SD.net's World OOC/Discussion thread MK II

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-04-23 10:25am

Original thread locked due to length

Old disscussion thread

Current Game thread

Have at it

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-04-23 11:33am

I'm, uh, electrifying the outer hulls of my undersea stuff to ward off the megafauna and "cave-dolphins". They're just not plothooks I'm really all that interested in.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-04-23 11:44am

Okay, Lonestar, tell me how did you do the Orion, which is an XXI century project, and one so far remaining on paper, so fast?

Is that some other CEV form?

Because you know, we weren't exactly so cool on using 1960's tech which the Spiral is, but the plane mock, and the re-entry thermal protection and configuration of shape were real-tested in the XX century. So we went with it despite far newer stuff like MAKS, Shuttle, etc. various ramjets, speed-up spaceplanes and so on.

Picking a newer , and especially an XXI century orbital spaceplane design (okay, the CEV is not a spaceplane, but anyway) means it's design is only made, and testing phase, construction of test types and so on must be done.

You're telling me you made:
# 2008 (Sep) — PA-1 (Pad Abort-1) unmanned pad abort test.[27]
# 2009 (Sep) — AA-1 (Ascent Abort-1) unmanned ascent abort test (transonic)
# 2010 (Spring) — PA-2 unmanned pad abort test
# 2010 (August) — AA-2 unmanned ascent abort test (Max Q)
# 2011 (February) — AA-3 unmanned ascent abort test (low-altitude tumble test)
# 2012 (September) — Ares I-Y unmanned ascent abort test (high altitude)
# 2012 — First unmanned flight of Orion in Earth orbit.[28]
# 2014 (September) — First manned flight of Orion in Earth orbit.

Look how all dates are in the future. This is rather serious, you're using XXI century tech spaceplane, with no test types, essentially a paper spacecraft, made here in 1,5 years.

This is not a 40-year-old design like the SPIRAL and PROTON we use, no.

Look at the Tu-2000 scramjet I proposed. It's a 1980s project. It's mock phase was actually started in 1987; calculations were made in 1984-1991; and Tupolev calculated that it would take 10 billion USD and 15 years to make it (I cut off the 5 years of R&D already done in the XX century). But I still have ten years left to make the new spacecraft.

I'm seriously questioning the "truthiness" of the MESS here; perhaps you're using an older design, but hiding it behind the CEV project?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-04-23 11:56am

Keep in mind the very first Orion proto-type has not even been offically tested yet Lonestar. We need to try and keep things in logical and possible time frames. One can not yank a fully functional Orion ready to go spacecraft directly from one's ass and expect it to work.

There must be leadup, you must announce your plans to build one, you must allocate the funds and here's the important bit You must allocate the needed time. It generally takes a minimum of six months to get any 1990+ technology off the ground and reviving dead concepts like Spira or B-70s takes a minimum of two years.

You want Orion? Fine announce your intent today and by Monday of next week your on track to launch your test-bed, by Wensday your first live human. Same thing If I wanted a man on the moon, Announce it today, Tuesday minimum before I can send anything there successfully.

If it's in common use and being built today then you can do it in two or three months if you build up the factories and the toolyards. But one can not go directly from announcement to built units, give some announcement of your intentions.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2008-04-23 11:58am

My mistake; I was referring to the CSM, not the CEV(hence references to "capsules" instead of "planes"). And the the technology behind the Orion is basically an overlarge capsule system from the '60s and '70s. Right down to it's component structures:

I don't know what you think Orion is, but a system heavily based upon the Apollo modules, with updated electronics, is not beyond easy reach. Especially when you're tossing non-existant Klippers into space.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-04-23 12:02pm

I don't know what you think Orion is, but a system heavily based upon the Apollo modules

So maybe you have to, um, build ad launch test types first at least, even if it's an oversize Appolo?

Especially when you're tossing non-existant Klippers into space.

Lonestar, the only thing we toss into space is a FORTY FUCKING YEAR OLD DYNASOAR EQUIVALENT. Which actually had several testbed planes built, and 1/2 mock ups for atmospheric testing with thermal tiles.

