Infinitos Mundos

@NCR

First:

NCR wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 11:03 am The HB circularizes its first LEO orbit, deploying the first test satellite.
After a series of hohmann transfers, the HB circularizes various orbits at different altitudes, deploying one test sat per each.
Finally, a lunar fly-by is planned and exectuded, ending in a controlled Earth-reentry.

So, this isn't realistically feasible. The amount of fuel you would need to launch multiple satellites, then put them in different orbits, and then do a lunar flyby on top of that, would make your space craft exorbitantly expensive, and way to large to be feasible. To put it in perspective, you have to have enough fuel to launch the rocket into space, which goes up the more weight you have on board (ie satellites), have enough fuel to stabilize your orbit, have enough fuel to change your orbit and restabilize it (then repeat that step for each updated orbit), have enough fuel to do your lunar flyby, and finally have enough fuel to slow your approach again so you don't burn up on reentry. Realistically, you can probably pick two of those things to be done in one launch - a (one) satellite deployed in orbit, and a lunar flyby, OR several satellites in various orbits. That said, those satellites would likely be in relatively similar orbits.

Also, you wouldn't be able to do all of those things in one post, and would likely have to break it up a bit. Something like this: 1 post for the launch and stabilized orbit, and 1 post for adjusting your orbit and launching other satellites (or your lunar flyby) and returning. A lunar flyby, due to the distance, would take at least two posts to complete (including the return).

Second:

NCR wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 11:36 pm As the HB passes through the last atmospheric vestiges, more and more stars become visible.
The deployment of a constellation is a tricky affair; let alone two. Various maneuvers are carried in LEO to deploy the CaliSTARS satellites. Of course, a good portion of satellites will have to make significant orbital maneuvers with the on-board propulsion to adjust their orbits into the desired ones; but the HB deploys the sats so to minimize this need, as much as possible.
After all the CaliSTARS sats are deployed the HB raises its altitude, repeating the deployment process for the MAGIC satellites, which of course will also have to position themselves in the right orbit with their propulsion.
After deploying all the sats, a controlled de-orbit is executed to bring back the remaining stage of the HB.


After this public, great success, a press conference is held to announce to the world the commercial avaiability to purchase launches, especially with the cheap and flexible LB; but if, for some reason, the huge payload of the HB should be needed, it is noted that launches with the HB will be, of course, avaiable for purchase too.
Also, a service to design custom-needs commercial sats (within standardized parameters) will be avaiable for purchase if a launch (or part of its payload) is bought, to quicken up the kickstart of the launchers service and to make it more affordable (and thus palatable) for more customers.
Various NCR companies, especially in the tech, TC, and similar sectors, already rush to buy the first avaiable spots after the announcement.
As such, plans are made to expand the manufacturing, so to be able to manage more orders quicker.


Simultaneously, SANC works to implement the reusability features, to cut down costs.
The necessary hardware was already implemented during design, and as such only the complex software needed for it is needed.
The approach to design it will be triple: building the base of the software; simulations; physical trials with the re-entering stages after the missions are completed.
This way, hopes are to be both efficient and fast in developing proper reusability.



SPECS=
Little Bear: Payload (max)=25'000 kg to LEO; | Cost per launch=120 millions NC$ (ridesharing allows to pay only a fraction proportional with the bought payload mass);
Heavy Bear: Payload (max)=100'000 kg to LEO; | Cost per launch=250 millions NC$ (ridesharing allows to pay only a fraction proportional with the bought payload mass);

1. I haven't seen any info about the development for your satellites in your thread. You'll need to include this info before you launch them.
2. You still have to do an RP for the launch of your rocket, it doesn't just end up in space. Though since you've already done the testing, you can skip the 3 posts for testing it before launch, provided it is the same rocket. You still need to do the three posts for testing before launching your light rocket, as it is different than your heavy one.
3. If your rockets are reusable like you've mentioned, I would like to see a post between each launch detailing the servicing of the rocket to ensure it is still launch worthy.
4. If reusability has not yet been proven, as implied in your posts, then you will need another set of posts to build another rocket for use for each RP. As well as a set of posts to analyze and assess the launch, to determine if you can reuse the rocket (for reusability). This is before the second launch is done. However, from my understanding the reusability of the component that went into space would be more limited, due to the stress caused by reentry. At the very least it would require some repairs and such before it could be reused.
5. How large are these satellites, and how much space is there aboard these rockets? As this will also influence how many you can launch at once. If you want your satellites to have the capabilities you imply, then it is likely that they will be larger satellites, and as such will take up more space in your rocket's bay. Thus limiting the number you can launch at one time.

