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] Work on the Artemis - A 50% success rate is not good enough but it can surely be made more reliable.

    I'm sick of ours dreams constantly getting messed with because our rockets don't feel like working, or our equipment failing.

    We need more reliability.
    4WheelSword said:
    Go more options and there should be a throw dice button
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I must be foolish, because when I hit more options no new options actually come up. Weird.
     
    Ash19256 said:
    Technically, Artemis has a worse than 50% success rate, if you count the boosted version.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    - Bio-sciences - Launch Failure, July 1959
    - Discovery 1, Success, September 1959
    - Lunar Probe - Launch Failure, Artemis-Lunar, November 1959
    - Bio-sciences - Success, Astrocaphe-Chuck, December 1959

    That's 3 x A-L and an A-B.
     
    So, basically Artemis Light has a failure rate of roughly 66%, while Artemis Heavy has a success rate of 0%. Unless, of course, that second Bio-sciences flight was on an Artemis Heavy, which IIRC it would have had to have been, as the Astrocaphe-Light proposal we went with needed a boosted Artemis to reach orbit.
     
    Ash19256 said:
    So, basically Artemis Light has a failure rate of roughly 66%, while Artemis Heavy has a success rate of 0%. Unless, of course, that second Bio-sciences flight was on an Artemis Heavy, which IIRC it would have had to have been, as the Astrocaphe-Light proposal we went with needed a boosted Artemis to reach orbit.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Oops, My mistake. that is indeed 2 lights and 2 boosted.
     
    Remove ads
    C11P6: Another Failure
  • Threadmarks
    • War Progress - Advantage Dyskelande - Caspian Rumours
    The War in the East continued with Europan Coalition forces pushing deep armoured thrusts into warlord heartlands. As Alleghanian observers watched, these columns of Tiger and GIAT-20 tanks punched through decade-old Caspian vehicles and rolled into towns with hatches open.
    They were not welcomed warmly, and were often met with improvised explosives, but nonetheless these areas were occupied by the coalition.
    Rumours began to spread amongst the front-line forces that there were Caspians on the other side of the wire. Newer tanks and fighters began to arrive in Cathay - jets taking to the skies for the Cathay forces for the first time. Were the Caspians willing to turn this from proxy war into hot conflict? Perhaps only time will tell.
    Just as much scuttle-butt was being spread about the Akitsukini forces that had joined the coalition. Were they deploying more forces than agreed? Had they brought new, experimental warheads for the tactical missiles that had thus far stayed in reserve? Had they, in fact, been made the subject of a Cathayan bounty and were not being hunted by air and ground unit alike? Perhaps, indeed, only time would tell.

    Back in New Alleghany, down at the Cape, all attention was being paid to Artemis. The first stage had failed twice in four flights and, sadly enough, the lunar attempt had proved that fault couldn't solely be said to lie with the two strap-on boosters that lofted the heavier variant. It was an unacceptable success rate with such a limited budget and it needed to be improved to at least, oh… 75% was the estimate the tea was working with. Fortunately, there were a few options available.

    The need was only reinforced when Discovery 2 failed to make its intended orbit, and the Army was left without its second, much desired 'scientific' mission. At least the rocket made it into the air this time.

    How will the work proceed?
    [ ] Minor redesigns (max reliability boost +1)
    [ ] Engine and Fuel replacement (max reliability boost +2)
    [ ] Full first stage rework (max reliability boost +3)

    The Army is demanding another launch. How does NASA respond?
    [ ] You'll have to wait for Crown 3
    [ ] We'll shuffle them up as much as possible.
    [ ] As soon as you have another payload, we'll fly it.
     
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] Full first stage rework (max reliability boost +3)

    I think part of the issue is the stretched stages. Sure, replacing the engines and fuel helps, but if we're going that far, it's not much more effort to just rework the entire thing.
     
    Yeah, I can't imagine replacing the engine and fuel alone will be significantly easier/cheaper than doing a full redesign.

    [X] Full first stage rework (max reliability boost +3)
    [X] We'll shuffle them up as much as possible.

    I don't want to fly the Artemis until we complete the redesign, but I don't mind giving the Army priority when we apparently failed another launch.

    Then again, I don't think we're actually failing much more than statistics would suggest. There are a lot of rolls being done and any one of them going badly causes the whole launch to fail.
     
