Mostly yeah, though fuel is rather dense, so for missions out to the outer planets and argument could be made it could have had some uses. But I readily admit this is pretty specialty and really not something you do a lot. And an upgraded RLA-3 might be good enough already even for those.
Attempting to Fulfill the Plan MNKh Edition
- Thread starter Blackstar
- Start date
- Alt. History Users' Choice!
Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Yeah but even if you don't end up maximally using all 72t on a single payload, you still could do any probe + interplanetary stage that's more than 40t combined unlike the RLA-3.
But I suppose those are just things that will have to wait until we get a major upgrade to the -3 in a few decades that can push it to maybe 50-55t.
But I suppose those are just things that will have to wait until we get a major upgrade to the -3 in a few decades that can push it to maybe 50-55t.
Voyager, with both probes and the transfer bus, was 4 tons in LEO. Even the most morbidly obese hyper-Voyager with a Titan lander and way larger instrument budget that's 10x bigger would still fit on an un-upgraded RLA-3 with a chemical transfer stage. Any upgrades to the RLA or a nuclear transfer stage or whatever push that even higher. I really can't imagine any probe mission that would use an RLA-5, its utility outside a moonshot is limited to maybe a space station core and that's kinda it.
Absolutely, but that's for non-capture flyby missions. The moment you want to get to one of the outer planets in less then say 30+ years and then drop in to an orbit around it, you are suddenly going to need a lot of fuel. The problem is bad enough that apparently past gen launchers of up to 20 tons to LEO were insufficient, which is why no such missions were attempted. Maybe a Falcon Heavy now would be good enough though.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I mean, the offended parties literally include "much of the population of Moscow." They're right there. I'm pretty sure the only thing stopping them from doing mass protests is that they're scared and don't wanna die.
Galileo and Cassini and so on weren't that chunky as probes, were they? Or are you talking about a notional Uranus/Neptune orbiter?
Last edited:
A hammer head fairing could get payloads of 6.7m diameter up no problem.
But to really get good use out of 70 tonnes of payload (probably closer to 80 tonnes if we actually built it, since this would be with 1970s improvements) even a hammer head configuration would make it hard to fit anything game changing.
You could build a massive interplanetary probe that left chunks of itself at each stop (landers and orbiters and such) on a grand tour. The issue with that is that any economies of scale of such a thing would be more than offset by the risks of having maybe a decade of space program money all in one basket.
Since most of the money is R&D money and the RLA should have for the time competitive launch costs, it's far better to do multiple probes.
The real thing the RLA-5 would allow is lofting massive Earth Departure Stages that shoved a small probe somewhere real fast. Which is why a nuclear EDS is a competitor for this sort of work.
When we needed to go to the moon, using a RLA-5 for this sort of work would be the way to go, since the Lunar program would pay for the RLA-5, saving the trouble of making a nuclear EDS. But now that the RLA-5 has been cut, we will in future be choosing between a 15 rpt/turn (at best) RLA-5 program or a 5 rpt/turn nuclear engine program.
Which is all quibbling about details while loudly agreeing about the final analysis.
None of the things we could use the RLA-5 for are enough to justify the R&D needed to make the rocket.
____
To go back to more serious matters, what's winning the vote?
'Cuz I've been convinced Dygai first and I remain convinced that backing the small farmers and prioritizing the unmanned programs are high priority.
So @Crazycryodude's Plan Lunar Rationalization.
Regards,
fasquardon
I was thinking of the latter, yes. Anything closer by has less painful transit times.
- Location
- UTC+0
- Pronouns
- He/Him/They
Lunar Rationalization by 7 votes, 11 if you count the "smack down that private insurance" plan that is identical and has 4 votes.
Only 8 votes, three of those in that one also voted for Lunar Rationalization.
- Location
- The great frozen north
What Vi'Talzin said. To add to that, you can press "show tally" under the box you draft posts in to get an up to date vote count.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Uranus and Neptune orbiter programs are a bit ambitious and 'out there' to support an entire new rocket booster on...
I in general agreed with that really, yeah. It was just a note the RLA-5 could have been used for something like that.
