We will go to the last place untouched by the evils of man. SPACE!
-
The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
-
An addendum to Rule 3 regarding fan-translated works of things such as Web Novels has been made. Please see here for details.
-
RIP @Silver Swallow
-
Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
-
The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.
Rocket Summer (Space Exploration Design Quest)
- Thread starter Buffalo Heart
- Start date
- Created
- Status
- Incomplete
- Watchers
- 18
- Recent readers
- 0
- Threadmarks
- 3
-
Statistics (3 threadmarks, 2.4k words)
User Total Buffalo Heart 3 Threadmarks Reader mode
1. Start
Buffalo Heart
Making the rounds.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2024
- Messages
- 27
The world, as it stands right now, is divided between two superpowers: The Capitalists, and the Communists.
With the advent of nuclear weapons, war has become unprofitable and dangerous. Thus, each of the major nations: the USA and the USSR, are seeking new frontiers in space… and perhaps deep underwater, if you can get your mandate expanded but don't bet on that.
Who do you work for?
[][Nation]USA
The USA seeks the stars through capitalism. If you work for the USA, you will have to worry about both public perception and funding. However, there is no personal risk to your life
[][Nation]USSR
The USSR seeks the stars through Communism. If you work for the USSR, you will have to worry about public perception, but not about funding. However, failure could see you tried and imprisoned as a criminal who embezzled funds from your government.
Your first mission will be to design a launch platform and an initial payload for the first scientific mission to space. There's a few ways you could go.
[][Launch Platform]Single Stage Rocket
Easy. Cheap. Unlikely to fail due to issues with separation, a single stage rocket is not an ambitious launch platform: It is likely you will need to design a new platform quickly. This is the least ambitious, and most likely to work, option for an initial launch.
[][Launch Platform]Two Stage Rocket
More expensive and complex than a single stage platform, a two stage rocket makes up for that by carrying a larger payload into space.
[][Launch Platform]Space Plane
Technically quite difficult and expensive, the launch platform could (potentially) be reusable… though it might not be depending on the choices you make. The biggest advantage of a space plane is that you can use air-breathing engines and cheap jet fuel for the first leg of the trip to space
[][Launch Platform]Giant. Cannon.
A space gun. A giant canon, perhaps built into the side of a mountain, intended to literally blast the payload into space. Or to blast rockets that will take the rest of the payload into space. This will probably be re-usable, unless it gets damaged by a bad launch, but it will be quite expensive, and any payload you carry with it will have to be quite sturdy.
With the advent of nuclear weapons, war has become unprofitable and dangerous. Thus, each of the major nations: the USA and the USSR, are seeking new frontiers in space… and perhaps deep underwater, if you can get your mandate expanded but don't bet on that.
Who do you work for?
[][Nation]USA
The USA seeks the stars through capitalism. If you work for the USA, you will have to worry about both public perception and funding. However, there is no personal risk to your life
[][Nation]USSR
The USSR seeks the stars through Communism. If you work for the USSR, you will have to worry about public perception, but not about funding. However, failure could see you tried and imprisoned as a criminal who embezzled funds from your government.
Your first mission will be to design a launch platform and an initial payload for the first scientific mission to space. There's a few ways you could go.
[][Launch Platform]Single Stage Rocket
Easy. Cheap. Unlikely to fail due to issues with separation, a single stage rocket is not an ambitious launch platform: It is likely you will need to design a new platform quickly. This is the least ambitious, and most likely to work, option for an initial launch.
[][Launch Platform]Two Stage Rocket
More expensive and complex than a single stage platform, a two stage rocket makes up for that by carrying a larger payload into space.
[][Launch Platform]Space Plane
Technically quite difficult and expensive, the launch platform could (potentially) be reusable… though it might not be depending on the choices you make. The biggest advantage of a space plane is that you can use air-breathing engines and cheap jet fuel for the first leg of the trip to space
[][Launch Platform]Giant. Cannon.
