Convergence

AE 5367
High-Speed Aircraft and Space Access

Vehicle Design
Fall Semester 2014
Necessary Volume and Size for Design
Convergence
Dr. Bernd Chudoba

AVD Laboratory
October/November 2014
Mechanical
and 2014
Aerospace Engineering Department
(MAE)
October/November
Page 1
Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

P.A. Czysz / HyperTech Concepts LLC
Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence
TECHNOLOGY MATURITY DETERMINATION

One result of the Hypersonic Convergence work was the
definition of a primary structure and propulsion
interaction that controlled the size and weight of the
aircraft.
This evolved into the Industrial Capability Index (ICI) as a

measure of the practicality of the vehicle under
consideration in terms of the industrial materials/
fabrication/propulsion capability available.
The concept of an index is, that there is a quantity that
can represent the relative measure of one level of
technical maturity with another.
The overall technical maturity obviously involves
capability in a number of areas, starting with propulsion
and progresses through aerodynamics, materials,
manufacturing, and vehicle integration, as well as others.
The technical maturity is obviously an engineering
capability to meet a specified goal.
I str
Wstr
S wet
Ip
ICI
I str
hardware & technolog y

K str K v
Kw
Ip
1
.7097
S 0plan
W pay
[2.44b]
OEW
W pay
1
OEW
1
K geo
.7097
S 0plan
[2.47]
geometry & size

Page 2

The next figure clearly shows that the enabling

capabilities are the propulsion system and the structural
weight per unit surface area.
Industrial capability index, ICI, equals technology

required equates/matched to size and geometry of the
configuration concept.
Clearly, the enabling capabilities are strongly interdependent.
If Istr is increased (industrial technology decreased), then
if Ip is not correspondingly increased (industrial
technology increased), the size and geometry of the
possible vehicle must change (become larger and
stouter).
The opposite is true if Ip is improved. It enables a
converged vehicle with higher structural weight per unit
surface area.
Page 3

The technologies applicable to each side of the equation

are indicated. Istr is readily determined from current or
projected industry achievements and manufactured
hardware.
The lower the technology in the materials and structures,

the higher the value of Istr, i.e. the heavier the structure
per unit surface area.
Splan in the denominator clearly shows that the smaller the
aircraft the greater the value of ICI, that is the greater the
technology required.
If the current ICI is entered into the equation, the smallest
aircraft possible with current technology can be
determined as a function of the geometry parameter.
Vehicle size can be inferred from Eqn. (4.1).
.409
S 1plan
10
Kw
K str K v
W pay
OEW
ICI
[4.1]
If Ip is determined from current hardware, then ICI can be

established. Ip is more an index of the propulsion system
hardware (turbo pumps, heat exchangers, etc.) rather an
expression of the thermodynamic cycle.
Page 4

Given the SSME engine hardware as a reference, the Ip

from all airbreather to all rocket varies less than 15% for
application of the SSME hardware to other propulsion
cycles.
Example
For the SSME case it will be found that Ip is 57.0. 10
kg/m3 (3.56 lb/ft3 0.5) and Istr is 21 kg/m2 (4.3 lb/ft2)
resulting in a value of 10 ICI of 27.1 5 m-1 (8.26 1.5 ft1). If I
2
2
str is 17 kg/m (3.5 lb/ft ), that was projected in 1968
to be the 1983 industrial capability, this results in a value
of 10 ICI of 33.5 5 m-1 (10.1 1.5 ft-1).
[Manufacturer Name: RS-24. Designer: Rocketdyne. Developed in: 1972.
Application: Used on stages: Shuttle Orbiter, Star lifter. Used on launch
vehicles: Saturn Shuttle, Shuttle, Shuttle ASRM, Shuttle LRB, Star lifter.
Propellants: Lox/LH2 Thrust (vac): 232,301 kgf. Thrust (vac): 2,278.00 kN.
Isp: 453 sec. Isp (sea level): 363 sec. Burn time: 480 sec. Mass Engine:
3,177 kg. Diameter: 1.63 m. Length: 4.24 m. Chambers: 1. Chamber
Pressure: 204.08 bar. Area Ratio: 77.50. Oxidizer to Fuel Ratio: 6.00. Thrust
to Weight Ratio: 73.12. Country: USA. Status: In Production. First Flight:
1981. Last Flight: 1998. Flown: 279. Comments: Used in Shuttle Orbiter.
Space Shuttle Main Engine. Staged combustion, pump-fed. Originally
specification was vacuum specific impulse of 455, but not achieved in the
final design.]
www.astronautix.com
Page 5

As shown in the figure below, Equation 4.1 implies that

for a given ICI there is minimum sized vehicle for each
combination of geometric parameters.
The greater the magnitude of ICI, the greater the

technology required. If a smaller sized vehicle is desired,
then either Istr must be reduced, or Ip must be increased.
Example
Using the demonstrated expander cycle of ISAS (Institute
of Space and Astronautical Science) in Tokyo, Japan, it
will be found that Ip is 64.0. 10 kg/m3 (4.02 lb/ft3 0.5)
and Istr is 17.0 kg/m2 (3.5 lb/ft2), resulting in a value of
Page 6

10 ICI of 37.6 5 m-1 (11.5 1.2 ft-1). With this latter

industrial capability, the vehicle can be 63% of the
planform area as with the SSME industrial capability.
The process defined to this point provides a guide to the
possible design space dependent on:
(a) mission,
(b) configuration,
(c) propulsion and propellant.
The index Istr is straightforward to determine. For nonspace launchers, weight ratio is not the measure of
propellant load, but fuel fraction. For an aircraft
application, Ip is given with
Ip
Ip
ppl
WR 1
ff
[2.9]
WR 1
1 ff
ppl
ff
ff
1
[4.2]
ff
W fuel
WTOGW
As previously stated, the index Ip is a function of

maximum sustained Mach number, and this sizing
technique is not limited to space launchers. As applied to
Page 7

an HSCT (High-Speed Commercial Transport) problem,
Trubshaw, 2000
the index Ip for kerosene fuel is 609 kg/m3 (38.0 lb/ft3) and
350 kg/m3 (21.8 lb/ft3) for liquid methane. This yields an ICI
of 356.2 m-1 (222.5 ft-1) for kerosene fuel and 205.9 m-1
(127.6 ft-1) for liquid methane fuel.
When executed for the HSCT design space evaluation, the

result was not like a hypersonic launcher. The minimum
size and weight for a wing-body transport configuration
with advanced variable by-pass turbofan engines and
hydrocarbon fuel was for 0.035, not 0.20.
This method provides a logical starting point for
configuration development not based on conjecture or
Page 8

tradition but fundamental physical relationships. As a

result, much less time is devoted to finding a
configuration that will converge. For example, in the
Douglas HSCT study some 35 Phase-I configuration
concepts were screened in one month and 3 Phase-II
configurations were selected on time and under budget.
For slush hydrogen and the performance of

Russian topping cycle,
Japanese expander cycle rocket engines,
U.S. RBCC (Rocket-Based Combined
engines,
Cycle)
we have for the index Ip = 4.3 0.2. For sub-cooled

Page 9

hydrogen and SSME engine class, the value of the index

becomes Ip = 3.9 0.2. That produces two values of ICI,
12.3 0.6 and 11.1 0.6 respectively.
The ICI values cover combined cycle propulsion systems
from all rocket to all airbreather and it is remarkably
consistent.
A propulsion system consisting of a combination of
cycles propulsion systems having an index Ip < 3.6 is not
capable of converging. Past SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit)
studies with combinations of cycles failed to converge or
they converged at a very large size, larger than the size
for the all rocket design, see Chase, Nau, and NASA.
Aerojet
Page 10