Fullsize testbed:

BOR 1/2 size model with thermal tiles for cheaper atmospheric re-entry tests:

Not that only, but I did emulate the BOR - 1/2 mock tests of the SPIRAL - and launched a minimum of 4 BORs.

After that, I did unmanned and dog launch of the actual plane, with thermal tiles taking time to service.

And only after that, I launched an old 1960-70s spaceplane into orbit with men, going into a hiatus after the first launch due to the first craft being not suitable for much else.

How many CEV testbed launches have you made?

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2008-04-23 12:06pm

Mr Bean wrote:Keep in mind the very first Orion proto-type has not even been offically tested yet Lonestar. We need to try and keep things in logical and possible time frames. One can not yank a fully functional Orion ready to go spacecraft directly from one's ass and expect it to work.

There must be leadup, you must announce your plans to build one, you must allocate the funds and here's the important bit You must allocate the needed time. It generally takes a minimum of six months to get any 1990+ technology off the ground and reviving dead concepts like Spira or B-70s takes a minimum of two years.

You want Orion? Fine announce your intent today and by Monday of next week your on track to launch your test-bed, by Wensday your first live human. Same thing If I wanted a man on the moon, Announce it today, Tuesday minimum before I can send anything there successfully.

If it's in common use and being built today then you can do it in two or three months if you build up the factories and the toolyards. But one can not go directly from announcement to built units, give some announcement of your intentions.

I announced the Orion Project a while ago in the thread(L3 even got the contract to build it). Since I (mistakenly) mixed up the CEV with the CSM I assumed that no one would have objections to a relatively primitive capsule, what with the spaceplanes being thrown around, and a difference of a fiscal year between announcement and first test flight.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-04-23 12:07pm

Now, if that's an Appolo C.S.M. I don't have any objections to it being launched. It's old and it actually doesn't require much testing since it was reliably flown.

Redleader34 · Post by **Redleader34** » 2008-04-23 12:10pm

On the Ethnic breakdown, my population is like Guyana East Indian 43.5%, Black African 30.2%, mixed heritage 16.7%, Amerindian 9.2 rounding it out.

My biggest deal is the lack of colleges. I have the State University, but nothing like Texas A&M, or the Red University. For the giant fish, eh, we'll process them into valued materials, maybe make a new medical material from their skins. On second thought, no, I don't want to make a cloverfield monster by mistake.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-04-23 12:11pm

And Apollo like Spiral is scrapped, the materials for rebuilding the capsule have been scrapped. Not to mention Orion has more than just updated electronics. It has a diffrent fuel feed system, it's constructed of much different materials.

Yes the layout is roughly the same as the Apollo and a lot of features are integrated from Apollo but the design has been updated and many key engineer features are different.

Look at it this way Lonestar, if you said I want to put a man on the moon with a duplicate Apollo, I'd say fine, your going to need a year at least to build, test and manuifacture the capsule at around 3.9 billion dollars cost, plus the rocket, assuming you don't have a fully functional Saturn V laying around (Which none of us do) then your going to need a year to build, test and make one of those as well. You can do them at the same time but your still into time constraints.

I spent over 70 billion dollars to launch the equivalent of a space rowboat. A craft that held three people, air, altitud jets and cameras and a safe method of re-entry and it took me a year to do it.

You want to build in under a month a system certified to go to the moon and return and do it on the cheap? Come on now.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2008-04-23 12:19pm

Stas Bush wrote: So maybe you have to, um, build ad launch test types first at least, even if it's an oversize Appolo?

You know Stas, a careful reading of the post would have revealed that the capsule was unmanned which was intended to imply that it was a fucking test flight.

Lonestar, the only thing we toss into space is a FORTY FUCKING YEAR OLD DYNASOAR EQUIVALENT. Which actually had several testbed planes built, and 1/2 mock ups for atmospheric testing with thermal tiles.

