Your math here is off. It assumes that we only take one NA rebuilding promise. If we take 3, which we can do, we can make a 4.7 PS profit while also giving us a "free" Graduates die.
Good point, I didn't notice that we can triple-dip on that one specifically; in that case, it makes sense for us to ask for one GRAD die for facilities and postpone tracking stations until next year.
Ah, still I am concerned about getting this done with rockets alone. I'd much prefer doing it with Spaceplanes or at least a hybrid system. It helps that we are a lot closer to doing a manned spaceflight with a Spaceplane than with a rocket imo. All we need to do is to get our Spaceplane Prototype flying and we should be good to go.
An orbital spaceplane is orders of magnitude more complicated than a capsule. It may be possible to get an orbital capsule by the deadline; it is almost impossible for us at this point to get an orbital spaceplane, using something like Dyna-Soar as a baseline.
An orbital spaceplane is orders of magnitude more complicated than a capsule. It may be possible to get an orbital capsule by the deadline; it is almost impossible for us at this point to get an orbital spaceplane, using something like Dyna-Soar as a baseline.
Fair enough. I do still want to get that Prototype Spaceplane in the air though. That +2 AERO bonus is tempting indeed. Even if I'm wrong about it going supersonic, we've put in a fair few dice towards researching supersonic jets, so I'm not too worried about an unknown unknown catching us unawares.
Edit: As for the dice, I think we should grab more than just one die here, a +2 isn't worth that much after all, and I think we need a smidge more dice than our Politics actions can provide. Three should do the trick without reducing the reconstruction progress too severely. I'm thinking a Facilities-Science-Engineering spread, and I'm willing to negotiate on the Engineering die.
Fair enough. I do still want to get that Prototype Spaceplane in the air though. That +2 AERO bonus is tempting indeed. Even if I'm wrong about it going supersonic, we've put in a fair few dice towards researching supersonic jets, so I'm not too worried about an unknown unknown catching us unawares.
Edit: As for the dice, I think we should grab more than just one die here, a +2 isn't worth that much after all, and I think we need a smidge more dice than our Politics actions can provide. Three should do the trick without reducing the reconstruction progress too severely. I'm thinking a Facilities-Science-Engineering spread, and I'm willing to negotiate on the Engineering die.
I could be misremembering, but I remember Supersonic research not helping our spaceplane research coming up at one point. I suppose I could be mistaken and that just applied to the Platform Studies project though. Regardless, we've done a fair amount of research on how to get an aircraft supersonic so I think we'll be safe either way. We'be done a hell of a lot more in that regard than with, say Fuel research.
Fortunately, this particular prototype almost certainly won't need to go hypersonic. I've done some additional research, and since we're only aiming for the Karman Line, Mach 3 should be fast enough to get the job done.
I could be misremembering, but I remember Supersonic research not helping our spaceplane research coming up at one point. I suppose I could be mistaken and that just applied to the Platform Studies project though. Regardless, we've done a fair amount of research on how to get an aircraft supersonic so I think we'll be safe either way. We'be done a hell of a lot more in that regard than with, say Fuel research.
It was, IIRC, that supersonic research didn't count as violating our promise not to do spaceplane research, probably because it's justifiably dual-use. After doing the math, I don't think either spaceplanes or NERVAs should be done this year, just because we'd be running very low on bdget.
Anyways, unrelated to that, here's my revised plan with budget estimation.