For instance, the Falcon Heavy has a bay height of 13m and a diametre of 5m. Using the Galileo Satellites as an example to compare with your GNSS MAGIC satellites, they have dimensions of 2.5m by 1m. Meaning if your bay size is similar to the Falcon Heavy (and it would not make sense for it to be much larger, realistically), you could fit maybe ten of those satellites inside. This is because you will also need an additional contraption inside the bay to hold the satellites together during launch, and to assist in the deployment of them once in orbit.

6. With regards to orbits, this will also influence how many you can send into orbit at a single time. If you want multiple satellites at GEO (geo-stationary orbit), you will have to use multiple launches, as the speed and altitude for these orbits are fixed, so you can not easily adjust the location for each satellite. If you want LEO (low earth orbit), this is more easily doable, but you each satellite will still need to be at different heights or angles if done in the same launch. Again, the same for polar orbits. It would cost a lot of fuel and resources to go from LEO to GEO or to polar, which would, again, make that unfeasible.

Third (since you posted while I was writing this):

NCR wrote: ↑Sat Apr 15, 2023 11:12 am The first commercial launches depart from the spaceports carrying many, many satellites.
SANC too puts new sats into orbit, with purely scientific payloads, at various altitudes orbiting around the Earth.

SANC is now developing GUMS, a new constellation intended for GEO civilian and military purposes, and 3 new scientific satellites:
the first one intended to orbit and study the moon; the second one will be a powerful telescope in Lagrange Point 2; the third one will have a close sun orbit, to study it and the solar system as a whole.

Simultaneously, SANC continues working towards implementing reusability.
Aided by simulations, a new software to manage the re-entry and landing is implemented; while thanks to it the rockets now manage to arrive close to the specially-built re-entry pads, they still crash down without managing to land.
Those trials are made without wasting money since, after a LB carries its payload into the right orbit, the rocket's mission is finished; thus instead of a simple destructive re-entry a reusable landing attempt made.
As such, each launch brings SANC closer to implement viable solutions to the reusability problem.

Lastly, both CaliSTARS and MAGIC are now fully deployed, and reach full operability.

Again, you need to do RP's to develop the satellites and include (at least a rough description) of what their capabilities are. This is required regardless of whether they are built by you or various companies within your nation. Again, you need to launch the rocket and include those details. You also need to build new rockets between each launch.
Sending satellites to the moon and/or sun orbit are going to be more expensive, take more time, and require more work overall. It is also not very feasible to launch them all as part of one launch, due to their relatively different required orbits.
Please provide details of CaliSTARS and MAGIC. But, as mentioned, first you're going to have to do the RP to actually develop the satellites.



It's also worth noting that the max payload weight changes the further out you go, due to the increase in required fuel to reach those distances.

Hi!
so,

So, this isn't realistically feasible. The amount of fuel you would need to launch multiple satellites, then put them in different orbits, and then do a lunar flyby on top of that, would make your space craft exorbitantly expensive, and way to large to be feasible. To put it in perspective, you have to have enough fuel to launch the rocket into space, which goes up the more weight you have on board (ie satellites), have enough fuel to stabilize your orbit, have enough fuel to change your orbit and restabilize it (then repeat that step for each updated orbit), have enough fuel to do your lunar flyby, and finally have enough fuel to slow your approach again so you don't burn up on reentry. Realistically, you can probably pick two of those things to be done in one launch - a (one) satellite deployed in orbit, and a lunar flyby, OR several satellites in various orbits. That said, those satellites would likely be in relatively similar orbits.

this is false. Well, it could be true if you assume I launched a ton of satellites into a series of wildly different orbits, but that's not really the case. I'll admit I've not been precise, and maybe I should have, but as you can see from the Hohmann calculator of SatCatalog if you plug some numbers in, even for a some hundreds of kms of altitude change (0deg to 0deg inclination) the delta-v needed is very little (171.64 m/s from 200km to 500km of altitude) for a rocket this big. The reason I've not been more precise is because this are satellites which are, from a meta standpoint, purely flavor; what I mean is, while the contellations I launched have a "proper" gameplay effect, these sats are just kinda there, as they were intended for tests only.
As such, since I envisioned something like no more of 5ish sats, to crunch some numbers 5 sats from 200 to 600 km (1 each 100km) would be a delta-v requirement in the order of the (measly) 220s m/s total circa, which leaves ample delta-v left to perform the fly-by; for reference, keep in mind that the Falcon Heavy has a listed payload of 16.8 tons to Mars transfer, and the Heavy Bear (totaly not a reference lol) is both bigger and was functionally almost empty.
Again, I apologize because I should have been more precise, but the thing of putting various sats into orbits at various altitudes and to perform a lunar flyby is, as you can see, very feasible.