A space gun. A giant canon, perhaps built into the side of a mountain, intended to literally blast the payload into space. Or to blast rockets that will take the rest of the payload into space. This will probably be re-usable, unless it gets damaged by a bad launch, but it will be quite expensive, and any payload you carry with it will have to be quite sturdy.
2.USA
Buffalo Heart
Making the rounds.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2024
- Messages
- 27
1953. The land of hotdogs and star spangled banners. Truman's out, Ike is in. Change is in the air. You, and your team, have been asked to design a rocket in order to launch a scientific payload into space. Not orbit. Not yet.
Your current budget for this platform is 450m US dollars… It sounds like a lot of money, but going to space is expensive.
The military wants a rocket that can put a nuclear payload anywhere on earth with a fair degree of accuracy within half an hour of the launch. They would prefer a SSTS, single stage to space, but that's not what you're designing. You can let them piggyback on your TSTS development program in exchange for additional resources, but they will have demands about its capabilities that you will have take into consideration.
[][Military]Merge programs
This would grant you an additional 650m US dollars, more than doubling your current budget. But you would have to consider both military considerations and civilian ones.
You will have other opportunities to do joint developments with the military in the future
[][Military]Do not merge programs
The military will attempt to develop their own SSTS on their budget. You may have an opportunity to buy it later if it suits your needs for a future program.
You will be less likely to be offered the opportunity to do joint developments in the future.
________
Current budget 450 million.
Choice of Two Stage To Space: Development cost 150 million
Remaining budget 300 million.
There are two, equally important, questions that need to be resolved soon. The first question is where you want to construct your launch station. The second question is if you want to a solid fuel, or liquid fuel, first stage.
[][Launch Station]Merritt Island and Cape Canaveral, Florida, USA
Cost 100 million.
Merriet Island and Cape Canaveral have relatively mild weather, outside of hurricane season. They have an advantage in secrecy, as currently the only structures in the area are a few, predominantly African American, small towns made from the descendants of former escaped slaves: Easy enough to eminent domain their land.
Better, it's close to the ocean, so it will allow for splashdown landings rather than lithobreaking.
There is some threat with regards to the proximity of Cuba, but it's manageable, though it's fairly distant from geostationary orbit and from polar orbit.
[][Launch Station]Cali, Columbia
Cost 60 million
Located directly on the equator, Columbia is America's closest ally in her backyard in South America. The Colombian government is willing to lease to the USA for 99 years a patch of land near Cali Columbia, with the only condition being that they want you to hire locals where reasonable, with allowances made for security as needed. It's not a big ask, but it does put the launch facility at the end of a fairly long supply chain.
This launch station would provide the best access to Geostationary Orbit. An orbit that's likely to have commercial and military applications.
[][Launch Station]Nunivak Island, Alaska, USA
Cost 120 million.
Located 30 miles off of the Yukon coast, it should be possible to build a bridge or a tunnel to the island. It's only inhabited by a few hundred native Americans… they can easily be displaced if needed, despite the 'treaty' between them and the USA. The biggest risk is that Nunivak island is physically quite close to Russia, and a potential target in an invasion. It's also potentially visible from observatories located in Russian territory and it would likely be necessary to build a privacy wall, or keep the volcano between your constructions and Russia.
This launch station would provide the best access to Polar Orbit, an orbit that's likely to have commercial and military applications.
______
The other question is if you want your first stage to use liquid or solid propellant for the first stage of the rocket?
Solid Propellent is dead simple, and the military has had great success working with it for military rocket designs. It would not be necessary to develop a new form of solid propellant, though you would have the option to do so next round of decisions.
Liquid Propellent, on the other hand, is complex. It requires multiple pumps and plumbing, increasing the odds of failure, especially as no effective liquid monopropellants exist yet. That being said, Liquid Propellent can be more readily upgraded: If you develop a new rocket fuel later with more delta-V, it's (usually) much easier to retool the rocket to use the new fuel if it's Liquid. It's also much easier to adjust burn rates with a liquid fuel rocket.
