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] The triple Dougal, a dependable design.

    I don't like taking on large unnecessary technical risks right now, when we are already counting on a lot of things going right. N2H4/LOX isn't what I want to be using, but it's what we've got and it will get the job done. We can not afford the delays of engine development right now even if this does end up working. As is, I have my doubts about whether we are likely to put someone in space first, since we are building a new rocket from scratch and leaping straight to a Gemini equivalent.

    Three Dougals is strictly better than two of the Hardback engines, and even if we could upgrade them into something that could do the job alone, that's another delay and multi-feed cycle is still terrible. Look at that ISP difference. There is no justifying that.
     
    I really want to go with the Usili Kerosene rocket, but "It was barely even a proposal" makes me way too nervous to trust them. Without even a rough guesstimate of the capabilities they'll be able to provide, I think it's just too risky.

    [X] The triple Dougal, a dependable design.
     
    I've managed to refine my hypothetical moon mission and get the lander down to a size small enough to launch in one go. If we assume the existence of a launch vehicle on the scale of the Titan IIIC, it is almost possible to get these things to the moon and bring the CSM back with a pair of tugs launched on those, keeping the actual launches of the main spacecraft within my arbitrary mass restrictions. Which maybe makes sense, because I would trust SRBs for a big dumb floating tank and rocket that sits in orbit until we need it, but not for something with people in it. I can definitely do better if I cut back on the mass allotted to things like samples, experiments and time spent on the moon, but I am not sure it makes a big difference. It should be possible to get things lighter than this since two Titan IIIC launches should be enough for a really minimal moon landing, but thus far I can not figure out how to do it.
     
    brmj said:
    I've managed to refine my hypothetical moon mission and get the lander down to a size small enough to launch in one go. If we assume the existence of a launch vehicle on the scale of the Titan IIIC, it is almost possible to get these things to the moon and bring the CSM back with a pair of tugs launched on those, keeping the actual launches of the main spacecraft within my arbitrary mass restrictions. Which maybe makes sense, because I would trust SRBs for a big dumb floating tank and rocket that sits in orbit until we need it, but not for something with people in it. I can definitely do better if I cut back on the mass allotted to things like samples, experiments and time spent on the moon, but I am not sure it makes a big difference. It should be possible to get things lighter than this since two Titan IIIC launches should be enough for a really minimal moon landing, but thus far I can not figure out how to do it.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    ................I'd almost want to figure out the system just so I can do a mission where we strap 50 srbs to the thing to get it to orbit, since this irrational hatred of srbs on manned missions is getting a little silly. Designed properly, srbs aren't any more dangerous than normal boosters!
     
    [X] The triple Dougal, a dependable design.

    Engine clusterrrrss
     
    @4WheelSword how does reusability work? Is it supported? If I wanted to build a reusable booster, could I just kludge together the booster and payload rules as one might with a service module and declare it reusable if it would be able to land by the latter rules? Are refurbishment costs modeled at all? I ask mostly out of general curiosity and because I am already screwing around with the system and might want to see what I can do.
     
    brmj said:
    @4WheelSword how does reusability work? Is it supported? If I wanted to build a reusable booster, could I just kludge together the booster and payload rules as one might with a service module and declare it reusable if it would be able to land by the latter rules? Are refurbishment costs modeled at all? I ask mostly out of general curiosity and because I am already screwing around with the system and might want to see what I can do.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    It is not yet supported, nor are true spaceplanes. I figured I'd get the basics down first before I considered that.
     
    Remove ads
    Rocketbucket: ESA Crewed Spaceflight
  • Media

    • By 1958, the ESA Crewed flight programs were progressing rapidly. While the early rocket planes had proven Mach 1+ flight, it was the later vehicles that truly took great steps.
    HARP, or the high altitude research plane, was powered by four conventional rocket motors and, when fully fuelled, was expected to reach above Mach 5.
    SORV on the other hand, was intended to function as a space-flight vehicle, the first of many. It would be launched atop a large rocket, shooting a pilot above 200 kilometres to then glide back down to the surface as a lifting body.
    Neither has performed the mission it was designed for by 1958, but air-dropped flight tests are underway.
     