1. I haven't seen any info about the development for your satellites in your thread. You'll need to include this info before you launch them.

If you mean the development itself, I did in the previous posts; eg:

The satellites are fitted with their propulsion system, needed to avoid de-orbiting and other unwanted orbital perturbations (and, of course, to perform any needed manouvers).
Both the sats are fitted with a type of EP, an Hall Thruster, which was designed in the previous years by SANC engineers: luckly, after extensive testing, it will now have the opportunity to be finally used in space.
Thus, an appropriet propellant tank is fitted in both satellites.

(from post #6 in the thread).
The first posts are where I developed the sats, instead of doing 2 different topics I put their development in the same posts of the rockets development.

If you mean I should have included infos I didn't Include, please tell me what I'm missing and I'll define it.

2. You still have to do an RP for the launch of your rocket, it doesn't just end up in space. Though since you've already done the testing, you can skip the 3 posts for testing it before launch, provided it is the same rocket. You still need to do the three posts for testing before launching your light rocket, as it is different than your heavy one.

Sorry! Wasn't aware of this 3-posts rule. My fault.
Question: since I actually tested both the rockets in all post but the orbital test one (which I did take it per granted, but shouldn't have you're right) may I amend the post to include the orbital test with the LB too?

3. If your rockets are reusable like you've mentioned, I would like to see a post between each launch detailing the servicing of the rocket to ensure it is still launch worthy.
4. If reusability has not yet been proven, as implied in your posts, then you will need another set of posts to build another rocket for use for each RP. As well as a set of posts to analyze and assess the launch, to determine if you can reuse the rocket (for reusability). This is before the second launch is done. However, from my understanding the reusability of the component that went into space would be more limited, due to the stress caused by reentry. At the very least it would require some repairs and such before it could be reused.

No unfortunately reusability is still getting developed! Right now the rockets are trying (and failing) to land all in one piece (like F9 once did irl).
I will develop (and prove) it in the following posts, and when I implement it I'll include the post you mentioned.


Question: since I'm offering commercial launch services (which happen a lot during one year) may we agree that we let those happen in background and I'll do the needed posts only for the ones that I myself want to launch?

5. How large are these satellites, and how much space is there aboard these rockets? As this will also influence how many you can launch at once. If you want your satellites to have the capabilities you imply, then it is likely that they will be larger satellites, and as such will take up more space in your rocket's bay. Thus limiting the number you can launch at one time.

For instance, the Falcon Heavy has a bay height of 13m and a diametre of 5m. Using the Galileo Satellites as an example to compare with your GNSS MAGIC satellites, they have dimensions of 2.5m by 1m. Meaning if your bay size is similar to the Falcon Heavy (and it would not make sense for it to be much larger, realistically), you could fit maybe ten of those satellites inside. This is because you will also need an additional contraption inside the bay to hold the satellites together during launch, and to assist in the deployment of them once in orbit.

Good point, really. Honestly I reasoned in terms of mass, which made what I was doing perfectly fine... But I didn't realize they were so bulky tbh.
If you're fine with it, I'd amend the post to do multiple launches (although, I want to mention that the deployer doesn't occupy all that space).

6. With regards to orbits, this will also influence how many you can send into orbit at a single time. If you want multiple satellites at GEO (geo-stationary orbit), you will have to use multiple launches, as the speed and altitude for these orbits are fixed, so you can not easily adjust the location for each satellite. If you want LEO (low earth orbit), this is more easily doable, but you each satellite will still need to be at different heights or angles if done in the same launch. Again, the same for polar orbits. It would cost a lot of fuel and resources to go from LEO to GEO or to polar, which would, again, make that unfeasible.

As I showed before, in reality the delta-v for the change of altitude is not problematic, since also the various maneuvers to adjust the final orbit are made with on board propulsion (like I mentioned in the post); also GNSS sats are in MEO.
Regardless I'd have to make multiple launches anyway for the volume budget reasons above.

