Rana Dissertation 2017

A PROCESS DEVELOPMENT STUDY
DESIGNING
SPACE ACCESS
SYSTEMS
LOVENEESH RANA
SYNTHESIS METHODOLOGY FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF

FUTURE SPACE ACCESS SYSTEMS
LOVENEESH RANA
S PA C E A C C E S S S Y S T E M S D E S I G N
Synthesis Methodology Development for Conceptual Design of Future Space Access
Systems
August 2017
This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y O F A E R O S PA C E E N G I N E E R I N G
to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of
T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F T E X A S AT A R L I N G T O N
S PA C E A C C E S S S Y S T E M S D E S I G N
Loveneesh Rana
The following members of the Committee approve this

doctoral dissertation of Loveneesh Rana.
Chair
Bernd Chudoba, Ph.D.
Research advisor
Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
University of Texas at Arlington
Donald Wilson, Ph.D.

Susan Ferreira, Ph.D.

Department of Industrial, Manufacturing, & Systems Engineering
Dudley Smith, Ph.D.

Robert Taylor, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2017 Loveneesh Rana
all rights reserved

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Words are useless when it comes to thanking your creator, but I would
still take this formal opportunity to first and foremost acknowledge
Nisha Rana. I have known no greater human being, and understood
the meaning of selfless, unconditional love by only being your son.
And of course, the same goes for Satish Rana, my dad, the enabler and
provider for this amazing life I am so grateful to experience. Thank
you Sir for all your support and trust in my crazy dreams. Next, I
would like to acknowledge my younger sister, Shikha Rana, who is
already a better person than me, I bless you with my heart and soul.
You are awesome. Also endless thank yous to my all extended family
members and relatives who have loved me and showed me the value
to strive for others, special mention, the ’Noble’ Atesh Rana.
For the last five years, I have had the pleasure and honor of work-
ing alongside some of the smartest and most sincere people at the
AVD Laboratory. A very sincere Thank You to first Dr. Amit Oza,
Dr. Amen Omoragbon, and Dr. Lex Gonzalez for being the inspiring
engineer figures. I learned a great deal of aerospace from the 2 AM
discussions with you guys. Next, I would like to thank Dr. Mark Doug
Coley. You, my dear friend, represent to me all that is genuinely good
about Texas. I am glad to have had the chance to learn the meaning
of aerospace engineering alongside a gentleman like you at the AVD.
Further acknowledgments and gratitude to Dr. Eric Haney, Dr. Xiao
Peng, Vincent Rickets and other past members of the AVD lab with
whom I have had the privilege to share my work space and ideas. You
have all contributed to this dissertation in some manner that I cannot
directly quantify.
A very special Thank you goes to my dear friends and current AVD
colleagues Thomas McCall and James Haley. They both contributed
in this research directly as part of the conference publications that
will follow soon based on the work presented here. With the help
of both these fine gentlemen, I have been able to take on this huge
research task and develop some meaningful and practical conclusions.
The enormous amount of data generated during this research would
not have been possible without their cooperation. Also, Thank you to
David Woodward and Ian Maynard for the valuable reviews.
Finally, the most important person I would like to thank is my re-
search supervisor, Dr. Bernd Chudoba. Thank you Sir, for EVERY-
THING. I would not be the person and researcher I am today, had you
not given me the opportunity to join the elite group at the AVD. You
gave me a chance without any prior conditions, when I was a novice
in aerospace and guided me all along, stood by me in all the difficult
times and supported me in ideas, resources and motivation. I have
come to develop a attitude of respect for my work by only copying
you all these years. There are no further adjectives that I can think of,
to express my gratitude for you sir. So I humbly would just end with
a greeting in my language, “PRANAAM“1 1
pranaam;
- a respectful greeting made by
putting one’s palms together and often
touching the feet of the person greeted,
- the act of paying obeisance‘ to a
person, deity or entity.
ABSTRACT
The early Conceptual Design (CD) of a Space Access System (SAS)
is the most abstract, innovative, and technologically challenging phase
throughout the entire aerospace product development life-cycle. While
it is the most important life-cycle phase which influences around 80
percent of the overall life-cycle-cost, it is also the least understood de-
sign phase. The history of space access vehicle design provides numer-
ous examples of projects that failed due to lack of a proper technology-
hardware-mission assessment in the CD phase. The present disserta-
tion addresses this crucial phase and develops a prototype best prac-
tice solution process to advance the current state of the art of the CD
oriented vehicle design synthesis systems. The solution is a generic
process that can be applied to all categories of the SAS. The Vertical-
Takeoff Horizontal-Landing type SAS is selected as the demonstration
case-study for the solution process. The research provides a proof of
concept for how the proposed prototype solution process expands the
scope and application of current applications of the CD assessment
vertically across the SAS system‘s hierarchy and horizontally across
the life-cycle phases of the SAS.
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Table of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
List of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi
Chapter Page
1 Introduction & objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Space Access Systems - SAS 2
1.1.1 Background 2
1.1.2 Systems Perspective 3
1.2 Domain Specification 5
1.2.1 Application Domain - Conceptual Design Phase 5
1.2.2 SAS Domain: TSTO-VTHL 10
1.2.3 Scope and Hypothesis of the Dissertation 14
1.3 Research Outline 17
2 Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1 Literature Review Process 18
2.1.1 Methodology 19
2.1.2 JABREF Central Library 21
2.2 SAS Case-Study Review: TSTO-VTHL 22
2.2.1 Lifting Reentry Vehicles 23
2.2.2 Launch Vehicles (LV) 40
2.3 Review of Design Synthesis Methodologies 45
2.4 Research Hypothesis Justification and System
Specification 56
2.4.1 Commentary on the current CD capabilities and the
Scope to make an original research contribution: 57
2.4.2 System Specifications/Objectives: 59
3 Logical Solution Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

space access systems design ix
3.1 Identifying Top-Level System Modules 61

3.1.1 Data-Base Module : VTHLDB 61
3.1.2 Knowledge-Base Module : VTHLKB 63
3.1.3 Parametric Processing Module : VTHLPP 65
3.2 System Development Process 67
3.2.1 Mission Analysis 67
3.2.2 Technology Requirement 70
3.2.3 Hardware Selection 71
3.2.4 Cost-per-Performance Trade Space Screening 72
3.3 Complete Logical Solution Architecture 73
4 Physical Solution Architecture Implementation of the

SAS-GDSP for SAV at Hierarchy Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.1 SAV Case Study: LRV 75
4.1.1 LRV Classes 76
4.1.2 Overall LRV Design Trade Matrix 77
4.1.3 Application of DBMS in SAS-GDPS 79
4.1.4 LRV Case-Studies Selection 81
4.2 DBMS 81
4.2.1 DBMS System Overview 82
4.2.2 Execution of the DBMS to develop Customized
Sizing Codes 87
4.3 SAV Physical Solution Architecture 89
4.3.2 Technology Requirement 98
4.3.4 Cost/Performance 107
4.3.5 Software Implementation 110
4.4 SAS-GDSP Application Results 112
4.4.1 Verification Case: The Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar 112
4.4.2 Generic Case-1: The Lifting Bodies 120
4.4.3 Generic Case-2: The Wing Bodies 127
4.4.4 Summary 131
5 Physical Solution Architecture Implementation of the

SAS-GDSP for TSTO-VTHL at Hierarchy Level 1 . . . . . . 134
5.1 The VTHL Case-Study 134
5.1.1 Selection of the LV types 135
5.2 SAS-GDSP Methodology for Hierarchy Level-1: VTHL 137
5.2.2 Technology Requirements 139
5.2.4 Cost-per-Performance Solution Screening 141
5.3 Results 143
x loveneesh rana
5.3.1 LV-based VTHL systems comparison 143

5.3.2 Summary 144
6 Original Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Appendix
A LRV Case-Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
A.1 US LRV Case-Studies Assessment: Tsien SpacePlane -
SNC Dream Chaser 168
A.1.1 1950s: The X-20 Family 169
A.1.2 1960s: The Lifting Bodies 171
A.1.3 1970s - The Space Shuttle Decade 177
A.1.4 The LRV programs of 1980s 181
A.1.5 1990s: Reusable Launch Vehicles 182
A.1.6 Post 2000: The Dream Chaser 185
A.2 International LRV Case-Studies Assessment:
Silvervogel - IXV 186
A.2.1 European LRV Efforts 186
A.2.2 LRV Efforts in Japan 194
A.2.3 LRV Efforts in Soviet USSR 196
B Disciplinary Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

B.1 Geometry Methods 202
B.1.1 Geometry Calculation: X-20 Dyna-Soar 202
B.1.2 Geometry Calculation: Generic Lifting Body
Configuration using Hypersonic Convergence Relations204
B.1.3 Geometry Calculation: Generic OpenVSP Geometry
Method 207
B.2 Aerodynamic Methods 210
B.2.1 Subsonic Aerodynamic Analysis 210
B.2.2 Supersonic Aerodynamic Analysis 211
B.2.3 Hypersonic Aerodynamic Analysis 213
B.3 Propulsion Method 214
B.4 Weights and Volume Budget Estimates 217
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Primary SAS Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Various SAS Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 SAS: Systems View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 STS product hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.5 System elements composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.6 General Acquisition Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.7 General acquisition process in space industry . . . . . . 6
1.8 Spacecraft Life Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.9 CD assessment of multiple options . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.10 CD information and knowledge characteristics . . . . . . 8
1.11 SAS top three hierarchy levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.12 MDA tools evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.13 CD characteristics and significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.14 Examples of VTHL type SAS designs explored under
historical programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.15 Evolution of entry vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.16 TSTO-VTHL SAS: Top-Level systems definition. . . . . . 15
1.17 SAS-GDPS primary benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.18 Design options growth with system hierarchy . . . . . . 16
2.1 Chapter-2 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.2 Data and Knowledge definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3 JabRef Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4 JabRef Central Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.5 LRV programs of the early 1950s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.6 Hypersonic historiography sources application . . . . . . 26
2.7 Project-Level criteria definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.8 AHP criteria weights development process . . . . . . . . 32
2.9 AHP scores visual potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.10 US based LRV programs AHP scores . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.11 International LRV programs AHP scores . . . . . . . . . 35
2.12 Evolution of LRV programs in the USA. . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.13 Evolution of LRV programs in Europe. . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.14 Evolution of LTV programs in Soviet Union and Russia. 39
2.15 CD assessment criteria for LRV case-studies . . . . . . . 40
2.16 CD assessment results for the US based case-studies. . . 41
xii loveneesh rana
2.17 Significant examples of LVs from the early days of the

space industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.18 Types of LV considered as various combination of
constituent stages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.19 Example Launch vehicle design process . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.20 Comparisons between the aircraft and spacecraft domains 46
2.21 Hypersonic Vehicle characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.22 Fundamental AVDSizing logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.23 System capability criteria definition . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.24 Data management criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.25 SAS-GDSP primary advantage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.1 Chapter-3 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

3.2 Application of KB system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3 Top level Systems Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.4 System Development Processes as building blocks of
Logical Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.5 Mission Analysis as precursor to CD . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.6 System Development Process: Mission Analysis . . . . . 69
3.7 Trajectory options for a SAS mission . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.8 System Development Process: Technology Requirements 71
3.9 System Development Process: Hardware Selection . . . . 72
3.10 System Modules breakdown in SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.11 Overall Logical Solution Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.1 Three primary types of the LRV configurations. . . . . . 76

4.2 Complete overall trade-matrix showing primary and
secondary trades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.3 DBMS application for SAS-GDSP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.4 DBMS Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.5 Primary top-level components of a Complex
MultiDisciplinary System (CMDS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.6 Reference Input form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.7 Variable Input form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.8 Input tree structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.9 DBMS Product concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.10 DBMS Product implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.11 DBMS Analysis Process concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.12 DBMS Analysis Process implementation . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.13 DBMS Methods concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.14 DBMS Methods implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.15 Execution process flow in the DBMS. . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.16 DBMS Architecture Systems Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.17 Reentry mission phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
space access systems design xiii
4.18 Reentry profile trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