[][First Stage]Solid Propellant
Estimated cost of development: 20-80 million.
[][First Stage]Liquid Propellant
Estimated cost of development: 40-200 million.
Your current budget for this platform is 450m US dollars… It sounds like a lot of money, but going to space is expensive.
The military wants a rocket that can put a nuclear payload anywhere on earth with a fair degree of accuracy within half an hour of the launch. They would prefer a SSTS, single stage to space, but that's not what you're designing. You can let them piggyback on your TSTS development program in exchange for additional resources, but they will have demands about its capabilities that you will have take into consideration.
[][Military]Merge programs
This would grant you an additional 650m US dollars, more than doubling your current budget. But you would have to consider both military considerations and civilian ones.
You will have other opportunities to do joint developments with the military in the future
[][Military]Do not merge programs
The military will attempt to develop their own SSTS on their budget. You may have an opportunity to buy it later if it suits your needs for a future program.
You will be less likely to be offered the opportunity to do joint developments in the future.
________
Current budget 450 million.
Choice of Two Stage To Space: Development cost 150 million
Remaining budget 300 million.
There are two, equally important, questions that need to be resolved soon. The first question is where you want to construct your launch station. The second question is if you want to a solid fuel, or liquid fuel, first stage.
[][Launch Station]Merritt Island and Cape Canaveral, Florida, USA
Cost 100 million.
Merriet Island and Cape Canaveral have relatively mild weather, outside of hurricane season. They have an advantage in secrecy, as currently the only structures in the area are a few, predominantly African American, small towns made from the descendants of former escaped slaves: Easy enough to eminent domain their land.
Better, it's close to the ocean, so it will allow for splashdown landings rather than lithobreaking.
There is some threat with regards to the proximity of Cuba, but it's manageable, though it's fairly distant from geostationary orbit and from polar orbit.
[][Launch Station]Cali, Columbia
Cost 60 million
Located directly on the equator, Columbia is America's closest ally in her backyard in South America. The Colombian government is willing to lease to the USA for 99 years a patch of land near Cali Columbia, with the only condition being that they want you to hire locals where reasonable, with allowances made for security as needed. It's not a big ask, but it does put the launch facility at the end of a fairly long supply chain.
This launch station would provide the best access to Geostationary Orbit. An orbit that's likely to have commercial and military applications.
[][Launch Station]Nunivak Island, Alaska, USA
Cost 120 million.
Located 30 miles off of the Yukon coast, it should be possible to build a bridge or a tunnel to the island. It's only inhabited by a few hundred native Americans… they can easily be displaced if needed, despite the 'treaty' between them and the USA. The biggest risk is that Nunivak island is physically quite close to Russia, and a potential target in an invasion. It's also potentially visible from observatories located in Russian territory and it would likely be necessary to build a privacy wall, or keep the volcano between your constructions and Russia.
This launch station would provide the best access to Polar Orbit, an orbit that's likely to have commercial and military applications.
______
The other question is if you want your first stage to use liquid or solid propellant for the first stage of the rocket?
Solid Propellent is dead simple, and the military has had great success working with it for military rocket designs. It would not be necessary to develop a new form of solid propellant, though you would have the option to do so next round of decisions.
Liquid Propellent, on the other hand, is complex. It requires multiple pumps and plumbing, increasing the odds of failure, especially as no effective liquid monopropellants exist yet. That being said, Liquid Propellent can be more readily upgraded: If you develop a new rocket fuel later with more delta-V, it's (usually) much easier to retool the rocket to use the new fuel if it's Liquid. It's also much easier to adjust burn rates with a liquid fuel rocket.
[][First Stage]Solid Propellant
Estimated cost of development: 20-80 million.
[][First Stage]Liquid Propellant
Estimated cost of development: 40-200 million.
