explored there has used Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators for power, and those need working reactors to make in large numbers) or long term bases in places where constant sunshine isn't guaranteed (Moon bases, Mars bases, etc.,), then nuclear propulsion is going to be key to getting useful amounts of stuff to these far away destinations.
 
Material Science is unlocking a lot of cool stuff, and we've interesting engine options too. Those could help with launching our astronaut, but the R-4 as it is already has teething troubles. My dillema is, would it be better to:
- (re)design an "R-4.5" that incorporates the isogrid tanks, improved engines, and other light materials we're researching but keeps the same core design to make sure we have enough payload capacity for a good manned mission
- Stick to the existing R-4 for our first manned launch, waiting until we mostly remove the chance of launch failure to deploy a minimum viable human capsule, while starting development of a whole new R-5 as a general future launch vehicle?

Ash19256 said:
It's also a case where nuclear power is a stepping stone towards eventually (hopefully) getting permission to design and fly nuclear propulsion. And if nuclear power is key for exploring the parts of the Solar System where photovoltaics are going to be insufficient (Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, etc., are all far enough away that every probe that's explored there has used Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators for power, and those need working reactors to make in large numbers) or long term bases in places where constant sunshine isn't guaranteed (Moon bases, Mars bases, etc.,), then nuclear propulsion is going to be key to getting useful amounts of stuff to these far away destinations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We have [ ] Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications Studies available right know, so it seems we can do nuclear thermal rockets without getting groundside power up. In theory. We should still do the power studies because:
-It's benefits to the population at large are much more visible, which will make it more effective at breaking up the post-war atomic stigma than just using it for fantastical rocketry ambitions. Especially given that power plants don't share the rocket's risk of exploding on launch and dropping an accidental dirty bomb on someone's head.
-As you noted, being able to use reactors to generate power and not just propulsion will be useful for heavier and sun-starved missions, and getting a familiarity with making atomic power groundside first will help.
-This is the nerd side of sufficient velocity, we all think atomic power is the bee's knees and that passing up an opportunity to spur it's development, which may also be the ONLY opportunity to repair the atom's reputation instead of consigning it to the dustbin of history for two generations, would be morally wrong.
 
Think of how much early sci-fi hyped up nuclear power, though. I'd bet Creative Sponsorships synergizes with the two Propagandize for X actions - getting people to watch a movie about some people living in a futuristic city where all the coal plants have been replaced by limitless(*) clean(**) nuclear power is a better way to sell it to the public than running around yelling "LOOK AT THIS GRAPH", sadly. I like graphs.
(*), (**) movie need not be entirely realistic

General_Urist said:
Material Science is unlocking a lot of cool stuff, and we've interesting engine options too. Those could help with launching our astronaut, but the R-4 as it is already has teething troubles. My dillema is, would it be better to:
- (re)design an "R-4.5" that incorporates the isogrid tanks, improved engines, and other light materials we're researching but keeps the same core design to make sure we have enough payload capacity for a good manned mission
- Stick to the existing R-4 for our first manned launch, waiting until we mostly remove the chance of launch failure to deploy a minimum viable human capsule, while starting development of a whole new R-5 as a general future launch vehicle?


We have [ ] Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications Studies available right know, so it seems we can do nuclear thermal rockets without getting groundside power up. In theory. We should still do the power studies because:
-It's benefits to the population at large are much more visible, which will make it more effective at breaking up the post-war atomic stigma than just using it for fantastical rocketry ambitions. Especially given that power plants don't share the rocket's risk of exploding on launch and dropping an accidental dirty bomb on someone's head.
-As you noted, being able to use reactors to generate power and not just propulsion will be useful for heavier and sun-starved missions, and getting a familiarity with making atomic power groundside first will help.
-This is the nerd side of sufficient velocity, we all think atomic power is the bee's knees and that passing up an opportunity to spur it's development, which may also be the ONLY opportunity to repair the atom's reputation instead of consigning it to the dustbin of history for two generations, would be morally wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So the mechanics so far are that the more we launch, the lower the value we check against; we've just had absolutely terrible rolls. Since we got a nat 100, though, the R-4 has an even lower value to compare against. Also, when we start launching weather satellites en masse, it'll improve reliability even more due to all the launches we'll be doing.

That said, we need to make an improvement regardless since the R-4 is only capable of 2 metric sputniks, whereas we need 10-14 metric sputniks. I think that means we need to do a slight redesign that'll include an isogrid first stage, vacuum nozzles, balloon upper stages (since upper stages are extremely sensitive to being overweight), but keeping the same core design and not redesigning the engines (beyond, possibly, slight thrust improvements in the style of what you normally see with an engine over it's service life). I'd like to try and keep commonality as high as possible, though, so that reliability bonuses carry over.

I'm more interested in space based nuclear power than NTRs, which are really only worth it if we're doing very large missions to other planets. You need breeder reactors to make the plutonium for RTGs, and if we eventually (in, like, 20 years) want to establish bases on other bodies or large space stations, nuclear power is a lot lighter than corresponding solar panels and energy storage.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top