Cannon Omake: The Cold War Metronome
Terminator57
Southern trees bear a strange fruit
Here's a new omake called "The Cold War Metronome". I hope you enjoy it as much as the previous ones.
The decades following the end of the Second World War saw the formation of two blocs with rival political and economic systems, whose antagonism was only tempered by strong economic interdependence and ever-growing stocks of nuclear weapons.
In an increasingly tense international environment, especially in Europe, where atomic and conventional weapons have been massing in ever greater quantities on both sides of the Rhine for several years now, we believe that America's strategy of occupying the space vacated by the Soviet bloc - the latter concentrating all its efforts on integrating the CMEA member states and developing its economy - is a counterproductive strategy for the USA and its economy through the reinforced global Soviet reaction it may generate.
Indeed, this situation puts the Soviet Union in a weak position internationally, especially as it needs Western technologies and economic exchanges with us and our partners to carry out its economic development, even if Comecon remains an important part of its foreign trade. Indeed, it cannot behave aggressively and continue to spread its deadly ideology outside its zone of influence without running the risk of cutting itself off from its main sources of technology and outlets: the West. This situation of weakness has also enabled us to obtain an Open Skies Treaty from them, enabling us to monitor their progress concerning development of nuclear weapons and their means of deployment. Finally, this passivity on the part of the Soviet Union has also enabled us to pursue a proactive policy of liberating populations whose leaders are on the verge of being subjugated to Moscow, as shown by the examples of Iraq and Brazil. What's more, even if this desire to bring a better political system to recently decolonized nations suffers a setback, as in the case of Indonesia, the fatherland of Socialism and its leadership doesn't have the guts to pursue a more confrontational policy with us: which again allows us to take advantage of Soviet weakness to ensure the promotion of our model to the peoples of the rest of the globe. Nevertheless, even if the downside of this is economic dependence - and therefore weakness on our part - in terms of exports for a significant number of American companies trading with the Eastern bloc, this situation of mutual weakness is still more beneficial to us than to the Soviets, thanks to the elements mentioned above.
Nevertheless, this situation is not without risk, since a Soviet diplomatic turnaround is always possible if the Soviet Union sees or believes that it gains nothing from this situation of mutual dependence. The Soviets could display a more active willingness to confront us and our allies, and to extend the spread of their ideology across the globe and the number of countries supporting it. Not to mention increased militarization and state consolidation in countries already under its control.
A scenario of this kind would be a regrettable development for the USA, since it could lead to the multiplication of hot spots on the globe (in Africa or even South America, for example), or the degeneration of the European theater, with the Italian situation turning into a civil war on a grand scale or even worse: elements which could derail the American military budget and restrict American outlets to the socialist countries of Europe and Asia, thereby seriously threatening American jobs and costing the lives of many American voters called up to fight proxy wars in theaters secondary to vital American interests.
What's more, the American strategy pursued to date could also lead to a change in Soviet leadership, with the election of a General Secretary more inclined to confrontation, and giving the hawks in his administration a greater say in the conduct of international relations and covert operations: thus jeopardizing the fragile balance achieved since Stalin's death with MIkoyan and Kosygin, and increasing the risks of nuclear escalation and economic deterioration.
So, on behalf of the American Business Association for the Improvement of U.S.-Soviet Relations, we urge you to be a moderating influence in Congress to maintain a peaceful international climate conducive to beneficial economic and human exchanges for all parties involved.
Mark Blackwell, Public Relations Manager
Letter of information sent in 1964 to several members of the US Congress by the American Business Association for the improvement of US-Soviet relations, extracted from the appendices of the book "The Cold War metronome: US-Soviet relations through the prism of global influence" published in 1994 by Giovanni Blanchard.
In an increasingly tense international environment, especially in Europe, where atomic and conventional weapons have been massing in ever greater quantities on both sides of the Rhine for several years now, we believe that America's strategy of occupying the space vacated by the Soviet bloc - the latter concentrating all its efforts on integrating the CMEA member states and developing its economy - is a counterproductive strategy for the USA and its economy through the reinforced global Soviet reaction it may generate.