4.19 Case-Studies mission profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.20 Vehicle slenderness parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.21 Geometric parametric relations for lifting bodies
cross-section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.22 Generation of geometric data with the OpenVSP analysis. 101
4.23 Creation of MATLAB lookup tables using aerodynamic
data graphs for aerodynamic methods. . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.24 Weight and Volume budget equations . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.25 Objective Function Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.26 Fundamental logic AVDSIZING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.27 SAS-GDSP Software Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.28 Dyna-Soar Program phases and Vehicle Layout . . . . . 113
4.29 X-20 Sizing Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.30 X-20 Single point convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.31 X-20 system architecture variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.32 X-20 Mutli-point design solution space. . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.33 X-20 design solution space constraints implementation . 120
4.34 Complete overall trade-matrix showing primary and
secondary trades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.35 Parametric variations in generic lifting body
configurations and development of specific geometry
profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.36 Fundamental logic of the sizing methodology executed
in AVDLB MDA framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.37 Results Visual showing measuring variables. . . . . . . . 126
4.38 Parametric variations in generic lifting body
configurations and development of specific geometry
profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.39 LB case-study overall solution continuum . . . . . . . . . 128
4.40 WB Configuration profiles created using OpenVSP . . . 129
4.41 WB solution space for Geometry profile-2 . . . . . . . . . 131
4.42 Overall WB solution space continuum of 540 vehicles . 132
5.1 Primary LV Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

5.2 Selected LV case-studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.3 Implementing LV Constraints on the LRV solution space 146
5.4 PRLV Based VTHL Solution space . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
5.5 PRLV Based VTHL Solution space . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
5.6 ELV Based VTHL Solution space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
A.1 Legend for reading the AHP model scores and LRV
evolution plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
A.2 1950s: LRV Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
xiv loveneesh rana
A.3 1950s: AHP Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

A.4 1960s: LRV Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
A.5 Concepts studied under RRTOCV program . . . . . . . . 172
A.6 NASA lifting bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
A.7 FDL Lifting Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
A.8 ILRV Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
A.9 1960s: AHP Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
A.10 1970s: LRV Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
A.11 1970s: AHP Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
A.12 1980s Onwards: LRV Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
A.13 NASA RLV technology program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
A.14 1980s Onwards: AHP Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
A.15 US-based LRV Programs Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
A.16 European LRV Programs Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
A.17 German & British LRV Programs: AHP Evaluation . . . 190
A.18 FESTIP Concept Studies and Final Selection . . . . . . . 191
A.19 ESA LRV Programs: AHP Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 193
A.20 HOPE-X Program from Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
A.21 Japan LRV Efforts under HOPE Program . . . . . . . . . 195
A.22 USSR/Russian LRV Programs Evolution . . . . . . . . . 198
A.23 ORYOL program concepts selected for comparison
with FESTIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
A.24 Soviet/Russian LRV Programs: AHP Evaluation . . . . . 201
L I S T O F TA B L E S
1.1 SAS hierarchy levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 List of Vehicles Surveyed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.2 Case-Studies Scoring Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3 Evolution of synthesis systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.4 Class IV design synthesis systems. Highlighted
systems show partial applicability towards VTHL SAS . 49
3.1 Physical Characteristics Data Sets of legacy LRV

vehicles created through VTHLDB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.1 Aerodynamic methods primary parametric relationships. 102

4.2 Deck of liquid rocket engines created to be used as a
quick switch method with standard textbook
propulsion analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.3 Summary of methods used in the X-20 MDA . . . . . . . 116
4.4 Summary of methods used in the X-20 MDA . . . . . . . 123
4.5 Overall Trade space description of the 636 converged
design solutions for the generic LB case-study. . . . . . . 125
4.6 Different trade studies investigated . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
N O M E N C L AT U R E
Abbreviations
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
AVD Aerospace Vehicle Design Laboratory
BB Blended Body
CD Conceptual Design
CER Cost estimating relationship
DB Data Base
DBMS Data Base Management System
DD Detailed Design
GDSP Generic Design Synthesis Process
KB Knowledge Base
LB Lifting Body
LEO Low Earth Orbit
LRV Lifting Reentry Vehicle
LV Launch Vehicle
MDA Multi-Disciplinary Analysis
PD Preliminary Design
PP Parametric Process
RFP Request for Proposal
RV Reentry Vehicle
SAS Space Access System
SAS-GDSP Space Access System-Generic Design Synthesis Process
SAV Space Access Vehicle
SDP System Development Process

space access systems design xvii
SM System Module
SPG Space Planners Guide
SSTO Single Stage To Orbit
STS Space Transportation System aka The US Space Shuttle
TSTO Two Stage To Orbit
VTHL Vertical Takeoff Horizontal Landing
WB Wing Body
Variables
f0 TransCost systems engineering and integration factor
f1 TransCost technical development standard correlation factor
f2 TransCost technical quality correlation factor
f3 TransCost team experience factor
f4 TransCost cost reduction factor from Learning factor
f6 TransCost cost growth factor for schedule deviation
f7 TransCost parallel organization factor
f8 TransCost country productivity factor
f 10 TransCost technology progress cost reduction factor
f 11 TransCost commercial cost reduction factor
Alte reentry altitude
g Earth’s gravitational constant
h altitude
Isp Specific impulse
L/D Lift-to-drag ratio
rs orbital altitude of the circular satellite
ro local radius of curvature
V1 velocity after deorbit maneuver
Ve reentry velocity
Veq velocity during equilibrium glide phase

xviii loveneesh rana
Vi instantaneous deorbit velocity decrement
Vs orbital velocity of the circular satellite
Greek letters
β ballistic coefficient
η lift loading coefficient or vehicle parameter
γe reentry flight path angle
γ1 flight path angle after deorbit maneuver
ρ atmospheric density
σ bank angle
τ Küchemann‘s slenderness parameter

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES
"Once you make it to Low Earth orbit, you are halfway to anywhere." 1 1
Robert A. Heinlein
One of the "Big Three" of science
fiction authors along with Isaac Asimov,
and Arthur C. Clarke. He is also known
as "Dean of science fiction writers".
Prospects for the space industry look brightest now in the form of a
second revolution, a private one, that is based on profit and commer-
cial success. Recent developments in the space community are seen all
around the planet, as national space agencies and private companies
are working on plans to establish a long-term human presence on the
Moon and Mars. Amid this excitement of reaching to other heavenly
bodies, we easily tend to forget that all those "Highways To Space"
lead through the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) check point.
Developing a reusable, cheap, and regular LEO access capability
is crucial to establish a sustained human presence in space. In this
context, the biggest roadblock that the space industry has faced is the
"cheap and reusable" part. In order to develop such a capability, it 2
“If one can figure out how to effectively
would then be a key requirement to parallel the flight frequency and reuse rockets just like airplanes, the cost of
access to space will be reduced by as much
operational easiness of the commercial airline industry.2 In contrast, as a factor of a hundred. A fully reusable
the space industry has not yet been able to develop a fully reusable vehicle has never been done before. That
really is the fundamental breakthrough
airplane-like Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) aerospaceplane. Conse- needed to revolutionize access to space.“
quently, the traditional Space Access System (SAS) has evolved as a - Elon Musk,
complex system of systems, made up of multiple Space Access Vehi- Founder, CEO, and CTO, SpaceX
cles (SAV), usually, a Launch Vehicle (LV) and a Reentry Vehicle (RV).
The traditional LVs have been the expandable rockets that are used
once for a mission and the majority RVs have been the ballistic type
bi-conical capsules that perform a soft landing at a pre-selected site.
Both designs are cost and operations inefficient. This scenario emerges
as a bottleneck in the growth of the industry.
Particularly, the commercial space industry has shaped to be a non-
mature industry demanding new paradigms and approaches in the
conventional processes of designing and developing future genera-
tions of SAS. It then becomes necessary to examine the current state-
of-the-art in the spacecraft design domain and develop required capa-
bilities to meet the challenges faced in current times. This hypothesis
is the baseline motivation for the current research study.
2 loveneesh rana
TAKE OFF LANDING

F I G U R E 1.1 –
Primary SAS Categories
3
HTHL: Horizontal Takeoff Horizontal
Landing
HTVL: Horizontal Takeoff Vertical
Landing
VTHL: Vertical Takeoff Horizontal
Landing
Vertical VTVL: Vertical Takeoff Vertical Land-
Takeoff ing
Vertical Horizontal
Landing Landing
Horizontal
Takeoff
SAS Primary Categories

VTVL VTHL HTVL HTHL
1.1 Space Access Systems - SAS
1.1.1 Background
The Space Access System is the primary enabling requirement for the
space industry. A SAS is composed of two primary elements; 1) a
launch element, which is used to boost the payload to the orbit and,
2) a reentry element, the part that returns back to the surface. On this
basis, four primary categories3 can be defined as seen in Figure 1.1.
Each of these categories can then have numerous variations depend-
ing on the specific mission of the vehicle. Further classifications of
SAS are added depending on other factors like number of stages, pay-
load capacity, et al. These factors are influenced by the configuration
of the SAS, which in turn depends on the constituting SAVs (LV and
RV). Since there are several types of launch vehicles and reentry ve-
F I G U R E 1.2 –
hicles, multiple SAS configurations are possible within each category.
Various SAS Configurations
Most of these configurations have been conceptually studied by vari-
ous organizations and industry alike. Figure 1.2 shows some distinct
SAS configuration concepts. The history of space vehicle design is
filled with numerous programs undertaken by leading space agencies 4
Major canceled programs with the primary
and organizations all around the planet, aimed at developing a fully- target to develop a fully reusable SAS:
reusable SAS4 . Sadly, most of those programs were failed attempts ∠ Soviet - SPIRAL(1976), MAKS(1988).
costing billions of dollars of investment for the stakeholders. In-light- ∠ British - HOTOL(1982).
of these facts, it is necessary to consider why the path to reusability ∠ USA - NASP X-30(1985), X-33
VentureStar(1994), DC-X(1991).
is that challenging? In order to realistically answer this question, it is
necessary to first understand the SAS as a generic system.
space access systems design 3
1.1.2 Systems Perspective

“A system is an open set of complementary, interacting parts with prop-
erties, capabilities and behaviors emerging from the parts and from their
interactions...The properties, capabilities, and behaviors of a system de- 5
Derek Hitchins
rive from its parts, from interactions between those parts, and from in- Advanced Systems Thinking.
teractions with other systems...Altering the properties, capabilities, or Engineering, and Management,
Artech House, 2003.
behavior of any of the parts, or any of their interactions, affects other
parts, the whole system, and interacting systems.“ 5
In this capacity, Systems Engineering is a discipline that concentrates

on the design and application of the whole(system) as distinct from SPACE ACCESS SYSTEM
the parts. It involves looking at a problem in its entirety, taking into REENTRY
account all the facets and all the variables. VEHICLE (RV)
SAS too, are complex systems that are comprised of several special-
ized parts assembled together to serve a common purpose. The system
itself is greater than the sum of the constituent parts combined. The
emergent properties inherent to the system are not associated to any
one part, but instead, due to interactions between those sub-systems.
Thus, it becomes important to identify a hierarchy within the sys-
tem to identify different levels of interactions among elements of the
LAUNCH
same class. An example of such a system hierarchy is the product VEHICLE (LV)
hierarchy for STS shown in Figure 1.4 taken from NASA Systems En-
gineering Handbook[1]. This research adopts a more generic form
of system hierarchy as defined by Hammond[2]. Table 1.1 lists the F I G U R E 1.3 –
system’s hierarchy consisting of six levels of hierarchy elements. The SAS: Systems View
last column shows analogy for the SAS for every element category.
The definition of constituent hierarchy elements establishes distinct
vertical-levels of elements with reference to the overall systems level
(SAS). It should be noted that in this hierarchy definition, a LV and a
RV fall under the generic category of a SAV as both vehicles access the
space environment (and hence are classified as Space Access Vehicle -
SAV). Based on this hierarchy definition, the following characteristics 6
These characteristics are discussed in
are observed6 : further detail in Sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.3
F I G U R E 1.4 –
STS product hierarchy from
NASA Systems Engineering
Handbook[1]
4 loveneesh rana
Level Element Definition SAS-Representatives