[X] Plan: Disaster Prevention
-[X] [FUND] 1.5% - Going back to 1.5% of the budget would be a difficult sell, but you could point to the ongoing human spaceflight program as justification for it. That didn't mean it'd be easy, of course. Just easier. (+230R/turn, -55PS)
Ops:
-[X] Deliver a Weather Observation Satellite covering Asia and Europe. (+10PS) (Int(M-L) moves 3d10 steps towards Favor)
-[X] Deliver a Weather Observation Satellite covering North America. (+5PS) (Int(D) moves 3d10 steps towards Favor)
-[X] Deliver a Weather Observation Satellite covering Asia and South America. (+10PS) (Int(C) moves 3d10 steps towards Favor)
Facilities:
-[X] Build a Launch Facility in Asia by 1957Q1. (+10PS, Int(C) moves 2d10 steps towards Favor)
-[X] Build a Launch Facility in Eastern Asia before 1957Q1 (+10PS) (Int(M-L) moves 2d10 steps towards Favor)
-[X] Complete all stages of Tracking Facilities by 1957Q1 (+10PS, CPAL moves 6d5 steps towards Favor)
-[X] Build the Sydney Microelectronics Research Centre by 1957Q1. (+5PS, SDL moves 1d10 steps towards Favor)
-[X] Build 2 points of Industry or Infrastructure in North America (+5 PS, Int(M-L) moves 2d5 steps towards Favor)
-[X] Build 2 points of Industry or Infrastructure in North America (+5 PS, Int(D) moves 2d5 steps towards Favor)
-[X] Build 2 points of Industry or Infrastructure in industrialized regions (+5 PS, SDL moves 2d5 steps towards Favor)
Engineering:
-[X] Launch a Lunar Impactor before 1957Q3. (+5PS, +2 to New Delhi Physics Institute bonus)
Science:
-[X] Complete Exploratory Propellant Research (Phase 3) by 1957Q1. (+5PS) (Int(D) moves 2d5 steps towards Favor)
-[X] Complete Exploratory Propellant Research (Phase 3) by 1957Q1. (UWF moves 2d5 steps towards Favor)
-[X] Conduct Transistor Computing Investigation in Mombasa by 1958Q1. (+5PS, CPAL moves 2d10 steps towards Favor)
-[X] Research Support - You have a network of scientific institutions to whom you send a variety of data and perform experiments for. By putting a little extra pressure on those institutions, you can get some help for your internal purposes. (-5PS, +3 to all Science and Engineering dice until 1955Q1)
-[X] Demil Locker Access - In the future, your scientists may come up with ideas for spacecraft that may require access to the kind of parts that can really only be found ready-made within the stockpiles of military equipment lying about. By acquiring pre-emptive permission, you can gain access to things like rocket motors, artillery barrels and the like before they're turned into scrap steel once more. Given the current situation, the giving of this permission may be grudging. (-30PS, eases some Alternative Launch Systems research)
-[X] Request Negotiation Aid - The most time-consuming part of locating appropriate sites for new launch complexes is negotiating with local interests, some of whom are opposed to such projects for a variety of reasons. By asking the regions' Councilors for help, the IEC may find itself in position to more quickly advance its plans in a way that is beneficial for everyone involved. (Lowers progress requirements on Launch Sites, slightly increases R costs) (-10PS)
-[X] Redirect Funding to the IEC - By pulling on the right strings, you can get funding redirected to the IEC beyond the percentage allotment.
--[X] 8 PS
-[X] [GRAD] Operations
-[X] [GRAD] Facilities
-[X] [GRAD] Politics
I'm going to assume a worst-case scenario for OPS, which is 5 dice active at 35 R each every turn, for a total of 175 R/turn.
For facilities, we'e got big projects:
The launch facility's cost is unknown, as is the progress requirements. As a reasonable worst-case scenario, I'm going to say it'll take 3 of our dice, every quarter, for the entire year, at a cost of 40R/dice; this totals 120 R/turn.
We did equatorial and northern hemisphere, which means we probably only have to do southern hemisphere tracking stations next turn. If that's 300 progress, we're looking at two turns commitment of 3 dice to have a 92% chance of completion; this averages out to 45 R/turn.
Sydney Microelectronics requires 450 progress and is 25 R/dice; assuming three dice over three quarters (or two dice over three quarters and three dice on the fourth), that has an 86% chance of completion and costs us on average 56 R/turn.
Reconstruction is 250 progress and 20-30 R/dice. Doing it twice with ten dice allocated has an 87% chance of completion and costs us on average 63 R.
This is a total of 37 dice (10 facilities dice/turn) and 284 R/turn.
