Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan MNKh Edition

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
One problem with gas cars is that they can't be used in the underground parking lots as we are making them, because the lost gas continues to accumulate until it ignites or the level of oxygen becomes dangerously low. And the risk extends to also random basements that don't have cars.

To allow a lot of people to use them we would need to make another change to the current city planning.
 
darknessworld said:
One problem with gas cars is that they can't be used in the underground parking lots as we are making them, because the lost gas continues to accumulate until it ignites or the level of oxygen becomes dangerously low. And the risk extends to also random basements that don't have cars.

To allow a lot of people to use them we would need to make another change to the current city planning.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You will just install a ventilation system with a fan to drive air through it, it doesn't take that much airflow to make them work and it can be a simple pump fresh air into the bottom layer.
 
By the way.
What is the reason behind just splashing nuclear booster into the moon? What bits of orbital (or not) mechanics prevent us from putting it into orbit and using it also to boost our way back?

Is it, at the moment, a single use unit, useful to pack a lot of delta-v into a small payload fraction, without ability to control output in detail?
 
also have we properly discussed Modify Recoverability Information? It seems there's consensus on it and I feel like this will probably blow up in our face.
 
Blackgold211 said:
also have we properly discussed Modify Recoverability Information? It seems there's consensus on it and I feel like this will probably blow up in our face.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, lying is instant political suicide the moment oil crisis hits and we really want to keep Bala's massive bonus that is specifically tailored to solving the oil crisis. So taking a controlled political hit now while helpfully poking a hole in the harmful optimism of the market is definitely the better option.
 
Dwergar said:
By the way.
What is the reason behind just splashing nuclear booster into the moon? What bits of orbital (or not) mechanics prevent us from putting it into orbit and using it also to boost our way back?

Is it, at the moment, a single use unit, useful to pack a lot of delta-v into a small payload fraction, without ability to control output in detail?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The significant delta v cost of lunar intercept/capture/entry and the designers wanting to use the heavy engine that was hauled out and is there anyway. Plus it disposes of the stage with a minimal crew risk relative to several floating around LLO.
 
@Blackstar if we go for either one of the RLA-3 based mission architectures, will we also continue working on a super heavy? Or is the heavy lander the only way to continue working on a (now clean sheet) superheavy design? And if we do continue working on the superheavy, will the 3 man moon lander we're making for the RLA-3+nuclear stage approach be useable with it?

Quickshot0 said:
It wouldn't be that thin with the mass budget one can launch on 3 RLA-3, especially as you'd just be landing a single person. And when one gets right down to it, the nuclear stage being slammed in to the moon solution is similarly more a design focused towards prestige, it's clearly not a long term solution. Normally the middle solution would be the better one, it's just that they're trying an ambitious plan in very little time in that case.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If only one person can go down on the lander, the mass margins are way too thin. That's not a safe lander even if everything works out, and if something goes a little wrong, that it is already so stripped down means there's no wriggle room at all.

Also, I think you are catastrophizing the nuclear stage way too much. This is a very different situation to the big ground launched nuclear rocket we were discussing a few months ago.

Dwergar said:
By the way.
What is the reason behind just splashing nuclear booster into the moon? What bits of orbital (or not) mechanics prevent us from putting it into orbit and using it also to boost our way back?

Is it, at the moment, a single use unit, useful to pack a lot of delta-v into a small payload fraction, without ability to control output in detail?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Crashing the nuclear stage onto the moon is a way to save fuel and thus also save mass. Remember, for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, so throwing the nuclear stage at the moon slows the manned part of the craft. Also, dropping the nuclear stage before orbital insertion or before landing means it doesn't need to be slowed down with the rest of the vehicle.

_____

Just a couple thoughts on the vote, regarding getting more HI dice, I guess the main idea there is to get more dice to build more power plants? What if we just did a HI focus instead? That would help us push forward our lithography after all. And could we make efficient use of our dice if we both got more HI dice now and also did a focus next plan?

