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] Cone
    [X] One
    [X] Small Payload Bay

    Axis Inc. "Needle Nose"
    A cone shaped one man capsule built to have as few moving parts as possible. An ablative heat shield is fixed to the bottom, the crew compartment attached above it (with insulation between), and a service bay attached above that which can be configured for a specific mission. Atop the service bay are thrusters that double as both an Orbital Maneuvering System and Launch Escape Tower. Reliability is kept high as there is no need to detach any parts and it is aerodynamically stable.

    Think the Mercury capsule

    But stuff that engine up top and combine with the LES.
    Axis Industries Incorporated originated as a steel manufactury in 1883 to support the budding naval arms race and push the boundry of materials science. It soon expanded to encompass not only the production of ship hulls, but also the fitting out of warships. By 1920 battleships could be almost entirely produced in-house and delivered to the navy.

    As technology advanced, Axis Inc. expanded into electronics and radar to stay up to date with the latest gunnery and search demands.

    Axis Inc. is attempting to get a foot in the door on space technology with their proposed Needle Nose capsule. They are looking to follow up with a larger two man capsule which includes a more sophisticated OMS system intended for orbital rendezvous and a 20mm cannon intended to obtain space superiority.
    (Note that they are new to space, they don't quite uderstand how space combat would work)

    Future plans are still on the drawing board, but include a manned space station intended for SEWAC (Space Early Warning And Command), EWAR, and recon missions.
    (Bastard child of an AWACS plane, a spy satellite, and Skylab)
     
    Last edited:
    [X] Sphere
    [X] One
    [X] Small Payload Bay

    Atlas Industries Inc. "Sunrise"

    Spherical capsule, with insulation and heat shielding all around it. Internally, it's divided into two sections - the top 3/4ths of it's volume is taken up by the astronaut, his instrumentation and controls, and life support. The bottom 1/4th houses a pressurized scientific payload bay, as well as room for additional life support supplies beyond that which is needed for the 1 week in space the capsule is designed for. Underneath the capsule is a basic service module, using hydrogen peroxide decomposition to power a basic set of thrusters for orientation and vacuum thrust. Additionally, there's a set of 6 small solid rocket motors, for de-orbit maneuvers, integrated into the support onto which the external fairing mounts during launch. These can also be used as a Launch Abort System in an emergency. Landing is via a series of parachutes and airbags, with two sets mounted on the top and bottom of the capsule - even in a worst case scenario, the capsule will safely come to a rest on it's "side", supported by the two sets of airbags.

    Reentry-wise, reliability is kept high, as even in the event of total guidance failure, the capsule can reenter safely in any orientation, and it's internal systems would be able to deploy the airbags and parachutes even in the event of a total loss of contact with ground control.
     
    [X] Sphere
    [X] One, Space for Two
    [X] Small Payload Bay

    Exoatmospheric Research Systems Consortium "Astroscaphe"

    Proposed by a fairly unconventional partnership: Northlands Aeronautics Cooperative, the largest entity to emerge from the messy disintegration of the Kester Aircraft Company, and Froehlich Mechatronics and the Gansett Point Oceanographic Institute, two thirds of the consortium behind the world famous deep sea research bathyscaphe Ancona. The Rachel Harley and Daughters Shipbuilding Company was uninterested in the project and would have had little to add. This partnership builds upon the Ancona team's unique experience with small, self-contained manned research craft in extremely hostile environments.

    A spherical capsule attached to a small service module with adjoining modest pressurized and unpressurized bays for experiments or other payload. The capsule itself is relatively minimal, with most systems placed in the service module, and can be configured for one astronaut with space and provisions for an extended flight, or two in a much more cramped, shorter duration configuration. One unusual feature is the internal hatch which provides limited access to experiments or storage in the pressurized service module bay and internal connections to service module life support, with emergency procedures in place for routing power through it as well. This approach is intended to allow more elaborate experiments to be included, allow a greater range of emergency repairs to be performed, and guarantee proper disconnect from all umbilicals on separation. This hatch is just barely wide enough for a person to fit through; there are thoughts that a future derivative could include a larger orbital module, or even just an airlock or docking port equipped service module by routing an access shaft through space currently occupied by the payload bays and batteries. Deorbiting is provided by three small solid rocket engines, arranged triangularly around the service module, while a small hydrogen peroxide monopropellent RCS system provides attitude control but no translation capability. A two-part fairing design and a set of vents and deflectors allows the deorbiting rockets to double as a launch escape system. Separation is by explosive bolts, with a short length of guide track alongside the deorbit rockets to ensure a clean separation despite their position. Landing is via parachute, with a set of airbags for flotation. A land landing ought to be fairly safe in an emergency but is very much a backup procedure.
     
