Sufficiently Advanced Velocity (Space Quest)

[X] Build a Research Center: 600c
[X] Elementary Material Science : 300c
[X] Search for a PR Man : 300c
[X] Do the Runaround : 400c
[X] Theoretical Rocketry : 400c
[X] Build a Sky Observatory : 400c

[X] Write in: Establish a scholarship: 400c

Getting competent helpers has been a problem in Germany, and you see that it will only be harder here. So if you want them, you'll have to grow them yourself. The easiest way for this is to get to the best while they are young enough to be impressionable.

[X] The Future Promise
 
Hmmm... you know, if we work fast we could probably beat the U.S. to project Orion. Craft propelled by nuclear detonations actually has a ton of potential, and isn't nearly as dangerous as it sounds. Working so soon after the war we could even be seen as visionaries, taking a weapon of mass destruction and using it to fly to the Moon. Of course, we're not ready for that now, but give us a few years to build up our infrastructure and the schematics to a nuclear bomb and we might just be able to pull it off.

The main obstacle is that we have to pull it off before the sixties, otherwise the treaty will shut us down. If, however, we can prove that it's both reliable and safe, I think they'd be far more hesitant to sign such a thing.

Thinking back on it... didn't Germany have a big nuclear weapons project? I imagine they would have worked pretty closely with the rocket scientists. What are the chances that we got some cross-training, can I get a GM ruling on this?
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... you know, if we work fast we could probably beat the U.S. to project Orion. Craft propelled by nuclear detonations actually has a ton of potential, and isn't nearly as dangerous as it sounds. Working so soon after the war we could even be seen as visionaries, taking a weapon of mass destruction and using it to fly to the Moon. Of course, we're not ready for that now, but give us a few years to build up our infrastructure and the schematics to a nuclear bomb and we might just be able to pull it off.

The main obstacle is that we have to pull it off before the sixties, otherwise the treaty will shut us down. If, however, we can prove that it's both reliable and safe, I think they'd be far more hesitant to sign such a thing.

Thinking back on it... didn't Germany have a big nuclear weapons project? I imagine they would have worked pretty closely with the rocket scientists. What are the chances that we got some cross-training, can I get a GM ruling on this?
It doesn't really matter how safe an Orion drive is (the safety of it is debated to this day), because no one will ever let someone else test it. The risk factor is way to high. Not to mention we'd have to somehow get nukes.

Also the Germans did have a nuclear program, but it wasn't very good.
 
It doesn't really matter how safe an Orion drive is (the safety of it is debated to this day), because no one will ever let someone else test it. The risk factor is way to high. Not to mention we'd have to somehow get nukes.

Also the Germans did have a nuclear program, but it wasn't very good.
o_O The U.S. tested the concept... for years, the project wasn't shut down until the sixties. Pretty much the only reason we didn't have a bitchin' nuclear-powered spaceship back then is because some asshat proposed they make a massive space battleship, which not only would have been prohibitively expensive, it also would have seriously pissed off Russia; which wasn't a smart thing to do during the Cold War.
 
It doesn't really matter how safe an Orion drive is (the safety of it is debated to this day), because no one will ever let someone else test it. The risk factor is way to high. Not to mention we'd have to somehow get nukes.

Also the Germans did have a nuclear program, but it wasn't very good.
the thing would have to built in orbit or once we were the only power of any note, no other way the thing would work.
 
Actually we have a better chance to use nuclear-powered spaceships than real-life. Especially if we can make ourselves an independent entity. We would be spy central, but our country is so far out of the way that we might be able to pull off neutrality. Cold War paranoia would make our lives interesting, but both the Russkies and the Americans would be less paranoid with us than they are with each other, thus giving us a chance to try out things. Making sure we keep things civilian would be a large step if we go this way.
 
the thing would have to built in orbit or once we were the only power of any note, no other way the thing would work.
Honestly, the fallout isn't that bad, believe me when I say that the good ole' U.S. of A. has done far worse things in the name of SCIENCE! All we need is a remote launch facility and some safety procedures. Though, if it's really that much of a problem we could always lift the craft into the upper magnetosphere with chemical rockets before firing the Orion drive; it'd be annoyingly expensive, but there wouldn't be any fallout. A pure fusion reaction would also solve the fallout problem rather neatly, but we'd have to invent that one ourselves.