1 System Set of interrelated entities working together as a whole to SAS
achieve a common purpose
2 Major Element Grouping of closely ralated subsystems, often having a SAV (LV, RV), External Tank
physical interface
3 Subsystem Functional grouping of components that perform a major Rocket motor, TPS et al
function within a major element
4 Component Functional unit that may be viewed as an entity for purpose Turbopump
of analysis, manufacture, testing, and record keeping
5 Subassembly Stockable unit consisting of two or more parts that may be Printed Circuit Board(PCB)
disassembled for parts replacement
6 Part Single unit not normally subject to disassembly without Integrated circuit(IC)
destruction
T A B L E 1.1 –
1. Decisions regarding higher hierarchy levels have a greater impact System hierarchy adopted from
on the overall system. For example, the decisions taken at hierarchy Hammond[2] and SAS
level-3 (Subsystem) for SAS pertains to selection of rocket motors Counterpart for each level.
(propulsion discipline) and would have a greater impact on overall
SAS configuration as compared with decisions taken for hierarchy
level-6 (Parts) which is the selection of integrated circuits etc.
2. Several elements of same hierarchy level integrate7 together to form

one element of the next level from bottom to top. Since there can
be various combinations possible for elements at each level, trade 7
Integration implies that the elements
studies are conducted to find the best-fit combination depending of same same hierarchy level are
physically and operationally compatible
on mission requirements, see Figure 1.5. with each other.
3. Design occurs from top to down in the hierarchy, and hence im-
pact of integration effects decrease with each hierarchy level. While
System Element (SE)
designing a complex system like a SAS, integration at a higher hi-
erarchy level is satisfied before establishing integration at the next
lower level. The integration of LV and RV (both belong to hierar-
chy level 2) is crucial and important over the integration of several
electrical components (belonging to hierarchy level 5).
4. Information quantity increases down the hierarchy chain as the

system design progresses, while the information impact reduces. F I G U R E 1.5 –
During initial design phases, information availability is restricted to System Element composed of
higher hierarchy levels. During the early design phases, informa- lower-level System Elements[3]
tion available is limited to subsystems like propulsion, structures et
al, while no information is available for the parts like integration
circuits etc., nor is it required. As the design progresses into ad-
vanced design and fabrication phases, the detailed information is
made available for specific parts but it has a negligible impact on
the overall design of the SAS at this point.
These primary tenets of system hierarchy play crucial role in the de-
sign and development process of SAS as discussed in the following
section.
1.2 Domain Specification
This section establishes the research application domain and selects

the SAS-type domain as the reference case-study in the first two sub-
sections. The last sub-section addresses the scope of the problem.
1.2.1 Application Domain - Conceptual Design Phase

A technological product is developed to fulfill a specific purpose which 8
“The mission objectives are imposed on
defines its physical and operational characteristics. Likewise, a SAS is the system by the customer, or user of
the data. They are statements of the aims
developed to provide transportation capability in the extremely harsh of the mission, are qualitative in nature
environment of space. This represent the primary requirement of the and should be general enough to remain
virtually unchanged during the design
SAS design, which then leads to further detailed mission-specific re- process. It is these fundamental objectives
quirements defined on the needs of the customer.8 These requirements that must be fulfilled as the design evolves.“
are inherently tied to the design process of the SAS as shown in fol- - Peter Fortescue(Spacecraft Systems
Engineering)[4]
lowing discussion.
∠ Acquisition and Product Development: The traditional landscape

of the space industry has been such that the government agencies
(NASA, USAF, ESA, etc) have been the primary operator whereas the
role of commercial organizations (Lockheed, Boeing etc) have been
limited to design, development, and manufacturing of SAS in gen- NASA Needs
eral. The process followed by a government agency to acquire a SAS

Request for Proposal
from a commercial entity is termed as the acquisition process. Tom
Benson of the NASA Glenn Research Center provides a simplified di- Boeing .. Lockheed .. Northrop-Grumman
agram outlining the typical acquisition process prevalent in aerospace
Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft
industry[5], see Figure 1.6. Benson states, “The user has some need for an
Compete
aircraft and a mission that the aircraft is to perform. The needs are determined
Winning Design
by the user and the user defines his needs in a Request for Proposal (RFP).
Contract for Production
The RFP is a document that spells out what the aircraft must do. The user
publishes this document and the various suppliers must make a determination F I G U R E 1.6 –
if they can design an aircraft which meets the needs of the user....the supplier Acquisition Process in
proposes a new design to the user based on results from the research groups.“ Aerospace, by Benson[5]
It must be noted here that acquisition process is outlined from the
user’s9 perspective and is important to understand as it is inherently
connected with the product development process. The acquisition
process in the space industry is visualized in Figure 1.7 based on a 9
user is the stakeholder acquiring a
hypothetical scenario where NASA as customer releases a RFP de- service or a product
manding a new launch platform. Major competitors from industry

like ULA, BlueOrigin, SpaceX etc submit their individual designs to-
6 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E 1.7 –
wards the RFP where SpaceX wins the contract and signs agreement General acquisition process in
to develop the product demanded by NASA. In this scenario, the first space industry
design concepts of the product is done in-house at the competing or-
ganizations. This first step in the product development process is the
gestation phase of the design concepts and is referred as Phase-A or
Conceptual Design.
The generic view of life cycle of a spacecraft project identifying ma-
jor chronological phases is shown in Figure 1.8. The mission require-
ments are the first sets of inputs feeding directly to the Conceptual
Design(CD), followed by Preliminary Design(PD) and Detailed De-
sign(DD) phases. The conceptual design phase is selected as the
application domain for this dissertation because it has the greatest
impact on the end product, as explained next.
∠ Role of CD phase in SAS Development Process: Mission objectives

are primary requirements and constraints defined by the user or cus-
tomer in the RFP for a vehicle. In other words, the objectives are fun-
damental demands for the vehicle and are defined before a vehicle
exists to meet those demands. The design of any product begins with
these non-tangible demands as the first set of inputs. The conceptual
design phase is the first step in the design cycle where a physical,
tangible system is defined in response to non-tangible demands for F I G U R E 1.8 –
Spacecraft Life Cycle. Modified
from Brown[6]
CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY DETAIL
DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS
Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E

MISSION
Pre-Design Definition Design Development Operations
PDR CDR FRR EOM

Concepts, Analysis, Trade Studies
Design Launch
Pre Drawings
PDR = Preliminary Design Review
CDR = Critical Design Review Fabrication
FRR = Flight Readiness Review
EOM = End of Mission Assembly, Test
& Launch Ops Mission Ops
the product. This abstract task of developing a physical, tangible sys-

tem concept from non-tangible requirements is usually addressed by 10
see acquisition process in Figure 1.7
the advanced design team of the competing organizations 10 . Since,
the first concept definition occurs in-house of every competing orga-
nizations, the details of the processes applied by the advanced design 11
“Design synthesis systems are the heart
teams are company proprietary trade-secrets and are rarely available of aerospace vehicle design organizations
(Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, etc).
in the public domain11 . The development of a synthesis system is a
The system design concepts defined at the CD phase must fulfill demanding task and requires large research
activities."
the following basic conditions before being further investigated and - Huang[7]
refined in PD and DD:
- Physically and technologically feasible system,
- Meets primary mission objectives,
- Successful business case solution.
Since a SAS is a system combination of vehicle configuration and

hardware technologies, there can be multiple concepts that can effec-
tively meet these three requirements. The goal of the CD phase is Baseline / Feasibility
Synthesis
Design
to assess the various combinations of vehicle hardware configuration
Conceptual
and technologies for the given mission objectives. The design concepts Design
that satisfy the technical and business case feasibility are then evalu-
ated further in PD and DD phases, see Figure 1.9. A design specialist Synthesis
must be able to forecast the impact and benefits of new technologies

Preliminary
in an integrated holistic vehicle system environment during this early Design
design phase. Synthesis
The CD phase assessment requires screening through a number Detail Design

of design concepts rapidly to identify the best mission-configuration-
technology combination for the given requirements. This insight and
Based on W. Heinze
information is of critical value during the conceptual design phase

where the chief decision maker needs to be most informed about the F I G U R E 1.9 –
potential advantages and risks within the available solution space, thus CD phase assesses multiple
it does enable him to choose the best design concept to be further in- vehicle concepts to identify
vestigated. Mismatching technology requirements to the technology optimum mission-
available (industry capability) leads to significant cost and schedule configuration-technology
overruns. Failure to forecast those interrelationships is a problem dur- combination. Reproduced from
ing the early design phase, which is a primary reason why many past Heinze[8]
space access projects have been canceled over the years. The brief his-
tory of space access since the launch of the space age in 1957 contains
numerous failed programs which could have been avoided with better-
quality planning during the initial product gestation phase, overall
leading to correct decisions during the early conceptual design phase.
∠ Significance and Characteristics of CD: It is no surprise that the

early conceptual design of a space launch system is considered the
8 loveneesh rana
• •
F I G U R E 1.10 –
I
I
Design Freedom vs Knowledge
I
I I
I
I
1
available. Reproduced from
Freedom."Scarce
Environment Haney[10]
Development
Life-Cycle
Requirements Conceptual Detailed Flight Test I
Operations
Definition Design Design Certification
Input Incomplete information
Process Systems Forecasting t t t
Output Cost, benefit & risk
most abstract, innovative, and technologically challenging phase through-

out the entire aerospace product development life-cycle. Chudoba
notes, “the general life-cycle characteristics are established first during the
conceptual design (CD) phase, clearly before a design proposal can be released
to the follow-on design phases such as preliminary design (PD), detail design
(DD), flight test (FT), and finally operation and disposal. CD is one of the
most crucial life-cycle stages for a space program as the majority of the im-
portant decisions are locked down during this very development phase. As a
rule of thumb, it can be assumed that around 80% of the flight vehicle con-
figuration and mission tandem are determined during the CD phase alone,
which is the key phase where the initial brainstorming has to take place."[9]
It is the design decision-making during the CD phase that defines the
mission-configuration-technology combination towards either a suc-
cessfully implemented product responding to a correctly determined
profitable business case or a failure with potentially detrimental re-
sults.
Since the vehicle does not yet exist at the beginning of the CD
phase, minimum design data/knowledge is available whilst the free-
dom to change the design is maximum for the very same reason.
Consequently the cost to make a design change at this stage is min-
imum as the design-configuration is not yet locked and the changes
made are still cheap during the simulation phase. Figure 1.10 shows
the information-scarce and maximum design-freedom aspects of CD
phase. As the development process moves into the PD and DD phases,
the design freedom reduces as each decision taken restricts the overall
design freedom. At the same time, the knowledge about the product
increases as more specific and detailed decisions are made. This as-
pect is first discussed in observations made regarding the tenets of the
system hierarchy definition, leading to the conclusion that a system is
designed from top-down in hierarchy level. An alternate interpreta-
tion of this feature is that as the design moves from CD to DD, more
information is made available for the lower hierarchy elements, but
since the design freedom is now significantly reduced (as the design
is locked), this information has the least effect on the overall system 12
see Table 1.1 and related discussion of
design.12 . hierarchy levels in Section 1.1.2
An important characteristic trait of CD (owing to the information-

scarce environment) is that at this stage only the primary design drivers
are considered that have the maximum influence on the overall de-
sign. In context of the system hierarchy elements defined in Section
1.1.2 only the top three hierarchy levels are examined during the CD
assessment, leading to overall systems feasibility establishment. As
shown in Figure 1.11, the overall SAS design (hierarchy level-1) would
be most affected by the choice of LV and RV elements (SAV at hi-
erarchy level-2) which themselves are based on the combination of
their constituting subsystems like the propulsion system and geome-
try shape selection etc (Subsystems at hierarchy level-3). This aspect
is also addressed while discussing the tenets of the system hierarchy.
Furthermore, since the CD phase does assess the technological feasi-
bility of the design solution-space considering top hierarchy levels, the
method of the assessment has to take into account the analyses of in-
dividual subsystems at hierarchy level-3 and their integration to give
various options for elements at hierarchy level-2. The subsystem are
representative of the classical aerospace disciplines like aerodynamics,
stability and control, propulsion etc, while their integration into a SAV
is mathematically established by multi-disciplinary design integration
processes. The methodology to integrate the disciplinary analysis (rep-
resenting the subsystems of a SAV) in a mathematical framework is F I G U R E 1.11 –
referred as a synthesis framework.13 Top three hierarchy levels of
A key feature of the CD phase is that the integration process and SAS constitute of the primary
disciplinary methods implemented during the CD are focused on the design drivers during the CD
highest-of-important design variables. In other words, the primary phase.
concern during CD phase is to know what variable would result in the
largest change in design. Hence, the emphasis during CD assessment 13
Synthesis methodology is addressed
is on the high-degree-of-correctness and multidisciplinary-integration in detail in Section 2.3
rather than high-degree-of-accuracy and disciplinary-specific. To this

effect, the use of high-fidelity disciplinary methods is not plausible for
the CD phase, nor is it advised, as high-fidelity methods do require 14
Complexity of CD phase:
more information than what is typically known during the early CD A simple hypothetical scenario shows
the complexity of a CD assessment
phase. Then, the simpler analysis methods are preferred during the level where if only primary five design
CD phase which take into account only the primary design drivers, disciplines are considered (geometry,
aerodynamics, propulsion, trajectory
require minimum input data, allow to measure the maximum change and weights) and a first-order analysis
on system design, and can be iterated rapidly to produce a design method is used for each just calculating
solution space which is then assessed for mission-feasible concepts.14 two most important parameters for
each disciplines. Then, the integrating
Ironically, despite the critical nature of the CD phase, this early MDA framework is solving for ten vari-
phase is less understood as compared to any of the later design phases. ables, when practically no information
is available for any discipline since the
A primary reason for this trend is seen by observing the history and vehicle and its subsystems do not yet
exist.
10 loveneesh rana
evolution of computing power along with growth of space industry.