    Last edited:
    A few comments on the reasoning behind mine:

    When figuring out who would make it, it occurred to me that no one really knows how to do space stuff yet. Sure, planes (especially high altitude or high speed or both military or research aircraft) is the obvious analogy for a space capsule. But is it the closest one? Arguably, small, deep sea submersibles like this universe's equivalent of the Trieste are also candidates. It's still basically putting a couple people in a tiny pressure vessel with a bunch of supporting equipment attached to the outside and then sending them into an instantly lethal environment, even if the nature of the pressure vessel and hazardous environment are drastically different. The life support considerations are pretty similar, and maneuvering in space has at least as much in common with a submersible as it does with a fixed wing aircraft, if not substantially more. Though the actual techniques and materials have to have more in common with aircraft, the feel of the kind of engineering it takes seems somehow a little closer. Beyond that, there's a case to be made that NASA in particular could have benefited occasionally in the beginning from a fresh set of eyes farther from the world of military test pilots and aerospace contractors. Still, having people who know what they are doing in aerospace and can actually build it are clearly essential, but it shouldn't be a company that would be likely to submit a design of their own. Hence, the weird and kind of ad-hoc partnership. If their design goes forward, it will be interesting to see what it evolves into.

    On the idea behind this design in particular: Once it was decided that we were going to go for long duration, we suddenly needed a bit more space for it to not drive the pilot insane. So I figured, being able to fit two people for a little while as well isn't that much harder, and this craft isn't going to be super useful long term since it is single seat and not super capable beyond endurance. What if we could design it such that it could evolve into something akin to a miniature Soyuz. So I did my best to do that. Stick an orbital module between the two and expand the service module and you are basically there, or at least that's the intent. The pressurized bay in the service module can be justified on the grounds that many experiments, any extra storage needed for a week of endurance, and virtually any substantial electronics in this era is going to require pressurization, and being able to at least get at much of the electronics and life support if you have to is probably a useful safety feature in this era relative to sticking it outside in a place you can't reach. Likewise, being able to manually disconnect every connection likely to snag should slightly cut down on risk of separation and reentry. Having an additional big hatch to seal and pressurized space to develop leaks is clearly not helping safety, but my hope is that it at least balance out.

    The unique retrorocket approach is intended to simplify deorbiting just the re-entry capsule while still having the service module under it on launch. And yes, I did do the perhaps overly clever"but what if it was also the LES?" thing, but spacex is doing it and it would save mass, so why not? If this isn't cool, then that aspect can turn out not to work on further analysis and they just stick a more conventional LES on top.
     
    Remove ads
    C9P2: 6 concepts
  • Threadmarks
    • Needle Nose
    Cone-One-Small Payload - Integrated system with complete return to earth. Relatively simple, but requires development of an OMS system.
    Sunrise
    Sphere-One-Small Payload - Simplicity for reliability, but requires development of an OMS system.
    Astroscaphe
    Sphere-One to Two-Small Payload - Large-ish vehicle with integrated launch escape system, no requirement for OMS.
    O'Connell 'Atlas'
    Cone-Two-Large Payload - A converted warhead reentry vehicle, no OMS, largest 'on-orbit' capability and payload.
    Air Force 'Hermes'
    Lifting Body-Two-Small Payload - A NAAF project for a 'space reconnaissance vehicle', a piloted space plane which may be able to carry a military payload.
    Army 'Jupiter'
    Aerodynamic-One-No Payload - A simple, barebones design with an unusual 'partial-standing' concept.

    It's days before plans are rolling in, covering Brad's desk in piles of paper and blueprints and other useful things. Apparently many organisations had been working on this project already before NASA put out their request for tenders. More interesting perhaps were the two military projects, both of which came stamped with bold 'Top Secret' labels. They were the only two to stretch beyond the 'cone or sphere' argument of how to design a spacecraft, both recommending differing approaches. The Air Force had the closest thing to an actual spaceplane, while the army were approaching it as a 'supersonic drag impact' problem. Apparently the Army wasn't done with having its own aircraft.

