Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan MNKh Edition

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
[x] Plan De Parva Agri Cultura (Maximum Moonshot)
[x] Plan De Magna Agri Cultura (Maximum Moonshot)
[X] Plan Use Every Part of the Buffalo
 
Last edited:
I think I will chance my vote for that :
[X] Plan De Parva Agri Cultura (Maximum Moonshot)
[X] Plan De Magna Agri Cultura (Maximum Moonshot)
[X] Plan Every Part of the Buffalo
[X] Plan Comprehensive Computation
 
Last edited:
Blackstar said:
They both use effectively the same upper stack due to the need to launch discrete stages, and the limits on what can be flung out. Using the expanded capacity of the RLA-5 you don't need anywhere near that launch schedule. You can park a hypergolic stage in orbit and leave it there for a month before the next crewed launch comes by, it's the big advantage of that setup. In the double RLA-3 setup though, if the second rocket fails to launch, the mission just aborts into a normal orbital science mission that then re-enters without issue after a week or so of doing science in the FGB. The crisis is over for the most part via a Supreme Soviet imposed solution mostly due to it coming into election season and no one wanting to give more ammunition to the right-wing or have that as an open issue to be debated about through the entire period.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, I am glad we didn't completely destroy ourselves or Kosygin in the crisis then. Minimum standards achieved!

Are we too late to push for a more capable lander than the LK? I really want to send a geologist to the moon and let him pick a few hundred kilos of samples at least once. Preferable from a couple different landing sites...

And if not doing that with a bigger LK, would the expanded Luna program allow us to build a capable sample return bus that we could have a geologist visit with a buggy and load up more samples than just the LK can carry?

Regards,

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
fasquardon said:
Well, I am glad we didn't completely destroy ourselves or Kosygin in the crisis then. Minimum standards achieved!

Are we too late to push for a more capable lander than the LK? I really want to send a geologist to the moon and let him pick a few hundred kilos of samples at least once. Preferable from a couple different landing sites...

And if not doing that with a bigger LK, would the expanded Luna program allow us to build a capable sample return bus that we could have a geologist visit with a buggy and load up more samples than just the LK can carry?

Regards,

fasquardon
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You'd conduct a large sample return as an unmanned mission launched in a single RLA-5, focusing entirely on a very heavy return vehicle that is automated and not carrying a bunch of life support and people to the moon and back. For the current moon program, you just really do not have the flight mass to reliably use a heavier lander, maybe the conceived two-crew version of the LK, but nothing any heavier.
 
Blackstar said:
You'd conduct a large sample return as an unmanned mission launched in a single RLA-5, focusing entirely on a very heavy return vehicle that is automated and not carrying a bunch of life support and people to the moon and back. For the current moon program, you just really do not have the flight mass to reliably use a heavier lander, maybe the conceived two-crew version of the LK, but nothing any heavier.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hm, OK. I can live with major sample return missions being another RLA-5 launch. (The LK can still carry a few rocks back to Earth right?)

Will this LK have as little in the way of fuel reserves as the OTL LK?

I guess even that could be ameliorated with a pathfinder Luna probe landing at the manned site first, then just have the manned LK home in on the probe's radio beacon.

It means that the expanded Luna program is absolutely required to provide the safety margins we need for the manned landings, but I wanted to fund that anyway, so it isn't too horrible.

Another question, the dV map you posted after you say this here:

Blackstar said:
Now to explain the various moon missions for the scenarios of RLA-3 only vs. both being available or even just RLA-5
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Is that assuming a 28.5 degree orbit?

Regards,

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
Blackstar said:
Why would you launch into a horribly delta v expensive orbit when you can just wait for the launch window so that you intercept at either the ascending or descending node without much issue?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Because most things on the internet assume you are launching from Canaveral, as that is the primary launch site in the English speaking world.

And the most the moon is at most 5 degrees above or below the plane of the ecliptic, which means that whatever launch window is taken, there's still a pretty big burn to get to the same orbital plane as the moon, and moreso for launches from the Soviet Union. (Well, by "pretty big" I am coming up with us needing an extra 500-ish m/s of dV compared to a mission launched from Canaveral, but I am pretty sure I'm not doing the math right and I can't remember what the latitude of Yariyev either, and do we need to tilt our launch paths to avoid China like the Soviet Union of OTL? So there's so many things I could be doing wrong here.)

Regards,

fasquardon
 
fasquardon said:
Because most things on the internet assume you are launching from Canaveral, as that is the primary launch site in the English speaking world.