Fullsize testbed:

BOR 1/2 size model with thermal tiles for cheaper atmospheric re-entry tests:

Not that only, but I did emulate the BOR - 1/2 mock tests of the SPIRAL - and launched a minimum of 4 BORs.

After that, I did unmanned and dog launch of the actual plane, with thermal tiles taking time to service.

And only after that, I launched an old 1960-70s spaceplane into orbit with men, going into a hiatus after the first launch due to the first craft being not suitable for much else.

My mistake, I recalled the image from your "spaceflight is now routine" post and associated it with the Kilpper, not the least because everyone(you) has been referring to the Spiral as a Dynasoar Equivalent, which was suppose to launch like this:

so I assumed that the spiral did as well. Hence why, at a glance, I assumed you were using a klipper there.

My apologises.

How many CEV testbed launches have you made?

Just the one CSM launch.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-04-23 12:19pm

I withdraw my objections, sufficient time has passed for an unmanned flight of a Orion un-manned craft, it's been just under ten months now, if you were rushing it, you might have pulled it off.

However in order to do said launch you would have found it necessary to violate the JSEZ am I not correct?

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2008-04-23 12:22pm

Mr Bean wrote:And Apollo like Spiral is scrapped, the materials for rebuilding the capsule have been scrapped. Not to mention Orion has more than just updated electronics. It has a diffrent fuel feed system, it's constructed of much different materials.

Yes the layout is roughly the same as the Apollo and a lot of features are integrated from Apollo but the design has been updated and many key engineer features are different.

Look at it this way Lonestar, if you said I want to put a man on the moon with a duplicate Apollo, I'd say fine, your going to need a year at least to build, test and manuifacture the capsule at around 3.9 billion dollars cost, plus the rocket, assuming you don't have a fully functional Saturn V laying around (Which none of us do) then your going to need a year to build, test and make one of those as well. You can do them at the same time but your still into time constraints.

I spent over 70 billion dollars to launch the equivalent of a space rowboat. A craft that held three people, air, altitud jets and cameras and a safe method of re-entry and it took me a year to do it.

You want to build in under a month a system certified to go to the moon and return and do it on the cheap? Come on now.

It(The in-game Orion) wasn't intended to go to the Moon anytime shortly after the intial launch. However, message recieved and post altered.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2008-04-23 12:25pm

Mr Bean wrote:I withdraw my objections, sufficient time has passed for an unmanned flight of a Orion un-manned craft, it's been just under ten months now, if you were rushing it, you might have pulled it off.

However in order to do said launch you would have found it necessary to violate the JSEZ am I not correct?

The plan I had in my head was for it to go on a steep orbit to the extreme northwest and splash down west of the Shinra Republic.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-04-23 12:54pm

I agree that an Apollo capsule clone project could be accomplished, but it should be tad different from Orion (older, actually existing systems used) even if upsized.

And, our SPIRAL orbital plane is launched by a Proton rocket - way in excess of launching an 8-ton payload, so we can safely assume it can be launched.

The hypersonic plane of the SPIRAL has been ditched, because it's pointless to build a 1960s hypersonic paper plane design and spend say 6 years on it, when you could spend 10 years and build the 1980s-1990s totally returnable scramjet, which is what I went for.

P.S. It also makes sense to use industries you rely on for earlier projects for later ones. For example, I chose to make the Tu-2000 scramjet because I did the re-entry vehicle for SPIRAL; the already running thermal tiling production helps a lot with making RVs.

So if you have a strong nuclear industry, I could make sense ot make nuclear powered spacecraft for you. Just an example of how industrial specialization affects you.

I don't make boosters, save the very simple "Molniya" family based on the R-7; I lack the infrastructure and colossal costs to make the Protons and Energia, especially the latter at ~130 million per launch, meaning ~100 million apiece. So Bean makes all boosters for OMSK and also has all our space faclities. I assume Beowulf does the same for MESS.

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2008-04-23 01:02pm

Since everyone is going nuts with "MegaFauna" shouldn't someone put together a List of the new beasties?