The discipline specific higher-fidelity tools require greater input data
and thus demand higher computation capability (eg CFD analysis).
With the advent of computers, as the computational power grew, it was
applied primarily towards developing higher accuracy disciplinary
toolsets ignoring the overall system integration mindset of the multi-
disciplinary sciences. Amit Oza[11] demonstrates in Figure 1.12 how
the evolution of disciplinary-specific toolsets from the 1970s gained
preference with increased computation capability as the system inte-
gration capability was neglected.
F I G U R E 1.12 –
Product Development Tool
Multidisciplinary Data
Integration and Accuracy.
Reproduced from Oza[11]
Given the significance of the CD phase in SAS development, it is

thus critical to improve the current state of the art of capability im-
plemented for this gestation design phase. This research study does
focus on advancing the CD capability as applicable for the design of
the future generations of SAS. Figure 1.13 provides a visual summary
of characteristics, significance and current standing of the CD phase
and its interaction with SAS system hierarchy elements.
1.2.2 SAS Domain: TSTO-VTHL

The four categories15 of SAS defined in Section 1.1.1 considers only
launch and reentry aspects of the system. The classification scheme
can be further expanded when the number-of-stages attribute is also 15
HTHL: Horizontal Takeoff Horizontal
taken into account. For example, a VTHL category of SAS can have Landing
HTVL: Horizontal Takeoff Vertical
several design concepts options with different number and types of Landing
stages, and different modes of mission operations. Figure 1.14 shows VTHL: Vertical Takeoff Horizontal
Landing
various VTHL configurations studied in past projects. A typical space VTVL: Vertical Takeoff Vertical Land-
mission can be divided into three phases of operations, namely: take- ing
off, mission-operation, landing. Specific combinations of these phases
give a distinct SAS concept. One example of a SAS concept can be:
vertical takeoff, two-stage to orbit, vertical landing system or a TSTO-
VTVL (eg. Titan III with Gemini reentry vehicle). Similarly, another
MIN Information Quantity (Knowledge about overall system) MAX

F I G U R E 1.13 –
Consideration MAX Information Quality (Influence on overall system) MIN Conceptual design
characteristics and significance
Hierarchy
Important Hierarchy Elements for SAS system hierarchy

System
SAS SAV Subsytems Components Subassembly Parts elements.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Design Design
Freedom Information
Information-Scarce Freedom-Scarce
Environment Environment
Multi-Disciplinary
Connectedness
Accuracy
Fidelity
CD PD DD MF
• Generates and assess initial • Requires an Initial Concept
Concepts • Well Understood
• Less Understood • Advanced processes and
• Simplified analysis methods available
example can be a vertical take-off, two-stage, point-to-point, horizontal

landing system TS-PTP-VTHL (eg. DLR SL7). A SSTO-HTHL system
would then represent the ideal, fully reusable aerospace plane type
SAS configuration that still remains elusive.
The horizontal launch capability is desirable to furnish the airplane’s 16
RTTOCV and ILRV program concepts
easiness to board the spacecraft and takeoff from a runway. Several (1960s,USA), Junkers RT-8 (1960s,
Germany), SPIRAL program (1960s,
programs16 in the past have tried to use a horizontal takeoff first stage USSR), ALSV concepts (1970s,USA),
launch vehicle, but no operational vehicle was developed. This ca- TAV concepts (1980s, USA), Sanger-II
(a980s, Germany), ESA FESTIP concepts
pability is difficult to achieve (limited by the technology) as the state (1990s Europe), ORYOL concepts
of art propulsion systems are not sufficient to provide the energy re- (1990s, Russia)[12]
quired to escape the Earth’s gravity-well.
In lack of the horizontal launch options, vertical takeoff rocket boost-
ers have been the primary means to access space. Traditional vertical
launch rocket systems are expandable multi-stage systems which are
12 loveneesh rana
discarded after a single use, leading to the high costs of space access.
Several past programs 17 unsuccessfully tried to develop reusable ver-
tical takeoff launch vehicles, but it wasn’t until recently that the com- Phillip Bono’s OOST and ROM-
17
mercial company like SpaceX has been able to successfully reuse just BUS (1960s concepts), Kraft Ehricke’s
NEXUS (1960s concept), McDonnel
the first stage of a vertical launch rocket booster. Even though this Douglas’s DC-X (1991-1993), Lockheed
represents only partial system reusability, SpaceX has shown it to be Martin’s VentureStar (1995-2001)[12]
an economically successful option by providing launch services at sig-
nificant lower prices compared to the established industry players[13].
Additionally, Livingston[14], Andrews et al[15] and Diessel et al[16]
in the past studies provide comparative assessments of horizontal and
vertical launch modes showing that the vertical launch mode is the
preferred mode considering near-term launch capability. Dissel con-
cludes,“if a near-term launch capability is desired, the fully reusable
TSTO rockets are close competitors with the airbreathing vehicles and
are the next logical improvement over current rocket launch systems."[16]
When discussing the reentry segment of the SAV, traditional method
has been to use a ballistic steep reentry vehicle such as Gemini, Mer-
cury, Apollo etc. These vehicles are the first generation of reentry
designs with very low performance capability, essentially falling back
to the surface and using parachutes to execute a landing on water or
land. As a result, ballistic reentry vehicles experience very high heat-
flux and reentry loads and require a heavy ablative heat shield for their
thermal protection system. Due to a low hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio,
the capsule has a very small landing footprint, which severely restricts
the deorbit window and in-space mission capability. Despite the low
performance and limited mission capability, the ballistic vehicle still
represents a simpler design that is easier to manufacture and integrate
with the traditional launch vehicles.
On the other hand, horizontal landing SAVs offer considerable mis- F I G U R E 1.14 –
sion, operations and cost advantages over the ballistic counterpart. Examples of VTHL type SAS
designs explored under
historical programs
Reentry Element VTHL CONFIGURATIONS Launch Element
Rockwell GD, USAF AACB Lockheed Duoglas ASTRO Boeing X-20, Titan III Douglas, Martin Marietta
(Phase-A) STS (1966) STARCLIPPER (1963) (1960) (Phase-A) STS ASTROROCKET
(1968) (1969) (1964)
EARTH-ORBIT F I G U R E 1.15 –
4
OPERATIONS
LRV vehicles were identified
from the beginning as the most
CONVENTIONAL LANDING suitable options for the
(MULTIPURPOSE MODULAR
3 SPACE & ENTRY VEHICLES) Earth-Orbit operations as
MANNED MANEURABLE
forecasted in this image from
L/D (PERFORMANCE)
ENTRY VEHICLES
SPACE RECOVERY the early 1970s. Reproduced
(COMBINED
GY
SPACE/ENTRY VEHICLES) from Loh[17]
LO
NO
2
CH
TE
M-2, HL-10
PLANETARY MISSIONS
2
GEMINI APOLLO TECHNOLOGY

EARLY BALLISTIC
NOSE CONE MERCURY
0
1950 1960 1970 1980
Sänger & Bredt[18], Tsien, Dornberger, Ehricke[19], Eggers, Allen &

Neice[20] published the fundamental assessments during the 1950s,
addressing hypersonic Lifting Reentry Vehicle (LRV) performance over-
all, demonstrating the conceptual feasibility. Parametric studies by Eu-
gene Love[21],[22],[23],[24] further emphasize the advantages of lifting
reentry over ballistic vehicles specially for Earth-orbit based missions,
see Figure 1.15. Following these seminal studies, space organizations
around the world have initiated numerous programs to develop a SAS
employing lifting reentry18 . Since then, a vast amount of research and 18
Discussed in detail in Section 2.2.1
development has been dedicated towards understanding the design
and operational requirements of LRVs resulting in operational vehi-
cles like STS, Buran and X-37. Currently, several organizations and
private companies are actively pursuing LRV designs and have cur-
rently projects targeted to accomplish a fully reusable reentry vehicle
stage. Summarizing the above discussion, following conclusions can
be drawn regarding the current SAS scenario:
• SSTO-SAS are not feasible with the current state of technology. Lessons
from the past projects show that this category require extensive R&
D effort and a paradigm shift in several technologies.
• Horizontal launch systems share similar drawback to SSTO-SAS

and are not the most economically feasible near-term solutions.
• Partially reusable vertical launch vehicles are currently under de-

velopment at a tremendous growth rate, causing market disruption
14 loveneesh rana
and may prove cost effective. These systems are on a faster tra-
jectory to achieve full system reusability than developing a SSTO
launch system.
• Ballistic reentry vehicles are simpler to design and manufacture but

show restricted overall performance and limited mission operations
capabilities.
• Lifting reentry vehicles are higher performance vehicles with a vast

range of mission capabilities. These vehicles perform horizontal
landing on a runway and are most suitable candidate for tourism
and commercial market of the future. Additionally, LRVs have been
study extensively in the past and are currently being investigated
by space entities all over the globe. 19
In the context of a complete SAS, a
Based on the above observations, this dissertation adapts a TSTO- launch vehicle is considered as one
element by itself and thus a TSTO
VTHL system19 configuration as the SAS case-study to be investi- system refer to the SAS which uses
gated in the domain of CD phase application. From this point on- atleast two SAS elements, namely LV
and RV to attain the orbit.
wards, the LV and RV are addressed in context of the VTHL class of
SAS, unless specified otherwise.
1.2.3 Scope and Hypothesis of the Dissertation

