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
    • I have redone the Astrocaphe two seat variant. It's... heavier. Mostly because of a minor change to science systems (making their power per 'day' rather than per 'use' because that was a weird outlier) which meant it needed heavier batteries.
    It's also a battery set that assumes 5 days of operation while only operating for 2.5 days (bcos of 2 crew). You could definitely strip out half the batteries and save, what.. 1.5-2M?
    Spherical Crewed capsule
    2 x flight seat
    Human-rated Chute, Back-up Chute
    Orbital Heat Shield
    Basic antenna
    Abort button
    Power required: 2.5
    Post Process modifier - 22%M/28.5%C
    Mass: 5.002
    Cost: 5.7825

    Launch escape/deorbiting rocket
    Mass: 1.2505
    Cost: 0.62525

    Stage totals:
    Power: 2.5
    Mass: 6.2525
    Cost: 6.7825

    Distributed Service Module
    Early Environmental Systems - 5 person-days operation
    YPR control
    Batteries: 38 Power
    Explosive bolt separator
    5 x basic experiment OR 1 x complex experiment
    1m^3 living space
    Post Process Modifier - -5%M/5%C
    Power required: 5.1
    Mass: 4.313
    Cost: 17.5245

    Aerodynamic Fairing (2.64M, 3.96C)

    Total:
    Power: 7.6
    Mass: 14.2055
    Cost: 28.267

    Endurance: 2.5 days
     
    4WheelSword said:
    I have redone the Astrocaphe two seat variant. It's... heavier. Mostly because of a minor change to science systems (making their power per 'day' rather than per 'use' because that was a weird outlier) which meant it needed heavier batteries.
    It's also a battery set that assumes 5 days of operation while only operating for 2.5 days (bcos of 2 crew). You could definitely strip out half the batteries and save, what.. 1.5-2M?
    Spherical Crewed capsule
    2 x flight seat
    Human-rated Chute, Back-up Chute
    Orbital Heat Shield
    Basic antenna
    Abort button
    Power required: 2.5
    Post Process modifier - 22%M/28.5%C
    Mass: 5.002
    Cost: 5.7825

    Launch escape/deorbiting rocket
    Mass: 1.2505
    Cost: 0.62525

    Stage totals:
    Power: 2.5
    Mass: 6.2525
    Cost: 6.7825

    Distributed Service Module
    Early Environmental Systems - 5 person-days operation
    YPR control
    Batteries: 38 Power
    Explosive bolt separator
    5 x basic experiment OR 1 x complex experiment
    1m^3 living space
    Post Process Modifier - -5%M/5%C
    Power required: 5.1
    Mass: 4.313
    Cost: 17.5245

    Aerodynamic Fairing (2.64M, 3.96C)

    Total:
    Power: 7.6
    Mass: 14.2055
    Cost: 28.267

    Endurance: 2.5 days
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Huh. I'm getting a final mass of 11.22. Not sure where the difference is. Want to take a look?
    Astroscaphe draft

    Edit: Also, how did the batteries in the new atlas go down? It should have been hit with the exact same experiment power thing.
     
    Last edited:
    brmj said:
    Huh. I'm getting a final mass of 11.22. Not sure where the difference is. Want to take a look?
    Astroscaphe draft

    Edit: Also, how did the batteries in the new atlas go down? It should have been hit with the exact same experiment power thing.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I trust you to be more right than me. I'm post-work and tired.
    Uhhh I think I made a mistake when I first designed it? I'll check.
     
    By assuming that a portion of the batteries are not installed in the two person configuration, I can add flight controls at a total mass of 11.78, 10.53 for the one person version. A little heavier than the atlas, but a big improvement in capability. It also grows the capsule enough that a derivative could be used to return three people from space, and that the astronaut for the one person mission won't take any living space stress. Alternatively, 11.64 gets a dish added for control from the ground. I for one would rather have the controls. Just modularizing the batteries without adding anything brings the two-seat version down to 10.85.

    If it isn't too late to change things, the version with controls is looking pretty appealing. Thoughts?
     
    brmj said:
    By assuming that a portion of the batteries are not installed in the two person configuration, I can add flight controls at a total mass of 11.78, 10.53 for the one person version. A little heavier than the atlas, but a big improvement in capability. It also grows the capsule enough that a derivative could be used to return three people from space, and that the astronaut for the one person mission won't take any living space stress. Alternatively, 11.64 gets a dish added for control from the ground. I for one would rather have the controls. Just modularizing the batteries without adding anything brings the two-seat version down to 10.85.

    If it isn't too late to change things, the version with controls is looking pretty appealing. Thoughts?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I think your issue there is mass vs space. The flight controls space is in the capsule. The batteries are in the service module. Logically, one cannot replace the other - if only for issues of centre of mass shifts rather than just... space.
    Unless you're positing making the capsule bigger and going on a mass for mass replacement system then including space for that mass...
    Am I making any sense?
     