  • Media
    • That's really neat. Evolving things straight towards space-planes is a really interesting change from the historical approaches. I'll be very interested to see how it works out for them. It will be interesting to see what SORV evolves into. I would want to already be working on an orbital derivative in their position. Especially if it doesn't have any propulsion of its own, that airframe has tons of room to work with for building something with at least Mercury-like capabilities, assuming the aerodynamics and such turn out to be sound.
     
    brmj said:
    That's really neat. Evolving things straight towards space-planes is a really interesting change from the historical approaches. I'll be very interested to see how it works out for them. It will be interesting to see what SORV evolves into. I would want to already be working on an orbital derivative in their position. Especially if it doesn't have any propulsion of its own, that airframe has tons of room to work with for building something with at least Mercury-like capabilities, assuming the aerodynamics and such turn out to be sound.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I can't wait to draw the next stages of these divergent paths!
    Like... the lifting body has a solid development path that I have conceptualised (the SORV) which basically leads to a shuttle and even the HARP goes to space eventually.
    It's gonna be so much fun.
     
    Remove ads
    C9P7: It's coming together
  • Threadmarks
    • NASA Internal Design 1b
    Payload - 16 Mass (4 tons)
    Stage 2 Mass - 60 Mass (15 tons)
    Stage 1 Mass - 226.92 Mass (56.5 tons)
    Total Expected Mass - 300 Mass (75 tons)
    Required Stage 2 Thrust - 200kN
    Stage 1 Thrust - 983.1kN
    Required Delta-V - At least 10,000m/s

    Stage 1 Design
    Engine - 3 x Dougal E-1, ISP: 281 (13.56M/29.34C)
    Stage - 10M (20C) Structural Steel, 200M fuel (53,000kg)
    Avionics: Basic Beam Riding (2.23M, 4.46C)
    Control: Small fins (1.13M, 1.13C)

    The design was really starting to take shape! Brad watched the documents drop onto his desk as weeks passed in fascination at the way the whole affair was being conducted. Damn but NASA had a talented team of engineers, throwing around big numbers and getting everything to stick just right.

    Of course, none of it was real design work yet. It was just theory. And it was costing a pretty penny just in materials to test concepts without even looking at manufacturing. And it wouldn't stop growing! Already the first stage had grown almost ten tons. Yes the design still had plenty of thrust and sure, the teams were working well within the priorities that he had set. But by damn, if they didn't come out of this with a one-hundred ton rocket, he'd be damn well surprised.

    He had started to receive new questions though. The second stage, what would it look like? What fuel would it use? What would he expect from his designers?

    He tentatively reached out to several designers for suggestions.

    Who do you choose to design the second stage engine?
    [ ] Usili, who powered the Prometheus upper stage, who recommend reusing N2H4.
    [ ] O'Connell, who want to use Aerozine and N2O4 to avoid corrosive fuels.
    [ ] Mccall, who recommend RP-1/LOX because of stability and reliability.
     
  • Threadmarks
    • Stability and reliability sound nice, even if it's half canceled by the corrosive fuel malus.
    [X] Mccall, who recommend RP-1/LOX because of stability and reliability.
     
    [X] Mccall, who recommend RP-1/LOX because of stability and reliability.

    Is anyone prepared to make the case that storable propellents are important here, that the engine we'd get with another fuel choice would be of use for some other purpose, or that the marginally higher density makes an actually useful difference? I can think of a few hair-brained schemes for if we went with aerozine, but it's all kind of marginal. Use as a third stage for a bigger rocket, where storability and restarts would be useful, for example, but we could probably do better by the time it is relevant. Maybe some scheme about launching rockets with no real payload and re-fueling something in orbit off of what is left in the second stage, where again storability is important, but that's not exactly easy and low risk. Seems like a silly thing to be making this choice around right now.

    In the absence of such an argument, I say go with a safer, higher ISP fuel.
     
    Major updates to payload design, including switching several elements to a post-process multiplier rather than an intra-process calculation.
    Also aerodynamic surfaces are in, including a Rogallo wing.

    Conical design
    5 x Basic experiments
    2 x Flight seat
    Early environmental systems (5 days/2 crew)
    Basic Antennae
    YPR Control w/ thruster pack
    Batteries (24 power)
    Human-rated chute
    Orbital heat shield
    Post Process Modifier - 40%M/40%C
    Mass: 11.48
    Cost: 42.7

    Conical design
    5 x Basic experiments
    2 x Flight seat
    Early environmental systems (5 days/2 crew)
    Basic Antennae
    YPR Control w/ thruster pack
    Batteries (35 power)
    Human-rated chute
    Orbital heat shield
    Power required: 6.5 per day/32.5 per mission
    Mass: 12.7
    Cost: 33.2
     
    Last edited:
    [X] Mccall, who recommend RP-1/LOX because of stability and reliability.


    Also, is the Atlas actually lighter than the Astrocaphe? I'm very curious to learn how that's a thing.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top