Indeed, this situation puts the Soviet Union in a weak position internationally, especially as it needs Western technologies and economic exchanges with us and our partners to carry out its economic development, even if Comecon remains an important part of its foreign trade. Indeed, it cannot behave aggressively and continue to spread its deadly ideology outside its zone of influence without running the risk of cutting itself off from its main sources of technology and outlets: the West. This situation of weakness has also enabled us to obtain an Open Skies Treaty from them, enabling us to monitor their progress concerning development of nuclear weapons and their means of deployment. Finally, this passivity on the part of the Soviet Union has also enabled us to pursue a proactive policy of liberating populations whose leaders are on the verge of being subjugated to Moscow, as shown by the examples of Iraq and Brazil. What's more, even if this desire to bring a better political system to recently decolonized nations suffers a setback, as in the case of Indonesia, the fatherland of Socialism and its leadership doesn't have the guts to pursue a more confrontational policy with us: which again allows us to take advantage of Soviet weakness to ensure the promotion of our model to the peoples of the rest of the globe. Nevertheless, even if the downside of this is economic dependence - and therefore weakness on our part - in terms of exports for a significant number of American companies trading with the Eastern bloc, this situation of mutual weakness is still more beneficial to us than to the Soviets, thanks to the elements mentioned above.
Nevertheless, this situation is not without risk, since a Soviet diplomatic turnaround is always possible if the Soviet Union sees or believes that it gains nothing from this situation of mutual dependence. The Soviets could display a more active willingness to confront us and our allies, and to extend the spread of their ideology across the globe and the number of countries supporting it. Not to mention increased militarization and state consolidation in countries already under its control.
A scenario of this kind would be a regrettable development for the USA, since it could lead to the multiplication of hot spots on the globe (in Africa or even South America, for example), or the degeneration of the European theater, with the Italian situation turning into a civil war on a grand scale or even worse: elements which could derail the American military budget and restrict American outlets to the socialist countries of Europe and Asia, thereby seriously threatening American jobs and costing the lives of many American voters called up to fight proxy wars in theaters secondary to vital American interests.
What's more, the American strategy pursued to date could also lead to a change in Soviet leadership, with the election of a General Secretary more inclined to confrontation, and giving the hawks in his administration a greater say in the conduct of international relations and covert operations: thus jeopardizing the fragile balance achieved since Stalin's death with MIkoyan and Kosygin, and increasing the risks of nuclear escalation and economic deterioration.
So, on behalf of the American Business Association for the Improvement of U.S.-Soviet Relations, we urge you to be a moderating influence in Congress to maintain a peaceful international climate conducive to beneficial economic and human exchanges for all parties involved.
Mark Blackwell, Public Relations Manager
Letter of information sent in 1964 to several members of the US Congress by the American Business Association for the improvement of US-Soviet relations, extracted from the appendices of the book "The Cold War metronome: US-Soviet relations through the prism of global influence" published in 1994 by Giovanni Blanchard.
Last edited:
- Location
- The great frozen north
Thanks I hate it. Yankees are disgusting as usual, at least in this case their puppetry to the capitalists means they're in no hurry to heat things up themselves. Guess Kosygin's dovish policy is not totally useless.
Anyways, lets talk power policy! Over the last plan we installed a little over 100 units of power per turn on average, we can assume a similar requirement for the coming plan. Nuclear and large hydro have a long lead time so they won't be a factor for most of the 8th FYP. We must cover our needs with coal and gas only. I don't know how much power autocoal dice will generate, but let's assume it's a similar power/dice to gas.
I really hope we get an option for three-dice autogas. At almost 80 power/turn that will cover most of our needs and we'll be able to get by with one dice autocoal, or just building coal power manually every so often until the central asian hydro kicks in. OTOH if we're stuck with max two dice autogas, than we are going to need a LOT of burn rock. Two auto dice at least.
Well that is expected that the bag men want peace to continue business, though who knows if War Hawks in the US will continue to grow as they haven't had a OTL Vietnam to bite them yet.