For engineering, we've got ongoing stuff we didn't promise as well as our promises:
Human-rated rocketry is locked in, at 20 R/turn.
Nuclear power plant design studies is locked in, at 25 R/turn
We almost certainly need to redesign our rocket this year, which means 15 R/turn for two quarters, or 8 R/turn on average.
Similarly, need to finish strap-on boosters, which has 93 progress remaining and 10R/dice. This is probably two dice for one turn, but to get P>0.85 (my personal threshold for planning) we need 3 dice, so 8 R/turn on average.
Impactors are 10R, locked for 3 turns, for 8 R/turn.
NERVAs are 500 progress, 20 R/dice; this works out to requiring 10 dice for 85% and 50 R/turn on average.
Prototype Spaceplane is 300 at 15 per; this needs 7 dice and 26 R/turn. We could do it, but I don't like trying to build a spaceplane when we don't yet have RCS propellant or a good understanding of supersonic flight dynamics. That sounds like a good way to get a pilot killed.
This is a total of 13 dice (5/turn), giving us 11 free dice over the course of the year to do other things with or to act as slack. Total average cost is 69 R/turn.
For science:
Photovoltaics are locked in for 1 more turn at 20 R
EPR2 is 197 progress remaining; if we assume 250 on top of that for EPR3, that takes 7 dice over the year at 15 R/dice, averaging 26 R/turn.
Weather satellites will cost us something, but without knowing how the program mechanics work exactly, it's hard to say if that's 25 R once, 75 R once, 100 R over the year, or something else. I'm going to assume 25R/turn but it could be way higher.
We need to get very long range comms done soon-ish, which is 1 die for 3 turns at 5 R/per.
Transistor computing is unknown, but we've also got next year to do it, so if we need to we can pivot entirely to that later on. Assuming all spare dice go to that for the rest of the math, and that it's 30R/per.
This is a total of 11+?? dice over the year out of 20, and costs us approximately 127 R/turn.
For Politics, there are no promises, but we can assume 5 dice at 5R/per, so 25 R/turn.
Total cost is 680 R/turn, against a budget of 640 R/turn. 8 PS is thus allocated to increase budget, just in case.
PS after the plan is 77.
As for the currently leading plan, why are we committing to things like building a launch complex in the Pacific Islands, instead of East Asia (which is far superior, both because it means we can double-dip promises and because it means we don't need to try and turn Kiribati into a new launch site but instead can launch from just south of Singapore, which is way better)?
Not everything is the best option because it's a double-dip. I'd rather have the second launch site in Kiribati. It might open up some launch options we otherwise don't have, and should bring some focus to an otherwise-neglected region.
Sicko Mode is overpromising on weather satellites. We haven't even seen what the program looks like since it was unlocked last quarter. The build points and tracking stations will also be a heavy burden.
Not everything is the best option because it's a double-dip. I'd rather have the second launch site in Kiribati. It might open up some launch options we otherwise don't have, and should bring some focus to an otherwise-neglected region.
Sicko Mode is overpromising on weather satellites. We haven't even seen what the program looks like since it was unlocked last quarter. The build points and tracking stations will also be a heavy burden.
Kiribati is hellish for launching from. You're committing to basically either building a city from scratch on a postage stamp, or shipping fully-assembled rockets. It also lacks convenient locations for downrange recovery.
Singapore, meanwhile, is almost perfect for our uses. We have sparsely inhabited islands to the south that can house the assembly buildings and launch pads, a city to the north to house workers, already established shipping infrastructure, and Borneo is an excellent target for recovering spent stages instead of needing to try and hit a barge.
While I get wanting to bring focus to the region, launch facilities on the scale of, say, Baikonur or Cape Canaveral would likely require not only all the land on whichever atoll we pick, but us infilling the lagoon. It's going to be very destructive to the people who live there unless we spend a LOT of money that we don't have.
I did the math, and with an 85% probability of success, Sicko Mode works for construction. I also doubt that Shadows would give us a trap option, so if we focus all our OPS efforts on weather satellites, it should be reasonably achievable.