    They all looked good. But the problem with that was that Brad - and thus NASA - didn't have enough money to fund the first stages of development for six designs. They had three at the outside, preferably only two even as three would stretch an already tight budget. So they would have to pick and choose the most promising and most exciting.

    Choose two spacecraft to take forwards. You may choose a third, but this will continue to impact the ongoing budget.
    [ ] Needle Nose
    [ ] Sunrise
    [ ] Astroscaphe
    [ ] Atlas
    [ ] Hermes
    [ ] Jupiter
     
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] Sunrise
    [X] Needle Nose

    I would prefer to stay away from the military. They have screwed us before for little more than stupid pride and I find it likely that they will do so again.
     
    I'm somewhat interested in the NAAF proposal, but they're the Air Force so I refuse to fund them. The Army proposal doesn't seem that useful IMHO.

    [X] Needle Nose
    [X] Astroscaphe

    Our re-entry test was with a sphere, so it makes sense to have at least one of those. The Atlas seems like it'd be too heavy if we tried to actually use the whole thing.
     
    [X] Astroscaphe
    [X] O'Connell 'Atlas'

    Picking the Atlas because, being derived from something that presumably already works, it ought to be the lowest risk. The size is unfortunate, and I'd rather have something smaller.
     
    [X] Astroscaphe
    [X] O'Connell 'Atlas'
     
    Fun fact: the life support system on the Chinese Sea Pole-Class bathyscaphe and its derivatives is a modified version of the one from the Shenzhou-6 spacecraft. If the astroscaphe wins, I figure things will probably go the opposite direction in this world, which would be pretty cool.
     
    @4WheelSword, what does the Army design look like? Searching for "partial standing" isn't turning up anything particularly useful. Not that I anticipate us going with it, but I'm curious how it works.
     
    4WheelSword said:
    It's intended to be a sort of... long, wingless lifting body in which the crews feet are towards the engines rather than their backs.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    So, sort of like this:


    But with the pilot even more upright and a shape closer to one of those really aerodynamic looking car top cargo carriers?

    (I'm now a little curious why they want to include RCS in the pictured capsule. It's purely suborbital, and I figure the balute and drag fins ought to be enough to keep it pointed in a good direction.)
     
    Last edited:
    brmj said:
    So, sort of like this:
    *snip*
    But with the pilot even more upright and a shape closer to one of those really aerodynamic looking car top cargo carriers?

    (I'm now a little curious why they want to include RCS in the pictured capsule. It's purely suborbital, and I figure the balute and drag fins ought to be enough to keep it pointed in a good direction.)
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Yeah exactly!

    The RCS will be for re-entry orientation, most likely. That thing is shaped kinda scary. Plus it probably also wants to tumble.
     
    4WheelSword said:
    Yeah exactly!

    The RCS will be for re-entry orientation, most likely. That thing is shaped kinda scary. Plus it probably also wants to tumble.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Once the nosecone detaches, it's shaped more or less like a gravity bomb. The vast, vast majority of the weight is on the bottom, and the drag fins will help stabilize it. Honestly, it's probably less tumble-loving than Dragon ought to be.
     
    Shadows said:
    Once the nosecone detaches, it's shaped more or less like a gravity bomb. The vast, vast majority of the weight is on the bottom, and the drag fins will help stabilize it. Honestly, it's probably less tumble-loving than Dragon ought to be.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Beyond that, note the ballute at the very top just under the tip of the nose cone. Not sure how soon they can deploy that, but it could be quite early since this thing doesn't need to deal with orbital velocity. Once that is out, they could do everything else exactly the wrong way and it probably still wouldn't tumble.
     
    Shadows said:
    Once the nosecone detaches, it's shaped more or less like a gravity bomb. The vast, vast majority of the weight is on the bottom, and the drag fins will help stabilize it. Honestly, it's probably less tumble-loving than Dragon ought to be.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    brmj said:
    Beyond that, note the ballute at the very top just under the tip of the nose cone. Not sure how soon they can deploy that, but it could be quite early since this thing doesn't need to deal with orbital velocity. Once that is out, they could do everything else exactly the wrong way and it probably still wouldn't tumble.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I shouldn't try and do analysis on 4 hrs sleep.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top