Obviously Détente is best for both sides (and hopefully a full normalization of relations and a path to cooperation) but we'll have to see. Reading -how Germany has been majorly re-arming in the face of French re-militarization is to a degree alarming as I hope they don't overspend on military like how East Germany wasted billions on the Wall.
Obviously Détente is best for both sides (and hopefully a full normalization of relations and a path to cooperation) but we'll have to see. Reading -how Germany has been majorly re-arming in the face of French re-militarization is to a degree alarming as I hope they don't overspend on military like how East Germany wasted billions on the Wall.
- Location
- UTC+0
- Pronouns
- He/Him/They
Masherov got his men as MFA and MVD
Such men will undoubtedly give hawkish candidates next election season in the US a lot of ammunition to use in order to persuade voters.
- Location
- The United States
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Power demand is only expected to go up, by the end of the plan expect closer to 140-150 per half year turn as industry intensifies and the economy starts taking off into the very high power demand phase.
- Location
- The great frozen north
Dear god, and I thought we did plenty of industrial intensification under Voznesensky. That was just the START? This will be fun. If we mess up and take two few coal autodice, will we still be able to build more coal power manually?
Well, given that 150 figure is for plan's end, by that time at least some of the hydropower will be coming on line.
I mean, the economy is booming and growing and the Soviet Boomers will be entering the work force in the coming decade in force. we have a generation that is bigger than any before it, better educated, and now expecting a better standard of living than ever before. So we the MNKH have a big task ahead of us.
- Location
- Italy
while we definitely CAN build more coal manually, it's far less efficient that way.
We'll never really run out of things to use electricity on, or at least not in the next couple of 5-years plans, so better to build too much rather than too little.
If I remember right, our options are 1, 2, or 3 + 1HI dice for autogas, and 0,1 or 2 autocoal.
And then there's the various autohydro projects and autonuke.
autonuke is irrelevant in the short term, and we'll probably put 1 dice there for the sake of long term development of the tech.
autohydro we need to AT LEAST take the project that accomplishes hydro stabilization project (basic + advanced). Possibly more if we can afford it, as they also give lots of steel and non-ferrous.
autogas... we'll PROBABLY go with 2, to stay efficient. that 3+1 was meant to represent us not having enough industrial capacity to make enough turbines and expanding the factories making them, and I think we should avoid it.
autocoal... 0 would be a slow replacement of old coal plants with newer ones. we most likely want either 1 or 2. Probably one I suspect, but 2 is also possible, depending on how much hydro and gas we're going to build.
Coal power is cheap. and we need it. At least this is slightly better/ less polluting coal power than before I think.
All of this is discord info thus not final and likely subject to change especially now that Voz has just gotten kicked as maybe Klim is a hardcore lover of coal and wants 5 dice on it.
- Location
- The great frozen north
Stage 4 economics institutes should have finished at the end of the 7th plan, when do we get the roll for what complications it causes? Or had Voznesensky's restructuring prevented that?
I thought this plan already had us expanding turbine production capacity (hence why two gas dice cost more than double the resources of one die), I doubt another 50% expansion will requite committing an HI die on top of the third LCI one. But even if it did, I advocate biting that bullet. The smog from a two autodice coal rollout is just horrible for everyone. As for hydro of course we will devote autodice to that, but the lead time will be very wrong so we'll need something else to cover demand in the first 3/4 turns of the plan.
I thought this plan already had us expanding turbine production capacity (hence why two gas dice cost more than double the resources of one die), I doubt another 50% expansion will requite committing an HI die on top of the third LCI one. But even if it did, I advocate biting that bullet. The smog from a two autodice coal rollout is just horrible for everyone. As for hydro of course we will devote autodice to that, but the lead time will be very wrong so we'll need something else to cover demand in the first 3/4 turns of the plan.
The bigger catch with 3 gas dice is needing to have LCI do basically nothing but drill for oil and gas all FYP to keep up with the demand. It's still directly competing for throughput with all our state consumer and chemical industries, so striking the balance between oil for money, gas for power, chemicalization for agriculture, plastics and consumer goods etc. will be pretty tough. Especially since we're probably going to be doing an Infra focus next FYP rather than LCI, so LCI will lose dice from its already tight pool.