Edit: To be more blunt, while we're indeed helping to improve conditions around the globe, at some point we need to consider the engineering realities of our choices as well. Pacific island launch sites have zero established infrastructure, and will cost so much more to develop. Also, the lack of downrange areas we can glide a first stage or engine pod to means that we either need to wait ~3 decades until electronics get good enough to do propulsive barge landings before doing reuse, put way more effort into things and do return to launch site, eat the extra cost of dealing with saltwater corrosion (the Shuttle tried this, for reference...), or build a new launch facility when we start trying to get serious about recovering spent components. Meanwhile, reusing components launched from Singapore is as simple as designating an area of Borneo as a wilderness preserve and putting a parachute kit and locator beacon on an Atlas-style half-stage.
We started the quest in 1950s Mogadishu and we have the direct backing of the world government - we'll be fine most anywhere. Some of our work will be intended for splashdowns instead of lithobrakes, and a Pacific Islands locale is great for that. We also don't have to worry about most kinds of launch failures once they've gotten over the ocean. It does not literally have to be Kiribati either, I just said that because you picked Kiribati. The negotiators will find a good spot somewhere.
You're slated for three satellites at least - more if they fail to cover certain regions or we have launch failures. That's a major ask for one year even knowing what the program operation is like, let alone not knowing that. I don't think Shadows is going to offer a malicious pick, but we obviously can choose to overpromise. That being said, the World Congress probably is going to start asking for technically infeasible pie-in-the-sky projects at some point which we will need to avoid as well. They're politicians, not scientists. (Well, some of them are probably also scientists.)
We started the quest in 1950s Mogadishu and we have the direct backing of the world government - we'll be fine most anywhere. Some of our work will be intended for splashdowns instead of lithobrakes, and a Pacific Islands locale is great for that. We also don't have to worry about most kinds of launch failures once they've gotten over the ocean. It does not literally have to be Kiribati either, I just said that because you picked Kiribati. The negotiators will find a good spot somewhere.
You're slated for three satellites at least - more if they fail to cover certain regions or we have launch failures. That's a major ask for one year even knowing what the program operation is like, let alone not knowing that. I don't think Shadows is going to offer a malicious pick, but we obviously can choose to overpromise. That being said, the World Congress probably is going to start asking for technically infeasible pie-in-the-sky projects at some point which we will need to avoid as well. They're politicians, not scientists. (Well, some of them are probably also scientists.)
Mogadishu is a major seaport. Just because IRL it's been ravaged by decades of war and neglect doesn't mean that in the '50s it didn't have what it needed to be a spaceport.
First-stage splashdowns are worse than soft landing on solid ground. Seawater is incredibly corrosive to the kinds of metals we want to be using.
An R-4 is 120 progress, or 2.24 ops dice on average. Constructing a weather satellite is a third dice. Launching it is a fourth. Over the course of a year, we should expect to be launching 4.7 rockets with our current number of OPS dice. Add in the program slot running repeatable launches and there's a good chance we have three successes in one year.
Prototype Spaceplane is 300 at 15 per; this needs 7 dice and 26 R/turn. We could do it, but I don't like trying to build a spaceplane when we don't yet have RCS propellant or a good understanding of supersonic flight dynamics. That sounds like a good way to get a pilot killed.
Actually it's more like 5 dice, assuming Shadow forgot to tag the project with AERO. As for the latter concerns, I think the IEC has enough understanding of the science and engineering involved that they would know if this was a total deathtrap.
Edit: As for the Satellite issue, maybe we skip doing Demil Locker this turn? That would allow us to do a much more measured rollout of weather satellites. If nothing else, doing them all at once means we'd have a hell of a time rolling out iterative improvements.
Actually it's more like 5 dice, assuming Shadow forgot to tag the project with AERO. As for the latter concerns, I think the IEC has enough understanding of the science and engineering involved that they would know if this was a total deathtrap.