The definition of the CD phase as the application domain helps to de- 20
The launch element here refers to a
fine the limits under which this dissertation would address the prob- rocket powered launch vehicle which
itself can be a single stage element or a
lem of the SAS design. The TSTO-VTHL SAS class is selected as the conventional multi-stage launch vehicle.
primary case-study to be used to develop the solution required. To fa-
cilitate a broader spectrum of discussion, the TSTO here refers to two 21
The LRV is a single entity that per-
individual elements of the SAS required to obtain the orbital altitude, forms de-orbit burn and lands horizon-
tally.
namely, a launch element20 and a lifting reentry vehicle21 , see Figure
1.16. Thus, the SAS itself can be equal to a two-stage vehicle where a
single-stage rocket booster is used to boost the LRV to a parking orbit
and the LRV then attains the orbital altitude by itself. Another scenario
can be a SAS configuration where a traditional two-stage LV (eg. ULA
Atlas-V) is used to boost a LRV to orbital altitude, making the SAS a
three stage vehicle. The relation between total number of SAS stages
and the LV stages is given by, SASTotalStages = LVStages + 1
A multi-disciplinary framework or a synthesis methodology is the
primary toolset used in the CD phase to derive the conceptual feasi-
bility and generate a solution space of potential design concepts for
the specific mission requirements. The disciplines represent primary
subsystems that denote major functional characteristics of the vehicle.
In the context of the system hierarchy defined for the SAS, the sub-
systems fall under the hierarchy level-3 and are integrated together
using a synthesis methodology to form a SAV. A detailed discussion
of historical and current state of art for the synthesis methodologies
is presented in Section 2.3 addressing lessons learned from reviews of
SAS STAG E - 2
more than 156 past and present synthesis methodologies.
VT + HL
It is seen that traditional synthesis methodologies are configuration
oriented and address only a specific class of SAV. The primary reason
being that each SAV operates in a different environment and under
different constraint for a specific function and hence have different re-
quirement for the constituting subsystems. The main function of a LV
SAS
is to access the orbit from the ground and thus the propulsion system
SAS STAG E - 1
plays a crucial role in working against the Earth’s gravity, moving in
opposite direction to the gravity force. A LRV is used to return back
to the ground from orbit and here the aerodynamic lift is the crucial
function used to fight Earth’s gravity while moving in the direction of
the gravity force. Thus both vehicles are different in operational and
technology requirements, but fall under the same class of SAVs and
are integrated together as a SAS. Due to this difference, the traditional
CD synthesis methodologies address only one specific SAV class, con-
necting hierarchy levels 2 and 3. F I G U R E 1.16 –
As further described in detail in Section 2.3, Chudoba[25] in 2001 TSTO-VTHL SAS: Top-Level
conducted an exhaustive survey of the evolution of flight vehicle syn- systems definition.
thesis methodologies 22 . The survey identifies five generation of syn-
thesis approaches where Class V denotes the future generation of
generic design capability. Chudoba defines “Class V Synthesis as a de- 22
The review addresses 115 synthesis
sign process NOT a design tool; concluding that more emphasis should be methodologies covering the state of
design synthesis approaches from past
placed on developing the capability of a synthesis system as opposed to the to then state of the art, circa 2001
implementation of the tool itself."[26] To this end, this dissertation aims
Hierarchy
Level = 1 VT HL
(SAS)
Hierarchy
CLASS V
Level = 2 SYNTHESIS
(SAV) LV LRV PROCESS
CLASS IV
SYNTHESIS SAS-GDSP
SYSTEMS
Propulsion Aero
Hierarchy
S&C S&C
Level = 3 Structures Structures
F I G U R E 1.17 –
(SUBSYSTEMS) Aero Propulsion
SAS-GDPS expands the
applicability of CD process
Weights Weights
vertically across hierarchy levels
1-3
to develop a Generic Design Synthesis Process (GDSP) that addresses

a SAS as an integrated system where the constituent SAVs are parts
16 loveneesh rana
of the whole system. This would be referred to as SAS-GDSP for

convenience hereafter. It is important to note here that a methodol-
ogy is distinctly different from a process as clarified by the following
dictionary definitions:
methodology:
- a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity.
eg. "a methodology for investigating the concept of focal points"
process:
- a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
eg. "writing this dissertation was a long process"
The TSTO-VTHL SAS class is used as a case-study to develop and

verify the SAS-GDSP but it could be applied to other SAS classes
(HTHL, HTVL, VTVL) by following the same process but using the
class-specific data, knowledge, and analysis methods. Existing Class
IV synthesis approaches are applied for the synthesis of constituent
SAVs at hierarchy level-2. In comparison, the SAS-GDSP can be ex-
ecuted at hierarchy level-2 (SAV) and/or at hierarchy level-1 (SAS)
depending on the scope of the program, see Figure 1.17. Thus, Class
IV synthesis approaches integrate hierarchy levels 2 and 3 whereas the
Class V SAS-GDSP would be able to integrate hierarchy levels 1, 2 and
3. The range of the design options to assess by taking into account only
the top-three hierarchy levels can be enormous as the number of op-
tions at a hierarchy level compound exponentially by trading elements
at the next lower level. This effect is visualized in Figure 1.18 where
the disciplinary trades at hierarchy level-3 give a unique SAV at level-
2. The combination of LVs and LRVs then gives unique SAS options
which form the overall solution space of feasible design concepts.
Limited by the time and manpower constraints, this research study
would confine the application of SAS-GDSP for subsystems to only
the LRV segment of the SAV at hierarchy level-2. Synthesis of disci-
plinary subsystems at level-3 in a multi-disciplinary kernel would be
Hierarchy VTHL-1 VTHL-3 VTHL-5 VTHL-7 Non-Feasible

LV1 LRV1 LV1 LRV3 LV2 LRV2 LV3 LRV1 F I G U R E 1.18 –
Level = 1 SAS Configuration
(SAS) VTHL-2 VTHL-4 VTHL-6 VTHL-8 VTHL-9 Number of design options at a

LV1 LRV2 LV2 LRV1 LV2 LRV3 LV3 LRV2 LV3 LRV3 Feasible
SAS Configuration hierarchy level grow
Hierarchy exponentially with the number
Level = 2 LV1 LV2 LV3 LRV1 LRV2 LRV3
(SAV) of trades considered at the
lower level.
Propulsion
Hierarchy
Level = 3
Aero Disciplinary
(SUBSYSTEMS)
S&C
Trades
Structures
Weights
considered for the LRV. The LV options are not synthesized through
the subsystem synthesis like the LRV. Instead, the LVs are selected
as various combinations of first and second stages, based on current
available technology level. These two SAV components are integrated
at the SAS level next, thus proving design capability of SAS-GDPS
at the SAV level (for LRV segment) and at the topmost SAS hierarchy
level. Once the technological and physical feasibility is established, the
SAS level concepts are assessed for a successful business case feasibil-
ity using a cost-per-performance analysis. With these specifications,
the next section describes the main research hypothesis that need to
be fulfilled to prove the solution concept.
1.3 Research Outline
Chapter 2 next provides an extensive review of the literature for the

VTHL case-study and the CD phase assessment capabilities and char-
acteristics. This review has been an extensive effort that educated the
author on the primary needs for the proposed solution.
Chapter 3 then provides a logical solution architecture of the solution
describing what elements needs to be created and how to create them
in order to develop a truly state-of-the-art synthesis capability.
Chapter 4 implements the solution process and describes the physical
architecture of the solution concept. It then shows the results of ap-
plying the solution process for hierarchy level-2 for sizing specific and
generic LRV cases. More than 700 uniques design concepts have been
sized and analyzed as an outcome of this chapter.
Chapter 5 implements the generic solution concept for the VTHL SAS
at the hierarchy level-1 and shows the unique capability of the pro-
totype solution process as truly generic in nature and expanding the
scope of the CD phase assessment capabilities.
Chapter 6 discusses the original contributions that were produced
from this dissertation.
Chapter 2
L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W
The purpose of conducting a literature review is to understand your intellectual
heritage, your intellectual genealogy. Anytime we undertake an inquiry into 1
Michael Quinn Patton,
a particular issue, we are building on the knowledge of others, and we need to Director, Utilization-Focused Evaluation
know what that knowledge is. It is part of our obligation as scholars to un- St, Paul, MN
derstand what work has come before us, what concepts, methods, and measures
we’ve inherited.1
Section 2.1
This chapter provides a detailed account of the literature review
Methodology
conducted to support the research hypothesis presented in the Chap-
How is Lit Review Conducted ?
ter 1 and to gain an in-depth understanding of the subject matter. The
• Key definitions: Data vs Knowledge
first section describes the methodology applied to carry out an orga- • JabRef Central Library
nized literature review and the tools implemented to create a central
Section 2.2
source library. The second section addresses a comprehensive review
SAS Case-Study Review
of the case-study configuration, focusing mainly on lifting reentry ve- What’s been done in VTHL ?
hicles. A primary motivation for this review has been to understand • LRV Assessment (60 Case-Studies).
fundamental design aspects for the selected SAS case-study (TSTO- - AHP Based Disciplinary Assessment.
VTHL) and collection of information related to this SAS class and its - Design Synthesis Assessment.
• LV Overview, Selection.
constituent elements as available in the public domain. This survey
does assess the VTHL configuration from the disciplinary and design Section 2.3
integration perspective to identify the current CD practices and capa- Design Synthesis Review
bilities available for the selected SAS case-study. CD Phase State of the Art
The third section then focuses on the review of the design synthesis • Synthesis Systems State of the Art.
• Class V Systems Overview.
systems in order to understand the current best practice capabilities as
• CD capability for SAS.
applicable to the SAS case-study. Classical and modern design systems
are addressed in this review to identify the primary requirements for Section 2.4
the Space Access System - Generic Design Synthesis Process (SAS-GDSP). Hypothesis & Objectives
Original Contributions & Requirements
The understanding gained from reviews in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 is ap-
plied to justify the research hypothesis outlined in Chapter-1 (Section • Identify missing gap in CD for SAS.
• Identify scope to make original contri-
1.2.3) and it serves as the foundation to develop the specification for
butions from the hypothesis.
the SAS-GDSP solution concept. The specification outline the charac- • Define primary capability require-
teristic requirements and it represents the capability qualification that ments for SAS-GDSP.
the SAS-GDSP should be equipped to perform.
F I G U R E 2.1 –
Chapter-2 Overview
2.1 Literature Review Process
This section describes the process adapted to carry-out the literature

review in a systematic manner, followed by the analytic description of
DEFINITION INFORMATION TYPE EXAMPLE SOURCE
DATA
“specific information applicable for • Physical Characteristics
one particular • Performance Data
discipline, vehicle or system” • Empirical methods
• Look-up Tables
KNOWLEDGE
“generic information applicable for • Equations, analysis
a group, type or class of • Disciplinary methods
discipline, vehicle or system” • Features, trends
• Heuristics
F I G U R E 2.2 –
literature review and applications. Difference between data and
knowledge, and their primary
2.1.1 Methodology literature sources
A thorough examination of data and information available in the public-

domain has been conducted throughout this research. A systematic
approach has been adopted to organize the data into practical and
useful information. A consistent classification scheme has been de-
veloped for making the literature review practical for the author and
therefore accessible to the next generation of researchers. For this pur-
pose, following working definitions have been defined to clearly and
distinctly identify the specific terminology.
– Data: Any piece of information that is specifically applicable to one

specific discipline, vehicle or system.
eg, TOGWSaturn−V = 6, 540, 000lb
– Knowledge: Any information that is applicable to not just one case

but applicable for a generic group, type or class of objects.
eg, L/DLRV > L/DBallistic−Capsule
These definitions are adopted and modified for the current research
and act as only the working definitions. In the standard definitions
of ‘Data‘, ‘Information‘ and ‘Knowledge‘ (often abbreviated as DIK),
data is considered as just the raw numbers and the lowest form while
20 loveneesh rana
information is usually defined as data with context. This view of DIK

is primarily derived from the IT industry, as for a machine the num-
bers have no meaning without context. In the current view of things,
the author finds that numbers used in the current research have inher-
ent context of the aerospace domain. Following this logic, the terms
‘Data‘ and ‘Knowledge‘ are considered as different forms of ‘Informa-
tion‘ where a simple number like L/D = 2.1 have a lot of inherent
information. In this context, information is used as an attribute to
‘Data‘ and ‘Knowledge‘.
An example of data would be the information like gross take off

weight of Saturn V launch vehicle being 6.5 million lbs. Here, the in-
formation available is specifically applicable to one launch vehicle. On
other hand, example of knowledge as defined above would be a state-
ment like, lifting reentry spacecraft have high lift-to-drag ratio than a
reentry capsule. Similarly, an analytic equation would be knowledge-
type of information as it can be applied for any number of generic
cases while the output of an analytical equation for a particular case
would be the data. This distinct definition of knowledge and data
is then applied to specify literature sources containing the respective
information. The concept is shown in Figure 2.2.
Classification of literature sources as data or knowledge-based sources
does provide a structure to organize and manage a central library
which is of special relevance to a design engineer. As mentioned in
the previous chapter, the CD phase tends to be weak on the knowl-
edge available for the system being designed whilst having maximum
design freedom. At this point, only mission requirements are known
whilst the information about how the vehicle and its elements interact
is minimum2 . 2
see Section 1.2.1, Figure1.10
To mitigate this conundrum, the design process involves making
logical and feasible assumptions and using estimates from past projects
wherever required. Consequently, the data-sources are used for these
approximations and assumptions. In a similar context, since the sys-
tem design has to integrate primary design disciplines in a feasible so-
lution logic, the analysis methods applied for the involved disciplines
must be simple first-order solutions instead of high-fidelity complex
methods. Thus, the designer has to be familiar with a set of disci-
plinary analysis methods that are most suited to the specific system
category3 . Knowledge-based references are primary sources for these 3
The data and methods here are se-
disciplinary methods. Coleman[27] emphasizes this sentiment as fol- lected for the TSTO-VTHL system
lows; “A well organized and condensed Process Library and Disciplinary