Equation (4.1) can be mapped to show the available

design space for a selected configuration. The figure
below maps the ICI index design space for which
convergency
is
possible
for
a
blended-body
configuration.
It is important to recognize that it is the smaller vehicle

that is technologically challenging not the larger. The
Page 11

most costly and technically challenging vehicle is a small

demonstrator with a zero payload, the story is different
for the larger sized vehicle.
VentureStar
X-33
NASA ED97- 43938-1
Referring to the map of the design space for the blended

body, see page before, the authors judge that the
technical capability has been available since the 1994
time frame.
The small symbols are the VDK & PACs evaluation of the
1994 ICI (Industrial Capability Index) available in Europe.
Jean Vandenkerckhove (VDK) of VDK Systems SA,
Page 12

Brussels, focused on the maximum margin and minimum

technology solutions that were the least slender
configuration concepts (i.e. stout). The authors of this
course (PAC & BC) focus on the solutions at the current
industrial capability boundary.
The figure shows the map for the blended body

configuration concepts shown in chapter Volume
Characteristics of Hypersonic Aircraft. The red line
passing thorough the three solid points is the ICI
bounday as judged by PAC, BC late Jean
Vandenkerckhove from their vehicle sizing investigations.
The map of constant payload mass and constant
constitutes the required planform area and ICI required
for convergence.
Clearly, to the left of the red line solutions are possible, to
the right of the red line, requirements exceed capability.
Page 13

The slender configurations (small ) require the greatest

industrial index (ICI) that is the greatest technology, while
stout configurations (large ) have the greatest margin
and require the least technology.
The VDK's sizing results are in the 8 to 10 metric ton

payload range with a
value of
= 0.185 0.01. The
results by PAC are comparable payloads but at = 0.104.
The latter results are at the border of current industrial
capability while the former results have more margin (a
value some 35% less). As VDK would have said, his
results are more prudent.
One thing that is obvious from the figure is: a small lowpayload demonstrator is a much greater technical
challenge than a full scale vehicle. A near-zero payload
demonstrator is possible only at the maximum stoutness
( values near 0.20) and then it is at the ICI limit with little
margin.
The most difficult configuration is a slender, near-zero
payload concept.
A larger vehicle with at least a 2.5 ton payload would be a
better starting point for a demonstrator with some
operational potential.
A small demonstrator vehicle, not capable of achieving
orbital velocity with limited hypersonic flight time (5 to 10
Page 14

minutes) can be converged at values typically 1.0 lb/ft2

(4.88 kg/m2) larger than that indicated from the ICI value
and figure before, that is 4.5 lb/ft2 (22.0 kg/m2) instead if
3.5 lb/ft2 (see HyFAC reference for more information).
The following figure shows the solutions spaces for the
four configuration concepts (waverider, wing-body,
blended-body, circular cone) considered.
10000
WaveRider
9000
Wing-Body
Blended Body
8000
ICI = 11.7
tau = 0.063
7000
6000
Py = 15.0 t
Sp
5000
4000
tau = 0.20
3000
payload = 0.0 ton
2000
= 0.25 RCC
= 0.505
Circular Cone
1000
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
ICI
Page 15

Note the clear minimum technology advantage of the

conical body. However, the small size implies a very large
gross weight wing loading that precludes horizontal
takeoff. The reason Gaubatz, Hunter and Escher have
consistently selected conical bodies is clear from a near
term practicality viewpoint. The difficulty is, it forces
vertical takeoff and landings. Clearly, there is a trade-of
between near term capability in propulsion and materials
for the complexity of vertical abortable operations.
Of the aerodynamic lifting bodies, the blended-body has

the advantage, with the wing-body as a close second.
The volume limitations of the waverider force it to require
the greatest performance in propulsion and the greatest
structural technology.
No matter how much CFD analyses, the vehicle's design
Page 16

space must lie to the left of the hatched area if a

converged solution is to exist.
Note: The probable available design convergence zone
is small compared to the total parameter space.
The ICI map for the four configuration concepts points
out just how little of the potential solution space is
actually available today; the development of an
operationally sized vehicle is indeed a challenge.
Note: this situation applies to propulsion systems from

all-rocket to all-airbreather.
In spite of the waveriders improved aerodynamics in
terms of lift to drag ratio, its volume to surface area
characteristics give it the least solution space.
The blended-body has the largest solution space with
respect to the non-circular cross section vehicles.
Page 17

The advantage of the right circular cone is that its

potential solution space is completely available within the
current state-of-the-art.
It is also clear that from the details presented in the
figure,
the aerodynamically optimum, slender vehicles are not

part of the available solution space. Aerodynamic
perfection may be an advantage at lower speeds, but not
in vehicles required to carry sufficient propellant to
accelerate itself and the payload to orbital speeds.
It is beyond this course to look into into all of the possible

implications, but the energy analysis basis is well
established, see literature.
We have to ask ourselves: are the choices related to
configurations, propulsions systems, materials, structural
concepts and manufacturing approaches entirely up to
the individual technical specialties? Will the best in each
Page 18

of the areas converge to a design solution?
Unfortunately, the answer is not always and sometimes

no!
Clearly, the design space is so interdependent, that as
more of the individual elements are chosen at their
particular local optimums, the remainder of the parameter
become more narrowly defined.
As we see in the last figure, the industrial capability
(technology) is inexorably linked to size and geometry.
If the structural weight per unit surface area required for
convergence is greater than the maximum technology
industrial capability, there is convergence with a margin
equal to the difference between available and required. If
the structural weight per unit surface area required is less
than
the
industrial
capability and
technology,
convergence is not possible with the parameters
selected.
ICI Data Base

The range of structural index Istr values encompassed by
PAC and VDK are given in the next figure together with
their sources. This covers the experience range of VDK &
PAC for operationally sized hypersonic cruise vehicles
with an active energy control and for hypersonic gliders
with passive energy control.
Page 19

The figure shows the range of Istr encompassed by the

investigations.
The European structural indices Istr were based on VDKs

discussion with British, French, German and Russian
sources in the 1987 to 1990 time period. The United States
structural indices Istr were based on the 1968-1970 NASA
sponsored Hypersonic Research Facilities Study (HyFAC)
and the Advanced Engineering Department of McDonnell
Aircraft. A 1993 NASA Langley AIAA report documenting a
waverider design showed the same values as for the
HyFAC study.
As we have discussed before, there are two principal

approaches to vehicle sizing.
1) One way to estimate the volume and weight of a
launch system is to assume a constant gross weight and
solve for the possible payload. The result in many cases
is a negative payload mass and volume, which has little
real meaning.
2) A better way is to size for the volume and weight of a
launch system such that the resultant system meets
mission performance AND carries the design payload.
Page 20

However, unless the designer can visualize the available

solution space and select the starting parameters, the
sizing program may diverge without a solution.
Clearly, the availability of a method to identify the solution
space for each combination of parameters is of PRIMARY
importance.
Affecting the sizing outcome is the priori assumption of
the structural weight enabled by the industrial
capabilities. Historically documented results show the
possibilities.
Another practice that can prevent a converged solution is

the priori assumption of the launch method, horizontal
or vertical takeoff. This innocent assumption can have
disastrous consequences.
These effects are discussed and quantified with the
following.
Structural Design Concept

A conventional, cold, load carrying structure protected by
relatively smooth radiation shingles yield statistically
weighted correlations for evolving optimum concepts that
weigh less than comparable low performance bodies.
Propulsion systems integrated into the vehicles span a
broad spectrum of engines, ranging from turbo-ramjets
to scramjets during the 1966-67 time period.
This led directly to the NASA sponsored Hypersonic
Research Facilities Studies (NASA CR 114322).
Page 21