Oh, and good news, I just found out that the 1963 treaty doesn't actually apply to New Zealand at all. We can use all the nuclear-powered spaceships we want, hah!
 
Last edited:
This is a different world than ours. Why limit ourselves to nuclear-powering? Let's search for something bigger and better. We have the time and if we succeed in that one, it is an automatically win. Energy is the most important part of our race to space. If we get that one in a great form, we can do anything.
 
This is a different world than ours. Why limit ourselves with nuclear-powering? Let's search for something bigger and better. We have the time and if we succeed in that one, it is an automatically win. Energy is the most important part of our race to space. If we get that one in a great form, we can do anything.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I understand your passion; heck, I share it! However, our best bet for right now is to keep things nice and realistic. Just wait 'til you see what I got planned once we really get going!
 
I think I know what are you trying to do. First play it safe and then play it smart and take over the field. That would make sense if we were one of the big players around. But we aren't. There is no reason to compete with them, we should let them fight each other, while we work on something totally different. Let them work around difficulties first, to copy them, while we create a totally different way of energy making.

Maybe we loose the sprint to space. But we aren't involved in a Cold War that is stretching our resources. (They still have more, but it's a little fairer). But we will definitely win the marathon in conquering space.

A safe, efficient and clean form of energy production would put us in front of everyone. We could use it everywhere in our nation and boost the economy. If we start right from the beginning with this goal in mind, we will get there the first, because all other players will play it safe and be focused on nuclear reactions.
 
A safe, efficient and clean form of energy production would put us in front of everyone. We could use it everywhere in our nation and boost the economy. If we start right from the beginning with this goal in mind, we will get there the first, because all other players will play it safe and be focused on nuclear reactions.

Now it becomes a question of whether or not we can build lasers capable of triggering a fusion reaction in 1945-1960....

Or we could try messing around with combined magnetic/laser confinement, but that's closer to a plasma reactor than a fusion reactor, currently has problems with net loss, but can be built in someones shed.....
 
[X] Build a Production Hall : 750 C
[X] Build a Sky Observatory : 400 C
[X] Build a Research Center
: 600 C
[X] Do the Runaround : 400 C
[X] Search for a PR Man : 300

[X] The Future Promise


Total = 2450 out of 2800 C

Sets up our infrastructure and politics to take advantage of in the coming turns. The Launch pad isn't necessary yet, as we don't intend to launch anything and it only takes a single turn with a high percent chance. The research can also be delayed a few turns easily without consequence.

@Roarian - Does The Careful Thief merely give us missile technology rather than missile theory that the other provides?
 
Last edited:
Long term we need to get away from rockets, but in the short term we need to understand and be able to build/launch them.

I figure we should be moving towards highly efficient fusion reactors powering super EM drives, possibly with a helping of ramjets or something similar to get up to the upper atmosphere. That probably wont happen for decades tho.
 
Long term we need to get away from rockets, but in the short term we need to understand and be able to build/launch them.

I figure we should be moving towards highly efficient fusion reactors powering super EM drives, possibly with a helping of ramjets or something similar to get up to the upper atmosphere. That probably wont happen for decades tho.
Do we? Right now the only thing we can launch are V2-s. We don't really need to launch one, which is why we need no Launch Pad. It would be better, if we had something more useful to launch when we start. Our new home doesn't need intercontinental ballistic missle capability, it might be worse for us, if we got it. We should aim up, and for that we need research, not engineering right now.
 
Do we? Right now the only thing we can launch are V2-s. We don't really need to launch one, which is why we need no Launch Pad. It would be better, if we had something more useful to launch when we start. Our new home doesn't need intercontinental ballistic missle capability, it might be worse for us, if we got it. We should aim up, and for that we need research, not engineering right now.
Quite. I worded my post poorly.

Over the course of the next decade or so, we're probably going to need rockets to get into space, so in a few turns we'll need to know rocket science and be able to build orbital launch vessels.

Past that, I'd like to move past rockets (which are inherently limited, expensive, and dangerous) to a better propulsion system for ground-to-orbit. Space Elevator, nuclear driven, fusion+emdrive, maybe even a space warping drive. EMdrive and space warp drive would need to be several orders of magnitude more efficient / powerful than current concepts are, but that was the entire point of being a genius researcher.
 
