StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It still means you guys are currently falling behind the MSA in terms of maximum lift capacity. Once the launch infrastructure and test flights have been done to rate the Delta IV up to the 8 CBC stage (1 core and 7 booster) we will be WAY far ahead of 34 MT to LEO. In fact right now the bog standard Delta IV Heavy (4250-H) would carry about 36MT into LEO. Unfortunately for the MSA we also are about 4-5 missions behind in terms of actually getting anybody up in the air for longer than a few days so we have quite a bit of time practicing EVA and so forth before we can moonshoot ourselves.

So right now its a race to see if MSA can train its astronauts fast enough to catch FASTA's existing crop or if FASTA can finally outstrip the MSA in building a heavy/super heavy lift vehicle.

CmdrWilkens wrote:It still means you guys are currently falling behind the MSA in terms of maximum lift capacity. Once the launch infrastructure and test flights have been done to rate the Delta IV up to the 8 CBC stage (1 core and 7 booster) we will be WAY far ahead of 34 MT to LEO. In fact right now the bog standard Delta IV Heavy (4250-H) would carry about 36MT into LEO. Unfortunately for the MSA we also are about 4-5 missions behind in terms of actually getting anybody up in the air for longer than a few days so we have quite a bit of time practicing EVA and so forth before we can moonshoot ourselves.

So right now its a race to see if MSA can train its astronauts fast enough to catch FASTA's existing crop or if FASTA can finally outstrip the MSA in building a heavy/super heavy lift vehicle.

Which gives the whole thing additional flavor, I suppose

Especially with those recent recruitment troubles caused by the Moonbeam Incident...

Don't forget the moon research missions, though. It's important to map out landing zones to avoid nasty surprises on your way down (whoops! Why is this place covered in nasty sharp rocks? Oh dear! )

Though with the easier lifting and ridiculously small moon, we can easily replicate Apollo with a 60 ton LEO spacecraft and have LOTS of fuel to burn in lunar orbit.

PeZook wrote:Though with the easier lifting and ridiculously small moon

Does this mean I can't rely on tide-powered turbines for electricity?

CmdrWilkens wrote:It still means you guys are currently falling behind the MSA in terms of maximum lift capacity. Once the launch infrastructure and test flights have been done to rate the Delta IV up to the 8 CBC stage (1 core and 7 booster) we will be WAY far ahead of 34 MT to LEO. In fact right now the bog standard Delta IV Heavy (4250-H) would carry about 36MT into LEO. Unfortunately for the MSA we also are about 4-5 missions behind in terms of actually getting anybody up in the air for longer than a few days so we have quite a bit of time practicing EVA and so forth before we can moonshoot ourselves.

36MT? I Think you mean 0.36MT.

Coyote wrote:Are we using the three moons, or the one moon + 2 asteroid-moons for our planet?

And what about the rest of the planets? In version 1 we had a whole new solar system plotte dout for exploration; are we re-using that or taking everything else (Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, etc) and dragging it in with us?

One moon and 2 asteroids sound like a much better idea. Also think we should probably steal v1's solar system.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:36MT? I Think you mean 0.36MT.

MT = metric ton, in this case, I think.

Beowulf wrote:

Coyote wrote:Are we using the three moons, or the one moon + 2 asteroid-moons for our planet?

And what about the rest of the planets? In version 1 we had a whole new solar system plotte dout for exploration; are we re-using that or taking everything else (Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, etc) and dragging it in with us?

One moon and 2 asteroids sound like a much better idea. Also think we should probably steal v1's solar system.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:36MT? I Think you mean 0.36MT.

MT = metric ton, in this case, I think.

Yes, and that number is, BTW for all, a VERY quick calculation. Since I wasn't planning on the MSA making a moonshot on the back of Delta IVs I didn't look too deep into it. That said we coudl probably, in fact relatively easily, have a cheap moonshot of a full up Orion+Altair as soon as my engineers solve the issue of strapping more than 2 CBCs onto the core lifter. Its only because we want to do it right that this won't be the case.

One remark, Wilkens: the Lucrelance III with two boosters can carry 34 tonnes (about 52-55% more than the Titan IV its roughly analogous to as per the calcs), in the maximum projected configuration (granted, operational later than mid-2015) it will be closer to 50 tonnes.

LOST!?!?! Dinosaurs!?!?!

Awesome.

Now I need to send some guys to catch me a live T-REX.

Heh.. I was thinking of launching another set of ion/plasma propulsion probes come next year, and I might just use either Helicon Double Layer Thruster or VASIMR thrusters. Heh... Hmm

Conducting both flight and weapons tests simultaneously is a recipe for having stuff go seriously wrong.

Beowulf wrote:Conducting both flight and weapons tests simultaneously is a recipe for having stuff go seriously wrong.

It's been in development for a while, with flight tests done. This was more a demo. You only show things to the brass only when you think it will work great after all.

Tonkin's liquid-rocket technology heavily lags the rest of the world, however, the IRT does have some designs and is validating them as part of its parallel MODS program (as the LERT's orbiter is in development, the booster solution has not yet been finalized). The LR-87 is rather less sophisticated than most other nations' liquids, but can use a variety of propellents - including storable ones - and works well enough.