    4WheelSword said:
    I think your issue there is mass vs space. The flight controls space is in the capsule. The batteries are in the service module. Logically, one cannot replace the other - if only for issues of centre of mass shifts rather than just... space.
    Unless you're positing making the capsule bigger and going on a mass for mass replacement system then including space for that mass...
    Am I making any sense?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Yeah, I'm thinking enlarging the capsule just a bit, bringing it back to the original size I had intended before I cut the controls to save mass. Letting some of the batteries not be installed for the two seat version brings the total mass for the entire spacecraft under the original pre-rules-change version. Your CoM point is well taken, though if that's much of a problem there already has to be some way to accommodate or correct for small changes in it between the 1 and 2 seat versions, and as RCS fuel is used up.

    If we fluff the changes that happened to the rules as being an error that was caught in some of the calculations or something, resulting in a lighter than anticipated capsule, then the CoM problem partially fixes itself. Under the old system, the capsule and escape/deorbit rockets weighed 6.57. Under the new system, it goes to 5.35. Adding controls brings it back up to 6.03. Suddenly, rather than adding too much mass to make sense, the original, slightly larger capsule design with flight controls actually helps partially fix the change in CoM that the corrections would create if implemented. Of course, if we treat this rules change as a retroactive thing that doesn't exist at all in universe, that whole justification goes away.
     
    brmj said:
    Yeah, I'm thinking enlarging the capsule just a bit, bringing it back to the original size I had intended before I cut the controls to save mass. Letting some of the batteries not be installed for the two seat version brings the total mass for the entire spacecraft under the original pre-rules-change version. Your CoM point is well taken, though if that's much of a problem there already has to be some way to accommodate or correct for small changes in it between the 1 and 2 seat versions, and as RCS fuel is used up.

    If we fluff the changes that happened to the rules as being an error that was caught in some of the calculations or something, resulting in a lighter than anticipated capsule, then the CoM problem partially fixes itself. Under the old system, the capsule and escape/deorbit rockets weighed 6.57. Under the new system, it goes to 5.35. Adding controls brings it back up to 6.03. Suddenly, rather than adding too much mass to make sense, the original, slightly larger capsule design with flight controls actually helps partially fix the change in CoM that the corrections would create if implemented. Of course, if we treat this rules change as a retroactive thing that doesn't exist at all in universe, that whole justification goes away.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I like the retroactive fix meta (though I may forget to mention it).
    Go ahead with the updated design.
     
    Okay, here it is. I also caught one very minor error and tightened up the battery numbers since it no longer needs excess for experiment "uses", so the numbers are ever so slightly better than the ones I had previously quoted,

    Spherical Crewed capsule
    2 x flight seat
    1 x flight controls
    Human-rated Chute, Back-up Chute
    Orbital Heat Shield
    Basic antenna
    Abort button
    Power required: 3
    Post Process modifier - 22%M/28.5%C
    Mass: 5.612
    Cost: 10.9225

    Launch escape/deorbiting rocket
    Mass: 1.403
    Cost: 0.7015

    Stage totals:
    Power: 3
    Mass: 6.003
    Cost: 9.205

    Distributed Service Module
    Early Environmental Systems - 5 person-days operation
    YPR control
    Batteries: 15.25 Power
    Explosive bolt separator
    5 x basic experiment OR 1 x complex experiment
    1m^3 living space
    Post Process Modifier - -5%M/5%C
    Power required: 3.1
    Mass: 3.4134
    Cost: 12.7899

    Aerodynamic Fairing (2.3541M, 3.5312C)

    Total:
    Power: 6.1
    Mass: 11.7705
    Cost: 25.5226

    Endurance: 2.5 days
    The one seat version differs only in having one seat rather than two, and 20.5 units of battery charge vs 15.25. It has a 5-day endurance, masses 10.5154 and costs 24.1076.

    Edit: an upgraded service module with double the endurance, a docking port and a full OMS still comes in under our rocket's expected capacity. Something to be thinking about for a little later on.
     
    Last edited:
    ... Wow, the Astrocaphe is going to be able to be upgraded to just straight up be our Gemini clone. And on the same launcher too. That's awesome.
     
    Ash19256 said:
    ... Wow, the Astrocaphe is going to be able to be upgraded to just straight up be our Gemini clone. And on the same launcher too. That's awesome.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    To be clear, this would be hard-docking rather than soft-docking, so actually somewhere in between Gemini and Apollo in capability, if still a little lower endurance than later Gemini spacecraft. Perfectly fine for supporting a space station or something. A hypothetical derivative with an improved heat shield on the capsule and a little more endurance, probably by way of fuel cells and improved environmental systems rather than just more of the same, should even work for a minimal moon mission if we've got a way to get it there and back and a lander to dock with. In the long run, we will probably want spacecraft that can seat more than two, but derivatives of this could last us a while. At the most extreme, we could rip out the controls again and shove a third seat in the capsule, but at that point the power, life support and space inside the service module really needs to be drastically expanded or all it is good for is bringing people to and from a space station.

    Which reminds me. I would really love for this system to eventually support reuse of empty stages either as a wet workshop or at least skylab-style. That has the potential to be really cool.
     
