Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan MNKh Edition

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
I think Smelyakov is the guy we need to get if we want to keep Klimenko, as it says he is Voz's heir apparent. It's probably not a guarantee by itself, but part of the way to securing him
 
General_Urist said:
Having to cancel the RLA-5 is one thing that really makes me ANGRY. In exchange for saving a measly 5 resources per turn, we're taking gigantic hits to our lift capacity (about 40 tons for RLA 3 vs 72 for RLA-5). Other than that, there's no good option: We either cancel orbital docking systems which damages our space station ambitions, or we cancel atmospheric data satellites totally- fuck, why does everyone want to cut those back?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It occurs to me that RLA-5 is the kind of program that really, really, really should be explorable later.

See, as I understand it, RLA-3 is our counterpart to stuff like Proton. It's realistically going to undergo a series of design iterations as technology improves and we figure out how to increase reliability. And the basic idea of "just slap five booster cores together instead of three" is straightforward. It doesn't require radically new tooling or anything else.

So if there's ever political support for doing anything in space that requires a rocket that can deliver 60-70 tons to LEO, reactivating this program is not going to be that difficult. Compared to designing an entirely new rocket, it's not that big a deal.
 
Tbh, I want some high-end rocket program running, so Glushko can do his engine magic.

Could we manage something like nuclear engines with any of the space options?
 
Last edited:
The enterprises over using pesticides right now are SoEs, they are the ones that can afford them and are in a actual position to talk to their friends in committees to make sure fines don't apply to them (if they even existed, because no one important cares about the environment enough to fine people for that) lol

Like, the SoEs are the textbook large agribusiness displacing local (read, ethnic minority) populations and using exploitative migrant labor at extremely low wages. The fact the state owns them doesn't change that. The managers running them are not the ones deserving sympathy or support in this situation, the farmers we have consistently fucked over and the laborers the former are definitely exploiting are.
 
Last edited:
Crazycryodude said:
But even if we go out of our way to extend state enterprise perks to private farms, it will still inevitably result in consolidation because it just doesn't make sense for 10 small family farms to all buy a $500,000 combine harvester that sits idle for 80% of the day after working their tiny plot. Instead the first guy who gets one is going to buy out all the neighbors and buy 2 combines that can harvest ALL the land when working at capacity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's one way to go about it, but I think in some places they instead at times worked with the model of making combine harvesters something you can rent for harvest time. That way the harvesting people can gain some scale and have multiple devices and the experience to maintain them and the various farmers can still get mechanical support. In some ways this setup is superior even to the big groups, as now you can move the harvesters around the country and harvest various areas at their different harvest times all with the same machine.

So I could see how such a solution would actually be even better then consolidation of land. At least in so far as achieving scale for some of the mechanical equipment.
General_Urist said:
Having to cancel the RLA-5 is one thing that really makes me ANGRY. In exchange for saving a measly 5 resources per turn, we're taking gigantic hits to our lift capacity (about 40 tons for RLA 3 vs 72 for RLA-5). Other than that, there's no good option: We either cancel orbital docking systems which damages our space station ambitions, or we cancel atmospheric data satellites totally- fuck, why does everyone want to cut those back?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Simon_Jester said:
It occurs to me that RLA-5 is the kind of program that really, really, really should be explorable later.

See, as I understand it, RLA-3 is our counterpart to stuff like Proton. It's realistically going to undergo a series of design iterations as technology improves and we figure out how to increase reliability. And the basic idea of "just slap five booster cores together instead of three" is straightforward. It doesn't require radically new tooling or anything else.

So if there's ever political support for doing anything in space that requires a rocket that can deliver 60-70 tons to LEO, reactivating this program is not going to be that difficult. Compared to designing an entirely new rocket, it's not that big a deal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we're talking real rocket design processes, the core for the RLA-3 was designed with the RLA-5 in mind. This means the piping attachments, reinforcement scheme, etc were all made with the option on putting 4 boosters on the core. As such this gives the ability to always have a relatively affordable quad core booster development for the RLA in case there is ever a need for more mass to orbit. Certainly some other rockets in history have added boosters at times as well, and usually placed where the was still space and structural support for it.

So in principal indeed getting those two further boosters back eventually should still be highly possible. Well assuming one ever needs that much mass to orbit in the coming decades.


On that note, the current RLA is presumably the first iteration of this design. Typically speaking rockets over their lifetime tend to get numerous improvements and upgrades. Like increasing the engine output once you have a bit more time to improve them and design a next gen version. Or improving the efficiency, as Glushko definitely could be moving to improving the current staged combustion engine to a full flow staged combustion. Or as SpaceX did and I think RTL USSR at times also did, which is to cool the fuels in the rocket down closer to freezing so they become denser, which means the engine now can push more rocket fuel through the same pipes and you gain thrust and total fuel on your rocket. As well as many other smaller things one could improve.