Methods Library would provide the designer with a quick reference to the
tools available, how and when to use them. Such a library would provide the
elements for a rapid adaptation of a design process to a new design problem
to be solved.“ In order to provide such capability, a central library sys-

tem has been developed to organize and manage pertinent data and
knowledge sources.
2.1.2 JABREF Central Library

JabRef4 is an open source bibliography reference management soft- THREE TYPES OF SOURCES
Methods-Empirical/Analytical,
ware that is used to organize and manage a central library consisting KB Design Case Studies, MDA,
Trade Studies
of more than 600 literature sources5 relevant to the research domain.
All sources are categorized in three major categories depending on Data-Empirical/Analytical, Test
DB Results, Specific Vehicle Data
the type of information contained in the source, namely; 1) Data, 2)
Knowledge or 3) Hybrid. The sources are identified as Data Base (DB) Trends, Heuristics, (DB + KB)
if they are specific to a specific vehicle (eg. test results, performance HB Provides Specific Information
for individual vehicles and
generic methods
values, empirical data) while the Knowledge Base sources mainly con-
sist of disciplinary analysis methods and integrating processes that can
be applied to more than one case. Hybrid sources contain disciplinary F I G U R E 2.3 –
methods as well as vehicle specific data. View of JabRef Software and
The development and management of this central library is an ex- Primary classification of
tensive and continuous process that has been maintained throughout sources.
this research effort. In order to handle such a large body of infor- 4
http://www.jabref.org/
mation and make available when required, a cataloging management
5
A literature source (or simply a
scheme is formulated. All sources are cataloged in JabRef through a source) refers to a conference proceed-
set of standard defined keywords identifying the primary information ing, journal article, technical report,
addressed in the source. The following key features and advantages book, or a website
of the JabRef-based central library are the main reasons for its devel-
opment; they are visualized in Figure 2.4:
Standard-Keywords based Indexing and Classification:

DB – Applicable to ONE
Vehicle (X20, STS, HL10, HL20, X33 etc.)
Discipline (Test Results, Trends)
Sources accessible Importance defined by
KB – Applicable to Many
directly from JabRef Configuration(BB,BW, TSTO, SAVs etc) ranking
Multi-Discipliary (Design, CD, MDA etc)
HB - KB + DB
Trends (Vehicles, Technology, Mission)
F I G U R E 2.4 –
• Easy access and storage: JabRef stores all source files in one folder, Features and benefits of JabRef
renames them in a standard template and provides key informa- Central Library
tion on the main screen. Additionally, source files can be accessed
directly from JabRef. This reduces time to search for a particular
file within the system, all modifications are made on the same file
22 loveneesh rana
and so, information collected over time is accessible easily for future
references.
• Efficient search and sort: All files are indexed using set of stan-
dard defined keywords. For example, all disciplinary methods are
indexed with the keyword “Method” and the corresponding disci-
pline name. Thus, the combination of keywords “Aerodynamics"
and “Method" would display all the aerodynamic methods. This
makes searching and organizing tasks much simpler and conve-
nient. Further, addition of ranking scheme helps to identify the
sources in order of importance.
• Integration with external softwares: JabRef is easily integrated with

softwares like MS Word or Latex and is used to automatically gen-
erate bibliography within text documents.
• Quantify literature sources: Standard keywords can be used to quickly

scan the overall library and quantify the amount of literature avail-
able in each category. Currently the central library holds informa-
tion for 609 total literature sources. Of these, 151 sources are the
knowledge sources, 299 are the data sources and 121 are identified
as the hybrid sources, while the rest are not yet classified (being
website et al references).
• Expansion of the library: The same basic standards are also used
by the other members of the AVD and thus much larger and com-
prehensive DB is assembled through a collective effort. More than
3000 aerospace literature sources are cataloged collectively by 6 re-
searchers. This serves as a significant advantage where it is possible
to collaborate with other researchers, thus covering multiple do-
mains ranging from detailed disciplinary references to the top-level
space planning, synthesis, AI et al.
Development of the central library with JabRef is particularly helpful
in development of the Data-BaseVTHL and Knowledge-BaseVTHL sys-
tems which are discussed in Section 3.1 in the next chapter. Following
next is the review of the TSTO-VTHL class SAS to gain a physical
understanding of the primary design elements of the case-study.
2.2 SAS Case-Study Review: TSTO-VTHL
The topmost level of the SAS hierarchy is the SAS itself, where mul-
tiple TSTO-VTHL options are possible as combinations of the various
types of LV and LRV stemming from the next lower hierarchy levels.
This section addresses the TSTO-VTHL configuration in two parts. The
first part discusses the horizontal landing LRV element while the sec-
ond part focuses on the launch-element.
DYNA-SOAR
BOMI BRASS ROBO PHASE I & II
2.2.1 Lifting Reentry Vehicles
LRV History
The advantages of horizontally landing a reentry vehicle on a run-
way like an aircraft were recognized from the very beginning of the
space race. The first detailed concept design for an airplane like con- F I G U R E 2.5 –
figuration using a rocket propulsion system to execute space missions Some of the first major LRV
was provided by the German space pioneer, Dr. Eugene Sänger in programs in the early 1950s.
1933[18]. He named the vehicle Silbervogel, german translation for Dyna-Soar was eventually
Silver Bird. Later in the early 1950s, two German scientists, Dr. Walter defined as the
Dornberger6 and Dr. Kraft Ehricke, who at the time were working for umbrella-program
the Bell Aircraft company in the USA, developed several boost-glide incorporating the earlier BOMI,
concepts that resulted in the USAF requesting a number of feasibility BRASS, ROBO and HYWARDS
and design studies[28]. Major space companies of the time proposed into one single program.
several initial studies that resulted in some of the first LRV assessment Reproduced here from online
studies at the industrial level. Bell Aircraft carried out extensive stud- Encyclopedia Astronautica.
ies under programs like BOMI, BRASS-BELL and ROBO leading to
the USAF program HYWARDS in 1956[29]. Following these seminal
studies, the 1957 USAF X-20 DynaSoar7 program [31] was defined that
represents the first industry scale effort to develop a LRV, see Figure 6
Both the scientists were taken to the
2.5. Until its cancellation in 1963 (in wake to give precedence to the US as part of "Operation Paperclip".
Gemini program) the DynaSoar was the biggest industrial aerospace Dornberger is supposed to have had
the detailed knowledge of Sänger
program with a budget of $660 million ($5 billion today), employing Silbervogel project.
more than eight thousand people for over six years.
The following decades have seen numerous multi-billion dollar pro-
grams fail to develop an operational LRV, with only a few exceptions. 7
Short for Dynamic Soaring, Dyna-
Since then, a vast amount of research and development has been dedi- Soar, a contraction of terms ‘Dynamic
Ascent‘ and ‘Soaring Flight‘ was to
cated towards understanding the design and operational requirements be developed as a space weapon sys-
of LRVs. However, even after more than six decades of spaceflight, tem. Representing a hypersonic glider
employing a delta wing body config-
only three spaceplane programs have been able to demonstrate hard-
uration, Dyna-Soar‘s objective was to
ware flight status, namely the: US Space Shuttle, USSR Buran and explore the hypersonic boost-glide tech-
X-37. nology as applied to a reusable space
access system[30]
Assessment of LRV’s Historiography Sources

A detailed data-base of major lifting reentry projects was compiled
to understand the evolution of LRVs and familiarize with the phys-
ical characteristic of this SAV class. An initial survey shows clearly
that a lot of literature is available directly addressing brief or detailed 8
Definition of historiography:
historical and technical aspects for multiple “spaceplanes“ projects. i a : the writing of history; especially :
Some prominent examples of this type of literature are found in the the writing of history based on the criti-
cal examination of sources, the selection
works of Hallion[32–35], Siddiqi[36, 37], Rose[38], Launius et al[39–42] of particulars from the authentic ma-
to name a few. These sources could be referred to as the “Historiog- terials, and the synthesis of particulars
into a narrative that will stand the test
raphy“8 sources for the hypersonic research, do a good job on sum- of critical methods
b : the principles, theory, and history
of historical writing
ii : the product of historical writing : a
body of historical literature
24 loveneesh rana
marizing the major achievements, contributions and goals targeted by

each project, and often tends to provide a guideline for researchers
to identify those historical projects relevant to their specific research
discipline. However, these literature sources are vast and generic in
account of the description of legacy projects. The discussion of a
project in these accounts is found qualitative in nature while address-
ing the achievements, lessons learned and technical characteristics of
the vehicle and sub-systems. Hence, the importance of a project and
the impact on achievements, lessons learned, and data-richness gen-
erated is accounted in a stand-alone manner. There is no single ac-
count found which attempts to analyze and compare these historical
programs against each other whilst providing a quantitative measure
of importance of particular projects towards the growth of particular
disciplines and its holistic contribution to the hypersonic knowledge
base. A consistent assessment of all LRV programs that evaluates these
projects against each other is still missing. This sort of assessment is
necessary to identify which projects contributed more towards indi-
vidual disciplines. This lack of analysis presents the opportunity to
make an original contribution towards the addressed issue.
The aforementioned hypersonic historiography accounts clearly carry
data, information and knowledge of undisputable value, making them
invaluable resources towards the formulation of a pragmatic knowledge-
capture framework. This kind of framework is found missing that
could utilize this invaluable and vast body of knowledge. A prototype
system is hence developed that provides a comparative framework to
assess, identify and compare the disciplinary contribution and over-
all importance of selected LRV case-studies. This framework is fur-
ther utilized to trace the evolution of hypersonic knowledge through
the past projects. The following discussion explains the development
logic and application of this prototype system as a useful and practi-
cal measure that could be significant value to researcher and industry
equally.
T A B L E 2.1 –
List of Vehicles Surveyed
Projects Start End Organization Manufacturer

Year Year
US
Tsien Spaceplane 1949 1949 N/A N/A
BOMI 1952 1954 USAF Bell
BRASS 1956 1956 USAF Bell
HYWARDS 1956 1957 USAF NASA Langley
ROBO 1956 1957 USAF Bell/Convair/Douglas/NAA
X-20 1957 1963 USAF Boeing
Alpha Draco 1957 1959 USAF Douglas
RTTOCV 1962 1964 NASA Lockheed/Convair/NAA/Douglas
Continued on next page
T A B L E 2.1 – continued from previous page

Year Year
M2 1962 1973 NASA/USAF Northrop
ASSET 1963 1965 USAF McDonnell
HL-10 1964 1970 NASA Northrop
X-23/PRIME 1965 1967 USAF Martin
X-24A/PILOT 1965 1971 USAF/NASA Martin
ILRV 1967 1968 USAF Lockheed/GD/McDD
FDL-5 1968 1969 USAF Lockheed
BGRV 1968 1969 USAF McDonnell
Reentry-F 1968 1968 NASA General Electric
X-24B/FDL-7 1971 1973 USAF/NASA Martin Marietta
STS 1972 2011 NASA NorthAmerican/Rockwell
X-24C/FDL-8 1973 1977 USAF Lockheed
RASV 1976 1977 USAF Boeing
ALSV 1979 1983 USAF Boeing/Rockwell/GD
SWERVE 1979 1985 USAF Sandia
TAV 1983 1995 USAF Lockheed/GD/McDD/Rockwell
HL-20 1988 1993 NASA Rockwell
PioneerPathfinder 1993 2001 USAF PioneerRocketplane
X-33 1995 2001 NASA Lockheed Martin
X-34 1995 2001 NASA OrbitalSciences
X-38 1995 2002 NASA ScaledComposites
X-37 1998 ongoing USAF/NASA Boeing
DreamChaser 2005 ongoing NASA SNC
ESA
Hermes 1984 1992 CNES/ESA Arospatiale/DassaultBreguet
FESTIP 1994 1998 ESA N/A
PRE-X 2000 ongoing CNES EADS-LV
Phoenix 2000 2004 ASTRA Pacific-American
EXPERT 2002 ongoing ESA ThalesAlenia
USV 2004 ongoing ESA/CIRA CIRA
SOCRATES 2004 N/A ESA ESA/DLR
IXV 2005 ongoing ESA ThalesAlenia
GERMANY/UK
Silverbogel 1933 1942 N/A N/A
Whitworth 1954 1960 N/A N/A
Pyramid
JunkersRT-8 1961 1969 Junkers Junkers
MUSTARD 1962 1968 BAC BAC
BUMERANG 1967 1974 ERNO ERNO
SangerII/HORUS 1985 1995 MBB MBB
PLATO 1987 1990 MBB-ERNO MBB-ERNO
JAPAN
OREX 1994 1994 JAXA NASDA
HYFLEX 1996 1996 JAXA Mitsubishi
AFLEX 1996 1996 JAXA Mitsubishi
HSFD 2000 2004 JAXA Mitsubishi
SOVIET
VKA-23 1956 1959 OKB-23 Myasishchev
OKB- 1959 1962 OKB-53 Chelomey
Racketoplan
SPIRAL-OS 1962 1975 OKB-155 Mikoyan
Mig-105 1976 1978 USSR Air Force Mikoyan
BURAN 1976 1988 NPO Molnia Mikoyan
Continued on next page
26 loveneesh rana
T A B L E 2.1 – continued from previous page

