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
    • Didn't we end up doing a half-prometheus single stage?

    Edit: rolling anyway I guess
    notgreat threw 2 10-faced dice. Reason: 2d10 Total: 9
    2 2 7 7
     
    Last edited:
    Remove ads
    Remove ads
    C8P10: Failure to Release
  • Threadmarks
    • The Prometheus flies, certainly. The burn completes just before the rocket comes fully horizontal, seven hundred and fifty kilometres up. It's the furthest up any NA rocket has ever flown, and it's not even going to orbit. That's the weirdness of rocket physics, the short journey allowing it to fly so high. It was useful as well, Brad thought, as the high flight meant that the sphere would burn hard on the way back down. It would experience the realities of what a person might.

    Staging was more difficult. There was no upper stage ignition to worry about, not even a kick motor. But the fairing had to disconnect and let the payload fly free if they were going to get any usable data. If the payload was going to make it back down at all. The two pieces had to disconnect or the rocket, which NASA was aiming for the ocean, would drag the whole experiment down with it.

    But it detached right on schedule. Mostly. Half a panel failed to release and sent the payload spinning. Hopefully it wouldn't kill the mission. Hopefully...

    - Third Stage
    -- Atmospheric Entry
    -- Landing
    -- Recovery

    Please roll:
    - 2d10 + 2 (+ 2 Payload Design + 1 Mission Planning + 1 Stability - 2 Failure) - Atmospheric Entry
    - 2d10 + 2 (+ 2 Payload Design + 1 Mission Planning +1 Reliability - 2 Failure) - Landing
    - 2d10 + 2 (+ 2 Payload Design + 1 Mission Planning + 1 Reliability - 2 Failure) - Recovery
     
  • Threadmarks
    • Last roll.
    Shadows threw 2 10-faced dice. Reason: Recovery Total: 9
    4 4 5 5
     
    So, two full successes and a partial. Perhaps it winds up being a case that it was way off course, so the 3rd Mechanized had to go a fairly long distance to pick up the recovered payloads? Or one goes missing for a while?
     
    C8P11: Army on Parade.
  • Threadmarks
    • Northern Alleghany was cold. It was misty. There was a fine drizzle falling on the field that Lieutenant Baker and third platoon had been camped out in all night and all day. The weather was supposed to have been bright sun, but instead she got to experience the absolute worst after effects of a real coastal summer storm. It was, without a doubt, bleak. She wanted nothing to do with it.

    Unfortunately, she and her thirty guys - along with three APC's, two trucks and a jeep - were part of a massive exercise which was going to culminate with the collection of some science type thing that the science types down south were tossing over. Waste of time, she thought. At least on real proving exercises in the hinterlands she got to put rounds down range and engage an 'enemy'.

    She threw a cigarette butt out the back hatch of her carrier and held back a sigh. A bored commander meant lazy troops and lazy troops were dangerous. She grabbed her rifle and went to step down the ramp when the radio finally crackled into life.

    "Third platoon, third platoon, payload is coming down one-point-five South of your location. It's your grab." Barked the voice of her regiment commander. Immediately she was down the ramp and shouting commands of her own.

    "Load up soldiers! We've got a spaceship to bring home!"

    Do you want to fly Hope-3 in character?
    [ ] No, have the QM run it in the background and move on to better things.
    [ ] Yes, I want to see every launch.

    It is time to look for tenders for a crewed capsule. What are the most important aspects companies should bid for? (Pick three)
    [ ] They should be designed to fly with up to two crew.
    [ ] They should have good endurance, up to a week.
    [ ] They should be designed with military capabilities in mind.
    [ ] They should be as reliable as possible.
    [ ] They should be low cost.
    [ ] They should be science vessels first and foremost.
    [ ] They should be designed with adaptability in mind.
    [ ] They should be able to 'fly' in space, with great maneuverability.
     
