If you plan on attempting a moonshot, pick the actual option that starts long running developments. Not the one that doesn't and then has to play catch up as was the issue with the OTL program. If you want to undercut and cancel the moonshot with minimal mess, pick stations and then you can have it waste a bit of money and blow up under funded on the pad, giving you an excuse to cut the project. A cutback will also happen no matter what you do that's not a scientific unmanned program, but that's because your politicians want to win their space race.Information from Blackstar on Discord that 1. USA will probably not try to rush moon landing like OTL without Kennedy getting shot and 2. Doing Moonshot will likely fuck us like how it fucked NASA (building tons of super expensive stuff basically only good for moon landings which then gets scrapped after they get their propaganda win), so we probably do space station stuff as it will be more sustainable long-term and still should let us do a moon landing sometime in the 70s by launching several parts with more reasonable launchers before assembling them in orbit using the experience we got from the space station.
The US will absolutely rush moon landing if we get the first man in space. When that happens, we will desperately try to pivot to lunar program and fail at beating them to it as happened OTL, with us taking a massive L and losing the Space Race. If we start working on that now, we will have the biggest advantage we could get. And the stuff we develop from the moon program will be useful either way.Information from Blackstar on Discord that 1. USA will probably not try to rush moon landing like OTL without Kennedy getting shot and 2. Doing Moonshot will likely fuck us like how it fucked NASA (building tons of super expensive stuff basically only good for moon landings which then gets scrapped after they get their propaganda win), so we probably do space station stuff as it will be more sustainable long-term and still should let us do a moon landing sometime in the 70s by launching several parts with more reasonable launchers before assembling them in orbit using the experience we got from the space station.
Discord stuff for context said:would they really go for the Moon?
Blackstar — Hoje às 03:54
Yes, if you take man in space
How likely is it for us to get a man in space before the US?
Pretty high chance probably
But do we want to start the moon race now or in a couple years?
I think keeping things chill for a couple years until we spook them with Yuri favors us more
couple of years so we can get better tech
absolutely
Blackstar — Hoje às 03:55
You don't get better massive rocket tech
Without spending
On massive rockets
Starting the program now gives you the largest advantage
The big difference between all the options is more of a what do you comit to now
If you pick the moonshot
The programs for it will open up as initial things
Meaning Glushko starts work on a 6000kn engine
Right now
And it might even be usable by 1965
It's a question of do you want to start working on it now
And have lead time
Vs not
Hedging that the US will also not
We'll have to get creative with our budget, but it can be done.Blackstar said:The big difference between all the options is more of a what do you comit to now
If you pick the moonshot
The programs for it will open up as initial things
Meaning Glushko starts work on a 6000kn engine
Right now
Like, if you want to go for the moon at all, you are far better commiting now
And it gets you prestige
And spending excuse
Again, if you are planning to actually try for it
Commit
And don't half ass it
And you can pull it of, even if the deadline will be missed by a few years baring good luck
We basically figured out 2. anyway, I don't think anyone here even disputed it, we were just that worried about the dick-measuring contest. But it's still good to have QM confirmation.Information from Blackstar on Discord that 1. USA will probably not try to rush moon landing like OTL without Kennedy getting shot and 2. Doing Moonshot will likely fuck us like how it fucked NASA (building tons of super expensive stuff basically only good for moon landings which then gets scrapped after they get their propaganda win), so we probably do space station stuff as it will be more sustainable long-term and still should let us do a moon landing sometime in the 70s by launching several parts with more reasonable launchers before assembling them in orbit using the experience we got from the space station.
Even if Nasa gets more money, we'll get the bigger payoff long-term because we'd be building up a long-term useful technical base and infrastructure while NASA has burnt its budget on a giant rocket that yeets an oversized manned Sputnik at the moon and back with little other purpose.And if we don't commit to Moonshot now, we'll get out-spent by NASA.
What does "long running developments" mean? I figured Near-Earth was the long-term one while Moonshot gave us short term expertise at exactly that only to burn out and leave us with a useless space program afterwards.If you plan on attempting a moonshot, pick the actual option that starts long running developments.