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-04-23 01:18pm

Since everyone is going nuts with "MegaFauna" shouldn't someone put together a List of the new beasties?

There are things to do.

For example, the megafauna listing (1) and the Moon schematics/maps (2), because we have 3 various-sized moons and that would be hell lots of use.

Master_Baerne · Post by **Master_Baerne** » 2008-04-23 01:39pm

Megafauna List, :

Leviathan (Leviathan Saddamistani) Large, amphibious carnivore. Reptile, to the best of my knowledge.

Noctodile (Scientific Definition Unknown) Smaller, equally carnivorous reptile. Think a deep-water crocodile.

(Given Name Unknown) (Scientific Definition Unknown) Amphibious mammal, tool-using, apparently sentient. Spear found lodged in Noctodile.

Kraken (Kraken Imperious) Gigantic squid. Known to attack large ships.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2008-04-23 02:03pm

Stas Bush wrote:I agree that an Apollo capsule clone project could be accomplished, but it should be tad different from Orion (older, actually existing systems used) even if upsized.

And, our SPIRAL orbital plane is launched by a Proton rocket - way in excess of launching an 8-ton payload, so we can safely assume it can be launched.

The hypersonic plane of the SPIRAL has been ditched, because it's pointless to build a 1960s hypersonic paper plane design and spend say 6 years on it, when you could spend 10 years and build the 1980s-1990s totally returnable scramjet, which is what I went for.

P.S. It also makes sense to use industries you rely on for earlier projects for later ones. For example, I chose to make the Tu-2000 scramjet because I did the re-entry vehicle for SPIRAL; the already running thermal tiling production helps a lot with making RVs.

So if you have a strong nuclear industry, I could make sense ot make nuclear powered spacecraft for you. Just an example of how industrial specialization affects you.

I don't make boosters, save the very simple "Molniya" family based on the R-7; I lack the infrastructure and colossal costs to make the Protons and Energia, especially the latter at ~130 million per launch, meaning ~100 million apiece. So Bean makes all boosters for OMSK and also has all our space faclities. I assume Beowulf does the same for MESS.

You assume...incorrectly. Both the LSR and Tian Xia have responsibility for the space program for the MESS. The other areas of research tasking for the LSR is Nuclear(to include fusion), applied physics, and some elctronics. It's also the reason why the ships/aircraft that have been built in the LSR are fairly unimaginitive...it isn't our area of expertise.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-04-23 02:08pm

Both the LSR and Tian Xia have responsibility for the space program for the MESS.

So do we, I just said me and Shep make stuff other than boosters (missiles and RVs), while Bean specializes in Boosters and Cosmodromes, but we collaborate fully on very important projects.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-04-23 02:15pm

Say Mr Bean, can the next stop for the IBNS Justinian be your shop?

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-04-23 02:18pm

Master_Baerne wrote:Megafauna List, Incomplete:

Leviathan (Leviathan Saddamistani) Large, amphibious carnivore. Reptile, to the best of my knowledge.

Noctodile (Scientific Definition Unknown) Smaller, equally carnivorous reptile. Think a deep-water crocodile.

(Given Name Unknown) (Scientific Definition Unknown) Amphibious mammal, tool-using, apparently sentient. Spear found lodged in Noctodile.

There's also Kraken Imperious, the uber-squid of doom.

Master_Baerne · Post by **Master_Baerne** » 2008-04-23 02:46pm

So noted, O Canine One

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-04-23 02:48pm

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Say Mr Bean, can the next stop for the IBNS Justinian be your shop?

There's always Atlanis, international free land of them umm Free. And yes Sigil is a open port to all international visitors.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-04-23 04:58pm

Mr Bean wrote:
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Say Mr Bean, can the next stop for the IBNS Justinian be your shop?
There's always Atlanis, international free land of them umm Free. And yes Sigil is a open port to all international visitors.

Alright, the Emperor of Byzantium will make an official visit about his flagship? (and discuss possible satellite contracts)