DarthShady wrote:LOST!?!?! Dinosaurs!?!?!

Awesome. :D

Now I need to send some guys to catch me a live T-REX. :P

We should set up a joint venture to capture dinosaurs for the benefit of mankind.*


Benefit of mankind includes having dinosaur honour guards and dino-cyborgs.

PeZook wrote:One remark, Wilkens: the Lucrelance III with two boosters can carry 34 tonnes (about 52-55% more than the Titan IV its roughly analogous to as per the calcs), in the maximum projected configuration (granted, operational later than mid-2015) it will be closer to 50 tonnes.

Yes but by that point we will be well into the 4, 6, and 8 CBC configuration Delta IV series which tops out (in the last case) with roughly 115 tonnes... and that isn't the heaviest lifter we have planned by far.


*Edit*

I know I've harped on this but I do want to point out again that we started this game 6 "years" ago and in that time have acheived huge strides in space from a dead stop beforehand...the problem is the money has to be invested. Projects Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo cost in the neighborhood of 120-150 billion in modern money over roughly a dozen years or close to $10bn a year. That is what manned spaceflight without prior infrastructure takes. Even with established infrastructure (say for instance the US Space Shuttle) you are still looking at $3-$5Bn per year just to do what NASA does today (the '07 spaceflight budget was $5.1Bn including shuttle, ISS and ground oeprations). So yes we are all space happy but please take in to consideration the costs...this ends your once a month rant from me on the topic of "everybody is in space."

But the gravity isn't as much, reducing costs, and we had 2008 level tech to start with --which includes things like stealth, composites, F-22, and other advanced avionics that didn't exist in the 1960's.

CmdrWilkens wrote:That is what manned spaceflight without prior infrastructure takes. Even with established infrastructure (say for instance the US Space Shuttle) you are still looking at $3-$5Bn per year just to do what NASA does today (the '07 spaceflight budget was $5.1Bn including shuttle, ISS and ground oeprations). So yes we are all space happy but please take in to consideration the costs...this ends your once a month rant from me on the topic of "everybody is in space."

Well, as for the IRT:

• Defense expenditure is actually down as the IRT moves to a strategic warfare posture
• Since our world's defense agencies are sane (read: no McNamara and his ilk) we should be more efficient despite having large defense agencies
• I'm spending something around 1% GDP on space.

FASTA has had a budget of 40-50 billion a year from all the member countries since 2008, and I understand the MSA has much more than that, so it's not unrealistic at all that we've managed what we did so far, especially since as Coyote pointed out, we've had 2008 tech. CAD by itself is an incredible boon to rocket designers.

PeZook wrote:FASTA has had a budget of 40-50 billion a year from all the member countries since 2008, and I understand the MSA has much more than that, so it's not unrealistic at all that we've managed what we did so far, especially since as Coyote pointed out, we've had 2008 tech. CAD by itself is an incredible boon to rocket designers.

Only 40-50 billion? I guess the internal CATO funding is about there or more than double.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: Only 40-50 billion? I guess the internal CATO funding is about there or more than double.

It was like that in 2008, but none of you guys ever gave me updates on your FASTA funding

PeZook wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: Only 40-50 billion? I guess the internal CATO funding is about there or more than double.

It was like that in 2008, but none of you guys ever gave me updates on your FASTA funding

Meh.. my own internal funding for research projects is like 40 or so billion... some goes to space projects and whatever. I guess I can dole out a total of 30-40 billion a year, but 1/4-1/2 of it is for internal CATO projects.

I expect Shroom to do the same, which means you have at least 40-50 billion from us, and Stas double that, and the rest.... whatever you guys can put up.

Note though, that a number of engines were in house CATO products, along with the necessary R&D.

Can you see Kaklamanis go "What the hell is WRONG with this woman?!"

To re-iterate I think quite a few folks have bothered to do the work but what I want to forestall is a bunch of gusy going "Wow they launch the X-SuperHeavyUltraLifterofDoom and I want one too" without bothering to figure in the costs. I know that for the MSA I've figured the numbers for an annual budget of roughly $70-80bn just for civilian issues and then additional money from the military budgets is being used to support certain programs as well so the total MESS-wide space committment between military and civiliian is likely double that number but since I haven't polled the rest of the guys for military funding committment I don't know.

So yeah I think the last few pages on the main thread are fine...I just want to keep plugging this thought into the discourse so we don't suddenly have the Caymans or Alaska (sorry Marius) launching a Heavy-Lift system of their own.

Robots, robots, robots. Obviously the old Dominion military operating in a gigantic NBC enviroment would spur widespread use of UGVs.

Karmic Knight wrote:

DarthShady wrote:LOST!?!?! Dinosaurs!?!?!

Awesome.

Now I need to send some guys to catch me a live T-REX.

We should set up a joint venture to capture dinosaurs for the benefit of mankind.*


Benefit of mankind includes having dinosaur honour guards and dino-cyborgs.

You have dinos rampaging on the streets ala JP2 and I'll use nukes to deal with the problem. It's the only way to be sure.

For the benefit of mankind, of course.

Alternatively, you can just, you know, shoot them with guns