[X] Plan Responsible Resource Regulation Resulting in Resignations
Well, for the record I also prefer light launchers but oh well.
Well, for the record I also prefer light launchers but oh well.
Vote's still open, if a large number of people speak up one way or the other I'm still willing to change it. My philosophy on rocketry is that it's all kinda just playing with pocket change right now, so I'll do whatever the nerds want to keep 'em happy. As long as the Salyut program continues funding I'm pretty agnostic as to which rocket we do to keep the nerds employed.Well, for the record I also prefer light launchers but oh well.
One of the main lessons at least according to a presentation at West Point was that IFVs are useless unless they are as armored as a tank (Something along the lines of Puma and T-15).
@Crazycryodude Won't Light Bulk Launcher basically just undercut our mass production of the RLA and thus effectively hurt overall costs? Having many custom variations seems a bit dubious to me at least. Admittedly so far they aren't really going for things like launching two sats on one rocket, at least so far we've heard.
Well they try to make it sound like that, but they also say 'alongside a more efficient fuselage' which to an extent can be considered pretty close to the lines used for the SLS development model. We'll just modify the design a little, so it's really pretty much the same hardware. But in practise it turns out this required redesigning everything and one having a completely new rocket with pretty much zero parts or machining commonality with the previous rocket. Because well... everything links up to the fuselage and if you change that, you change everything aside of the engine... which they also changed
On another note, I want to again stump for the variant of my plan that fires the Infra deputy so we have something actually valuable to offer Vorotnikov. A single die on ministry reorganizations is pretty unlikely to get a secondary target like Sokhan and I am pretty convinced at this point that we gotta offer Vorotnikov at least one seat with some genuine power if we want him on our side for cracking the whip over enterprises come the oil crisis.
The action under debate uses her first name so it's on my mind, plus the simple and (to a Czech speaker) familar-sounding name Lyudmila sticks in the mind more than Zemlyannikova. Still, I apologize if I made you uncomfortable and I'll stick to her surname in the future.
Ugh, this is indeed a sobering reminder of just how much our planning is trying to read tea leaves. The question of if/when/why the R7M light launcher stopped flying is an intriguing one indeed. Frustrating lack of info about the state of the rocket launch market. How close would Chinese or Indian industry be to potentially making a competitor?ut this is where we come back to vibes-based planning.
We have very little idea about the internal factions of the space program and who is using what and why.
For example, is the light bulk launcher a proposal from Korolev's old team trying to upstage Glushko's masterpiece? Is the proposal due to us having a painful lack of light launch capability and we are turning customers away? (We are selling launches to our Intercosmos allies as well as to our own enterprises, so we do have actual customers, even if I think we aren't trying to make a profit on launches.) When did the R7M stop flying? Because that would probably have had a payload capacity under 8 tonnes (I think we figured out what it could boost to orbit, but I have forgotten), so maybe the pressure on the RLA is due to the military not having its own carrier rocket anymore (I think they retired the R7M ages ago tho). And where are we on the coming crash of the launch market?
In OTL, at the end of the 60s the demand for launches contracted sharply in the US due to improvements in satellite technology. The OTL USSR, being more behind, had a more slow decline in launch demand over the course of the 70s. Because we are only just behind the USA in TTL, I think that any declines in demand that are going to happen should have already happened. But maybe I am wrong about that?
Also, since we are probably the biggest commercial launcher in the world, we are very exposed to the oil shock, so how many of the people clamoring to launch 8 tonne sats on RLA-1s will still be there after energy prices shoot up and loans become hard to get?
Basically, I see three possibilities here:
1) The RLA is not able to cover all the launches we are being asked to make, especially at the low end and this demand will continue to be there in the future. The RLA is a shiny train station, the lack of a lighter rocket is the mud roads we aren't noticing. So we need light launch urgently. Especially to maintain the best relations with our allies, since we will likely preferentially turn down their payloads if there is a shortage. Meaning it is more likely for, say, India or China to compete with us in commercial launch, eroding the economies of scale we can enjoy.
2) The RLA is not able to cover all the launches for now, but the bottom is going to drop out of the market soon. So this is a bad time to add a new workhorse.
3) The RLA CAN cover all the launches, the light bulk launcher is just some department playing politics AND the bottom is going to drop out of the market soon. So investing in a rocket becomes an even worse idea.
Beyond the education focus, Sokhan also keeps the department reminded that "Services" in fact involves more than just small shop profit-maxxing. If we're lucky we'll get someone similarly focused on less shiny services to become the new deputy, but best not bank on it.This is the part of your plan that I am most dubious about. Sokhan's education focus is probably pretty good, since that is still probably the single biggest area of challenge to our service build up. The infra deputy is a conservative right? So why would Vorotnikov want to replace him specifically?
Vorotnikov doesn't specifically want him gone, but Balakirev wants him gone and then an empty seat in charge of our consistently largest sector is a decent enough prize to offer Vorotnikov if the seat is open anyways due to Bala settling personal beefs.This is the part of your plan that I am most dubious about. Sokhan's education focus is probably pretty good, since that is still probably the single biggest area of challenge to our service build up. The infra deputy is a conservative right? So why would Vorotnikov want to replace him specifically?
I would much rather Housing Sector Reform and Economic Academnet.
Dang. Really? I thought one of the points of an IFV was that it didn't need to be so heavily armoured?
Is the presentation available on youtube at all? It sounds like it would be quite educational.
What few quotes we got along the way on launch utilization seem to imply that we've managed to keep the RLA manufacturing line running at some where near to max production rates. Possibly with a probe heavy space program, while at the same time inviting in allies and our rapidly expanding economy, have helped offset any decline that there might have been.In OTL, at the end of the 60s the demand for launches contracted sharply in the US due to improvements in satellite technology. The OTL USSR, being more behind, had a more slow decline in launch demand over the course of the 70s. Because we are only just behind the USA in TTL, I think that any declines in demand that are going to happen should have already happened. But maybe I am wrong about that?
I guess my first thought is the question if the USSR or its CMEA allies use loans much for space launch if at all? Or if it is mostly state backed funding that doesn't care nearly as much about such matters. Certainly the rocket costs won't change much over fuel prices as that is less then 1% of the rockets cost I thought. So in that sense the oil shock won't change rocket costs at all really, the only question being how funding is mostly happening.Also, since we are probably the biggest commercial launcher in the world, we are very exposed to the oil shock, so how many of the people clamoring to launch 8 tonne sats on RLA-1s will still be there after energy prices shoot up and loans become hard to get?
There isn't a true bottleneck in the sense of you not being able to launch payloads just quite a few are flown sub-optimally on a RLA that's not loaded down as its cheaper to continue full production. The R-7M has been retired in favor of the RLA and ICBM based launcher which you use intermittently for the lightest LEO payloads. China, France, and the UK have some independent launch capacity but nothing big with you and the US the big two in the launch/space industry.I suppose we could ask if @Blackstar is willing to share a bit of information on what the actual state of the launch market is these days. As surely the Minister has some idea on it. Though considering none of the briefs mentioned any launch bottlenecks, I'd cautiously posit that there currently isn't a major launch deficit.
To be fair, just because someone did a presentation on the subject at West Point claiming that X is true, doesn't mean that X is true. Furthermore, X may be true in the context of the 2025-era battlefield (cheap ubiquitous top-attack antitank missiles) and not be true in the context of the 1980-era battlefield (antitank missiles exist but are a lot more temperamental and rare).Dang. Really? I thought one of the points of an IFV was that it didn't need to be so heavily armoured?