Since then, sizing aircraft concepts to both mission

distance and maneuver performance has become
industry practice.
Decisions are made on equal performance aircraft of
differing size, weight and cost rather than vice versa.
This sizing approach iterates the system weight until
assumed and computed weight and volume are equal.
This approach is adopted in the present context. The

significant difference between a conventional aircraft and
Page 22

a hypersonic aircraft/space launcher is the propellant

volume.
For conventional commercial aircraft the significant
volume is passenger volume.
For hypersonic aircraft/space launchers the significant
volume is propellant volume.
The methodology applies to both aircraft and launch

vehicles. If commercial airliners have passenger volume
that approaches 80% of the total volume, then space
launchers can have a propellant volume that approaches
80% of the total aircraft volume.
The mass ratio for the mission
independently by trajectory analysis.
is
determined
The volume of the vehicle is iterated until volume

available equals volume required, and the mass ratio
available equals the mass ratio required.
The interdependence of
aerodynamics,
propulsion, and
structure
requires this approach to consider the vehicle as a single
system, not an assembly of separate systems.
Page 23

It is clear that this approach to the conceptual design of

hypersonic vehicles needs to focus on payload cost to
orbit and long duration sustained use.
Achievement of a conceptual vehicle rests on
(a) whatever data and projections can be established,

including results from preliminary study capabilities that
may become available, and
(b) recognition of the fact that the most significant gains
must be realized from propulsion-propellant capabilities.
The latter represents the principal challenge.
Equations 2.44b and 2.47 directly relate geometry-defined
parameters with the material/structure and propulsion
defined parameters.
I str
Wstr
S wet
Ip
ICI
I str
K str K v
Kw
Ip
1
.7097
S 0plan
W pay
[2.44b]
OEW
W pay
1
OEW
1
K geo
.7097
S 0plan
[2.47]
geometry & size
Please note that the propulsion index, the propellant

volume ratio and geometric terms directly affect the
Page 24

required structural weight per unit wetted (surface) area.
The larger the propulsion-propellant system performance

(i.e. the greater the value of Ip), the heavier the structural
weight allowed for convergence, and therefore the less
technology (industry capability) required.
The corollary is that poor propulsion performance always
demands structural/material/fabrication breakthroughs.
Sweetman, 1993
Page 25

25
21
15
26
24
10
25
9
8
5
3
14
22
11
13
1
23
14
16
17
18
24
19
20
26
12
Sweetman, 1993
Page 26

One result of the Hypersonic Convergence work is the

definition of a primary structure and propulsion
interaction that controls the size and weight of the aircraft
as the Industrial Capability Index (ICI). ICI can be a
measure of the practicality of the vehicle under
consideration, in terms of the industrial materials/
fabrication/propulsion capability available.
For the Hypersonic Technology Conference, PAC

presented a paper with Kanenori Kato of NAL and Prof.
Claudio Bruno of the University of Rome. Several ICI
maps were presented, the first being a Hydrogen Rocket
Cycle.
Example 1: The following figure presents a hydrogen/
oxygen topping cycle rocket engine powering a VTOHL
SSTO. The weight ratio includes a nominal propellant
Page 27

mass for orbital maneuvers. Plotted is the planform area

versus the Industry Capability Index (ICI), see Equation
2.47. The figure shows the SSTO hydrogen/oxygen
rocket-cycle (all-rocket) solution space.
The payload ranges from 0 to 10 tons (22,050 lb). The

values of vary from 0.063 to 0.20. The vertical band is
judged to the current range of ICI values (state-of-the-art)
for the SSME engine (Space Shuttle Main Engine).
Page 28

The square symbol is the representative solution from the

work of P. Czysz and J. Vandenkerckhove. The circle
symbol is from published references for a minimum sized
SSTO demonstrator.
Note that the solution space available is confined to stout

configurations (0.20
0.13). The rocket SSTO
demonstrator is at the ICI boundary and has a 2,000 ft2
planform area. The 7 ton payload vehicle by VDK and PAC
has about 3,500 ft2 planform area and it has a comfortable
margin from the ICI boundary.
Example 2: The second example shows the design space
for a rocket ejector scramjet combined cycle propulsion
system to operating as an airbreather to Mach 12.
The weight ratio includes a nominal propellant mass for
orbital maneuvers. Plotted is the planform area versus the
Industry Capability Index (ICI).
The payload ranges from 0 to 10 tons (22,050 lb). The
values of vary from 0.063 to 0.20. The vertical band is
judged to the current range of ICI values (state-of-the-art)
for a combined cycle rocket ejector ram-scramjet based
on Prof. Fred Billigs work.
Note, again, that the solution space available is confined
to stout configurations (0.19 0.10). The M=12 SSTO
demonstrator is at the ICI boundary and has an 1,800 ft2
Page 29

planform area. The figure shows the ejector-ram-scramjet

cycle (airbreather) solution space.
The 7 ton payload vehicle by VDK and PAC has about

3,000 ft2 planform area and has a comfortable margin
from the ICI boundary.
Overall, the airbreather vehicles are smaller than the allrocket vehicles. Both rocket and airbreather solutions are
quite similar in terms of this representation. Note that the
traditional slender aerodynamic shapes (small values of
Page 30

) are completely out of the realm of solutions based on

the current industrial capability.
Clearly, selecting a combination of and payload to the
right of the vertical band becomes increasingly unlikely
as the distance from that band increases. Note also that
small payload SSTO demonstrators offer a more difficult
technical challenge compared to a potential operational
vehicle with a significant payload. The 7 ton payload
vehicle is only about twice the size as the zero payload
demonstrator.
Available Solution Space

If we translate the results from the two figures above into
OEW (operational empty weight) and GW (gross weight),
the solution space in terms mass characteristics can be
mapped.
Using this representation form, the narrowness of the
solution space within the available industrial capability is
clearly shown with the color shading.
Note that for both, the rocket and the airbreather solution
maps, there is very little difference in the empty weight.
Reasons are:
a) the hydrogen fuel flow rate is about the same for both,
b) the challenge of the turbo pumps and hardware is
quite similar.
Page 31

The following figure presents the available SSTO solution

space.
Interestingly, the (slenderness) solution space is just the

opposite for the space launcher than it is for the HSCT
example, as we shall see shortly.
Hydrogen Rocket Cycle: The upper map in the figure is

for a hydrogen/oxygen topping cycle rocket engine
powering a VTHL SSTO.
The available solution space lies in a narrow band
Page 32

between 0 tons payload at

a range of = 0.20 to 0.14.
= 0.20 and 10 tons payload at
The heaviest solution approaches 1 million pounds gross

weight (453 tons). The lightest solution, a zero payload
SSTO demonstrator is at 400,000 lbs (181 tons).
Based on the authors assessment of the current
industrial capability, the solution space within the
possible is about (only) 18% of the total for payload
ranging from zero to 10 metric tons.
Combined Cycle to Mach 12: The lower map in the figure
is for a combined cycle rocket ejector ram-scramjet
engine powering a VTOHL SSTO (airbreather).
Similar to the rocket, the available solution space lies in a
narrower band between 0 tons payload at = 0.20 and 10
tons payload at a range of = 0.20 to 0.14.
The heaviest solution is just over 400,000 lbs (181 tons)
gross weight.
The lightest solution, a zero payload SSTO demonstrator
is at 180,000 lbs (82.1 tons).
Based on the authors assessment of the current
industrial capability, the solution space within the
possible is about 24% of the total for payload ranging
Page 33

from zero to 10 tons.

Validity for the HSCT
Douglas Aircraft Company was awarded a contract to
study the High-Speed Commercial Transports (HSCT) for
Mach 2.2, Mach 3.2 and Mach 5.0.
Ingells, 1979
The contract required in Phase I about 35 different aircraft

Page 34

propulsion systems to be evaluated in a one-month time

frame, so that one Phase II configuration for each Mach
regime could be selected for detailed engineering and
cost analyses.
The original memorandum by Ray Page described the

adaptation of the Hypersonic Convergence and VDK
methods to the HSCT transport application for the Phase I
screening.
Conventional drawing of a concept, weighing and
performing it, then re-iterating the design, required two
weeks per configuration, and that level of effort was not in
the contract. As a result, adapting these sizing
approaches to civil airliners resulted in the first surprise:
The structural mass fraction scaling applied to airliners.