Humm, if hurricanes are an issue, then you'd want to set up in the south east. Auckland gets hammered by them, Christchurch... really doesn't. (Though it does get hit by tsunamis from time to time. Regular waves are often taller and more violent (and they're nothing to write home about.) Anything dramatic would be outbound.) Of course, earthquakes are a thing. And gales if you're badly lined up with the mountain passes...
the west coast's a disaster (the tasman sea produces tornadoes rom time to time), and cook straight's a nightmare...

Napier-ish maybe?

As usual, I dunno how reliable Wikipedia really is, especially for this sort of thing, but in wandering around the site, I happened across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_launch_sites#Australia_and_New_Zealand
It names Birdling's Flat as a launch site. Conveniently, it's on the eastern coast, away from any major settlements (about an hour's drive from Christchurch) and has been used to launch rockets in the past. Seems as good a place as any for us to look into.
 
[x] plan Ian Drash

While I'm unsure on the sky observatory I dont really see a better option to take its place with the remaining funds. While beating the super powers into space would be sweet I think establishing our tech base is a top priority. A research hub is a lot less threatening to the bigger players than than someone aggressively perusing rockets that could be potentially militarized. While its possible if our tech got too advanced without defensive measures that one power or the other might consider a hostile takeover in the near term it would be too risky for either to do so as the other would intervene to prevent them from getting an advantage.

On the subject of clean power though while fusion would be an end goal its beyond our reach in the short term. That said developing Fission power is still a very clean source of energy as long as we don't fall into the rut real life development did. In particular I'd push for molten salt reactors instead of the light water reactors. The US ran experiments on one back in the 60s but the project was killed for political reasons and we got stuck with the horribly inefficient (in comparison) variety that we use to this day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment Working the kinks out of that tech and developing it into useable power sources would be game changers in so many ways.
 
Or you could research an reactor that runs on Nuclear waste.

I think The problem is that you end up with enough weapons-grade radioactives to make people uncomfortable.
 
There is the 'magnetic sail' and 'plasma sail' ideas as well, but the magnetic sail can only be used for escaping Earth's gravity at the poles (where there is anti-matter) and the plasma sail is out for atmospheric use due to...you know, plasma at tempertures on par with a thermonuclear device hovering over your head is always a bad idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Possible_approaches - here's a list of possible fusion experiments.

What is interesting is that apparently experimental fusion data was actually used in the Manhattan Project....

There is this thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

The Fusor seems to be a dead end though, but I'm sure I read something about it possibly enhanced via CNT, but...

Polywell seems to be better, but it never got far -EDIT: It has, thanks to funding from the US Navy.

Turns out the prospect of having a net gain fusion reactor that's potentially capable of being fitted onto a ship is too much for them to pass up...
 
Last edited:
There is the 'magnetic sail' and 'plasma sail' ideas as well, but the magnetic sail can only be used for escaping Earth's gravity at the poles (where there is anti-matter) and the plasma sail is out for atmospheric use due to...you know, plasma at tempertures on par with a thermonuclear device hovering over your head is always a bad idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Possible_approaches - here's a list of possible fusion experiments.

What is interesting is that apparently experimental fusion data was actually used in the Manhattan Project....

There is this thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

The Fusor seems to be a dead end though, but I'm sure I read something about it possibly enhanced via CNT, but...

Polywell seems to be better, but it never got far -EDIT: It has, thanks to funding from the US Navy.

Turns out the prospect of having a net gain fusion reactor that's potentially capable of being fitted onto a ship is too much for them to pass up...
The main problem is that most of those projects require a modern, or even post-modern understanding of the physics involved combined with near-future materials sciences. In other words, not something feasible for the nineteen-forties.

Our best bet with nuclear power is Thorium fission, Merendel already posted one possibility above in the molten-salt reactor. What I really want to do, once we dominate the nuclear power market and, I hope, the space industry, is to reinvent the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleforce one of Nikolai Tesla's greatest, but least popular inventions. The potential data a working teleforce could offer us is positively staggering, beyond even it's potential as a weapon, it has immense utility in a very large number of fields. Heck, we could develop practical laser equipment literally decades before anyone else can so much as scratch the surface; which we could use as a platform to propel us into fusion power, and from THERE... I think you can see where I'm going with this.
 
