Remove ads

Per Aspera (Space Agency Plan Quest)

Reader mode
Dragontrapper said:
[X] [SITE] Near Mogadishu, Somalia (equatorial)

[X] [GOVT] World Congress of Autonomous Republics

[X] [PLAN] froggo's Plan

Thank you for coming up with my plan before I did. :V

I'm leery of going into spaceplanes in the 50s, given irl we STILL haven't gotten them to work. Something like Skylon might eventually be in the cards but first we need to handle some material and engine development - better to start that in rocketry and then move over to plane work later.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A like minded individual! I'm glad I could come up with your plan for you
 
Dessard said:
[X] [SITE] Near Mogadishu, Somalia (equatorial)

[X] [GOVT] World Congress of Autonomous Republics
[X] [GOVT] World Congress of Autonomous Councils

[X] [PLAN] Sun, Surf, & Space
I'm fine with most of the plans, but I think this one is the best for developing solid fundamentals: developing our institutions as much as possible, and getting the next generation of sounding rocket underway soon (but not yet) with next-generation engines.

Incremental development of such a vehicle could carry us through early orbital flights (and the engines even further), while rushing for a bigger rocket with engines so limited by cooling means fundamental changes to the design if we want to improve or replace it. Meanwhile I definitely think rocketplane research gets us less bang for our scientific buck, though we should still do it at some point for the experience with the dynamics of high-speed and altitude-flight. Given our budget though, maybe not that soon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Can you remove [PLAN] from the plan title? I'm trying to figure out why the tally is borked.
 
CyberEnby said:
Can you remove [PLAN] from the plan title? I'm trying to figure out why the tally is borked.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Lately I've found that it shows me the results as of the last time someone did a tally until I hit the New Tally button on the tally dialog rather than automatically updating it, could that be it? Ill edit it though in cast that's the issue.
 
Dessard said:
Lately I've found that it shows me the results as of the last time someone did a tally until I hit the New Tally button on the tally dialog rather than automatically updating it, could that be it? Ill edit it though in cast that's the issue.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, in this case the tally just... seem to hate you? Like, you in particular. You're the only one it's not aggregating votes for properly. 😅

Edit: Except it's counting your [SITE] vote correctly. It's probably some sort of bug.
 
Last edited:
[] [SITE] Near Mogadishu, Somalia (equatorial)
[] [GOVT] The Platform

[] [PLAN] froggo's Plan
 
Last edited:
[X] CyberEnby

[X] [GOVT] World Congress of Autonomous Republics
[X [GOVT] World Congress of Autonomous Councils


This is the only thing that I can find that works so it'll do. Hopefully everyone else can vote normally :V
 
Last edited:
Dessard said:
[X] [SITE] Near Mogadishu, Somalia (equatorial)
[X] [GOVT] World Congress of Autonomous Republics
[X] [GOVT] World Congress of Autonomous Councils
[X] Sun, Surf, & Space
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think I narrowed it down. Try making your text bold when you vote (and Affix [PLAN] in front of Sun, Surf, and Space)
 
Random Member said:
They don't have the same climate for one. Mombasa is tropical wet and dry, while Mogadishu is hot and semi-arid.

Mombasa's rain season might complicate some things?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Right, thanks for the reminder. Yeah tropical rain seems a problem for rocket launching. Does it have any advantage at all? Well, to Mogadishu we go, for all-season rocketry! I wonder, which European colonized it before the empires ended?

And I also think that hardened bunkers are premature when we're launching tiny rockets right now and global industry is limited.
 
General_Urist said:
Right, thanks for the reminder. Yeah tropical rain seems a problem for rocket launching. Does it have any advantage at all? Well, to Mogadishu we go, for all-season rocketry! I wonder, which European colonized it before the empires ended?

And I also think that hardened bunkers are premature when we're launching tiny rockets right now and global industry is limited.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My thought process is that we make ourselves look as advanced as possible as fast as possible so we can start getting boat loads of funding early on
 
froggo said:
My thought process is that we make ourselves look as advanced as possible as fast as possible so we can start getting boat loads of funding early on
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Personally my thought for the hardened tracking station was that while it's good now, we'll going to outgrow it pretty quickly. And considering the reliability of early rockets, it seems sound to construct a proper hardened struture early on.
 