Last edited:
3. Florida
Buffalo Heart
Making the rounds.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2024
- Messages
- 27
Current Budget 850m
Current Estimated development costs 20-80 million
Construction quickly begins in Florida. The former residents of the area have their houses bought out by the government, on the cheap, and are firmly required to relocate. None of them are given the full picture of what's going on, they're just told that the government needs this land and, under Eminent Domain, saying 'no' isn't really an option. Most of them move north, to Chicago and Detroit.
Going with solid fuel is a solid choice, and one that the military approves of, seeing as how you'll probably be using their supply chain to acquire it.
You're going to want to bring on board a lead researcher. Lead researchers are, honestly, cheap. None of these researchers will make an appreciable dent in your budget, though you'll only be able to nab one.
[][Lead Researcher]Werner von Braun
Currently in negotiation with Walt Disney to produce a series of cartoons about rocketry and astronomy, this opportunistic former Nazi was saved from war crime trials by Operation Paperclip. He is probably the fellow who knows the most about rockets anywhere in the USA, though his attempts to advance American rocketry were streamed by lack of interest and resources until he was transferred to Redstone, where he developed the precursor to the rocket you are now working on.
Right now he's leaving the military, and planning on making a go at Civilian Life, but… if you promise him better development resources, you can offer him something Disney cannot. An actual shot at the stars.
As a former Nazi, the man has a certain amount of potential political fallout around him.
Improvement to research around rockets, mauls to research around space planes or artillery
[][Lead Researcher] Robert Oppenheimer
A nuclear physicist, Mr. Oppenheimer recently lost his security clearance. Mr. Oppenheimer has proven skill at organizing groups of scientists and engineers towards a goal. While he's unpopular with the military right now, due to his perceived disloyalty, he still has a great deal of popularity among the civilian population, as well as a number of civilian contacts. It will be a challenge having a man who lost his security clearance running a top secret program especially one that's being run jointly with the military. It's doable if you take the right precautions.
As a former Communist, the man certainly has a certain amount of potential political fallout around him.
The military very much does not want you to tap Dr Oppenheimer for this project.
Improvements to research around infrastructure and nuclear powered engines. Malus to military and weapons research.
[][Lead Researcher] Richard Feynman
Richard Feynman is a young researcher, with a good pedigree: He's worked at Cornell, Caltech, and in the Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas. He made some notable breakthroughs in Parabolic partial differential equations, necessary to guide rockets. But the man has a reputation for indiscretions, sleeping with his students and his friend's wives despite the fact that he's currently married. He also allegedly is prone to bouts of extreme violence when interrupted while thinking.
Due to his proclivities he could be subjected to blackmail, and there's some potential public outcry if his poor moral standards are leaked.
General improvement to research. Malus to staff loyalty.
[][lead researcher]No lead researcher at this time
The honest truth is that none of these men are quite what you want or need for this project. You can wait until later to get a lead researcher who's more suitable for your needs, or wait until you feel you really need one. Many of these men will likely still be quite eager to work for you later.
Firing a lead researcher, or replacing him with one who's more suitable, is always a risk. Sometimes it's better not to have a lead researcher over having an inappropriate one.
______
Now that you've decided who, if anyone, to hire as the lead researcher… you've got a couple other choices to make
The first one is
[][Fuel]Standard Fuel
Already existing solid fuel used by the military, this would speed development time as you won't need to research a new type of solid fuel, and would ease logistics.
The military would prefer if you select this option
No development cost. Reduced development time.
[][Fuel]Improved Stability
Solid fuel degrades over time especially with exposure to temperature changes and humidity. Reformulating the fuel for increased stability would make it easier to store a stockpile on hand, though it would be pointless if it also significantly increased the cost of the fuel.
This could improve the military uses of the rocket, and also could improve logistics making it less expensive to launch on a per rocket basis. This could allow you to launch more rockets as part of this project.