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] They should have good endurance, up to a week.
    [X] They should be as reliable as possible.
    [X] They should be able to 'fly' in space, with great maneuverability.
     
    I want to say TwoCrew/Endurance, Reliability, Adaptability, the kind of thing we can load up and punt into space to do whatever needs doing.

    @veekie what's your argument for flight controls?
     
    [X] No, have the QM run it in the background and move on to better things.
    Not going to say it's boring, because it's really, really not, but at this point I don't see what else there is to do short of a redesign to increase payload reliability. Is that a thing we can even do?

    Two crew strikes me as a kind of awkward size. Large enough to complicate quickly throwing together an appropriate launch vehicle, but a bit small for long term use. Reliability is an obvious must. Honestly, though, all of this is part of a larger conversation we need to have about what this capsule is for, and if we expect it to evolve into something else or be quickly replaced.

    My initial thought is that we want a small, quick and safe capsule with either good scientific capabilities or an adaptable design. We should iterate rapidly from this towards something of more Apollo or Soyuz-esque capabilities, and quickly abandon this design once we know what we are doing a bit more and can launch something larger. Maybe re-use the reentry capsule for spy satellites and sample return and such.
     
    [X] No, have the QM run it in the background and move on to better things.

    [X] They should be as reliable as possible.
    [X] They should be low cost.
    [X] They should be science vessels first and foremost.
     
    [X] No, have the QM run it in the background and move on to better things.

    [X] They should have good endurance, up to a week.
    [X] They should be as reliable as possible.
    [X] They should be able to 'fly' in space, with great maneuverability.
     
    Faith said:
    I want to say TwoCrew/Endurance, Reliability, Adaptability, the kind of thing we can load up and punt into space to do whatever needs doing.

    @veekie what's your argument for flight controls?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Was in a hurry to get to work earlier so didn't elaborate but:

    [ ] They should be designed to fly with up to two crew.

    This is difficult, because twice as much crew means more than twice as much space and at least twice as much life support and mass. We'd want our liftoff to be more reliable first before fucking with this.

    [ ] They should have good endurance, up to a week.

    Longer missions lets us figure out the Van Allen Belt issue better, and also gives us more leeway to work emergency repairs if shit goes wrong up there.
    It also reacts badly with additional crew as the mass overhead is multiplied of course

    [ ] They should be designed with military capabilities in mind.

    This is how we'd get loadsa funding. We don't actually want people to think of weaponizing space yet though.

    [ ] They should be as reliable as possible.

    The entire endeavor is expensive as hell and that makes failures unacceptable. We'd rather it do less than have a higher risk of not working when it gets up there.

    [ ] They should be low cost.

    I'm not sure how well this plays with the rest of our stuff.
    Cost getting driven down is hard when so much of what we use is custom built.
    Once we can get up there reliably on a consistent booster I figure driving cost down is next.

    [ ] They should be science vessels first and foremost.

    Lots of instrumentation? This plays well with good endurance, since they can run more experiments, though mass is a thing.

    [ ] They should be designed with adaptability in mind.

    This is...well we're designing a unit to work within very tight constraints. Modularity and adaptability plays counter to reliability and weight.
    Its good in the long run, once we can launch reliably Low Cost + Adaptability is important for the future. Not for a First Manned Mission though.

    [ ] They should be able to 'fly' in space, with great maneuverability.

    This mostly means being able to do their own orbital corrections if things go wrong. This combos well with high endurance and Science Vessels, I think, it lets them move around to point cameras at things.
     
    [X] No, have the QM run it in the background and move on to better things.

    [X] They should be designed to fly with up to two crew.
    [X] They should be as reliable as possible.
    [X] They should be low cost.

    Reliability and low cost are key to us even being able to get them into space. We've had near-mission-kills on way too many flights, and we will keep seeing that until we get reliability nailed down.

    And two crew is twice as many eyes and hands for fixing trouble as we fly.
     