    Last edited:
    Remove ads
    C9P8: It's falling down
  • Threadmarks
    • Mccall LRM-4-V Rocket Motor
    Fuel type: RP-1/LOX
    Cycle: Gas-generator (1M, .3M mass flow)
    Injector: Shower
    Nozzle: Vacuum (1.2M)
    ISP: 385
    Thrust: 241kN
    Mass: 2.2
    Cost: 4.4

    NASA Internal Design 1c
    Payload - 16 Mass (4 tons)
    Stage 2 Mass - 55.68 Mass (14 tons)
    Stage 1 Mass - 228.06 Mass (57 tons)
    Total Expected Mass - 299.74 Mass (75 tons)
    Required Stage 2 Thrust - 241kN
    Stage 1 Thrust - 983.1kN
    Stage 1 Delta-v - 3030m/s
    Stage 2 Delta-V - 4512m/s
    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)
    Separator: Explosive Bolt (1.14M, 0.57C)

    Stage 2 Design
    Engine - 1 x LRM-4-V, ISP: 385 (2.2M/4.4C)
    Stage - 2.5M (5C) Structural Steel, 50M fuel (12,500kg)
    Avionics: Basic Beam Riding (0.71M, 1.4C)
    Separator: Explosive Bolt (0.28M, 0.14C)

    Mccall put together one hell of an engine, Brad thought as he looked over the initial engineering documents. Incredible efficiency and power packed into a tiny package - and all running a non-corrosive, non-toxic fuel based off of something found in everyone's backyard: Kerosene. He knew the Caspians had been using it for more than a few years, but this was the first NASA rocket to plan to fly under it. It was an exciting development.

    But of course, not everything could go well. His job was never going to be the sort where everything just came together easily. The rocket as it was designed thus far - it couldn't fly. Or rather it could fly, but it wouldn't reach orbit.

    There were options of course. Grow the rocket, though that would cost more. Reduce the size of the payload, though that would reduce future use of course. Other options too.

    It was just frustrating, that was all. The first all up NASA design and they couldn't even work that out. Yet. But they would.

    How will you fix this?
    [ ] Extend the rocket to its maximum capability.
    [ ] Shrink the payload to around 3 tons.
    [ ] Look into Core Boosters.
    [ ] Write in.
     
  • Threadmarks
    • Well fuck. I don't know what to do.

    I want that full payload really badly because there is a lot we can do with it. I don't want to go with boosters because, well, I had been kind of cautiously hoping we could upgrade this into something really serious in the future, and boosters would likely be part of that. I don't want to just grow the rocket, because it will need to grow quite a bit, and our shiny new engine may be a bit awkwardly sized for the second stage we would ideally end up with.
     
    Gonna go with boosters here.

    [X] Look into Core Boosters.

    This is effectively making it a 3-stage rocket. Adds more chances for failure, but the rocket equation is a harsh mistress and expanding the stages we have would drive the cost way too high.

    Reducing the payload would certainly be viable as well, but I'd prefer to keep it at 4 if at all reasonable. Perhaps make the boostees optional so that if we do have a 3-ton payload we don't need to pay rhe extra costs (in both money and success %)?
     
    [X] Extend the rocket to it's maximum capacity.

    Looking at the stats, we need to make up roughly 1.5 - 2 km/s of delta-V. We can't do that with boosters without making the boosters very large and stretching the core. I'd much rather have a bigger, more expensive rocket, versus a rocket that doesn't have anything resembling an upgrade path.
     
    [X] Look into Core Boosters.

    SRBs or something recoverable are easier than trying to outrun the rocket equation.
     
    Strypgia said:
    [X] Look into Core Boosters.

    SRBs or something recoverable are easier than trying to outrun the rocket equation.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    True, except for the fact that we still theoretically have room to expand things to improve thrust, and also the fact that boosters of sufficient size to make up the 1.5 - 2 km/s of delta-V we need would likely be large enough to mean that we have no room to expand the design in the future with merely the addition of solid rocket motors, which is something that would be a significant drawback.
     
    The ESA shouldn't be the only ones with a nifty chart of the design lineages of their manned spacecraft. We deserve one too.



    This is sort of a "ha ha only serious" thing, and by the time I realized how much work it would be to do the bathyscaphe well enough that I wouldn't be embarrassed, I was already committed.

    The only hardware on the astroscaphe actually derived from stuff on the bathyscaphe is the life support, and maybe a few odds and ends like the florescent dye packets it used to make recovery easier in case it surfaced out of sight of its support ship. However, the astroscaphe is pretty clearly a spiritual successor. Note the smaller pressure vessel tacked onto the side of the main one and the modular experiment racks it is hooked up to. There's a little hatch on the inside between that and the main compartment which is kept closed while not in use as a safety precaution, and the entire hemisphere can be unbolted and replaced if an experiment requires special accommodations such as an additional window. This arrangement is a result of retrofitting an early version of the design to support different instruments and experiments as needed, without requiring too much modification or unnecessarily compromising the pressure vessel.
     
    brmj said:
    I just put in a bunch of time on it, but I'm not actually good at this and there's a lot of stuff that didn't come out quite right, especially edges that got messed up at one point. You're the one with actual talent.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Do you want me to neaten it up as best I can? With a bit of shading and that it'd be gorgeous.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top