[Anon. McDonnell Douglas HSCT Executive Summary, Phase III HSCT
Status Review, NASA Langley, Oct 1989]
This example illustrates, TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE! The

above example illustrates the power of an advanced
synthesis approach.
Back to the HSCT, resolving the governing equations on
MathCad 8 produced a minimum volume solution. Since
the fuel volume was less than the passenger volume, the
resultant vehicle was slender (small value of ).
The final Mach 2.2 configuration resulting for a 40 ton

Page 35

payload has a planform area of 998.7 m2 and = 0.045.

These results were confirmed by Phase II configuration
layout drawings, see the following figure.
McDonnell Douglas, 1989
The Mach 2.2 HSCT transport solution space determined

by the MathCad program is given below:
Page 36

The Mach 2.2 HSCT baseline was a low BPR turbofan

fueled with a JP derived fuel. It was designed to carry 305
passengers over 7,250 nm with reserves and airport
diversion.
The MathCad program iterates the weight and volume

equations for a given until the planform area from both
equations is equal and plots a value of planform area and
take off gross weight for that . Boundaries can also be
represented, and in this case a maximum value of 45 lb/ft2
is shown for the maximum landing wing loading.
These results are from the VSP (VDK Vehicle Sizing
Program) sizing analysis of potential Mach 2.2 HSCT
configurations for Phase I of the NASA HSCT study for
selection into Phase II for further refinement.
The minimum gross weight is relatively flat over a
significant planform area range. The planform area of
10,750 ft2 selected provide benefits in other areas.
Note that for a cruise transport, as the higher values of

are reached, the cruise drag increase and the cruise liftto-drag ratio reduction quickly increases the takeoff gross
weight.
Note also, there is a minimum planform area of just over
6,000 ft2 that represents the smallest, but not the lightest
aircraft. In fact, the smallest aircraft is at = 0.13 and is
Page 37

twice the weight of the = 0.045 aircraft. The selected

configuration
is well within the maximum landing
wing loading.
These results are from the VSP sizing analysis of
potential HSCT configurations for Phase I of the NASA
HSCT study for selection into Phase II for further
refinement.
Three cruise speeds and fuel combinations were to be
selected for Phase II. The sizing summaries for the HSCT
Phase II configuration concepts are presented in the next
figure.
Page 38

Note that the range-size potential of the Mach 5 HSCT is

equivalent to the Mach 2.2 HSCT as postulated in the
1950's by Dietrich Kchemann of the RAE: the design
cruise range up to about Mach 5 is essentially constant.
This is not the operational range as a function of Mach

number, but the range capability of an aircraft
configuration selected to cruise at a specific design Mach
number. We will see more in chapter Energy for Cruising
Flight.
On an equal size basis, speed appears to have little
influence. The key question is, can the industrial
capability applied to the HSCT achieve a cost and
operational infrastructure that permits the high speed
system to compete with the large subsonic transports?
The answer is YES!
This evaluation is very dependent upon small changes
and almost any result is possible!
Page 39

One particular rational assumption for the Mach 5

transport essentially eliminated it from the competition.
The assumption was: because the Mach 5 a/c has to fly
10,000 ft higher than the slower counter parts, people
argued that a double hull fuselage was required. This
assumption was presented as a rational assumption, and
it was convincing such that it killed the Mach 5 transport.
Ernst Hgenauer of MBB made no such assumption for

the first stage of Snger and it could have operated as a
very successful Mach 4.65 transport.
It is therefore necessary to closely scrutinize what
appears to be rational inputs that make a system noncompetitive.
Douglas came to the same conclusion as MBB. Studies as
to the productivity versus cost showed that a cruise Mach
number of 4.5 was an ideal place to operate. Note that the
nominal Mach 5 transport is very competitive in fuel
Page 40

weight, structural weight and gross weight.
The Mach 2.2 HSCT baseline was a low BPR turbofan

fueled with a JP derived fuel. It was designed to carry 305
passengers over 7,250 nautical miles with reserves and
airport diversion.
W pay
1
Ip
OEW
1
Using Equation 2.47, ICI
K geo
[2.47]
.7097
I str
S 0plan
geometry & size
the potential solution space for the Mach 2.2 aircraft was
solved in the same way as for the all rocket SSTO. These
1986 HSCT study Mach 2.2 solution space results are
shown in the figure below.
20
30
40
50
60
P l a n fo r m A r e a
( ft 22 )
16,000
50 tons useful
load
45
40
35
30
14,000
1986 Capability
25
0.030
Phase II
Baseline from
Phase I
12,000
0.035
10,000
0.040
0.045
0.050
Tau
0.055
0.060
0.065
8,000
1500
1000
m2
500
50
70
90
ICI
110
130
150
170
190
210
Industrial Capability Index

Page 41

As seen in the two earlier figures, the shaded vertical bar

is an estimate of the industrial capability used in the
HSCT study.
The Mach 2.2 HSCT was an aluminum and titanium
airframe for which the structural index could be well
established. The bar width represents the range of
propulsion
systems
proposed
by
the
engine
manufactures. We will see some more of this data in
chapter Energy for Cruising Flight.
The square is the selected baseline selected during VSP
sizing. Note that the selected configuration is within the
available technology band.
The advantage of the VSP/VDK method is that the weights
are solved for directly. The ICI method can be used to
establish a range of
and planforms within the
technology available.
[You might wonder how all of this started? Well it started in July 1983
when P.A. Czysz suddenly found himself at the dining room at the Los
Angles Air Force Station being introduced as the manager of the
McDonnell Douglas Manned Aerospace Program with Art Robinson of
MDC Huntington Beach as deputy manager. With Dwight Taylor of McAir
aerodynamics department we set out to find a simple way to determine
solution spaces for different concepts.]
Given the task to determine solution spaces for different

concepts, what evolved was the material developed in
chapters Aircraft Volume and Mass Characteristics From
Low-Speed to High-Speed and Volume Characteristics
Page 42

of Hypersonic Aircraft.
In early 1984 the team was briefed into DARPAs Copper
Canyon project lead by Robert Williams to develop a
SSTO demonstrator based on Anthony (Tony) DuPonts
engine and airframe concept, referred to as the
government baseline. Tony DuPont was the project
manager for the Douglas USAF Aerospace Plane effort in
the 1960s and he brought forward some of the materials
and structures from that effort.
Copper Canyon ran as a highly classified SSTO project
from 1982 to 1985. It provided the technologies and
concept for the X-30 NASP.
Government Baseline Configuration
National Team Configuration

Page 43

Tonys analysis showed that he could maintain a laminar

boundary layer over the entire vehicle from Mach 0 to
orbital speed, and his airbreathing engine concept would
provide thrust in the atmosphere to orbital speed! His
numbers were for a planform area of 2,500 ft2 with no
disposable payload (payload was internal electronic and
instruments). The empty weight was 25,000 lb of which
2,500 lb was instrumentation. The propellant load was
25,000 lb. That was a weight ratio of 2.0. With 50% slush
hydrogen of 5.13 lb/ft3 (there was very little oxidizer on
board) that yielded a Ip = 5.5 and = 0.05! The structure
weight was about 55% of the empty weight (about 12,000
lb) producing Ip = 1.83 lb/ft2 that resulted in a ratio of Ip/Istr
= 3.0, or as later defined as ICI = 30 !
That raised serious questions on the team. As a result,

the team took the four basic hypersonic configurations
and tried to determine what the requirements might be.
Page 44