When you get right down to it, the RLA is a slightly larger diameter rocket then the Falcon 9, and so presumably if one kept improving it could eventually get close to or even exceed the amount of mass a Falcon 9 can get to orbit. And even a part reused Falcon Heavy which is basically the RLA-3 setup, can push over 60 tons to orbit. Which says something about how much performance could still be improved in time. Presumably an RLA-5 at that point if it existed and wasn't reusable could get somewhere well past 100 tons to orbit even. Certainly something to think about.
Dwergar said:
Tbh, I want some high-end rocket program running, so Glushko can do his engine magic.

Could we manage something like nuclear engines with any of the space options?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Depends on how much budget will be free one imagines, as well as what other things will be options and how desirable those are. Nuclear rockets sadly for us have limited value in a lot of cases if our beyond Earth efforts are just some probe programs. You need to be running some substantial deep space program to get the most out of that tech and preferably even an in space refueling setup, so you can really make some real use of an engine that could run a longer time. As things are going those developments might still be some time out sadly.

On engine tech we probably have some real hope of showing up in the short term though, as it is something RTL USSR developed for their moon rocket, would be a full flow staged combustion engines. Which is more or less the final step in rocket engine efficiency we can get with conventional rockets realistically.

Well In principle there's detonation engines as well, which give a quite large improvement, but that will probably require a few breakthroughs along the way really before they can be realistically achieved. So while it would be fantastic if one could some how get such engines, it probably won't be a real chance for us any time soon.

As such, we might be running out of engine improvements we can achieve with our current needs and technological abilities.
 
Moratorium is over.

[X] Plan De-Voznefication
-[x]Retire Smelyakov
-[x]Prioritize Unmanned Programs
-[x]Do Nothing

[X] Plan Throwing Moscow A Bone
-[x]Retire Dygai
-[x]Prioritize Unmanned Programs
-[x]Do Nothing

[X] Plan Enterprise Agricultural Policies
 
Last edited:
The issue with the rla 5 is what the hell do we even need to lift to orbit even needs that much thrust

The rla3 can move a significant portion of the ISS by mass there no real use case for the RLA that can't either be done by a cheaper RLA3 or is in the realm if science fiction
 
[X] Plan De-Voznefication

I agree with Random that right now is not the time to waste political capital fighting over agriculture when we have just been put in a extremly dangerous situation. The option is also just not worth it as neither option will fix agriculture as it would still not make money. To me space is in many ways just a prestige project so i support just cutting it back to what makes the most economically and scientifically sense and then just leaving the prestige to others.
Now the big one is who to retire and i agree with Vi'Talzin that removing Dygai will be the most popular and do much for us building cadres but with that said Smelyakov is not just a Voz idiot this guy was Voz second in command in essence like Random said. This likely means that if we don't remove him immediatly there is all the risk of the technocrats getting their heads out their asses gets rid of Voz and throws their hat behind Abramov to muscle out Mash (who Abramov sees as his direct competitor) in the Troika. This would basically mean that Smelyakov is saved from all further anti corruption effort and we won't get to crack open the black hole of corruption that is our HI sector.
Of course this is just a chance that i am trying to preempt i just feel like now that we have chosen the deep cleaning then we should aim for the deep cleaning.
 
[X] Plan Pragmatic Rationalization
-[X] Retire Dygai
-[X] Rationalize the Cutbacks
-[X] Back Small Producers

Dygai is a good starting target, his sector is one Klimenko is experienced in so the effects of the disruption will be minimized and he can build his own support base there so we can take on Smelyakov next. Not to mention it removes the face of urban renovation, and I would rather not risk a Tianmen square type event due to unrest coming from it by leaving him be.
 
[X]Plan: Smack down that private insurance
-[X]Retire Dygai
-[X]Prioritize Unmanned Programs
-[X]Back Small Producers

[X] Plan Pragmatic Rationalization
[X] Plan Lunar Rationalization

VonVonson said:
The issue with the rla 5 is what the hell do we even need to lift to orbit even needs that much thrust

The rla3 can move a significant portion of the ISS by mass there no real use case for the RLA that can't either be done by a cheaper RLA3 or is in the realm if science fiction
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The big thing the RLA-5 had going for it was just how relatively cheap it was for what it gaves us. A brand new bespoke rocket system on that scale should definitely be canceled because it just won't be used enough to justify all those development costs unless those few things it is used for are massively important, but on the grand scale of things the RLA-5 was actually coming in at a massive discount compared to what what a rocket of that size could have cost.

With the RLA-5 it gets us almost twice the lift capacity on a single rocket, and to get that we don't have to blow money designing new engines and rocket bodies, blow money expanding our launch infrastructure to handle it, blow money settings up a production line for just that large rocket, and enough of the work necessary was already being done in the RLA-3 that we were getting a third off the ongoing development costs for it.

Even if it was never going to be used much, it wasn't really costing that much in the big picture.
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan Pragmatic Rationalization
[X]Plan: Smack down that private insurance
[X] Plan Enterprise Agricultural Policies
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan De-Voznefication

Edit- Following discussion, approval voting for
[X] Plan Lunar Rationalization (hard stuff first)
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top