StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Yes! One of them can blow up on the launch pad, sparking protests at the Shroomanian Embassy. Mushroom Marines waste some motherfuckers!

Technically, that would be a major diplomatic incident, to put it mildly...

SiegeTank wrote:

Lonestar wrote:So, who wants to take part in the coordinated anti-asteroid watch?

Sure, why not. San Dorado's already got satellite and rocket tracking centers and so forth set up anyway, monitoring for near-earth asteroids shouldn't be too much effort.

To be honest, to track asteroids, we'd need something more powerful. We'd need high resolution telecopes. If you are going to detect one by radar, I'd say you are going need some kind of space based radar that emits radar at GW -TW ranges of power to get meaningful resolution.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Yes! One of them can blow up on the launch pad, sparking protests at the Shroomanian Embassy. Mushroom Marines waste some motherfuckers!

Technically, that would be a major diplomatic incident, to put it mildly...

Eh, that stuff happens all the time. And I think San Doradoan protesters regularly pack heat...

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Eh, that stuff happens all the time. And I think San Doradoan protesters regularly pack heat...

Well, it's fine for the San Doradan troops to fire upon their own people, for yours to fire upon them however... it's an act of war...

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Yes! One of them can blow up on the launch pad, sparking protests at the Shroomanian Embassy. Mushroom Marines waste some motherfuckers!

Technically, that would be a major diplomatic incident, to put it mildly...

Like Shroom said, there's precedent for this happening. San Dorado protests turn into violent riots with frightening regularity, and the Shroomanian embassy is one of the favourite locations for big protests (because our megacorps outsource work to MacMillan, or because they sell us machines to destroy entire forests with, or are otherwise involved in affairs that upset the teeming millions of Sprawl-scum).

As far as we're concerned if the Marines protecting the embassy shoot some violent protestors that isn't markedly different from AIP, corporate security, or rent-a-cops shooting violent protestors (all of which happens frequently enough). Life can be pretty cheap in San Dorado, particularly when it's the life of some dirt-poor rioter from the Sprawl.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:To be honest, to track asteroids, we'd need something more powerful. We'd need high resolution telecopes. If you are going to detect one by radar, I'd say you are going need some kind of space based radar that emits radar at GW -TW ranges of power to get meaningful resolution.

Hmm, that doesn't sound very feasible. But we're going to need telescopes sooner or later to snap pictures of the stuff other people put up there, so we'd be alright with building a bunch of those. They can take turns watching asteroids and Japanistani artificial moons...

SiegeTank wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:To be honest, to track asteroids, we'd need something more powerful. We'd need high resolution telecopes. If you are going to detect one by radar, I'd say you are going need some kind of space based radar that emits radar at GW -TW ranges of power to get meaningful resolution.

Hmm, that doesn't sound very feasible. But we're going to need telescopes sooner or later to snap pictures of the stuff other people put up there, so we'd be alright with building a bunch of those. They can take turns watching asteroids and Japanistani artificial moons...

Well, there are a number of land based telescopes that have fairly high resolution that can pick out Asteroids. Launching a space telescope isn't too feasible because of the lack of heavy launchers. The Hubble was launched up using a shuttle. I have a long term plan to finance and launch a visual/IR/UV telescope in the near future, probably in 5-10 game years pending on the availability of heavy launchers.

The trouble with radar is the inverse square law comes into play and hence you need a lot of power. Not least OTH tricks down quite work in deep space.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Well, there are a number of land based telescopes that have fairly high resolution that can pick out Asteroids. Launching a space telescope isn't too feasible because of the lack of heavy launchers. The Hubble was launched up using a shuttle. I have a long term plan to finance and launch a visual/IR/UV telescope in the near future, probably in 5-10 game years pending on the availability of heavy launchers.

Hubble weighs 11,100kg; shouldn't the FASTA rockets be able to carry that aloft? Certainly the Ares rockets of the Old Dominion can do it (if they're the same as OTL Ares), because that's 25,000kg of lift to LEO right there. My own Lucrelance II rockets can do it as well once they're up and running, they're essentially improved Titan IIIs.

SiegeTank wrote:Hubble weighs 11,100kg; shouldn't the FASTA rockets be able to carry that aloft? Certainly the Ares rockets of the Old Dominion can do it (if they're the same as OTL Ares), because that's 25,000kg of lift to LEO right there. My own Lucrelance II rockets can do it as well once they're up and running, they're essentially improved Titan IIIs.

I am going to have to ask PeZook as to what rockets he is using. There might be volume issues. Not least the Hubble is a pretty maintenance intensive telescope, requiring shuttle launches to deliver the maintenance crew.

I have no idea how people got 25 tonne boosters in three years, but no, FASTA rockets at this point are not capable of lifting a Hubble.

We're using an R-7 rocket of the Vostok variant, which carrier 1500 kilograms to orbit. The next generation will be able to lift 7 tonnes, and eventually culminating in arond 15 tonnes for end-of-life upgrades.

Of course, we are working on the Saturn family with 120 tonnes of LEO capacity, but that's a decade away

PeZook wrote:I have no idea how people got 25 tonne boosters in three years, but no, FASTA rockets at this point are not capable of lifting a Hubble.