Again, you need to do RP's to develop the satellites and include (at least a rough description) of what their capabilities are. This is required regardless of whether they are built by you or various companies within your nation. Again, you need to launch the rocket and include those details. You also need to build new rockets between each launch.
Sending satellites to the moon and/or sun orbit are going to be more expensive, take more time, and require more work overall. It is also not very feasible to launch them all as part of one launch, due to their relatively different required orbits.
Please provide details of CaliSTARS and MAGIC. But, as mentioned, first you're going to have to do the RP to actually develop the satellites.

Yeah as I said before I actually developed the sats in previous posts, where I also described their general capabilities and purposes (not the 3 new ones of course! But those I still need to launch). Please let me know, if infos are not enough, what I need to add.
Regarding the destination, of course what I can launch will depend on it and I'll RP accordingly.

It's also worth noting that the max payload weight changes the further out you go, due to the increase in required fuel to reach those distances.

Of course, which is why I specified the listed payload was to LEO.





Whew, that was a long one!
Have a great night





PS I know is off topic, but I should be almost done with the factbook!

1. That is correct, if you go from a 0 degree inclination to a 0 degree inclination, you don't use much delta V, but as soon as you change your inclination you use a lot more. As for your lunar flyby, it still takes way more delta V to achieve that (google says at least 3km/s), which is why I'm saying it won't be possible to do both - deploy multiple satellites and go to the moon, all in one mission. An empty payload would be possible (incl 'dummy satellites), but not if you're going to launch actual satellites. If you're not launching the satellites into wildly different orbits, you're going to need to specify that as well. Also, you will still need multiple posts for what you're doing.

2. I missed the work on the satellites. Though I would encourage you to list some details for the two different types, including what they do (at the very least link to a wikipedia page for an equivalent IRL satellite).

3. Sure, you can edit in the testing for the LB.

4. For the commercial launches, providing they don't provide any actual benefits to your country, you can have them go on in the background as you like. If they're launching satellites that provide any actual benefits for your nation (or anyone else's), including spy satellites, space stations, etc, then you have to RP it as if you're launching it yourself.

5. Multiple launches is fine, but you will need to build a new rocket for each launch.

6. For MEO, I'm presuming your satellites are in different inclinations in their orbit, to maximize their effectiveness? If so, then it's still going to take a lot of delta V for them to reach those orbits. Which would make it relatively unfeasible. It would probably be doable with such a large rocket, but with the cost of said rocket, why would you spend the money on such a mundane task?

7. I think you're probably okay with the specs, but linking them to an IRL satellite's details would still be helpful. As for the destination and such, a relative idea is all that's needed. ie - 'x satellites will go in a medium earth orbit, primarily focusing on region y'.

1. Yes, changing inclination can drastically increase the delta-v needed, depending on the change.
But, I specified hohmann transfers which by definiton are co-planar, so same inclination.

Of course the lunar fly-by takes way more, what I was saying is fly-by'ing Mars takes even more; and since the Falcon Heavy can do that with tons of payload, the HB can do a lunar fly-by empty (all the test sats are dropped before the fly-by, but anyway they should be very light, in the tens of kg each, which is nothing compared to the tons of payload the rocket has) plus 220ish m/s of previous maneuvers (the delta-v needed is additive: in conclusion what I'm saying is that both the FH and the HB have way more than 3'220 m/s of delta-v in orbit, thus making the maneuver(s) possible).

Still, my fault for not being precise enough with that.


2. I'll try doing that tomorrow then.

3. Thank you!! (I'll do that tomorrow too).

4. Well, the benefits would of course be economical, but would not be something concrete, which gives a quantifiable direct advantage like the examples you made.
Since the effects of other economical projects are more background-y too, may I confirm it for this too?

Also: I was planning to make a separate thread to try and expand the launch business (basically try to sell more launches to other nations). Shoud I do that, may I focus more on the trade/political aspects of things (like other eco posts) or would I need to do each launch? Because it would be... Daunting, to say the least.

5. Sure

6. Actually, I'd like to remember that the sats have on board EP (iirc I gave them Hall Thrusters), which is notoriously efficient in terms of mass consumption (high ISP). Downside being, they require a good amount of power, and to limit the power consumption they are often made low-thrust in turn. This is why the constellations finished their deployment in the post after the launch: the increased time needed for full deployment (that is, using on board EP to position themselves right after the rocket dropped them as close to it as it could) is represented by completing it in the next post.