These are shown below for Ip assumptions consistent

with the McAIR 1963 scramjet work. The figure below
shows a comparison of the configuration concepts for
minimum size demonstrator research vehicles, circa 1983.
4.5
Wstr / Swet
(lbm / ft2)
blended body
4.0
wing-body
waverider
3.5
RC cone
3.0
2.5
minimum size
zero payload
2.0
1.5
0
1000
2000
3000
Sp Planform area
4000
5000
(ft2)
For a zero payload minimum volume case, the following

four configuration concepts with Ip = 4.0 lbm/ft3 are
examined.
The right circular (RC) cone, again, comes to the rescue.
That is, if the purpose of the demonstrator is to
demonstrate an RBCC propulsion system to some
fraction of orbital speed, and the configuration and the
takeoff and landing modes are not the critical issue, then
Page 45

the conical body would be satisfactory (justification why

Delta Clipper became a cone).
If, on the other hand, the configuration and the takeoff

and landing modes are as critical to the demonstration as
the RBCC propulsion system, then there would have be
an alternative design.
Referring to the government baseline, there was no way

the team could confirm the weights proposed. Clearly,
this was the McDonnell Douglas Manned Aerospace team
position. This caused serious problems with Robert
Williams and Tony DuPont who thought that the approach
linking propulsion and structure was fallacious as they
had always been independent, and research can make
any technology possible!
In contrast, the next figure shows what the teams first
estimates were for a series of airbreathing launchers to
about Mach 14.5.
Page 46
The series shows an orderly progression of launchers

beginning with a hypersonic demonstrator, circa 1983.
All orbital vehicles include deorbit and landing fuel
Page 47

The USAF Blue Ribbon Panel for Scramjets in 1968 lead

by Bernard Goethert came to the conclusion, that with all
of the data presented, a Mach 12 scramjet was well within
the state-of-the-art and possibly Mach 14.5 would
represent a potential maximum airbreathing Mach number
with some additional experiments.
Such was the McDonnell Douglas Manned Aerospace
team position. The team with Aerojet Sacramento and
General Electric, Evendale, proposed in early December
1984 to build a Copper Canyon orbital demonstrator
based on the McDonnell Aircraft Blended Body. This
vehicle would have its first flight in mid-1991 and after a
two year flight test period, reaching maximum
airbreathing Mach number at the end of that period, would
achieve orbital velocity and altitude in mid to late 1993.
Aerojet Sacramento had built a scramjet test facility
based on an oxygen rich hypergolic rocket engine and
indeed tested a General Electric designed engine (by Pete
Kuchenreuter) of 1 ft width and a 3 in combustion
chamber height.
In late 1994, Copper Canyon was terminated and NASP (X30) appeared under USAF sponsorship with Pratt &
Whitney, Rocketdyne, Rockwell International, and General
Dynamics now being participants. Interestingly, Aerojet
was dropped as a principal member to survive as a
General Electric partner.
The next figure shows how the earlier orderly progression
Page 48

of launchers might look today, circa 2004. Note that the

engine modules are a greater fraction of the vehicle
length as size decreases.
All orbital vehicles include deorbit and landing fuel

Page 49

Determination of the Available Design Space

It began with the 1960s recognition that the sum of
individually optimized subsystems does not result in a
system optimum.
A system optimum is the sum of subsystems that yields

the optimum system. This usually results into a
significant
interdependence
between
subsystems.
Clearly, a seemingly trivial subsystem can significantly
affect the overall system optimum.
With the development of the Industrial Capability Index
(ICI), the 1990's approach emerged to identify the regions
of possible design convergence prior to an extensive
computational investigation.
That is locating the possible oil field before a lot of
expensive, random dry holes are drilled. The location of
design space where convergence can occur is the
essence of the 1990s recognition.
The sketch on the right side of the figure below is an
example of locating the design convergence space. As
shown, the total system approach identifies the region of
possible design convergence.
The shaded area above the horizontal is where available
capability in propulsion, material, and fabrication exceeds
the minimum required.
Page 50

Bonestell, 1961
Page 51

A great many aircraft and space launcher studies end with

an non-converged vehicle, a fixed mass vehicle with a
negative payload, or a totally unacceptable converged
vehicle.
Page 52

Page 53

X-20
X-30
DC-X
X-33
Project
Cancelled
X-34
X-37
?
Page 54

What the aerospace industry needs right now are

experimenters and people who understand how to build
things.
Todays risk-adverse environment is suppressing

progress. Only through mistakes you can proceed.
If you do not allow failure, there is no progress. You have

to see assumptions fail, then you adjust and improve your
approach.
Without a crisis and without pressure there is no

progress.
Remember, a diamond is nothing but a lump of coal

processed under heat and pressure !
Page 55

Reflecting our recent history of cancelled Space Access

Vehicles (SAV), there are the usual statements like
- the absence of technology,

- non-adequate funds, or
- too risky propulsion system concepts (usually
reserved for airbreathers).
Interestingly, most of these studies usually begin with an
priori judgment as to the state of the art and preferred
reference concept to keep the study consistent with past
studies. Few, if any, ask the critical question, if within the
n-dimensional state space there is a solution and where is
it located?
What this section attempts to do is to answer exactly this
question, at least in a preliminary way.
The
equations
developed
in
chapter
Volume
Characteristics of Hypersonic Aircraft are a sample of
relationships used in the convergence procedure of the
sizing program.
In a mathematical sense, sizing means solving a set of N

nonlinear algebraic equations with M variables. In general
(as true for most engineering problems) M > N, and N of
the variables must be chosen based on engineering
criteria then becoming known quantities.
The following figure illustrates the sizing and converging
methodology as programmed in AVDS-PrADO.
Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

It is clear that the choice of which MN variables should

be assumed to solve the set of equations will impact the
solution, sometimes dramatically.
Since the equations are nonlinear, no (real) solution may
exist for some of the choices. For other choices, the
solution may differ substantially when introducing slight
changes of certain values assumed.
This explains mathematically, for instance, why assuming

an initial GW, or OEW, may lead to poor convergence or
no convergence at all.
Page 59

The figure below illustrates the carpet-plot generated

with a parameter variation.
Page 60

The next figure illustrates the carpet-plot overlaid with

results generated with an optimization study.
Technology Available Design Space

There is a difference between the Available Design Space
and the Technology Available Design Space.
The next figure is a detailed sketch of the solution space

for a blended-body configuration concept with an RBCC
(rocket-based combined cycle) propulsion system
airbreathing to 22,200 ft/s selected as an example.
Page 61

Structural
Specific
Weight
As explained earlier, the area above the horizontal is

where available capability in propulsion, material, and
fabrication exceeds the minimum required.
Both curves are a function of Kchemann's , and there
are corresponding values on both curves, as indicated
by the diagonal lines labeled from 0.229 to 0.032.
The intersection of the two curves at the center
represents the available industrial capability in materials
and propulsion.
Page 62

To the right of the intersection, the required propulsion

index (Ip) is too large, or the required structural specific
weight (Istr) is too light.
The chart then maps the material, manufacturing and
structural capability versus the propulsion/propellant
capability.
The shaded area represents solutions where there is
convergence for the propulsion index (Ip), which is less
than the state-of-the-art, and the required structural
specific weight (Istr) is heavier than the state-of-the-art.
The distance between the arched curve and the horizontal
curve is essential margin.
It is possible to generate such an allowable design space
graph for every configuration and propulsion system
concept.
Thus
a)
b)
concepts can be easily screened, and

any deficiencies in state-of-the-art can be readily
identified.
The reference condition is for a RBCC propulsion system

that transitions to rocket propulsion at 22,200 ft/s.
Page 63

Furthermore,
Vppl = 34,92 ft3

(T/D) = 3.2 @ M = 12
reference = 0.10
ICI = 11.7
Wpay = 20,000 lb
Ip = 4.09 lb/ft3
WR = 2.70
Istr = 3.5 lb/ft2
The dashed lines are lines of constant

boundary solutions.
between the two
The horizontal line is for Istr = 3.5 lb/ft2, with the index
determined for each . The value of Istr is set by what is
judged to be the current industrial capability for
materials/structures up to 1,000 C surface temperature.
The arched line is for the reference value of the Index (Ip =
4.09) with the maximum Istr determined for which
convergence is possible. Given the reference value at =
0.104, the value of Index (Ip) is corrected for the drag
differences with changes in (compared to the reference
which established the reference T/D ratio).
In summary, the lower right portion of the graph
represents an area where propulsion performance
required is too great with respect to the judged industrial
capability, and the specific structural weight (Istr) is too
low.
The upper left portion of the graph represents an area
Page 64

where propulsion performance required is less than the

judged industrial capability, and the specific structural
weight (Istr) is greater than the minimum capable of being
manufactured. So, there is margin in both propulsion and
structural weight. In fact, the difference between the
horizontal curve and the arched curve is the specific
structural margin.
The figure below defines the available design space.
Industrial
Capability
Istr
Assumed Industrial
Capability Istr = 3.5 lbm/ft2
Istr = 4.2 lbm/ft2
Margin
Ip
Page 65