I didn't want to make that assumption, but if it is the case, then it's much easier, as you said. That said, we're already pretty heavily over-budget as-is (and people want more dice!) so I cut it out.
It's less "know it's a total deathtrap" and more "things get weird when high up". I'd be open to adding it, though, if it means people don't vote for a launch complex commitment that will harm us in five years' time.
Ok, Kiribati. I know about this because I actually did a ton of research on this location for a project of mine.
Don't do it. It's a bad location.
The island is fucking tiny, there almost no buffer against launch noise. There are endangered species that roost on the island. It's in the middle of nowhere so shipping anything there is a bitch. There are no convenient downrange landing sites.
Do you want to turn the space program into a vision-less job creation program that wastes 2/3 of its budget on innefficiencies because political concerns were put above actual engineering, logistics, and value generation? Because that's what this is gonna be.
"Salt water will ruin your rocket" is a rocketry truism on the same order as "the future of launch is solids and hydrogen" or "SSTOs are the most cost effective way to get to orbit".
I can see why people through that, but it doesn't mean it's true. Designing a first stage for splashdown means you have to make certain trades (ie: you can't use certain very corrosion prone alloys) but it's not the hell that people think it is.
Rockets do not spend their lives at sea. They get dunked for a few hours and then get rinsed off. That can be engineered against if we decide that splashdown provides a significant enough benefit in other areas.
Spaceplane *can* make sense, but only in very high traffic, low payload mass scenarios. As in launching every other day carrying a few hundred kilos of payload.
Good for putting a few people and a ham sandwich into LEO for a few hours. Not so much for doing serious spocelift.
And you definetly don't try to air breathe past Mach 7. Scramjets have such shit TWR that they're entirely not worth it compared to a rocket powered zoom climb.
Air breathing is a vile temptress of space launch! Your grav losses will go down, but your dry mass and drag losses will go up and eat into the gains made by the higher Isp.
It can make sense *if you don't get greedy* with it. But do not bank on it as a way loft a station modules or GEO comsats.
And a rocket can do those smaller missions just as well most times. So a spaceplane is really fighting an uphill battle.
Nuclear rockets are also kind of pointless. At least until you play with gas core ones. The extra weight of the reactor and shielding will dig into your mass fraction, so you can get very similar performance with chemical propulsion and propellant depots.
AND nuclear engines are way more of a bitch to service.
If you want high Isp, use solar thermal.
Or research beamed propulsion. Which gives you all the benefits of nuclear propulsion with none of the downsides.
It's less "know it's a total deathtrap" and more "things get weird when high up". I'd be open to adding it, though, if it means people don't vote for a launch complex commitment that will harm us in five years' time.
Unfortunately "things get weird that high up" is an issue that will only really be solved by actually getting Spaceplanes in the air. That's the problem with unknown unknowns.
The island is fucking tiny, there almost no buffer against launch noise. There are endangered species that roost on the island. It's in the middle of nowhere so shipping anything there is a bitch. There are no convenient downrange landing sites.
I'm not a fan of building a Pacific Islands facility either, but what do you think about Hawaii as a launch site? It should have the port facilities to do the job, courtesy of the U.S. Navy, and it's closer to the Equator than Cape Canaveral is. There's even a RL missile test facility there. Can't speak to landing sites though.
Unfortunately "things get weird that high up" is an issue that will only really be solved by actually getting Spaceplanes in the air. That's the problem with unknown unknowns.
[X] Plan: Disaster Prevention
I'm not a fan of building a Pacific Islands facility either, but what do you think about Hawaii as a launch site? It should have the port facilities to do the job, courtesy of the U.S. Navy, and it's closer to the Equator than Cape Canaveral is. There's even a RL missile test facility there. Can't speak to landing sites though.
No sites for downrange recovery on land IIRC. That's really a red line for me. Reuse MUCH cheaper and easier if you can land at a prepered landing site instead of at sea.
Its also just *far* from stuff. Being near a shipping route makes it much cheaper to build, service, and staff a launch site.
So I don't really see anything to put it in the running.