    [X] They should have good endurance, up to a week.
    [X] They should be as reliable as possible.
    [X] They should be as reliable as possible x2
     
    [X] No, have the QM run it in the background and move on to better things.
    [X] They should have good endurance, up to a week.
    [X] They should be as reliable as possible.
    [X] They should be low cost.
     
    [X] They should have good endurance, up to a week.
    [X] They should be as reliable as possible.
    [X] They should be able to 'fly' in space, with great maneuverability.
     
    [X] No, have the QM run it in the background and move on to better things.

    [X] They should be designed to fly with up to two crew.
    [X] They should be as reliable as possible.
    [X] They should be low cost.
     
    C9P1: Himans when
  • Threadmarks
    • Nasa launched Hope-3 in the tenth month of 1958 with all of the expectations of the organisation resting on it. An identical recreation of Hope-2 (which was simply a development of Hope-1) it would hopefully bring down the data that it's two previous siblings had failed to. It was necessary. It couldn't fail.

    But the dreams of men are rarely the truth. They do not make things a reality. Such was the case on the Hope-3 launch as problem came after problem in a slew of almost catastrophic failures. Ignition failures, vibration, staging errors came one after the other. How it made orbit nobody was sure. But, once again, it failed to switch on. Another satellite was placed in orbit without power and became just a piece of debris.

    Brad knew that he would have to explain why at some point. Fortunately, today was not that day and NASA could look to their next flight, another re-entry test. But there was something else to come first.

    Quietly, in the wake of three failed satellites, NASA released a commercial tender for principal proposals for human spaceflight vehicles.

    Please submit a proposal for a spaceflight which meets the chosen criteria: Reliability, Low cost and Week long Endurance. Please also include a company name (feel free to use one previously mentioned) for your submission and you may give a short description as well.
    Form:
    [ ] Sphere
    [ ] Cone
    [ ] Aerodynamic
    [ ] Lifting Body
    Crew:
    [ ] One
    [ ] One, Space for Two
    [ ] Two
    Payload:
    [ ] No Additional Space
    [ ] Small Payload Bay
    [ ] Large Payload Bay
     
  • Threadmarks
    • 4WheelSword said:
    Nasa launched Hope-3 in the tenth month of 1958 with all of the expectations of the organisation resting on it. An identical recreation of Hope-2 (which was simply a development of Hope-1) it would hopefully bring down the data that it's two previous siblings had failed to. It was necessary. It couldn't fail.

    But the dreams of men are rarely the truth. They do not make things a reality. Such was the case on the Hope-3 launch as problem came after problem in a slew of almost catastrophic failures. Ignition failures, vibration, staging errors came one after the other. How it made orbit nobody was sure. But, once again, it failed to switch on. Another satellite was placed in orbit without power and became just a piece of debris.

    Brad knew that he would have to explain why at some point. Fortunately, today was not that day and NASA could look to their next flight, another re-entry test. But there was something else to come first.

    Quietly, in the wake of three failed satellites, NASA released a commercial tender for principal proposals for human spaceflight vehicles.

    Please submit a proposal for a spaceflight which meets the chosen criteria: Reliability, Low cost and Week long Endurance. Please also include a company name (feel free to use one previously mentioned) for your submission and you may give a short description as well.
    Form:
    [ ] Sphere
    [ ] Cone
    [ ] Aerodynamic
    [ ] Lifting Body
    Crew:
    [ ] One
    [ ] One, Space for Two
    [ ] Two
    Payload:
    [ ] No Additional Space
    [ ] Small Payload Bay
    [ ] Large Payload Bay
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    To be clear, are we just specifying it in terms of those three catagpories of options and a description, or are we also putting together a full design for it based on the rules document?
     
    brmj said:
    To be clear, are we just specifying it in terms of those three catagpories of options and a description, or are we also putting together a full design for it based on the rules document?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Those three things and a brief speculative sentence or two. This is not the time for a full design yet :)
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top