As the figure shows, each

margin.
has a different industrial
Example: That is, if the design with = 0.11 will converge

at Istr = 4.4 lb/ft2, then there is a 0.9 lb/ft2 margin over the
assumed industrial capability of 3.5 lb/ft2.
Thus, in design and manufacture there is a built-in margin
that will permit design convergence at the specified
performance even at the heavier specific structural
weight.
Example: For = 0.11, and the actual structural specific
weight, as built, is Istr = 3.9 lb/ft2.
maximum structural index
that will permit convergence
= 0.11
Istr = 4.4 lbm/ft2

Istr = 3.9 lbm/ft2
Wstr/Swet = constant
identified industrial
capability
Page 66

For = 0.11, and the actual structural specific weight, as

built, is Istr = 3.9 lb/ft2, there is no penalty PROVIDING the
design was converged for a structural specific weight
greater than 3.9 lbm/ft2 and less than 4.4 lbm/ft2.
The result is a larger vehicle, but one with greater margin

for both payload and structural weight.
Each configuration concept has its own unique margin

representation.
The following figure presents the design solution spaces

for the four configuration concepts considered in this
section.
Again, the margin is between the maximum structural
index that will permit convergence and the identified
industrial capability.
The former is primarily a function of the system thrust to
drag ratio that determines the acceleration ISP (ISPE) and
the latter is determined by industry evaluation.
The four configuration concepts each have different

solution spaces. In terms of the non-conical aircraft
vehicles, the blended body has the greatest, and the
waverider the least.
Page 67

6.00
6.00
wingbody
blended body
Wstr/Swet
5.00
5.00 margin
= 0.104
= 0.229
4.00
3.00
Wstr / S wet = const.

= Industrial
capability
Solution
Space
2.00
I ref = const.
Wstr/Swet = const.
4.00
too much
performance
required
3.00
2.00
= 0.032
I ref = const.
1.00
too slender
1.00
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
6.00
0.0
2.5
5.0
6.00
= 0.393
5.00
I ref = const.
7.5
10.0
waverider
Wstr/Swet
5.00
margin
= 0.523
= 0.160
4.00
4.00
= 0.196
Wstr/Swet = const.
Wstr/Swet = const.
3.00
3.00
= 0.063
I ref = const.
2.00
2.00
right circular cone
1.00
1.00
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
Index
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
Index
The right circular cone has the largest solution space of

all the four.
The right circular cone could be built as a SSTO vehicle
with SR-71 or X-15 class structural specific weights
(Wstr/Swet) that are 40 years old. In this context, this
vehicle poses no technology challenge unless the
builders choose to create a technical challenge. It will
Page 68

provide an engineering development challenge, but that is

a much different issue.
Remember that these are not expendable vertical launch
cylindrical vehicles, but continuous use vehicles. Even
the concept of a refurbish able, reusable vehicle is an
incorrect concept with respect to these concepts. The
right circular cone configuration will probably be confined
to vertical takeoff and landing operations.
The Operational Empty Weight (OEW) and Take Off Gross
Weight (TOGW) corresponding to the available design
space can be determined, so the actual impact of margin
decisions can be evaluated for each configuration
concept.
Operational Empty Weight (OEW)
The next figure presents the superpositioned converged
design solution space for the four configurations
discussed before.
The margin does not increase the flight vehicle size
significantly (planform area) for a constant , but the
empty weight does increase because the specific
structural weight increases.
In the days of fighters and transports, that would mean an
increase in cost. However, for hypersonic vehicles the
lower set of curves are set by material/ structural/
manufacturing industrial capability; and the structure may
Page 69

cost several times to an order of magnitude more than the

upper curves, set by propulsion convergence limits, so
that available material systems may be applicable.
Convergence Limits
140000
0.16
120000
OEW (ZFW) lbm
0.104
0.11
Wstr / Swet
Determined
by Selected
Index (4.09)
100000
Highest Ip
0.09
0.08
0.12
0.14
0.18
80000
0.20
= 0.229
60000
blended body
wing-body
waverider
circular cone
margin
40000
20000
2000
Industrial Capability Limits
Index Determined
by Selected Wstr / Swet
( 3.5 lb/ft2 )
3000
4000
5000
Sp Planform Area
Lowest Istr
6000
(ft2)
7000
8000
In reality, there is probably a middle ground represented

by a 15% margin. If 15% is added to the lower curves, and
that is used as the design points, there is margin in both
Page 70

material state-of-the-art and manufacturing achievements

(both resemble Istr).
If these are truly continuous use vehicles, then
subsequent vehicles could benefit from incorporation of
advanced materials to achieve more payload that might
fund the changes necessary to incorporate those
materials.
As illustrated in prior figures, the empty weight for the

RBCC propulsion system is very similar to the all rocket
propulsion configuration. Thus the all rocket will be about
this empty weight and margin. Other airbreathing
propulsion configurations with V airbreathing from 6,420
ft/sec to 18,800 ft/sec will have a somewhat greater
margin.
What impact does this margin have on gross weight? The
section next provides some insight.
Take Off Gross Weight (TOGW)
The next graph shows the TOGW convergence space.
The figure shows that the minimum gross weight possible
based on the industrial capability is represented by the
lower set of curves, and the maximum gross weight
determined by the largest value of specific structural
weight that will permit convergence is represented by the
higher set of curves.
Page 71

Since the waverider has a very small converged design

space, as shown before, it was not included in the TOGW
graph.
For both, the OEW and TOGW graphs, note the advantage
of the right circular cone configuration. It is the smallest
and lightest configuration possible. Its disadvantage is
that it must land vertically in a thrust supported descent.
Technology and specific costs are decreasing from the
Page 72

lower curves to the upper curves.
It certainly appears that a viable stout concept lies in the

150 metric ton range (330,000 lb). Weight is not
necessarily detrimental if it can reduce both specific and
total airframe costs.
Re-examining the design space via the ICI parameter, we
can reiterate just how limited the actual design solution
space is versus potential (technology) design solution
space available to the system engineer.
Impact of Payload
It is critically important for the determining of the flight
vehicle size to define the required industrial capability
(ICI) to achieve convergence.
Payloads have a direct impact on the convergence

potential of configurations, as seen in the next figure.
Payloads from 0 to 45,000 lb (0 to 20.41 ton) are
evaluated.
One of the results are to contravene the conventional
wisdom that a subscale demonstrator is more readily
fabricated and flown than a full scale vehicle.
In fact, the technical challenges are such that the
subscale demonstrator may equal or exceed the cost of a
Page 73

full scale demonstrator without a full complement of

operational mission determined systems.
In addition to size adversely affecting the ICI value, flight
vehicle size also adversely impacts the surface
temperatures for a geometrically scaled vehicle.
The figure below shows the solution map for a RBCC
SSTO with payload mass as parameter.
Page 74