Also, I would once again like to advocate for marginalizing Zimyanin ASAP. Zimyanin is currently weak, but if we delay pushing him out, there's the risk that he could perform well in the elections. Also, just because Balakirev decides to put factional struggles on pause doesn't mean Zimyanin will as well. I don't want to cede the initiative to him.

Regards,

fasquardon
 
Regarding getting more infra dice and creating buble please consider the following:
1. We need massive amount of roads.
2. We still don't have universal pressurised water for our cities.
3. We don't have sufficient water treatment plants.
4. We will need to expand and modernise energy grid.
5. We actually still benefit from building more rail into less densely inhabited regions of the country.
6. We still need more houses and once we build enough will need to deal with aging ones.
7. When we finally embrace internet we will need to expand our telecom infrastructure then expand it again for individual users.
8. We can still build more metros.
9. At some point we will need to consider modernising tracks for more modern high(er) speed passanger rail.
10. Now that our shipyards started we will need more port infrastructure.

Point is I don't see need for Infra dice to go away, at least nothing that can't be eaten by autodice in forseeable future.
 
[X] Plan Knifing Zimyanin
Also I think lithography is very important if we want a microcomputer industry in ten years, which we do want because we want to be a rich country. And lithography will probably require an HI focus.
 
fasquardon said:
Also, I think you are catastrophizing the nuclear stage way too much. This is a very different situation to the big ground launched nuclear rocket we were discussing a few months ago.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not really catastrophizing though, I just don't really like it when one just dumps nuclear materials with that little care. But I did agree the Moon isn't habitable, so it's kind of relative, but that doesn't suddenly mean one has to be happy with things being dumped quite like that. I guess it's a bit like the sacrificial zone, it's a part of the country that isn't very useful of course, but it still irks that it's just done away with like that then even if the cost is a bit of land you don't see. So in that sense it just feels a bit like watching the same pattern repeating and wishing that a way was found to handle things a bit better, rather then the expedient way and hoping that it never becomes a drawback of some kind.
 
Quickshot0 said:
I'm not really catastrophizing though, I just don't really like it when one just dumps nuclear materials with that little care. But I did agree the Moon isn't habitable, so it's kind of relative, but that doesn't suddenly mean one has to be happy with things being dumped quite like that. I guess it's a bit like the sacrificial zone, it's a part of the country that isn't very useful of course, but it still irks that it's just done away with like that then even if the cost is a bit of land you don't see. So in that sense it just feels a bit like watching the same pattern repeating and wishing that a way was found to handle things a bit better, rather then the expedient way and hoping that it never becomes a drawback of some kind.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In this case, the "sacrifice zone" is already blasted by radiation and covered in toxic dust that's sharp as all heck.

And, well, the moon already has a decent amount of Uranium in its crust. Dropping spent nuclear stages really doesn't change the Lunar environment significantly. Yes, if we ditched enough stages into the moon, we would cause measurable change, but it would take a heck of alot of nuclear stages. My hope is that the re-useable nuclear tug program will pay off well before we have to start actually industrializing the moon (if we were supporting industrial colonies on the moon, that's when I would worry if we were still using nuclear crasher stages - but I suspect by the time we are going to the moon on that scale we'll be using the replacement to the replacement of the RLA and the current nuclear stage at least, more likely the replacement to the replacement of the replacement of the current gen hardware).

edqu said:
Also I think lithography is very important if we want a microcomputer industry in ten years, which we do want because we want to be a rich country. And lithography will probably require an HI focus.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What I am wondering is, if we have enough infra dice to avoid taking an infra focus next plan, if we take a HI focus AND take the HI dice now, will we have too many HI dice to mobilize, even considering all the dice that will be consumed by coal and nuclear autodice?

My big goals for HI that we need more dice for are power generation, lithography and aluminium production. And is that enough to justify taking more dice now?