7. I'll try doing that tomorrow, searching for something that best fits, if any.
Regardless, from now on I'll try making sats close to real ones (or at least to mix and mach real ones).



Anyway, as I said I'll fix the post tomorrow, now I'm going to bed.
Thank you again, and have a great night.

NCR wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 12:15 am Since the effects of other economical projects are more background-y too, may I confirm it for this too?

Also: I was planning to make a separate thread to try and expand the launch business (basically try to sell more launches to other nations). Shoud I do that, may I focus more on the trade/political aspects of things (like other eco posts) or would I need to do each launch? Because it would be... Daunting, to say the least.

What kinds of economic projects do you mean? But for most types of projects (roads, railways, etc), you'll still have to do RP's for them.

You would still need to do each launch, if anyone makes purchases. Since it's an established rocket, you don't need the three posts for testing, but you'd still have to build the rocket. Though that can be done behind the scenes, so to speak, with you making one post about initiating the construction, waiting a day or two, and then announcing it's completion, loading the payload, and making the launch.

Nusantara wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 1:40 am What kinds of economic projects do you mean? But for most types of projects (roads, railways, etc), you'll still have to do RP's for them.

You would still need to do each launch, if anyone makes purchases. Since it's an established rocket, you don't need the three posts for testing, but you'd still have to build the rocket. Though that can be done behind the scenes, so to speak, with you making one post about initiating the construction, waiting a day or two, and then announcing it's completion, loading the payload, and making the launch.

Yeah I meant effects; eg. I RP building a road, but not the toll I levy, or the increased traffic, or manutention... etc. etc. Unless something relevant happens.
But anyway I guess building them like you say is not problematic. Right now I'm thinking of building them in bulk, and then if some go unsold I can use them domestically anyway.

@NCR please pause your RP until you have adjusted your earlier posts as requested.

Doing that rn

@NCR

So, I think there may have been a misunderstanding. Unless you have multiple launch pads you can only launch one rocket per post. You explain constructing three launch pads, thus you can do three launches per post. As I had mentioned earlier, if you're doing a lunar flyby it will take an extra post, due to the distances travelled.

I would like to see at least two posts for the construction of new rockets (ie one to announce, and one for the progress, With the rocket being functionable on post three). You can't announce construction in one post and then launch it in the next.

According to your first post CaliSTARS and MAGIC both have 34 satellites, with an extra ten each for redundancy. Going with the aforementioned discussions, you're going to be limited to around 10 satellites per launch. Meaning you won't be able to launch them all in 4 rockets, as you imply in your post.

If you're using commercial launches to help with testing for reusability and such you will need to RP those launches.

Ok, I think it's clearer now, sorry.

So, I'll pause that RP until the edits are done. But before making them I'd like to confirm everything:

1. I'll delay by one post the fly-by/returnal of the test rocket; if this does not make sense in-universe, or I would have to change too much, I'll just delete the fly-by and do another thing.

2. I'll order the rockets in post #11 so that they can be ready by post #13

3. In post #13 I'll launch MAGIC with 3 launches (they are 11, 11 and 12 sats which I think is fair because the HB is still bigger than the FH and the deployer is very compact anyway), but NOT the redundancy (honestly? I forgot lol, it was a lot of posts ago. Otherwise I would have increased the launches)

4. In post #14 (or later) I'll launch CaliSTARS (without the redundancy) with 1 launch (since they're not GNSS they shouldn't be so bulky. Like I wrote down on the post, I thought them as chonkier Starlink. Since 60 Starlink fits into a FH it seems reasonable to me that 34 CaliSTARS fit into the HB, for the reasons above); MAGIC's redundancies with another 1 launch; CaliSTARS redundancies with another 1 launch; so to have 3 launches total.

5. Regarding reusability, since I specified the commercial launches were happening, RPing each launch despite using a very limited testing part (the reentering stage, with no connection at all with the mission), and just to RP testing, seems a little too much to me.
If you confirm this decision, I'll try to edit the relevant posts to include that and respect your decision;
but, I think it would be kind of a pointless exercise, tbh.


That being said, please let me know if there's anything missing.



Have a great day!

1. Maybe just delete the flyby for now, you can always do it later.
2. That's fine, just ensure you do enough rockets for the subsequent launches, but keep in mind productivity capabilities (ie keep the number constructed reasonable).
3. That's fine
4. Sounds good
5. With you having done 6 launches with the same rocket, perhaps you do your testing through them? And then just mention that there were commercial launches in the background instead. You can then spend a post to 'process' the data you gained or something. Though keep in mind that you will probably have to build new rockets once you have the reusability information processed and such.

Just a reminder that you will should probably train your astronauts before you send them to space.

Ok then, thank you for the clarifications. I'll do the edits later, before continuing the RP.

EDIT: I should be done, let me know if something doesn't seem to be in order.
For the reusability I did like you suggested and also used the rockets I launched with for testing.

@NCR

After some discussion with those more knowledgeable on the topic than I, we have come to a couple rulings that will impact your RP(s):
1. Your thrusters that you want to develop with the Atomic Alliance have been deemed as not currently feasible with current technology. As such they are not permitted.

2. Although you can definitely increase production of your rockets, enough to do regular launches and such like you are currently, this is ultimately not very feasible, and will lead to several consequences and such. First, rockets (and satellites) require a vast amount of electronics to operate, and are also very sensitive with regards to their construction. This means it will take a lot longer when both building and launching them. Further, factory building rockets in the same way as cars (for example) is possible, it is in reality not very feasible in the long term. This is due to several reasons, including the immense amount of work required, the fact that the electronics required are quite sensitive and require specific placements, and the fact that assembly lines would likely leave micro imperfections which would in turn lead to catastrophic failures in the launches. As such, I am going to go back to the 3 posts of testing before launch, with each missed post being a 25% chance of failure, going forward, as well as more time to be taken to build the rocket and satellite. The posts you have currently made can remain unchanged, but all future posts must abide by this.

3. It would also be fairly expensive to produce and launch multiple rockets for regular intervals, which would likely slow things down a bit more. I know you've mentioned a cost of 125 million per launch (or thereabouts), but this does not take into account the actual construction cost for the rocket. Not to mention that construction of satellites is also reasonably expensive as well. This would also result in an increased time between launches (space programs have a finite amount of resources). Again, what you have currently is fine, this will apply to future posts.

3. Reusable rockets will need to be inspected before reuse (1 post between each launch for reusable rockets). I would also like you to decide upon a lifespan for reusable rockets. The lifespan needs to be reasonable. Based on information I found online, a reasonable lifespan would be around 10 launches, after which they would need to be refurbished and such (which would take several posts). A total lifespan should also be considered, likely between 50-100 launches.

Hi,

1. what do you mean by "not currently feasible"? The thrusters already exist, and by decades no less. Nobody brought them in orbit (except some prototypes for testing) because (simplifying) they make sense to use only if you give them enough power, which in space can be given only by a nuclear reactor (at those levels). Meaning, since no nation had the political will to bring in orbit a reactor, no craft used them as the main propulsion.
Which is also the reason why in the last decade reaserch on them kinda stagnated. But, since they've been not only studied, but also designed and built, I don't really get what's the unfeasible part.

2. SpaceX alone launched 61 Falcons last year only. And that's considering only SpaceX.
Like, of course I know that irl SpaceX had years to arrive at that point; but also building bridges, for example, takes years; yet time here is kinda warped, and in x posts the bridge is built while the year is still 2020.

3. I mean, that's kinda the point of selling launches. SpaceX (and also otherprivate companies, I'm focusing on them for the reusability) makes a hefty profit from selling launches (turns out, is a pretty good RoI). As such, why should my nation be the one to fork for those launches? It's privates and foreign nations who pay me to launch stuff.
I then use those money to fund the space exploration part, the R&D, manufacturing, etc. etc.
As such, the only times I really pay the cost of a rocket is when I launch stuff for myself, eg. the sats I'm developing rn, since of course no one is buying that launch since I'm using it myself.

4. Reasonable (the reusable inspection I am already doing it, as previously discussed).

1. I spoke with @Japanese State on discord, and he provided more details on the thrusters and reactors, informing me that the reactors would not be feasible to make with today's technology.

2. You'll note that those are the light rockets, not the heavy. But I'm staying firm on the 3 posts for testing requirement before launch. You can test multiple rockets and such as you go, but they still need to be tested. All those 61 rockets would have each undergone thorough and in depth testing before launch as well. I will still permit less time in testing for rockets that you are reusing, but even they will still need at least one post between launches for testing and such.

3. Either way, it will still take time to build and develop the rockets. You can't have them instantly completed in one post. And newly built rockets will still need the standard 3 posts for tests and such.