And the most the moon is at most 5 degrees above or below the plane of the ecliptic, which means that whatever launch window is taken, there's still a pretty big burn to get to the same orbital plane as the moon, and moreso for launches from the Soviet Union. (Well, by "pretty big" I am coming up with us needing an extra 500-ish m/s of dV compared to a mission launched from Canaveral, but I am pretty sure I'm not doing the math right and I can't remember what the latitude of Yariyev either, and do we need to tilt our launch paths to avoid China like the Soviet Union of OTL? So there's so many things I could be doing wrong here.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nobody executes an orbital plane change to get to the moon. They just line up the launch so the plane intersection lines up with the lunar intercept. It'd be something like 2.9 km/s otherwise.
 
fasquardon said:
Because most things on the internet assume you are launching from Canaveral, as that is the primary launch site in the English speaking world.

And the most the moon is at most 5 degrees above or below the plane of the ecliptic, which means that whatever launch window is taken, there's still a pretty big burn to get to the same orbital plane as the moon, and moreso for launches from the Soviet Union. (Well, by "pretty big" I am coming up with us needing an extra 500-ish m/s of dV compared to a mission launched from Canaveral, but I am pretty sure I'm not doing the math right and I can't remember what the latitude of Yariyev either, and do we need to tilt our launch paths to avoid China like the Soviet Union of OTL? So there's so many things I could be doing wrong here.)

Regards,

fasquardon
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You do not need to remotely match planes of orbit to get a moon intercept, if that was necessary moon missions outside a certain latitude would be impossible as the delta v requirements for inclination changes are massive. Instead you launch with an orbit that allows you to intercept the moon on it's ascending of desending node. This is effectively a normal launch to low earth orbit but when the transfer window comes you effectively burn so as your orbit passes the equatorial plane at the same point the moons does at apoapasis requiring no extra delta V and a launch window that happens every month. From there a normal full efficiency capture can occur. Higher inclination launch sites are a bit less delta v efficient, but that is already compensated for in the math for the boosters and not really relevant to a moon mission.
 
[X] Plan De Magna Agri Cultura
[X] Plan De Parva Agri Cultura
[X] Plan Every Part of the Buffalo

weather sats are an immediate benefit to the entire country as well to multiple industries not doing it in favor of space stations and moon rockets n shit is probably the biggest self own our space program can do
 
[X] Plan Use Every Part of the Buffalo

Ah fuck it I've been convinced to go against my own plan, there's no differences I'm violently opposed to and I have been satisfied with the proper 4 dice sacrifice to water infrastructure. If we're gonna max our space budget back out at 120/120 I'd rather have weather satellites already locked in there than a space station program.
 
Blackstar said:
You do not need to remotely match planes of orbit to get a moon intercept, if that was necessary moon missions outside a certain latitude would be impossible as the delta v requirements for inclination changes are massive. Instead you launch with an orbit that allows you to intercept the moon on it's ascending of desending node. This is effectively a normal launch to low earth orbit but when the transfer window comes you effectively burn so as your orbit passes the equatorial plane at the same point the moons does at apoapasis requiring no extra delta V and a launch window that happens every month. From there a normal full efficiency capture can occur. Higher inclination launch sites are a bit less delta v efficient, but that is already compensated for in the math for the boosters and not really relevant to a moon mission.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ah hah. I need to work on my 3D thinking. Kirk would have me for breakfast.

Thanks for allaying my fears. ^_^

VonVonson said:
weather sats are an immediate benefit to the entire country as well to multiple industries not doing it in favor of space stations and moon rockets n shit is probably the biggest self own our space program can do
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If the military weren't doing well on their weather sat program, I would absolutely be prioritizing the weather sats higher.

I wouldn't be unhappy with the state of our space program if "Every Part of the Buffalo" wins though.

Weather sats are one of the things we can do to make a big difference for people living on Earth, and they are satellites full of electronics, so they help us push electronics investment too, which is the other big way space investment will make a practical difference for people on Earth.

Also, with what Blackstar has said about us being stuck with a LK lander with wafer thin margins, I would now rate the expanded Luna program as the second most important thing to start this year after the moon program proper. Supporting the moon program with more capable robot probes and more funding for refining large landers (the LK designers and the expanded Luna designers should be sharing notes) are more important than the station.

So, sure, I hope for synergies by tackling the stations now, but choosing to leave them for later is a reasonable enough choice, and hey, maybe the ministry weather sats will synergize with the military weather sats too?

It's a reasonable choice.

Regards,

fasquardon
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top