We're using an R-7 rocket of the Vostok variant, which carrier 1500 kilograms to orbit. The next generation will be able to lift 7 tonnes, and eventually culminating in arond 15 tonnes for end-of-life upgrades.

Of course, we are working on the Saturn family with 120 tonnes of LEO capacity, but that's a decade away

Actually, I have a question, with far more advanced computer technology, in theory we could make the leap faster. Plus, we seem to have space age ceramics already and what not. The only issue I would think is the lack of a proper mix of fuel and the relevant engines. We probably could shorten the development time somewhat.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Actually, I have a question, with far more advanced computer technology, in theory we could make the leap faster. Plus, we seem to have space age ceramics already and what not. The only issue I would think is the lack of a proper mix of fuel and the relevant engines. We probably could shorten the development time somewhat.

This is pretty much how I reasoned too: At the start of the game people already fielded MRBMs and IRBMs and so forth, and it was presumably entirely for cultural reasons that no-one was in possession of ICBMs yet. The technological base was there, there's no real reason why people shouldn't be able to get big rockets up and running in pretty short order (particularly if, in universe, the projects had been running for some time before the start of the game, as is the case with my own rocket program).

People went from zilch to thermonuclear detonations and experimental wings of 15 F-22s to fielding entire wings of them in three years: Compared with that, I don't think redeveloping 1960's rocketry with a modern technological base is such a huge stretch.

SiegeTank wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Actually, I have a question, with far more advanced computer technology, in theory we could make the leap faster. Plus, we seem to have space age ceramics already and what not. The only issue I would think is the lack of a proper mix of fuel and the relevant engines. We probably could shorten the development time somewhat.

This is pretty much how I reasoned too: At the start of the game people already fielded MRBMs and IRBMs and so forth, and it was presumably entirely for cultural reasons that no-one was in possession of ICBMs yet. The technological base was there, there's no real reason why people shouldn't be able to get big rockets up and running in pretty short order (particularly if, in universe, the projects had been running for some time before the start of the game, as is the case with my own rocket program).

People went from zilch to thermonuclear detonations and experimental wings of 15 F-22s to fielding entire wings of them in three years: Compared with that, I don't think redeveloping 1960's rocketry with a modern technological base is such a huge stretch.

ICBMs don't exist because there's not much reason to spend the giant sums of money they require to be able to deliver a couple tons of chemical weapons to the other side of the world. They don't exist because there's no reason for them to exist.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Constantinople Times

2 billion grant awarded to three space projects

The grants, totalling 2 billion, were awarded to four space projects. The first project would involve the sending of a probe to Mars to map out the surface before crashing onto the surface and sending back atmospheric data. The second project would involve the launching of lunar probes to circle the moons and provide surface data of the moons. The third involves sending a probe powered by an ion drive, to race towards a designated asteriod. The final project entails building a telescope array in Anatolia. It is believed that the government is also financing a space telescope (visual/IR/UV range) with a grant awarded 2 years ago but the lack of a heavy launch vehicle has led to the slow down of that project.

I think you need to fire some editors at the Constantinople Times, methinks.

RogueIce wrote:I think you need to fire some editors at the Constantinople Times, methinks.

Well, technically, the 5th one is something that was started at slow rate 2 years ago as part of the massive multi-billion grants I awarded to many of the institutions. But because there was no launcher, the 5th one was left in limbo state.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Well, technically, the 5th one is something that was started at slow rate 2 years ago as part of the massive multi-billion grants I awarded to many of the institutions. But because there was no launcher, the 5th one was left in limbo state.

Ok, but the title says three projects while the article talks about four projects (note the underlined bits). So even with the fifth project accounted for as you say, you're still off by one.

RogueIce wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Well, technically, the 5th one is something that was started at slow rate 2 years ago as part of the massive multi-billion grants I awarded to many of the institutions. But because there was no launcher, the 5th one was left in limbo state.

Ok, but the title says three projects while the article talks about four projects (note the underlined bits). So even with the fifth project accounted for as you say, you're still off by one.

ARgh.. I thought I edited...

EDIT; Wait, the 4th one is the telescope array in Anatolia. That's a separate one from the Space Telescope.

SiegeTank wrote: This is pretty much how I reasoned too: At the start of the game people already fielded MRBMs and IRBMs and so forth, and it was presumably entirely for cultural reasons that no-one was in possession of ICBMs yet. The technological base was there, there's no real reason why people shouldn't be able to get big rockets up and running in pretty short order (particularly if, in universe, the projects had been running for some time before the start of the game, as is the case with my own rocket program).

I don't have doubts we could easily do that (hell, the R-7 series did come into existence quite rapidly). But all rockets so far have been solid-fuelled, and a liquid fuel rocket has a lot of technological hurdles to overcome. I assumed we'd dick around with lightweight rockets first, then move up to large ones relatively quickly (note that the Proton and Saturn familied will fly in three years, rather than five or ten). But I don't think skipping the "small rocket" stage is viable, since you need to work out the kinks with the engines themselves which have a crapload of critical moving parts working in high-stress environments.