The main problem is that most of those projects require a modern, or even post-modern understanding of the physics involved combined with near-future materials sciences. In other words, not something feasible for the nineteen-forties.

1940s
In 1942, nuclear fusion research was subsumed into the Manhattan Project and the science became obscured by the secrecy surrounding the field. The first patent related to a fusion reactor was registered in 1946[26] by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the inventors being Sir George Paget Thomson and Moses Blackman. This was the first detailed examination of the Z-pinch concept, and small efforts to experiment with it started at several sites in the UK.

Pinch was first developed in the UK in the immediate post-war era. Starting in 1947 small experiments were carried out and plans were laid to build a much larger machine. Two teams were quickly formed and began a series of ever-larger experiments. When the Huemul results hit the news, James L. Tuck, a UK physicist working at Los Alamos, introduced the pinch concept in the US and produced a series of machines known as the Perhapsatron. In the Soviet Union, unbeknownst to the west, a series of similar machines were being built. All of these devices quickly demonstrated a series of instabilities when the pinch was applied, which broke up the plasma column long before it reached the densities and temperatures required for fusion. In 1953 Tuck and others suggested a number of solutions to these problems.

A major area of study in early fusion power research is the "pinch" concept. Pinch is based on the fact that plasmas are electrically conducting. By running a current through the plasma, a magnetic field will be generated around the plasma. This field will, according to Lenz's law, create an inward directed force that causes the plasma to collapse inward, raising its density. Denser plasmas generate denser magnetic fields, increasing the inward force, leading to a chain reaction. If the conditions are correct, this can lead to the densities and temperatures needed for fusion. The difficulty is getting the current into the plasma, which would normally melt any sort of mechanical electrode. A solution emerges again due to the conducting nature of the plasma; by placing the plasma in the middle of an electromagnet, induction can be used to generate the current.

So yes, there is already someone working on fusion in this time period.

Farnsworth, the guy who made the Fusor? He got his idea from studying vacuum tubes.

EDIT: You already mentioned Thorium based fission...my bad.

Any way, main reason I'm after fusion? It's not hedging into the power supply profits, but rather getting a relatively small (in comparision anyway) fusion reactor is pretty important for an interstellar warship (just in case), fission generates too much radiation, which in turn needs radiation shielding, which in turn increases the mass of the ship, decreasing it's acceleration.

Also, if we crack Bussard ramscoop tech, along with fusion fuel refinement, we could essensially have ships that only need to orbit a gas giant or get 'close' to a sun for a few days, pick up all the needed fuel and carry on going.

EDIT2: It should be noted that the 'Z-pinch' method of fusion has been classed as a failure, due to plasma taking straight paths when at high speed/current, which causes heat loss due to the fact that Z-pinch machines are torus shaped.

Basically it's because of these that we have Tomahak fusion/plasma generators.
 
Last edited:
[X] Build a Launchpad
[X] Build a Production Hall
[X] Build a Sky Observatory
[X] Elementary Material Science
[X] Do the Runaround
[X] Search for a PR Man
[X] The Future Promise
 
Those arguing for nuclear tech:
Remember, NZ is home to a Tonne of endangered and unique species, which the public care about, is tiny, and doesn't have any big wastelands to test things in like the US does. Further, the Public freaked the hell out over french nuclear testing in the pacific before any treaties banning such. Basically, we're not going to get nuclear tech of the ground before any assosiation with the concept becomes political poison, and anything going less than perfectly only brings the date en thahappens back closer. Heck, it wouldn't take much for even perfect success with no mishaps of any kind to be a public relations disaster.

That said, I'm not sure Exactly when that sentiment takes hold. It's a Huge deal by the 70s/80s though.

That said, once we're actually in space it'd probably be almost trivial to sell the idea of using nuclear power in space. Litterally in space, like, all r&d, construction and use being extra-atmospheric. No way in hell we're going to be able to test, let alone Use, an Orion drive in atmosphere. (And i'd be incredably leery of trying to Land anything with such an engine either, given the number of ways a landing can go wrong and the disaster having that happen to anything carrying nuclear/radioactive fuel...) brilliant idea for actually going to other planets ndnd asteroids and such though.
 
Back
Top