Responsive Access Small Cargo Affordable Launch (RASCAL ...

GT RASCAL:
From this alternative analysis one design was chosen to be the Georgia Tech
RASCAL design. From the alternative analysis either alternative 4 or alternative 5 were
both feasible and viable solutions. Alternative 5 was chosen as the Georgia Tech design
because of its lower costs on economic Cases 1 and 2. Case 3 was determined to be a
non-factor since the flight rates necessary to reach this case were about one flight a day
for the $5,000 per pound of payload and two flights a day for the $750,000 per flight
goal. These flight rates will probably never be attainable, and therefore case three should
not be a deciding factor on which alternative to chose. As three-view drawing of
alternative 5 follows (Figure 32).
95 ft
Figure 32: GT RASCAL Three-view Drawing.
As this drawing shows the GT RASCAL design is significantly longer than the baseline
RASCAL design to accommodate the longer, yet lighter upper stage using a LOX/HTPB
hybrid. A comparison of the GT RASCAL and the baseline RASCAL follows (Table 11).
81 ft
43