I'll be writing a post-flight review onto the start of the next turn - I'm still trying to decide if I want to reliability modifier (positive) to come from failed flights.
Are there any requirements on the missile except for range? For the 500 km range, is that a delta-v of like 2500 m/s? And, are we required to test the missile or just design it?
I keep forgetting I haven't posted the mission profile. Here you go:
Mission | Guided Missile | Tier | 1 | Budget | +3 |
Objective | Launch a rocket with a warhead and at least five-hundred kilometres (500km) of cross-range. |
Requirements | A payload including a Conventional Warhead. At least 1800m/s Delta/v. |
So, in other words, if this sucker fails, we'll publicly embarrass the PEAC in the best case scenario. Worst case, depending on who's in the audience, we embarrass the ECN as a whole. No pressure.
Heh, I guess, but don't get too anxious. Exploding rockets are part of the job. Your job is mostly to find out how to stop them from exploding.
Or exploding too early in the case of missiles
You're looking at this from the wrong perspective. The missile will be basic, not minimal. Unlike with our previous objective, we are not going to be the end users of this rocket. It's a seemingly small but very important difference. Before, we could add whatever improvements time and budget allowed. It's our rocket, we know what we want to do with it.
Just to be 100% clear here, because of the 'mass ratio' the Hydrazine/RFNA propellant mix will generally provide better thrust than the Alcolox.
That was for the old Mass values, they're all divided by 4 now to make 1 Mass closer to 1 Ton, so the tunnel is only 0.75M.
... yes. I'll have a think on how it will work (I imagine it will be something like a 'modify' or 'rework' action that combines a plan and an order action for an already extant launch vehicle. Useable only for payloads maybe.
I doubt going the malicious compliance route will end well. If we do that, there's nothing stopping our government masters from assigning us to make a functional weapon next objective. Only in that case the requirements will be stricter and the budgetary benefits probably lower (wasting millions on malicious compliance won't go over well with the folks who write our budget).
That also looks good if we value 3 tests more than a chance at more guidance, but I'd suggest putting the payload last so we can size it just right for the capabilities of the rocket we end up with. Since there's no specific payload requirement.