The important fact to remember is that ALL of the vehicles

sized in this investigation are SSTO vehicles.
Operational duplication often drives the results. What
began as Copper Canyon ended as the National
AeroSpace Plane (NASP).
The intent of the demonstrator was to demonstrate a

vehicle that could achieve orbital speed entirely on an
airbreathing propulsion system.
A subscale demonstrator with sub-mission performance

is always possible more easily than the full scale vehicle,
as shown by the NASA funded HYFAC study by
McDonnell Douglas in the 1967 -1970 time period.
Page 75

McDonnell Douglas/NASA
HyFac Study, 1967 - 1970
Mach 12 Flight
Research Facility
Page 76

A
TOGE/OEW
53.5 / 37.4 ton
Sp = 266 m2
TOGE/OEW
80.0 / 19.4 ton
Sp = 204 m2
TOGE/OEW
61.3 / 16.0 ton
Sp = 123 m2
TOGE/OEW
31.6 / 10.3 ton
Sp = 78.0 m2
Size
Comparison
(A) Turbojet accelerator, wing-body, HTHL
(B) Rocket accelerator, wing-body, HTHL

(C) Rocket accelerator, blended-body, HTHL
(D) Rocket accelerator, blended-body,
horizontal landing (ALHL)
Page 77
air-launched

The RBCC propulsion system airbreathing to 22,200 ft/sec

(6.77 km/sec) was selected. The reference conditions are:
Vppl = dependent variable

Py = independent variable
T/D = 3.2 at M = 12
Ip = 4.09
= 0.10
WR = 2.70
ICI = 11.7
Istr = 3.5 lb/ft2 = 17 kg/m2
0.0 < payload < 45,000 lb
The blended-body configuration was chosen to illustrate
the impact of payload mass.
Considering a 15% margin between the best industry

capability and what will be realized in the actual vehicle,
then the threshold specific structural weight is Istr = 4.03
lb/ft2. The solution space map for the blended-body has
been shown before.
The map is developed to the same assumptions as the
other parametric studies in this section.
The 0.0 minimum volume curve is an attempt to illustrate
what happens when, because it is a demonstrator, all
excess volume is eliminated and the equipment is
integrated without any room for growth. Instead of
helping, it detracts from the possible solution. If I fact the
Page 78

15% margin rule is enforced, then a low payload mass

demonstrator is eliminated from the available solution
space.
Clearly, a small size, near zero payload, full operational

mission demonstrator is marginal at best. A minimum
sized practical demonstrator with sufficient margin would
have a modest payload capability to also demonstrate
orbital payload handling, recover, and return. So it would
be a demonstrator with some capability to continue its
operational life.
Referring back to the figure below, the wing-body and

especially the waverider offer additional challenges to
achieve a demonstrator vehicle, as they are some 10%
and 24% below the material/structural industrial capability
without any margin considerations.
10000
WaveRider
9000
Wing-Body
Blended Body
8000
ICI = 11.7
tau = 0.063
7000
6000
Py = 15.0 t
Sp
5000
4000
tau = 0.20
3000
payload = 0.0 ton
2000
= 0.25 RCC
= 0.505
Circular Cone
1000
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
ICI
Page 79

Impact of Propulsion System Configuration

There is much controversy about the cost and weight of
airbreathing versus rocket engines.
If a launcher is developed to be a single- or few-use
vehicle, then there is no argument. A cheap rocket
(expendable) is best.
BUT, if you ever believe that flight to space will be other
than the one-time-use-vehicle-approach, then that may
not be the answer.
The difficulty in the answer is all in the assumptions.
At the 46th IAF Congress in Jerusalem in October 1994,

Ian Beckey stated that there is no need for any
airbreathers because the rocket is the ONLY propulsion
system without extra weight penalties.
If the investigator examines a combination of different
engine cycles to match the different speed regimes for a
limited use vehicle (1 to 10 flight per airframe) that will
usually be the case. However, if the investigator examines
a single combined cycle engine (RBCC) that can produce
the vehicle thrust to drag ratio of the rocket and the
specific impulse of an airbreather AND have sustained
use for several hundred flights per airframe, then that is
not the case.
Page 80

A single combined cycle engine (RBCC) that can produce

the vehicle thrust to drag ratio of the rocket and the
specific impulse of an airbreather is desired.
RBCCs have been investigated applied to both SSTO and
a TSTO vehicles by a number of authors, such a Rudakov
and Balepin.
With the RBCC propulsion system, the OEW (dry weight,
inert weight) is essentially constant at about 6 times the
payload up to a V airbreathing of 19,000 ft/sec (5.79
km/sec). Above that airbreathing speed increment, the
OEW increases to 7 to 8 times payload.
[This result was confirmed by Froning, Leingang and Nau as reported at
the 40 IAF Congress at Dresden, Germany. A combination of propulsion
systems that comprise a multi-engine cycle combined cycle propulsion
engine concept will not have this characteristic. These results are
somewhat academic as they represent an adherence to past techniques
and technology that is less than available with an integrated, single RBCC
propulsion concept.]
Again remember, these results are for continuous use

vehicle, not expendable nor refurbished reusable
vehicles. As a result, the dry weight payload fraction will
not be the same as for these latter vehicles.
Example: Depending on an individuals experience, these
next results may or may not be intuitive. They reflect the
solution space for a series of blended-body SSTO
launchers with a 20,947 lb (9.5 metric ton) payload
Page 81

powered by a series of RBCC power plants from all rocket

(V airbreathing = 0) to all airbreathing system
characteristic of Copper Canyon that is (V airbreathing =
25.6 kft/sec).
The solution map is presented below for a RBCC SSTO

propulsion concept that has different transition speeds.
V ab
(kft / sec)
15.4
5.50
tau = 0.14
Wstr / Swet (lbm / ft2)
5.00
0.12
12.0
18.8
6.42
22.2
0
0.11
0.104
0.09
4.50
0.075
4.00
25.6
0.063
3.50
3.00
2.50
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Sp Planform Area (ft 2)
8000
First, let us identify the extremes. The lowest margin is

the all-airbreather (red solid square). This nearly sent Bob
Williams into low earth orbit.
Page 82

Considering a 15% margin between the best of industry

and what will be realized in the actual vehicle, then the
threshold specific structural weight is Istr = 4.03 lbm/ft2.
That would eliminate the all airbreather as a viable option.
The greatest margin is airbreathing to 15,400 ft/sec (4.69
km/sec) as represented by the solid blue inverted triangle.
Note the reason for the emphasis on airbreathing to Mach
12.
The benefits derived by increasing the airbreathing speed
to 15,400 ft/sec are marginal at best. Considering the cost
in design, materials, and both ground and flight testing, it
just did not appear worth while in 1967, or 1970 or 1983.
In the 1960s, cross and down range were critical factors

to the USAF (not to NASA that always has maintained
high lift-to drag ratio is unaffordable and unnecessary).
Between = 0.14 and = 0.104 it is possible to leave any
arbitrary orbit in any orbital position and recover in the
Continental United States (CONUS) if the hypersonic lift
to drag ratio is 2.7 or greater.
The FDL-7, FDL-24C series and McDonnell Douglas Model
176 class of vehicles are capable of that level of
hypersonic lift to drag ratio. These results are very close
to the maximum that occurs at = 0.165.
Page 83

The all rocket, left-half solid diamond, fairs better than the
all airbreather, and is very similar to the airbreathing to
22.2 kft/sec (6.77 km/sec), right-half solid diamond.
Between the open square, airbreathing to 6.42 kft/sec
(1.96 km/sec) and airbreathing to 15.4 kft/sec all the other
RBCC airbreathing configurations lie. Airbreathing to 6.42
kft/sec (1.96 km/sec) is essentially an airbreathing rocket
approach characteristic of the British HOTOL by Alan
Bond, LACE concepts by Miki et.al. from Japan, and
Alexander Rudakovs and Vladimir Balepins fully
thermally integrated RBCC concept from Russia. It is
certainly one of the better ones of the minimum
airbreathing increment approaches.
A preliminary substitution of the ISAS expander cycle

rocket engine by N. Tantasugu and the Mitsubishi
developed LACE heat exchanger operating as a
pressurized LACE rocket put the Japanese airbreathing
rocket concept at a better performance compared to the
HOTOL propulsion concept.
The same LACE rocket concept was substituted for a
conventional topping cycle H2-O2 rocket on a Delta
Clipper like vehicle and first orally reported at the 1993
SAE Aerospace Atlantic Conference in Dayton and first
reported in print at the 1993 ISABE meeting.
The next figure shows the impact of LACE (liquid air cycle
engine) on Delta Clipper.
Page 84

The controversy over the empty weight of launch vehicles

can be very heated. Much of the differences are due to
apparently logical propulsion system assumptions
garnered from years of experience in conventional
aircraft. Many of the assumptions for fighter aircraft are
not logical for an SSTO or an acceleration-only aircraft
that streaks from zero to orbital speed in the space of
minutes.
All of the material in the preceding chapters shows a

general consistency in the magnitude of the empty weight
for all of the launchers analyzed or studies from other
references (such as Froning and Leingang).
Page 85

When all of the parametric data assembled for the AIAA

High Speed Propulsion text book chapter (Volume 165),
edited by Curran and Murthy, and the OEW were
compared, the deviations in the OEW were on the same
order of magnitude as the uncertainty in preliminary and
conceptual design methods, as shown in the next figure.
The next figure shows the dry weight variations with air
breathing speed increment are in the same order of
magnitude as the uncertainty of the dry weight.
Note that the ranking of the points is the same order as in
figure
V ab
(kft / sec)
15.4
5.50
tau = 0.14
Wstr / Swet (lbm / ft2)
5.00
0.12
12.0
18.8
6.42
22.2
0
0.11
0.104
0.09
4.50
0.075
4.00
25.6
0.063
3.50
3.00
2.50
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Sp Planform Area (ft2)
8000
200000
payload = 9.5 ton
Dry weight (OEW) lbm
12%
150000
mean
100000
V ab
15.4
12.0
18.8
22.2
6.42
0.0
25.6
50000
blended body
0
8
10
12
14
16
18
S = Swet / (VT)2/3
Page 86

Conical Body Advantages and Disadvantages

We have seen the advantages of the right circular cone in
terms of the industrial capability required as identified in
the previous sections.
Vehicles such as Delta Clipper are clearly shown to have

an advantage for the assumptions made including VTOL
operation.
The right circular cone characteristics, in aircraft terms
using the Kchemann
as a function of leading edge
sweep angel and cone half-angle are given as:
We have compared the relative terms of the different

configuration concepts. In this section we will look at the
actual weight differences between the blended body and
the right circular cone for two propulsion concepts.
These are the all rocket and an RBCC concept, the
airbreathing rocket (LACE or Deeply Cooled) to 6.42
kft/sec (1.96 km/sec). The latter could be a Rudakov and
Page 87

Balepin class of engine, a LACE rocket, or a subsonic

ejector ramjet.
The conical shape offers some reduction in the dry weight
over the blended body as shown below. We see that the
conical configuration concept offers much greater
structural weight margins at no penalty in dry weight.
200000
Dry weight (OEW)
lbm
blended body
0.063 tau 0.14
right circular cone

0.277 tau 0.483
V ab
150000
6.42
0.0
0.0
tau = 0.104
6.42
tau = 0.393/82
100000
payload = 9.5 ton

50000
2
Wstr / Swet
(lbm / ft2)
The partial airbreather has a higher dry weight than the all
rocket. However the difference in weight ratio reduces the
gross weight by almost 150 metric tons!
Page 88

Gross weight (TOGW)
lbm
blended body
0.063 tau 0.14
500
0.0
0.0
V ab
1000000
tau = 0.104
tau = 0.393/82
400
800000
6.42
6.42
right circular cone
0.277 tau 0.483
300
Gross weight (TOGW)
1200000
metric ton
The higher drag of the conical bodies offsets their lower

dry weight so that the gross weights are essentially equal
as shown in the figure below. As it can be seen, the
conical configuration has no penalty in TOGW.
600000
2
4
5
6
Wstr / Swet (lbm / ft 2)
As has been pointed out in previous section, there is no

materials/ structural/ manufacturing challenge for the
conical configurations in terms of industrial capability.
With even a 15% margin over the industry state-of-the-art,
there is ample margin to accommodate practical
fabrication.
Page 89

The size of a vehicle also determines the magnitude of the

surface temperatures.
Small vehicles and sub-scale hypersonic test vehicles

have more critical design conditions than the full scale
vehicle because the local heat transfer is higher.
The radiation equilibrium skin temperature is for the case

when the heat transferred from the boundary layer into
the vehicle skin is just equal to that radiated to space.
The statement for the input aerodynamic heat transfer
rate equal to the radiation heat transfer lost to space for a
space apparent temperature of 400 R is:
The geometric parameters in the above equations are

given below and were taken from WADC TR-59-610 by
Hankey, Neumann, and Flinn.
Example: For 0.5 feet from the nose on the full scale
vehicle, on the compression side, at 5 angle of attack, for
laminar boundary is 1,481F (805 C) and for the 1/3 scale
test vehicle at the same relative point, 1,741 F (949 C). If
the full scale vehicle is already on the limit, then the
demonstrator will exceed that limit.
Page 90

Small hypersonic gliders such as Hermes and HOPE, all

suffer from an increased heating over their larger
counterparts.
Clearly, the space launcher may be larger for the larger

hypersonic glider, but the minimum sized hypersonic
glider may indeed be the limiting technology hurdle, not
the launcher.
The ASSET vehicle avoided some of these pitfalls in that

it was essentially a nose segment of a full scale
hypersonic glider that could be stabilized in a hypersonic
glide.
Page 91

Size is not automatically an enabling technology in case

the conventional wisdom is applied - that smaller is
easier.
A full system engineering analysis is necessary as to the

size, shape and slenderness that is affordable.
Page 92


Convergence

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Convergence

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AE 5367

High-Speed Aircraft and Space Access

Dr. Bernd Chudoba

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

TECHNOLOGY MATURITY DETERMINATION

This evolved into the Industrial Capability Index (ICI) as a

hardware & technolog y

geometry & size

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

The next figure clearly shows that the enabling

Industrial capability index, ICI, equals technology

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

The technologies applicable to each side of the equation

The lower the technology in the materials and structures,

If Ip is determined from current hardware, then ICI can be

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

Given the SSME engine hardware as a reference, the Ip

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

As shown in the figure below, Equation 4.1 implies that

The greater the magnitude of ICI, the greater the

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

10 ICI of 37.6 5 m-1 (11.5 1.2 ft-1). With this latter

As previously stated, the index Ip is a function of

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

an HSCT (High-Speed Commercial Transport) problem,

When executed for the HSCT design space evaluation, the

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

tradition but fundamental physical relationships. As a

For slush hydrogen and the performance of

we have for the index Ip = 4.3 0.2. For sub-cooled

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

hydrogen and SSME engine class, the value of the index

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

Equation (4.1) can be mapped to show the available

It is important to recognize that it is the smaller vehicle

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

most costly and technically challenging vehicle is a small

Referring to the map of the design space for the blended

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

Brussels, focused on the maximum margin and minimum

The figure shows the map for the blended body

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

The slender configurations (small ) require the greatest

The VDK's sizing results are in the 8 to 10 metric ton

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

minutes) can be converged at values typically 1.0 lb/ft2

payload = 0.0 ton

Dr. B. Chudoba / UTA MAE / AVD Lab

Necessary Volume and Size for Design Convergence

Note the clear minimum technology advantage of the