Ascent summary
Aerodynamic environment
Propulsion & mass
Engineering checks
Altitude vs time
Speed and Mach vs time
Dynamic pressure vs time
Acceleration vs time
Event timeline
Stage schedule
Same vehicle, different launch environment
The comparison holds the vehicle and stage definitions constant while changing only the initial launch environment and mode-specific initial conditions.
| Mode | Initial altitude | Initial speed | Apogee | Max speed | Max Mach | Max Q | Max accel. | Peak heating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run comparison to populate. | ||||||||
Import a Rocket Design Studio design
Use the Save design JSON button in Rocket Design Studio, then load that JSON here. This importer searches the JSON recursively and maps recognizable geometry, flight-condition, and propulsion fields.
Import mapping report
Changing mass and thrust
Rocket acceleration changes as propellant is consumed. The stage model uses specific impulse to estimate mass flow.
The simulation integrates thrust, drag, gravity, and changing mass at small time steps.
Aerodynamic drag
Drag is evaluated from atmospheric density, relative airspeed, reference area, and a Mach-adjusted drag coefficient.
A simple transonic drag-rise model is included for teaching; it is not a CFD-derived vehicle-specific drag polar.
Dynamic pressure
Dynamic pressure is an important indicator of aerodynamic loading. Max-Q is the maximum value encountered during the simulated ascent.
Atmosphere and Mach number
The model uses an altitude-dependent standard-atmosphere approximation through the lower atmosphere and smoothly approaches vacuum conditions above the modeled layers.
Heating screen
A Sutton–Graves-type stagnation-point correlation provides a first-order convective heating indicator using density, nose radius, and velocity.
Why launch mode matters
Air launch supplies initial altitude and velocity before rocket ignition. Surface launch begins with nearly zero speed, so first-stage thrust-to-weight and dense-atmosphere drag are more prominent. Sea-surface launch is modeled as a platform launch with the same atmospheric physics as a near-sea-level ground launch plus a distinct visual and environmental preset.
Military launch-system context
Military rocketry courses often distinguish fixed launch sites, mobile launchers, aircraft carriage/release, and shipboard launch cells. In this studio those are represented as generic platform archetypes so students can compare launch-environment effects without reproducing real launcher dimensions, procedures, target data, or weapon-specific performance.
Motor behavior
Solid, liquid, and hybrid propulsion are represented as classroom motor categories. The burn-shape selector changes the thrust-time curve around the same entered average thrust, making it possible to study how progressive, neutral, and regressive thrust histories alter acceleration and max-Q.
Failure recognition
Injected faults provide generic delayed ignition, thrust shortfall, early cutoff, and delayed-separation cases. The purpose is telemetry interpretation and failure recognition—not reproduction of any real system's failure modes.
Lab 1 — Launch-mode comparison
Use the two-stage preset. Run all three launch modes without changing the vehicle. Compare initial kinetic/potential energy, max-Q, apogee, and peak acceleration. Explain why air launch differs.
Lab 2 — Maximum dynamic pressure
Run a ground launch, identify max-Q, then change vehicle diameter and CD. Predict the direction of change before each run and explain the result from q and drag.
Lab 3 — Staging
Compare a one-stage and two-stage configuration with similar total propellant mass. Examine burn schedule, dry-mass disposal, acceleration, and apogee.
Lab 4 — Specific impulse
Change second-stage Isp while holding average thrust and propellant mass constant. Record the resulting burn duration and flight changes. Explain the link between Isp, mass flow, and total impulse.
Lab 5 — Heating sensitivity
Vary nose radius and launch profile. Compare peak heating indicators and the altitude at which they occur. Relate the result to the V³ dependence in the screening correlation.
Lab 6 — Design Studio integration
Create a vehicle in Rocket Design Studio, save its JSON, import it here, inspect the mapping report, and document which quantities transferred directly versus which launch assumptions remained necessary.
Lab 7 — Platform archetypes
Keep the vehicle unchanged while comparing a fixed ground pad, mobile surface launcher, aircraft release, and sea-deck platform. Focus on initial conditions, launch angle, atmospheric exposure, and telemetry—not target range.
Lab 8 — Thrust-time shape
Use the same average thrust and propellant mass with neutral, progressive, and regressive burn profiles. Compare acceleration histories and max-Q. Explain why equal average thrust does not imply identical transient loading.
Lab 9 — Fault injection
Run a baseline case, then inject a moderate thrust shortfall, early cutoff, and delayed stage separation. Identify which telemetry channels reveal each condition earliest and which performance metrics change most.
Lab 10 — Atmospheric uncertainty
Repeat a launch at 90%, 100%, and 110% standard density and add wind shear. Compare dynamic pressure, drag, acceleration, and peak heating. Discuss why first-order environmental uncertainty matters in launch analysis.