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
    • [X] Expand the upper, to make a one stage design for ease of use.
    Ease of use is must. After all generals have to find a way to use rocket that somehow fit in their doctrine and will be usable by normal solider(Major or lower) that would use it.
     
    Remove ads
    Remove ads
    C3P7
  • Threadmarks
    • There are easy ways and there are hard ways to maintain the work that has come before and sometimes you must simply screw it all up into a ball, throw it away and begin again. With what is now a much simpler brief from the NA Army and not much room for extending the upper stage design beyond the weight it's already throwing well… it becomes much more attractive to do just that.

    You consider the teams recommendations in the peace and quiet of the early evening with a cigarette and your glasses resting on the end of your nose. The initial stage was such an excellent design it would be a shame to just put it aside, and you do have two recommendations that utilise it in one form or another - but they're just not that enticing. Not compared to the third option.

    A single stage design using a pair of the Usili engines which looks capable of both the required range and minimises costs as much as possible. Of course, none of the calculations consider the mass-cost of guidance, stability and so on but at least the basics are there. It looks promising. It looks like a contender.

    You put your pen to paper, signing off on the design. You only have a week or so to perfect the design before you have to send off the design. It's time to properly get to work.

    Main stage: 4M tank, 80 M fuel; 2x UA LF-1+ (4.24M, 9.28C);
    Stage Mass: 88.28/8.28
    Stage Cost: 12.24
    Stage dV: ~3500ms-1

    Final design decisions;
    1) Avionics:
    [ ] Beam riding (Lightweight)
    [ ] Gyroscopic (Secure)
    2) Aerodynamics:
    [ ] Carbon Vanes (Control)
    [ ] Small Fins (Stability)
    [ ] Both (Heavy)
    3) Optimisation:
    [ ] Mass Lightening (reduces Mass)
    [ ] Upgraded Rudder (Increases Control)
    [ ] Secondary Gyro's (Increases Stability)
    [ ] None
     
  • Threadmarks
    • Artificial Girl said:
    I'm not up on the terminology here. What's the difference between beam-riding and gyroscopic?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Both are ways of guiding the missile. Gyroscopic guidance involves a gyroscope used so that the missile knows what angle it is at, essentially. Beam riding, or radio beam, just has transmitted guidance instructions sent to the rocket.
     
    4WheelSword said:
    Radio beam riding missiles, where the missile 'rides' on the instructions beamed to it is what is being references.

    Not, like... laser guided.

    Also, pls vote on all the options.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I'm sorry, I genuinely don't know what I want for the other options and my brain is not very strong right now; too weary. Hard to think about the other two. If you'd rather I'll just delete my vote?
     
    Simon_Jester said:
    I'm sorry, I genuinely don't know what I want for the other options and my brain is not very strong right now; too weary. Hard to think about the other two. If you'd rather I'll just delete my vote?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I'm just being needy and being clear that you can vote on all of them.
    By all means, just vote on one :p
     
    Not enough info to make informed decisions, so have my uninformed vote

    [X] Gyroscopic (Secure)
    [X] Small Fins (Stability)
    [X] Upgraded Rudder (Increases Control)
     
    1) Avionics:
    [X] Beam riding (Lightweight)

    2) Aerodynamics:
    [X] Carbon Vanes (Control)

    3) Optimisation:
    [X] Mass Lightening (reduces Mass)

    The beam rider's security problem is essentially a non-issue. Our rocket only has control as long as it's engine is running, after that there's no control and thus no point in having a guidance system. That means that any effective jammer would need to be located right on top of the launch site, which hopefully isn't going to happen.

    Given that, it's far better to reduce mass and increase performance.
     
    1) Avionics:
    [X] Beam riding (Lightweight)

    2) Aerodynamics:
    [X] Carbon Vanes (Control)

    3) Optimisation:
    [X] Mass Lightening (reduces Mass)


    10ebbor10 is, to my knowledge, correct. This method would also allow for a more powerful guidance computer on the ground, something which would allow for upgrades over the missile system's service life. This also simplifies the parts required for the expendable portion of the system, which should in theory drive the per unit cost for the missile down.
     
    [X] Beam riding (Lightweight)
    [X] Small Fins (Stability)
    [X] Mass Lightening (reduces Mass)
     
    Beam riding doesnt work on that missle, as it becomes more inaccurate with distance. At our distances we could hit state, and not a small one. Anything below that is only to luck.
    I also looked through real missles to find rough range equivalent, only SS-2 Sibling somewhat fit for me. Or PGM-17 Thor
     
    Last edited:
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top