    [X] Full first stage rework (max reliability boost +3)

    [X] As soon as you have another payload, we'll fly it.

    Might as well buy a little goodwill.
     
    [X] Full first stage rework (max reliability boost +3)
    [X] We'll shuffle them up as much as possible.
     
    [X] Full first stage rework (max reliability boost +3)
    [X] We'll shuffle them up as much as possible.
     
    [X] Full first stage rework (max reliability boost +3)
    [X] We'll shuffle them up as much as possible
     
    [X] Full first stage rework (max reliability boost +3)
    My god do we need this.

    [X] We'll shuffle them up as much as possible.
     
    Here's a nifty thing I found.

    Trajectory Browser

    It doesn't do the moon, and it doesn't cover the right date range, but this is a pretty easy way to mess around with trajectories for interplanetary missions and get a look at what the transfer windows, duration and delta-v requirements can look like.
     
    C11P7 - rebuilding
  • Threadmarks
    • "Of course I understand the importance… Yes, the Presidents have made it perfectly clear that national defence is our top priority, and I agree with them." Brad said down the phone, attempting to ward off the anger of a Colonel Michaelson who had been put in command of the Crown program, "But we have other missions to fly. No, I'm not trying to blow you off. No Colonel. No. No, I agree. No. But that doesn't mean- No, of course. Yes Colonel. I'll see what I can do."

    Brad put the phone down gently and fought the urge to throw something. Managing a national spaceflight program was becoming more complicated than just playing with big, expensive toys, and he was no politician. This was going to become frustrating.

    Not as frustrating as Artemis was being, however. With three failures of the rocket, it was time to do something radical. Something radical was looking like a full first stage redesign. That would allow them to switch to a less horrific fuel - and maybe build a new set of systems into it at the same time.

    It was just such a shame after Prometheus had proven so reliable.

    Pick a new fuel
    [ ] RP-1/LOX - Kerosene. Stable and easy.
    [ ] Aerozine 50/N2O4 - Hydrazine mix for hypergolic results.
    [ ] Liquid hydrogen - So cold, so efficient, so much work.

    How will the engine be developed?
    [ ] Convert a design - Simpler but less efficient.
    [ ] A new small engine to cluster
    [ ] A new large engine as a single system.
     
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] RP-1/LOX - Kerosene. Stable and easy.
    [X] A new small engine to cluster

    You know why I'm here.
     
    [X] RP-1/LOX - Kerosene. Stable and easy.
    [X] A new small engine to cluster

    A Kerosene Dougal replacement would be a definite happy. Hopefully, it shouldn't be too hard to get something with roughly the same thrust as the Dougal, or at least sufficient thrust that 4 or less of them can replace the 3 Dougals on the core of Artemis.
     
    I think simplicity here is worth it.

    [X] RP-1/LOX - Kerosene. Stable and easy.
    [X] Convert a design - Simpler but less efficient.

    We're falling further and further behind the longer this takes. This will likely be more expensive but faster to design, and we need time more than we need money, and simple is crucial to making sure it all works.
     
    notgreat said:
    I think simplicity here is worth it.

    [X] RP-1/LOX - Kerosene. Stable and easy.
    [X] Convert a design - Simpler but less efficient.

    We're falling further and further behind the longer this takes. This will likely be more expensive but faster to design, and we need time more than we need money, and simple is crucial to making sure it all works.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    ......you're really underestimating how hard it is to convert something to a new fuel that it wasn't designed for, aren't you?
     
    tryrar said:
    ......you're really underestimating how hard it is to convert something to a new fuel that it wasn't designed for, aren't you?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Wait am I misinterpreting it? I thought it was to take an existing Kerosene engine and modify it to fit our needs better. Like take our 2nd stage and triple or quadruple them up and adjust a bunch of fiddly details to make it work.

    If it's converting a non-Kerosene engine then yeah, might as well make a whole new one.
     
    notgreat said:
    Wait am I misinterpreting it? I thought it was to take an existing Kerosene engine and modify it to fit our needs better. Like take our 2nd stage and triple or quadruple them up and adjust a bunch of fiddly details to make it work.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Even THAT is a little more involved than what you seem to be understanding. Mind you, it might shave some effort off what it would take to make a new engine, but modifying something to the extent you're talking about IS basically a whole new engine.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top