Estimated cost of development 2 to 6 million usd
[][Fuel]Improved lift
Solid fuel is good, but it could be made better. Military preparations of solid fuel need a certain amount of shelf stability, because you don't know when you're going to fire the rocket. But civilian fuel can be allowed to degrade quickly. You could reformulate the fuel to provide greater lift, at the cost of reduced stability and the need to use the rocket 'immediately', IE within a month or two of production.
This would allow for a larger payload, improving the civilian uses of the rocket.
Estimated cost of development 4 to 9 million usd.
The military would prefer if you do not select this option.
[][Fuel]Improve both lift and stability
This is a tough challenge, and will result in rockets that are more expensive per launch, but it's a way to improve your payload without upsetting the military overmuch as they could use the results of your research as well.
Would improve both civilian and military uses of the rocket
Increases time until project completion
Estimated cost 10-25 million.
______
With the question of the solid fuel out of the way you need to make some decisions about the second stage
[][Second Stage]Solid Fuel Rocket
Cheap, reliable, and already being used for the first stage, the solid fuel rocket's greatest weakness is inflexibility.
Estimated cost of development 10 to 30m usd
[][Second Stage]Liquid Fuel Rocket
A liquid fuel rocket may make more sense for the second stage, due to its greater flexibility. This could allow the mission greater adjustment in the final stages of assent. Of course, liquid fuel rockets are still heavier and more complex than their solid fuel counterparts.
Estimated cost of development for second stage 20 million to 80 million usd
[][Second Stage]Nuclear rocket
A nuclear rocket uses a marginally controlled nuclear reaction to heat an inert propulsion material, allowing it to be released at high velocity. It's never been tried before, but back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that it could be either used as a component of an air-breathing engine (a nuclear ramjet) or for more efficient rocketry outside of the earth's atmosphere. It seems like a dubious system for the second stage, which should be igniting still within earth's upper atmosphere, but making one now will make such an engine chreaper and more reliable later.
The military would prefer you not take this option.
Estimated cost of development 100m to 250m usd.
Current Estimated development costs 20-80 million
Construction quickly begins in Florida. The former residents of the area have their houses bought out by the government, on the cheap, and are firmly required to relocate. None of them are given the full picture of what's going on, they're just told that the government needs this land and, under Eminent Domain, saying 'no' isn't really an option. Most of them move north, to Chicago and Detroit.
Going with solid fuel is a solid choice, and one that the military approves of, seeing as how you'll probably be using their supply chain to acquire it.
You're going to want to bring on board a lead researcher. Lead researchers are, honestly, cheap. None of these researchers will make an appreciable dent in your budget, though you'll only be able to nab one.
[][Lead Researcher]Werner von Braun
Currently in negotiation with Walt Disney to produce a series of cartoons about rocketry and astronomy, this opportunistic former Nazi was saved from war crime trials by Operation Paperclip. He is probably the fellow who knows the most about rockets anywhere in the USA, though his attempts to advance American rocketry were streamed by lack of interest and resources until he was transferred to Redstone, where he developed the precursor to the rocket you are now working on.
Right now he's leaving the military, and planning on making a go at Civilian Life, but… if you promise him better development resources, you can offer him something Disney cannot. An actual shot at the stars.
As a former Nazi, the man has a certain amount of potential political fallout around him.
Improvement to research around rockets, mauls to research around space planes or artillery
[][Lead Researcher] Robert Oppenheimer
A nuclear physicist, Mr. Oppenheimer recently lost his security clearance. Mr. Oppenheimer has proven skill at organizing groups of scientists and engineers towards a goal. While he's unpopular with the military right now, due to his perceived disloyalty, he still has a great deal of popularity among the civilian population, as well as a number of civilian contacts. It will be a challenge having a man who lost his security clearance running a top secret program especially one that's being run jointly with the military. It's doable if you take the right precautions.
As a former Communist, the man certainly has a certain amount of potential political fallout around him.