SiegeTank wrote:People went from zilch to thermonuclear detonations and experimental wings of 15 F-22s to fielding entire wings of them in three years: Compared with that, I don't think redeveloping 1960's rocketry with a modern technological base is such a huge stretch.

The Ares I and Orion spacecraft aren't quite 1960s tech

Norseman let's handle this quietly and efficiently, I don't want to make a big deal out of it.

I suggest you write up a post about finding them all and loading them on a ship bound for the USSR.

DarthShady it'll be done ASAP, but I need to do the exact numbers.

Norseman wrote:DarthShady it'll be done ASAP, but I need to do the exact numbers.

Just make something up. I already mentioned that there was over two thousand of them.

DarthShady wrote:

Norseman wrote:DarthShady it'll be done ASAP, but I need to do the exact numbers.

Just make something up. I already mentioned that there was over two thousand of them.

Writing another highly important post right now... it's taking me a while, but I'll get to this when my other post is done.

Beowulf wrote:ICBMs don't exist because there's not much reason to spend the giant sums of money they require to be able to deliver a couple tons of chemical weapons to the other side of the world. They don't exist because there's no reason for them to exist.

Yeah, sure, no nukes, but that doesn't really affect my point: the technology for giant missiles is there, it's just that for one reason or the other no-one built them yet. If we put our minds to it though, with our tech level there's little reason not to assume we could do it easily and quickly.

PeZook wrote:I don't have doubts we could easily do that (hell, the R-7 series did come into existence quite rapidly). But all rockets so far have been solid-fuelled, and a liquid fuel rocket has a lot of technological hurdles to overcome. I assumed we'd dick around with lightweight rockets first, then move up to large ones relatively quickly (note that the Proton and Saturn familied will fly in three years, rather than five or ten). But I don't think skipping the "small rocket" stage is viable, since you need to work out the kinks with the engines themselves which have a crapload of critical moving parts working in high-stress environments.

I myself at least didn't skip the small rocket stage, I was dicking around with the solid fuel Simoleon series of MRBMs and IRBMs (Pershing I and II analogues) modified to dump gizmos into low orbits for some time before the Lucrelance went into service, and when that did the first rocket blew up seconds after launch. After that no more hypergolic rockets were launched for nearly a year until the design flaw was fixed, and it's now working. The next step is using those solid fuel rockets as boosters for the hypergolic rocket ala the Titan III, but the first such rocket yet has to be launched and I fully expect things to go wrong during the first launch (it's become sort of a tradition that the first rocket of a new San Dorado rocket family blows up on the launch pad).

It's a breakneck pace, sure, but still. It's 1960's tech, and I think it's fairly clear we're cutting a few corners here and there. We can, because unlike FASTA if we get something wrong at least we won't be incinerating poor puppies .

The Ares I and Orion spacecraft aren't quite 1960s tech.

Yeah, I'll grant you that I did raise an eyebrow when I read that Lonestar was launching the Ares already. Although he did launch the very first space rocket in all of SDNWorld, and it was a pretty big one too. He launched a heavy lifter when I was still dicking around with modified MRBMs that could put 60kg in LEO...

SiegeTank, the Ares 1 has been in development for over three years in real life, and is still a few years from launch. And that in a world where we've been flying the Shuttle (and therefore, to first order, the first stage of Ares) for nearly thirty years!


The space launch vehicle development times have been out-and-out ludicrous. Chicago Pile 1, the first nuclear reactor, lit up in December 1942, and Trinity happened about two and a half years later, in July 1945. In a world where nuclear power is common, three years to a nuke is pretty reasonable, because it closely matches what happened in reality.

Compare to rocketry, in which large solid rocketry is advancing not less than ten times as fast as in reality, or this A380-AWACS nonsense (note E-3 went seven years from Boeing winning the bid to the first delivery).

It's okay for people to not know these things; not everyone is Sea Skimmer or Shep or Phong. But that does mean that if you're unclear on a system or what sort of development cycle is reasonable, you should just freaking ask.

Hell, not even in just this forum. Go to History or something. There is a profound wealth of information on this board, and to ignore it is silly and wasteful.

erik_t wrote:Compare to rocketry, in which large solid rocketry is advancing not less than ten times as fast as in reality, or this A380-AWACS nonsense (note E-3 went seven years from Boeing winning the bid to the first delivery).

The assumption in this game is that if the technology is there, it can be used as it is. People already started using the AEW&C system on the B737 so what exactly is wrong? It's not like the Awacs aircraft are using anything revolutionary new.

It's okay for people to not know these things; not everyone is Sea Skimmer or Shep or Phong. But that does mean that if you're unclear on a system or what sort of development cycle is reasonable, you should just freaking ask.

So let me get this straight, Shep pulls a submarine and claims it was in development way before the actual start game year and you come along and say that?

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:So let me get this straight, Shep pulls a submarine and claims it was in development way before the actual start game year and you come along and say that?

Was that where Shep's super subs came from?

Karmic Knight wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:So let me get this straight, Shep pulls a submarine and claims it was in development way before the actual start game year and you come along and say that?

Was that where Shep's super subs came from?

Of course. He claimed it in development in stages before game time.