Year Year
BOR-4 1980 1984 NPO Molnia NPO-Molnia
LKS 1980 1983 Chelomey Chelomey
MAKS 1988 1991 NPO Molniya NPO-Molniya
ORYOL 1993 2001 RSA RSA
KLIPPER 2004 2007 RSA RSC-Energia
Logic description for the AHP based quantitative analysis of 60 LRV

projects
An analytical model representing the literature sources is developed
next that addresses a total of 60 cases of LRV projects undertaken by
the major space agencies and organizations world-wide, see Table 2.1.
The historiograhy literature sources are first used to develop a struc-
tured Data-Base of the 60 LRV projects where the qualitative informa-
tion is organized in a structured format identifying major details of
the disciplinary subsystems, the major accomplishments and primary
goals for each project, see Figure 2.6. This information is then utilized
to develop a numerical framework where the vehicles are assessed for
disciplinary contribution as the significance of each project is recog-
nized for the involved disciplines. These case-studies are analyzed
HYPERSONIC LITERATURE HYPERSONIC DATABASE

SOURCES STRUCTRUATION
F I G U R E 2.6 –
using an analytical method, developed by modifying the traditional Hypersonic historiography
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique. The AHP is an effec- sources are used to develop a
tive technique developed by Thomas Saaty[43] in 1980 to deal with the Data-Base for the LRV vehicles
problems encountered in complex decision making. The basic concept which provides a structured
is to breakdown a complex decision into a series of simpler decisions. assortment of the qualitative
This type of approach is particularly useful for analyzing problems information addressed in the
where qualitative and non-tangible aspects are of significant worth. sources.
The AHP captures the qualitative essence and provides a measurable

quantitative framework which enables consistent informed decisions.
AHP is applied in situations where a set of alternatives9 are evalu-
ated based on certain evaluation criteria. Through a pair-wise compar-
ison among all the ‘n‘ number of criteria, an ‘n x n‘ comparison matrix
is developed. By first normalizing the matrix and then averaging each
row, eigen values and eigen vector assessment is performed to deter-
mine the weight of each criteria. This process enforces a consistency 9
In current context, alternatives are
check on the criteria weight to avoid any user-defined bias among the the 60 LRV case-studies that are being
assessed through AHP.
evaluation criteria. If this consistency check is not met, the initial com-
parison matrix has to be to re-evaluated. Alternative‘s scores are also
calculated through the same process. These two steps, though simi-
lar in execution, are independent of each other. The global score for
each alternative is now used to select the best alternative. A detailed
explanation of the this process is found by Satty in reference[43].
∠ Defining evaluation criteria for the AHP model: A space access 10

Technology oriented projects are
vehicle is a multi-disciplinary system, where constituent sub-systems defined with the primary goal of
developing technology related to one
integrate cohesively to perform a mission as per the program require- specific discipline. These are usually
ments. The legacy projects being assessed here could be broadly cat- experimental vehicles where only one
or two subsystems are of main interest.
egorized as either technology oriented10 or vehicle oriented11 . It is
observed that the primary disciplines involved in design of space ac- 11
Vehicle oriented programs are defined
cess vehicles serve as suitable criteria. These disciplines are the basis of with the primary goal of developing an
most technology oriented programs and are also the building blocks of operational vehicle and hence have to
consider all subsystems equally.
a SAS design. By defining the disciplines as evaluation criteria, it will
be possible to distinctly recognize the contribution of each case-study
towards an individual discipline. Technology development programs,
which tend to focus on one or two disciplines, would receive high
scores for those disciplines.
At the same time, it is also necessary to consider the quality and
depth of research achieved by a case-study. To include this factor in
the model, an additional criterion is added based on the life-cycle stage
reached by the case-study.
Hirschel[44] provides a list of requirements on classical hypersonic
disciplines, defined for the FESTIP Technology and Development Plan[45].
Based on this list, five primary hypersonic disciplines are identified as
disciplinary evaluation criteria for the current model. Definition of
these criteria is selected form Hirshel[44], and modified to suit the
current study. A sixth criterion is selected to identify the progress of a
project at a systems level. The six evaluation criteria are defined below:
1. Disciplinary Criteria12 12
These address the disciplinary sub-
systems found at hierarchy level-3 of
i. Aerothermodynamics: aerodynamic performance, configuration the SAS.
flyability qualities, propulsion/airframe integration, (upper) stage

28 loveneesh rana
integration and separation for TSTO-systems, loads determina-

tion, surface properties determination.
ii. Structures and materials: structural topology, light-weight pri-
mary structures, hot stabilisation and control surfaces, cryo-
tank structures(integrated/non-integrated), materials, coatings,
joints, seals.
iii. Propulsion: propulsion system performance analysis, weight,
reusability, throttleability (landing engines), restartability, fuel
consumption, propulsion/airframe integration, net thrust, cool-
ing (inlet, core engine, nozzle).
iv. Stability and Instrumentation: flight mechanics/dynamics, sta-
bility and controllability, flight control system, air-data system,
general instrumentation, actuator systems, guidance naviga-
tion and control, stage separation system for TSTO-systems,
onboard power generation.
v. Thermal management: TPS addressed, heating analysis, passive
(surface radiation) cooling, internal insulation, active cooling
(internal, external), thermal household of CAV-type vehicles.
2. System-Level Criteria13 13
This criterion address the systems-
level contribution found at hierarchy
vi. Project Level: paper study, ground test, flight test, technology level-2 of the SAS. As a result, this
criteria takes into account the effect of
demonstrator, operational vehicle.
the integration of subsystems.
These six evaluation criteria are the parameters to judge the selected
group of case studies. Each disciplinary criteria is defined as a group
of specific analysis requirements to easily identify the research progress
achieved by a case-study in every discipline. By following this defini-
tion pattern, every case-study can be consistently scored for a criterion
by matching the number of analysis requirement satisfied by that case-
study. This rationale is further explained in following sub-section.
∠ Defining Scoring-Metric for assessing case-studies: According to

the standard AHP technique, every case-study must be scored through
a pair-wise comparison with other candidates, for each evaluation cri-
teria. Doing so establishes a consistent measure by breaking the com-
plex decision involving all alternatives, into a series of easy decisions
among two alternatives at a time. Such pairwise comparison break-
down is easily applicable for a small model where the number of com-
binations of criteria and alternatives is relatively limited. For an AHP
model, if ‘A‘ is the number of alternatives and ‘C‘ is the number of
criteria, then the total ‘N‘ pair-wise decisions among alternatives is
calculated as:
N = C ∗ ( A2 /2 − A) (2.1)
Clearly, the total number of pairwise decisions grows exponentially

with the number of alternatives. For the current study where the
model is composed of 6 evaluation criteria and 60 LRV case-studies
as alternatives to be measured, the total number of pairwise decision
becomes 10,440. To mitigate this overwhelming task of comparing one
case-study against others, a simplistic approach is adopted where all
the case studies are scored against a standard baseline. In this man-
ner, all the case studies are measured consistently requiring a short
turnaround time, given the reference point is clearly and distinctly
defined.
This baseline is established through a scoring metric based on the
definition of the evaluation criteria. A scoring scale is defined for all
six criteria such that a higher score indicates that the alternative meets
most analysis requirements from the criteria definition. The scoring
metric is given in Table 2.2 describing what each score entails for a
criterion.
Score Disciplinary Criteria Description System-Level Criteria Description
Discipline not evaluated in case-study Paper Study: Preliminary design analysis

1 Meets no definition requirements performed, data not available to confirm
No impact on the project existence of ground tests hardware
Ground Test: Detailed design analysis

Minimal impact on the project
supported by ground-test articles dedicated for
2 Minimal definition requirements
specific disciplines(Wind Tunnel Models,
Not important for the project
Simulator etc.)
Satisfy all definition requirements Flight Test: Program carried out flight tests
Not important for the project focusing on design-tool validation dedicated
3
Not gained anything new for specific disciplines (Scaled Flight Test
Used off-the-shelf technology Model)
Satisfy all definition requirements

Technology Demonstrator: Scaled version of
Has a major impact on the project
the targeted operational vehicle, focusing on
4 Significant results gained
the integration and validation of key
Uses state-of-art technology
technologies at systems level
Influence on future programs
Satisfy all definition requirements
Key discipline driving the project Operational Vehicle: Vehicle ready to perform
Breakthrough results gained transpiration tasks from orbit and back. Only
5 State-of-art technology development three vehicles from the case-studies have
Project significant to discipline’s growth reached operational level(US Space Shuttle,
New lessons learned USSR Buran and X-37).
Directly applied to future programs
T A B L E 2.2 –
Case-Studies Scoring Metric
30 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E 2.7 –
Project-Level criteria is defined
based on the life-cycle stage
achieved by the program.
Scoring scale for the systems criteria (“Project Level") is relatively

much easier to understand and implement than disciplinary criteria.As
seen in Figure 2.7, this criteria follows the product life-cycle stages,
represented here by a standard V-Model[46]. The disciplinary crite-
ria are scored based on the multiple factors, like the level of research
effort addressed by a case-study for the discipline, impact of the disci-
pline on the case study, contributions of the case-study to discipline‘s
knowledge growth etc. So, for a case-study where CFD analysis of the
vehicle is performed, it would get a higher score in ’Aerothermodyn-
mics’ criteria over another case-study where the aerodynamics analysis
is limited to a basic lift-drag polar.
In order to appropriately score the disciplinary criteria, every case-
study is examined thoroughly by reviewing the available information
for every discipline. This goal is achieved by an exhaustive literature
survey, followed by structured organization of the information. For
this purpose, the hypersonic database is developed from the historiog-
raphy sources as explained earlier, see Figure 2.6.
∠ Determination of Evaluation Criteria Weights: For the traditional

AHP technique, the criteria weight is evaluated by a user-defined, pair-
wise comparison among evaluation criteria. The complexity of this
particular study lies in defining the importance among disciplinary
criteria, as a specific discipline could be important in one project while
not equally important for the other. An example of this difference
is seen in case-studies like ASSET and PILOT, both part of the same
START program[40] but with very different mission requirements and
thus different vehicle designs. The ASSET project was aimed to de-
velop aerothermodynamics and structures & materials for X-20 program[32].
On the other hand, PILOT or X-24A explored the problem of maneu-
vering entry to demonstrate stable and controllable flight characteristics[32].
While assigning criteria scores for both these case-studies, ASSET is
scored highly for ’aerothermodynamics’, ’structures & materials’ and
’thermal management’ disciplines while PILOT is scored highly for
’stability and instrumentation’. Similarly, every case-study has specific
requirements, mission objectives and operational constraints which
dictate the level of involvement and growth for different disciplines.