The military very much does not want you to tap Dr Oppenheimer for this project.
Improvements to research around infrastructure and nuclear powered engines. Malus to military and weapons research.
[][Lead Researcher] Richard Feynman
Richard Feynman is a young researcher, with a good pedigree: He's worked at Cornell, Caltech, and in the Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas. He made some notable breakthroughs in Parabolic partial differential equations, necessary to guide rockets. But the man has a reputation for indiscretions, sleeping with his students and his friend's wives despite the fact that he's currently married. He also allegedly is prone to bouts of extreme violence when interrupted while thinking.
Due to his proclivities he could be subjected to blackmail, and there's some potential public outcry if his poor moral standards are leaked.
General improvement to research. Malus to staff loyalty.
[][lead researcher]No lead researcher at this time
The honest truth is that none of these men are quite what you want or need for this project. You can wait until later to get a lead researcher who's more suitable for your needs, or wait until you feel you really need one. Many of these men will likely still be quite eager to work for you later.
Firing a lead researcher, or replacing him with one who's more suitable, is always a risk. Sometimes it's better not to have a lead researcher over having an inappropriate one.
______
Now that you've decided who, if anyone, to hire as the lead researcher… you've got a couple other choices to make
The first one is
[][Fuel]Standard Fuel
Already existing solid fuel used by the military, this would speed development time as you won't need to research a new type of solid fuel, and would ease logistics.
The military would prefer if you select this option
No development cost. Reduced development time.
[][Fuel]Improved Stability
Solid fuel degrades over time especially with exposure to temperature changes and humidity. Reformulating the fuel for increased stability would make it easier to store a stockpile on hand, though it would be pointless if it also significantly increased the cost of the fuel.
This could improve the military uses of the rocket, and also could improve logistics making it less expensive to launch on a per rocket basis. This could allow you to launch more rockets as part of this project.
Estimated cost of development 2 to 6 million usd
[][Fuel]Improved lift
Solid fuel is good, but it could be made better. Military preparations of solid fuel need a certain amount of shelf stability, because you don't know when you're going to fire the rocket. But civilian fuel can be allowed to degrade quickly. You could reformulate the fuel to provide greater lift, at the cost of reduced stability and the need to use the rocket 'immediately', IE within a month or two of production.
This would allow for a larger payload, improving the civilian uses of the rocket.
Estimated cost of development 4 to 9 million usd.
The military would prefer if you do not select this option.
[][Fuel]Improve both lift and stability
This is a tough challenge, and will result in rockets that are more expensive per launch, but it's a way to improve your payload without upsetting the military overmuch as they could use the results of your research as well.
Would improve both civilian and military uses of the rocket
Increases time until project completion
Estimated cost 10-25 million.
______
With the question of the solid fuel out of the way you need to make some decisions about the second stage
[][Second Stage]Solid Fuel Rocket
Cheap, reliable, and already being used for the first stage, the solid fuel rocket's greatest weakness is inflexibility.
Estimated cost of development 10 to 30m usd
[][Second Stage]Liquid Fuel Rocket
A liquid fuel rocket may make more sense for the second stage, due to its greater flexibility. This could allow the mission greater adjustment in the final stages of assent. Of course, liquid fuel rockets are still heavier and more complex than their solid fuel counterparts.
Estimated cost of development for second stage 20 million to 80 million usd
[][Second Stage]Nuclear rocket
A nuclear rocket uses a marginally controlled nuclear reaction to heat an inert propulsion material, allowing it to be released at high velocity. It's never been tried before, but back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that it could be either used as a component of an air-breathing engine (a nuclear ramjet) or for more efficient rocketry outside of the earth's atmosphere. It seems like a dubious system for the second stage, which should be igniting still within earth's upper atmosphere, but making one now will make such an engine chreaper and more reliable later.
The military would prefer you not take this option.
Estimated cost of development 100m to 250m usd.
Last edited: