Remove ads

Rocket Design Agency - A Playtesting Quest

Reader mode
Remove ads
Cast and Characters
  • Informational
    • NASA
    Brad L. Whipple - Director, New Alleghany Space Administration

    Payload Design - +1
    Rocket Design - +2
    Engine Design - +3
    Mission Planning - +1
    Flight Control - +2
    Damage Control - +0
    Spacecraft Activity - +0
    Extravehicular Activity - +0
    Experimental Activity - +2

    Flight Objectives
    - Continue scientific launches, progressing to probes into the space beyond orbit by year end 1959.
    - Begin experiments which will allow a progression to human spaceflight before year end 1960.
    - Cooperate with the Armed Forces in developing their abilities through the application of spaceflight.

    Mission Schedule - Current Date: January 1960
    - Low Orbit 1 (Summer 1958) - Hope-2 (Partial failure)
    - Re-entry test 1 - Sub-orbital - Full Success, August 1958
    - Low Orbit 2 - Partial Failure, Hope-3 , October 1958
    - Re-entry test 2 - Failure, November 1958
    - Military Communications - Success, ARTS, December 1958
    - High Orbit 1 - Success, Hope-4, January 1959
    - Re-entry test 3 - Success, March 1959
    - Bio-sciences - Launch Failure, July 1959
    - Discovery 1, Success, September 1959
    - High Orbit 2 - Success, Hope-5, October 1959
    - Lunar Probe - Launch Failure, Artemis-Lunar, November 1959
    - Bio-sciences - Success, Astrocaphe-Chuck, December 1959
    - Discovery 2 - Failure, January 1960
    - Astrocathe test - Success, animal in space, February 1960
    - March lost due to Artemis redesign
    - NAN payload - April 1960 - First Hermes Flight
    - Crown 3 - Spring/Summer 1960
    - Commercial payload - Summer 1960
    - IRVOS 1 - Summer 1960
    - NAA Communications - Summer/Fall 1960
    - Space Camp test - Summer/Fall 1960
    - NAN payload - Fall/Winter 1960
    - Commercial payload -Winter 1960
    - Astrocathe test - Winter 1960
    - NAA Communications - Spring 1961

    - Astrocaphe phase 1 (3 crewed flights)
    - Astrocaphe phase 2 (3 crewed flights)

    Hardware
    - Prometheus (1M to LEO)
    - Hermes-L (6M to LEO)
    - Hermes-B (8M to LEO)

    Andre Larkin - Team Lead at EPL
    Rocket Design 0
    Engine Design +2


    EPL Design Team
    Antony Miratha, Aerodynamics
    Susan Stone, Astrophysics
    Michael Cole, Rocket Engineering
    Amy Mathews, Trajectory Planning
    Simon T. Harrison, Chemical Engineering

    +2 Rocket Design, +2 Payload Design +1 Engine Design, +1 Fuel Selection, +1 Flight Planning

    Side Characters
    Dr. Evan Hart - Research Director at EPL
    Arthur Ley, proponent of Lunar flight.
    Franz Haber, Doctor and researcher.
    Dieter von Markand, Pacifist and astrophysicist.

    EPL Facilities
    Design workshop
    Chemical research laboratory
    Launch analysis equipment
    (Please note that EPL has neither rocket nor engine manufacturing facilities)
     
    Last edited:
  • Informational
    • Usili 2.0 said:
    For the second priority, while this might not necessarily be liked, I kind of think a write-in for EVAs would make the most sense since any of the other options would be significantly adding mass in terms of the additional power that we'd be needing at this point in time with just fuel cells.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    If you're going to vote for this, i'd ask for specificity in the write in. If you're asking to be able to perform an EVA with a depressurised capsule, like the Gemeni, then you don't need to vote for it.
    If you want to add equipment for EVA from a pressurised environment (with a flexible airlock like on... Voshkod?) then you should vote for this.
     
    Alternatively...
    []Additional habitation capacity with more environmental systems and volume, with internal airlocks such that the habitation volume not in the return capsule can serve as an airlock.
     
    4WheelSword said:
    If you're going to vote for this, i'd ask for specificity in the write in. If you're asking to be able to perform an EVA with a depressurised capsule, like the Gemeni, then you don't need to vote for it.
    If you want to add equipment for EVA from a pressurised environment (with a flexible airlock like on... Voshkod?) then you should vote for this.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Considering I'd imagine that we are still using vacuum tubes as our electronics, then we're going to need that flexible airlock to perform EVAs.
     
    Usili 2.0 said:
    Considering I'd imagine that we are still using vacuum tubes as our electronics, then we're going to need that flexible airlock to perform EVAs.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Are you sure? It's definitely an option if you want to maintain an internal shirtsleeves environment as the Soviets were apparently obsessed with, but it's not required as this pic from Gemini shows (they literally just opened the hatch).
    For credits sake, that's Aldrin on 12(?).
     
    4WheelSword said:

    Are you sure? It's definitely an option if you want to maintain an internal shirtsleeves environment as the Soviets were apparently obsessed with, but it's not required as this pic from Gemini shows (they literally just opened the hatch).
    For credits sake, that's Aldrin on 12(?).
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Gravitas Hunt said:
    What's the rationale behind this?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Okay, I'm probably wrong on this, but I could've sworn that one of the big reasons was the difference in electronics between the Soviets and the United States, with the Soviets still relying on vacuum tubes for the Voskhods while the United States was using solid state electronics for Gemini.
     
    Usili 2.0 said:
    Okay, I'm probably wrong on this, but I could've sworn that one of the big reasons was the difference in electronics between the Soviets and the United States, with the Soviets still relying on vacuum tubes for the Voskhods while the United States was using solid state electronics for Gemini.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Could be a cooling thing. Vacuum is a good insulator, and tubes run hot.
     
    brmj said:
    Could be a cooling thing. Vacuum is a good insulator, and tubes run hot.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Seems so:
    Article:
    In the case of Voskhod 2, an inflatable exterior airlock was also added to the descent module opposite the entry hatch. The airlock was jettisoned after use. This apparatus was needed because the vehicle avionics and environmental systems were air-cooled, and depressurization in orbit would cause overheating.
     
    [X] Increase time on orbit (Add environmental systems, living module)

    I'm going for this, because solid state electronics seem like something that should still have it's development fairly on-track in this timeline, if not a little more advanced due to advances in aircraft technology driving miniaturization and ruggedization efforts for various electronic systems, something which makes solid-state electronics a highly attractive option for Asuka and others.
     
    Remove ads
    C5P7: A three-tier cake
  • Threadmarks
    • "What about time?" You ask, tapping your pen on the table, "We've been working with the idea of a single week - any mission beyond just flying in orbit is going to need more than one week, isn't it?"

    "I figure a science mission is going to last at least a month, maybe anywhere as many as six." is one suggestion made by the group.

    "The moon would be two weeks, at least." is another.

    "Mars would be, what, anywhere from six months to two years. Venus the same." A third voice adds.

    "So we need more time. At least double, two weeks. How are we going to get it?"

    "Well, if we can't expand the return capsule-" Anthony starts,

    "No, I think we'd be risking stability on the re-entry flight." You interrupt,

    "Sure. Nothing doing there, and the service module is massive as it is. Why not add a third module? An extra section, just as spare living space and oxygen generation and so on. Maybe later we can upgrade it as a science bay or something?"

    You look at your drawing and try to sketch in an extra section in your head. It just might work...

    Spherical Crewed capsule (-5% mass, -2.5% cost, Requires fairing)
    2 x Flight seat w/ flight controls (4m3 habitable volume)
    Basic Antennae
    3 x Basic Science System
    Reaction Wheel
    Human-rated Chute, Back-up Chute
    Orbital Heat Shield
    Power required: 4.5 per day
    Mass: 7.15
    Cost: 17.37

    Distributed Living Module (-10% mass, -5% cost, Requires fairing)
    Living space (4m3 habitable volume)
    Early Environmental Systems - 7 days operation
    Explosive bolt separator (37.5kg)
    Power required: 2.4
    Mass: 2.88
    Cost: 26.98

    Distributed Service Module (-10% mass, -5% cost, Requires fairing)
    Early Environmental Systems - 7 days operation
    Orbital Maneuvering
    Batteries: 12.9 Power per day: 14 days operation (15.12M)
    8.8 Mass reserve for engine + 8M fuel (~750m/s dV on orbit)
    Power required: 6 per day
    Mass: 25.34
    Cost: 40.07

    Aerodynamic Fairing - 8.89M, 13.34C

    Abort System - 8.89M, 4.45C

    Total Mass: 53.15 (13,287.5kg)
    Total Cost: 102.21

    Add additional options (select as many or as few as you would like):
    [ ] Soft docking system (no airtight seal, mechanical/electrical dock only).
    [ ] Mount an expanding airlock for EVA work.
    [ ] Upgrade communications to allow remote control.
    [ ] Write-in
    Determine the living spaces integration:
    [ ] Separate orbital module (allows simpler future hardware development).
    [ ] Integrated orbital/service module (allows reduced unified development costs).

    Before you decide to add anything more, please note that this design is currently almost as heavy as apollo. (And also almost as capable, so… y'know).
     
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] Separate orbital module (allows simpler future hardware development).

    If we want this vehicle to be versatile, it is key that it be modifiable, and this is a big part of that. With a separate orbital module, it becomes a lot more practical to increase livable volume in future upgrades by just growing the orbital module, where an integrated design would also require the propulsion system be reworked too. Likewise, an improvement in orbital manuevering capability would require an integrated design to consider the impacts to the orbital section too, which increases the hassle involved. I'd advocate a TKS-oid design, but considering we plan this for everything from moon taxi service to space station support, it will need to be very modifiable to handle the breadth of purpose, a TKS-esque design would take excess work to make viable for every configuration. One particular concern is life support, as while two weeks should be close to sufficient, more might be needed for some future mission such as longer moon landing mission plans, and I want to be prepared for that.

    As for upgrades, what we really really most need is a full docking system, because without it, the mission plans possible are ludicrously constrained. For example, everything from station servicing to underway reconfiguration such as was used in the Apollo program is entirely impossible with only a soft docking system, leaving pretty much only independent operations as a viable option, and that's frankly unacceptable to me. While this could be left to be a weird soyuz-gemini hybrid, I want the design to be able to be improved and remain in viable use for decades to come, and making something unimprovable isn't a good solution. This is another part of why I like having a separate orbital module - it allows us to, once we get hard docking technology, to replace the orbital module with one featuring a proper docking port. As such, I will suggest this:

    [X]Additional Options Plan 1
    -[X] Mount an expanding airlock for EVA work.
    -[X] Upgrade communications to allow remote control.

    These too are much too integral to add in later models, so we have to do them now. I mean, maybe on the airlock (since it could be sequestered in the orbital module to be added in a later orbital module version), but automatic controls are both absolutely necessary (while we do have a launch escape system, I don't want to put crew at risk for every pizza delivery to the Future Space Station if I don't have to) and so integral that they have to be added now.
    Adhoc vote count started by BungieONI on Jan 17, 2019 at 2:35 AM
    This vote count is in an error state, please contact support
    Click to expand...

    Adhoc vote count started by BungieONI on Jan 17, 2019 at 2:35 AM
    This vote count is in an error state, please contact support
    Click to expand...
     
    Last edited:
    TortugaGreen said:
    [X] Separate orbital module (allows simpler future hardware development).
    If we want this vehicle to be versatile, it is key that it be modifiable, and this is a big part of that. With a separate orbital module, it becomes a lot more practical to increase livable volume in future upgrades by just growing the orbital module, where an integrated design would also require the propulsion system be reworked too. Likewise, an improvement in orbital manuevering capability would require an integrated design to consider the impacts to the orbital section too, which increases the hassle involved. I'd advocate a TKS-oid design, but considering we plan this for everything from moon taxi service to space station support, it will need to be very modifiable to handle the breadth of purpose, a TKS-esque design would take excess work to make viable for every configuration. One particular concern is life support, as while two weeks should be close to sufficient, more might be needed for some future mission such as longer moon landing mission plans, and I want to be prepared for that.
    As for upgrades, what we really really most need is a full docking system, because without it, the mission plans possible are ludicrously constrained. For example, everything from station servicing to underway reconfiguration such as was used in the Apollo program is entirely impossible with only a soft docking system, leaving pretty much only independent operations as a viable option, and that's frankly unacceptable to me. While this could be left to be a weird soyuz-gemini hybrid, I want the design to be able to be improved and remain in viable use for decades to come, and making something unimprovable isn't a good solution. This is another part of why I like having a separate orbital module - it allows us to, once we get hard docking technology, to replace the orbital module with one featuring a proper docking port. As such, I will suggest this:
    [X]Additional Options Plan 1
    -[X] Mount an expanding airlock for EVA work.
    -[X] Upgrade communications to allow remote control.
    These too are much too integral to add in later models, so we have to do them now. I mean, maybe on the airlock (since it could be sequestered in the orbital module to be added in a later orbital module version), but automatic controls are both absolutely necessary (while we do have a launch escape system, I don't want to put crew at risk for every pizza delivery to the Future Space Station if I don't have to) and so integral that they have to be added now.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    You're going to want to add paragraphing, your post format has buggered the tally and it can't read your vote.

    [X] Separate orbital module (allows simpler future hardware development).
    [X]Additional Options Plan 1
    -[X] Mount an expanding airlock for EVA work.
    -[X] Upgrade communications to allow remote control.
     
    [X] Separate orbital module (allows simpler future hardware development).

    I'm going with no additional stuff, I think this is already complex enough to work from.
     
    [X] Separate orbital module (allows simpler future hardware development).
    [X]Additional Options Plan 1
    -[X] Mount an expanding airlock for EVA work.
    -[X] Upgrade communications to allow remote control.

    This works pretty well. Honestly, I half suspect this is sort of going to wind up being a weird hybrid of Soyuz and Voskhod.
     
    Considering the volumes listed, I would say the capsule design is pretty good model, as our current design is only a cubic meter of habitable volume short of most historical Soyuz models (excepting the first, whose orbital module is tiny, and the most recent designs whose reentry section has half a cubic meter less volume, putting them at only .5 m^3 larger than our design). In fact, it's actually got 1.8 m^3 more than was present in the Apollo CSM, though the lack of a good docking port is still a massive loss.
    Adhoc vote count started by BungieONI on Jan 17, 2019 at 5:58 PM, finished with 1146 posts and 5 votes.
    • [X] Separate orbital module (allows simpler future hardware development).
      [X]Additional Options Plan 1
      -[X] Mount an expanding airlock for EVA work.
      -[X] Upgrade communications to allow remote control.
      [X] Separate orbital module (allows simpler future hardware development).
    Click to expand...
     
    C5P8: The birth of spaceflight.
  • Threadmarks
    • Before you decide to add anything more, please note that this design is currently almost as heavy as apollo. (And also almost as capable, so… y'know).

    There's only a few final touches to add to ensure the design is actually functional. With an enhanced communication system to allow for remote control and a flexible airlock system to allow for external work, this craft is truly everything it could be.

    You look over the two sets of plans with wonder and smile. The first phase will demonstrate that humans can fly in space. The second, though, the second will be prepared for any mission thrown at it. It could circle the moon, launch with an orbiting base camp, visit satellites - anything. And it better had be able to, given that it masses more than fourteen tons. In a way, it's good that it's going to take a few years to get to the point where this could fly. You'll certainly need that time and more to develop a rocket capable of lifting it.

    Of course, you have some very important things to do before that time comes around.

    Spherical Crewed capsule (-5% mass, -2.5% cost, Requires fairing)
    2 x Flight seat w/ flight controls (4m3 habitable volume)
    Basic Antennae
    3 x Basic Science System
    Reaction Wheel
    Human-rated Chute, Back-up Chute
    Orbital Heat Shield
    Power required: 4.5 per day
    Mass: 7.15
    Cost: 17.37

    Distributed Living Module (-10% mass, -5% cost, Requires fairing)
    Living space (4m3 habitable volume)
    Early Environmental Systems - 7 days operation
    Flexible Airlock
    Early Dish
    Explosive bolt separator (10kg)
    Power required: 4.9
    Mass: 4.81
    Cost: 29.85

    Distributed Service Module (-10% mass, -5% cost, Requires fairing)
    Early Environmental Systems - 7 days operation
    Orbital Maneuvering
    Batteries: 13.4 Power per day: 14 days operation (15.68M)
    8.8 Mass reserve for engine + 8M fuel (~750m/s dV on orbit)
    Power required: 4 per day
    Mass: 25.94
    Cost: 41.35

    Aerodynamic Fairing - 9.48M, 14.22C

    Abort System - 9.48M, 4.74C

    Total Mass: 56.86 (14,215kg)
    Total Cost: 107.53

    Seventy-five feet tall and surrounded by a skeletal framework, Prometheus stands atop its pad in the dawn sunlight of a late August day. From the launch center observation room, you watch the final preparations for launch with incredible excitement and nerve-shredding fear. If this launch goes well, you will be the father of Alleghanian spaceflight and a history maker. If it doesn't, well, the Army will get a chance to change the world.

    But you have a chance. An opportunity. And with some luck, it will not go to waste. Hope will be placed in orbit, and you will set the tone for the future.

    How did you prepare for launch?
    [ ] Prometheus was rushed to ensure NA got to space first. (Best chance of first satellite).
    [ ] Deadlines were promised and kept too.
    [ ] Prometheus was painstakingly checked and rechecked to ensure it would fly. (Best chance of safe flight).
     
  • Threadmarks
    • Remove ads
    Rocketbucket: EPL Capsule Phase 2
  • Media

    • The 14 ton phase 2 spaceflight concept. Conceived as a way to expand human spaceflight to include extra-vehicular activity, orbital rendezvous and exploration of long term living, it is presented here with all three developed concepts for the construction of the craft.
     
  • Media
    • [X] Deadlines were promised and kept too.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top