Regards,

fasquardon
 
I think we should avoid taking the HI focus. If anything, I'd prefer CI and Services if we're not doing infrastructure. Taking more resource and energy intensive dice right before oil crisis seems like a problem (granted we've been right before oil crisis for 10 years but the risk is still there). I think we would have enough for power, lithography, and aluminum. 4 dice on nuclear would probably make it tight, but we'd be reducing how much we put into gas probably down to 1 dice? And besides, we do have 6 free dice, it's possible to spare 1 or 2 for the sector.
 
Yeah we're so late in the game for the oil crisis to STILL not have popped that I consider us pretty much locked into a CI focus, either it's going to happen in the near future and we'll want the extra dice for the crisis reaction or it'll happen post-1985 when global oil consumption is so high that the supply shock causes a near apocalyptic collapse in global shipping. I mean like mass famines and economic collapse as globalized trade shuts down, the later it gets the worse it hits obviously.

We've pretty much phased oil out of the power grid by now, but our transportation sector is larger and more petrol-hungry than ever and rapidly becoming unsustainable to supply even if we were ok relying on the Middle East, like it'll be at +20 civilian petro fuels consumption per turn within a few years based on the past trends. Especially now that we're forced to improve car infrastructure. So we really need to start gasifying the transportation sector as hard as we can while also pumping all the gas we can to keep up with CMEA's huge demand in addition to the mass transport gasification. CI focus is locked in until the oil shock happens for me, hopefully that's 1980-84 (or technically I suppose 1979 is still an option too!) but if it drags on past 1985 we'll need another CI focus that FYP as well.

And naturally, Services is the other hard lock for as long as we need somewhere to stuff all the middle schoolers, so between CI and Services foci stuff like HI and Infra need to get their dice from the base pool bc I don't forsee them getting a focus anytime soon.
 
fasquardon said:
In this case, the "sacrifice zone" is already blasted by radiation and covered in toxic dust that's sharp as all heck.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, I'm aware the Sun and galaxy do a good job of continuously sterilizing it. But that's still a little different from a more concentrated emitting area, thus why I don't really consider it exactly the same as Uranium in the crust either. Well I guess in a century or two it would have cooled down quite a bit though.

And I do agree that the tug and so will change it up in a little while. Thus why at no point I ever suggested we'd be yeeting vast numbers in to the Moon. But it can still irk me for it's relative lackadaisical approach to waste management. And I still think the other great powers might grab on to it for some negative PR spin. But it is as it is I guess.


Maybe we could at least try to convince them to dump them all in the same area? That feels a bit neater at least.
 
It's the Moon, I can promise that humans living there in anything more than a small crew of temporary scientists at a temporary base will literally never be relevant to us. Probably not even to the sequel quest either, given what we're doing to the climate/biosphere, everybody's going to be too busy trying to put out the Siberian firestorms and making sure China/India don't all starve to death to colonize the Moon. You might as well worry about the litter we're leaving on Mars and Titan.
 
Crazycryodude said:
You might as well worry about the litter we're leaving on Mars and Titan.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pieces of metal are easy enough to clean up one day though. In the end I just dislike the current ministries some what cavalier approach to pollution in all places, Earth included. And would have liked it they became a bit more circumspect. An unrealistic hope perhaps, but I still do think things could be a bit better if they played a bit less fast a loose.

Still that is just my feeling on it, I'm not sure one can argue that much on some ones feeling on just wanting the ministry to be less cavalier with the more dangerous junk. Maybe you don't care to much about it, and that is a point of view one can have on it, for me it just irks as an overall larger pattern of how they handle such things in all places.
 
And of course the Caspian being over-estimated by 50% compared to reality is just the tip of the first iceberg we happened to run into among a huge ocean full of them. The really scary part is that probably many other reserves in many other places are ALSO over-estimated so it only goes downhill from here... yeah, we're pretty locked into CI/Services I think.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how that'll save us. If the reserves are screwed, they're screwed. It can't be outworked with more dice. Our solution is a major deal with Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, combined with enduring the oilshock and reducing usage as much as possible.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top