Hussar_Regiment said:
Personally my thought for the hardened tracking station was that while it's good now, we'll going to outgrow it pretty quickly. And considering the reliability of early rockets, it seems sound to construct a proper hardened struture early on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Getting the bonus from it seems to be permanent as well, and hoarding bonuses can't hurt too bad.
 
froggo said:
My thought process is that we make ourselves look as advanced as possible as fast as possible so we can start getting boat loads of funding early on
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On the other hand, hardened shelters ain't exactly high tech, and if we are buildings bunkers for the small rockets we're launching now... how big and deep will the frightened public expect us to make the bunkers when we build actually big rockets?
 
[X] [SITE] Near Mogadishu, Somalia (equatorial)
[X] [GOVT] The Platform

[X] Sun, Surf, & Space
 
General_Urist said:
On the other hand, hardened shelters ain't exactly high tech, and if we are buildings bunkers for the small rockets we're launching now... how big and deep will the frightened public expect us to make the bunkers when we build actually big rockets?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think the degree of hardening of our bunkers is very public facing tbh. One of the big reasons I want to do hardening is to support a rapid iteration cycle: think of how many rockets SpaceX has blown up. Number of rockets blown up seems to correlate pretty directly to the speed with which progress is made, and I don't think any of us are willing to plod along at a NASA-like snail's pace.

Also, our sounding rocket range will be obsolete for doing science in a few years, but it will likely continue to be used as a proving ground to flight test new innovations prior to integrating them into a proper orbital rocket. Small rockets are good for that sort of thing.
 
[X] [SITE] Alcantara, Brazil (equatorial)
[X] [GOVT] World Congress of Communities
[X] [GOVT] The Platform
[X] Plan: Planes Planes Planes
 
CyberEnby said:
I don't think the degree of hardening of our bunkers is very public facing tbh. One of the big reasons I want to do hardening is to support a rapid iteration cycle: think of how many rockets SpaceX has blown up. Number of rockets blown up seems to correlate pretty directly to the speed with which progress is made, and I don't think any of us are willing to plod along at a NASA-like snail's pace.

Also, our sounding rocket range will be obsolete for doing science in a few years, but it will likely continue to be used as a proving ground to flight test new innovations prior to integrating them into a proper orbital rocket. Small rockets are good for that sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fun fact: Wallops Island, VA hosts fairly regular sounding rocket launches for experiments that just need to be in space, not orbit, even today.
 
CyberEnby said:
I don't think the degree of hardening of our bunkers is very public facing tbh. One of the big reasons I want to do hardening is to support a rapid iteration cycle: think of how many rockets SpaceX has blown up. Number of rockets blown up seems to correlate pretty directly to the speed with which progress is made, and I don't think any of us are willing to plod along at a NASA-like snail's pace.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
SpaceX's approach does rely on the ability to just stuff their rockets full of sensors, so that when they blow up they can figure out why. Absent that, you are just burning money.
 
10ebbor10 said:
SpaceX's approach does rely on the ability to just stuff their rockets full of sensors, so that when they blow up they can figure out why. Absent that, you are just burning money.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Their rockets are also much larger than ours. We can pick up pieces and examine footage to figure out why they blew up. Like, it's about rapid iteration more than anything.
 
Our rocket could get hit by a bird and get immolated ten feet off the ground and we'd be able to learn something from that at this point. Part of why having a hardened T&O right now is important is because we're going to have a ton of kabooms at first and we'd like to not have an equal amount of casualties.
 
[X] [SITE] Mahia, New Zealand (polar)
 
CyberEnby said:
Their rockets are also much larger than ours. We can pick up pieces and examine footage to figure out why they blew up. Like, it's about rapid iteration more than anything.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't like rapid iteration for that excat reason. NASA's approach may seem slower, but it's also infinitely safer and we get better data from any failure. Since failure doesn't mean the rocket has RUD'd on the pad or on a test flight. (Not to mention I remeber Tory Burno making a post that rapid iteration may not be faster, it's just flashier)

Of course early on, our rockets are going to RUD no matter what we do.
 
Hussar_Regiment said:
I don't like rapid iteration for that excat reason. NASA's approach may seem slower, but it's also infinitely safer and we get better data from any failure. Since failure doesn't mean the rocket has RUD'd on the pad or on a test flight. (Not to mention I remeber Tory Burno making a post that rapid iteration may not be faster, it's just flashier)

Of course early on, our rockets are going to RUD no matter what we do.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, the truth is that if 'lots of blowing up' and 'little blowing up' yield comparable amounts of useful information, then 'lots of blowing up' wins out because it looks more exiting in the papers/on TV. PR is a huge part of keeping many space programs funded.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top