Therefore, one disciplinary criteria cannot be arbitrarily assigned more
or less important than another, as it would create a inherent unjustified
bias in the evaluation model. To resolve this complexity, a different ap-
proach has been taken to generate the initial comparison matrix, than
the standard AHP process of manually assigning one criteria more
important than other. The mathematical process following this first
step is the same as implemented in the AHP logic, which enforces the
consistency check on the final criteria weights.
The criteria defined for this study are classified into two broad cate-
gories: (1) Systems-Level criteria and (2) Disciplinary criteria. ’Project
level’ criteria being a systems-level factor, is held three times14 more 14
This factor was selected after several
important than disciplinary criteria, which are representative of sub- iterations of trial and error until the
AHP process cleared the consistency
system advancement. To develop the comparison matrix among disci- check.
plines, every case-study is scored for all disciplinary criteria and a cu-
mulative total is calculated for each discipline. Since the disciplinary
criteria score for a case-study represents the contribution and signifi-
cance of that discipline, the cumulative scores thus represents the over-
all research effort of all case-studies towards a discipline. As a result,
cumulative discipline scores reflect the trend shown by the case-studies
throughout the evolution of the hypersonic knowledge base and are
used to make pair-wise relations among disciplines that leads to the
first set of criteria weight based on an acceptable consistency check.
The first iteration of the criteria weighs are used again, combined with
the disciplinary case studies scores to implement a feedback loop and
provide a second iteration of criteria weights. These weights are used
as the final criteria weights while executing the AHP process. The pri-
ority among criteria is then established as reflected in the final weights.
The final calculated weights are then calculated as follows:
1. System-Level Criteria
i. Project Level = 0.308
2. Disciplinary Criteria
ii. Aerothermodynamics = 0.157

iii. Structures and materials = 0.114
iv. Propulsion = 0.132
v. Stability and Instrumentation = 0.136
vi. Thermal management = 0.144
where it can be seen that Project Level is assigned maximum weight

over other disciplinary criteria, while the five disciplinary criteria are
relatively close to each other as indicated by the cumulative discipline
scores.
32 loveneesh rana
Assigning scores to case-studies for each criteria

Disciplinary Systems
AEROT PROP S&M SUBSYS THERM PROJ_L
Start Year Case-Studies AEROT PROP S & M SUBSYS THERM PROJ_L
1933 SilverBird 4 4 3 2 2 1 Final Criteria Weights 0.157 0.114 0.132 0.136 0.144 0.308
1949 Tsien Spaceplane 1 3 3 2 1 2 1 Start Year Case-Studies
1952 BOMI 4 3 4 2 4 1 1933 SilverBird 3 3 2 1 2 1
. . . . . . . . 1949 Tsien Spaceplane 1 3 3 2 1 2 1
. . . . . . . . 1952 BOMI 4 3 4 2 4 1
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
2005 SNC DreamChaser 3 5 3 4 4 3
2007 IXV 4 1 3 4 5 4 . . . . . . . .
Cumulative Scores (Disciplinary) 218 177 194 198 205 . . . . . . . .
Updated Cumulative scores 34.15 20.15 25.67 27.01 29.46 2005 SNC DreamChaser 3 5 3 4 4 3
2007 IXV 4 1 3 4 5 4
Combining individual discipline
Discipline Criteria Comparison Matrix from Cumulative scores
strength with project level
AERO T PROP S&M SUB SYS THERM AEROT PROP S&M SUBSYS THERM
218 177 194 198 205 Start Year Case-Studies
AERO THERMO 218 1 1.231638 1.123711 1.10101 1.063415
PROP 177 0.811927 1 0.912371 0.893939 0.863415 1933 SilverBird 0.78 0.65 0.57 0.44 0.60
S&M 194 0.889908 1.096045 1 0.979798 0.946341 1949 Tsien Spaceplane 1 0.93 0.65 0.84 0.58 0.88
SUB SYS 198 0.908257 1.118644 1.020619 1 0.965854 1952 BOMI 1.24 1.07 1.14 0.89 1.19
THERM 205 0.940367 1.158192 1.056701 1.035354 1
. . . . . . .
COMPARISON MATRIX Eigen Vectors Consistency Check

. . . . . . .
PROJ_L AEROT PROP S & M SUBSYS THERM AwT AwT/wT CI CI/CR . . . . . . .
PROJECT LEVEL 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.25 6.005 0.00 0.0028 6
AEROTHERMO 0.33 1.00 1.23 1.12 1.10 1.06 0.81 6.020
. . . . . . .
PROP 0.33 0.81 1.00 0.91 0.89 0.86 0.69 6.019 CR 2005 SNC DreamChaser 1.39 1.49 1.32 1.47 1.50
S&M 0.33 0.89 1.10 1.00 0.98 0.95 0.74 6.020 1.24 2007 IXV 1.86 1.34 1.63 1.78 1.95
SUBSYS 0.33 0.91 1.12 1.02 1.00 0.97 0.75 6.020
THERM 0.33 0.94 1.16 1.06 1.04 1.00 0.77 6.020
Final disciplinary results
PROJECT LEVEL 0.38 0.40
Eige n Value
0.35
Matrix
0.37 0.37 0.38
Criteria Weights
PROJECT LEVEL 0.375
compared for individual vehicle
AEROTHERMO 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 AEROTHERMO 0.135
PROP 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 PROP 0.114
S&M 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 S&M 0.123
SUBSYS 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 SUBSYS 0.125
THERM 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 THERM 0.129
1.000
Disciplinary Systems
Assigning criteria weight
AEROT PROP S&M SUBSYS THERM PROJ_L
First Iteration 0.135421664 0.113871 0.126856 0.1207837 0.128588 0.3744792
Final Criteria Weights 0.157 0.114 0.132 0.136 0.144 0.308
F I G U R E 2.8 –
∠ Developement of the Analytical Model and Evaluation Logic ap- Iterative process applied to
plied for the LRV case-studies: At this point, all elements are in place obtain the weights of evaluation
to execute the AHP model. Every case-study is scored for all six eval- criteria and application of
uation criteria and final criteria weights are established. Case-study criteria weight and alternatives
scores are multiplied by criteria weight for every criteria and added scores in the AHP model.
together to calculate a global score for every case-study. This score
is indicative of the holistic contribution of every case-study towards
hypersonic knowledge evolution. The model schematic is shown in
Figure 2.8 where the information flow is visualized throughout the
AHP process leading to the final comparative results for every case-
study.
The AHP results could be used to analyze and compare case-studies
for individual disciplines through which, a discipline-oriented researcher
could visualize the most important historical programs for his own ad-
vantage. At the same time, the global score indicate holistic effects and
importance of a program towards hypersonic knowledge evolution. A
discipline-based global score is calculated next, such that the effect of
the ’Project Level’ criteria is distributed equally among the disciplines.
This discipline-based global score is calculated as:
DGlobal −Score = DScore ∗ DWeight + PScore ∗ PWeight /5 (2.2)
where D refers to a disciplinary criteria and P refers to Project-Level

Holistic Comparison Integrating Project-Level

among Case-Studies 4.50
score with Disciplines
1.00
0.90 4.00
0.80 Chart Title
0.92
0.70 3.50
0.60
0.50 0.62 3.00
0.40 0.62 0.72
0.62 0.92
Tsien Spaceplane 0.90
0.30 0.31 0.57 2.50
BOMI
0.20
BRASS 0.57 0.68 0.70
0.10 0.57 0.57 0.43 2.00 0.62
0.41 0.70 0.87
HYWARDS 0.00 0.70
0.27 0.53
0.31 0.27 0.27 0.41 0.64 0.59
ROBO 0.53 1.50 0.40 0.40
0.66
0.29 0.53 0.33 0.65 0.85
0.14 0.53 0.66 0.53 0.35 0.65 0.71
X-20 0.78
0.26 0.46 0.34 1.00 0.20 0.59
0.34 0.46 0.11 0.58 0.53 0.30
Alpha Draco 0.23 0.33 0.58
0.34 0.40 0.35
0.50 0.40
0.63 0.63 0.63 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.91 0.97 0.97
0.47 0.53 0.69 0.75 0.75
0.00
Tsien BOMI BRASS HYWARDS ROBO X-20 Alpha Tsien BOMI BRASS HYWARDS ROBO X-20 Alpha Draco
Spaceplane Draco 1949 1952 1956 1956 1956 1957 1957
F I G U R E 2.9 –
criteria. With this implementation, the global score for a case-study The disciplinary and global
stays the same but the case-study could now be effectively represented results can be visualized to
as composed of only primary disciplines, see Figure 2.9. It must be make disciplinary and holistic
noted here that the primary significance of this assessment is to not comparisons among the
judge a program’s discipline in its entirety but rather on a compar- case-studies thus providing a
ative basis where the significance is justified when looked at other substantial insight into LRV
disciplines in the program or compared with other programs for the history overall and individual
same discipline. programs in specific.
This concludes the explanation of the AHP model setup which was
used to develop quantitative comparative assessments for all 60 case-
studies.
∠ AHP quantitative assessment results: The results of the quantitative

assessment from the AHP model are shown next in a visual graphics
form to provide a quick summary of significance and contribution for
each program for the assessed disciplines. As mentioned earlier, the
numerical results represents the significance and relevance of the par-
ticular program in the related disciplines. Detailed explanation for
scores and the related programs is further provided in the Appendix
A.
Figure 2.10 shows the quantitative results for the US based LRV pro-
grams comparing case-studies for the disciplinary factors. It must be
noted that the discipline scores are combined with project-level crite-
ria and hence the projects that reached advanced life-cycle stage are
scored higher for disciplinary criteria as well. This shows an overall
comparison of the case-studies.
On the same basis, AHP scores of other other international LRV pro-
grams are further shown in Figure 2.11. In addition to the quantitative
34
loveneesh rana
THERMAL
STABILITY
STRUCTURE
PROPULSION
1.03
AEROTHERMO
1.03 0.96
0.90 0.90
0.90 0.76 0.47 0.99 0.76 0.96

0.70
0.47 0.76 0.70
0.62 0.47 0.76 0.70 0.99 0.93
0.33
0.70 0.87 0.41 0.87
0.70 0.76 0.87
0.53 0.59 0.73 0.59
0.64 0.87 0.73 0.97 0.35 0.81 0.53 0.79
0.59 0.87 0.87 0.67 0.59
0.40 0.40 0.41 0.46 0.78
0.78 0.85 0.35 0.58 0.71 0.35 0.47 0.84
0.33 0.85 0.49 0.85
0.85 0.35
0.35 0.65 0.71 0.53 0.45 0.58 0.52 0.58 0.71 0.52 0.78
0.65 0.45 0.58 0.33 0.78
0.47 0.33 0.46 0.33
0.20 0.59 0.88
0.53 0.64 0.82
0.58 0.30 0.39 0.41 0.41 0.46 0.30 0.75 0.46 0.30 0.46 0.64 0.76
0.33 0.58 0.35 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.33 0.53 0.33 0.33
0.40 0.52 0.69 0.47
0.40 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
0.91 0.91 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.91 0.81 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.81 0.97 0.91 0.81 0.87
0.69 0.75 0.69 0.72 0.78
0.53 0.59 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.59
M2
STS
TAV
ILRV
X-20
X-33
X-34
X-38
X-37
ALSV
RASV
FDL-5
HL-10
HL-20
BOMI
ROBO
BGRV
BRASS
ASSET
RTTOCV
SWERVE
HYWARDS
Reentry - F
Alpha Draco
X-24C/FDL-8
X-24B/FDL-7
DreamChaser
Tsien Spaceplane
X-23/SV5D/PRIME
Pioneer Pathfinder
X-24A/SV-5P/PILOT
1941 2015
F I G U R E 2.10 –
AHP results showing a quantitative disciplinary comparison for the US based major LRV programs and concepts from 1941 to present.
THERMAL
STABILITY
STRUCTURE
PROPULSION
AEROTHERMO
1.03
0.68 0.47 0.99 0.96

0.90 0.96
0.70 0.68 0.55 0.55
0.76 0.70 0.62 0.76 0.79 0.73 0.55
0.76 0.90 0.62 0.66 0.55
0.41 0.70 0.73 0.90 0.93 0.47 0.84 0.53 0.49
0.59 0.55 0.67 0.59 0.55 0.79 0.55 0.67 0.53
0.40 0.41 0.41 0.53 0.87 0.58 0.53
0.73 0.53 0.87 0.91 0.87 0.46 0.64 0.52 0.33
0.53 0.71 0.40 0.67 0.52 0.58 0.53 0.59 0.64 0.40 0.52 0.52
0.52 0.52 0.58 0.64 0.88 0.46 0.52
0.52 0.58 0.65 0.58 0.58 0.45 0.64
0.52 0.64 0.52 0.46 0.41 0.58 0.30 0.52 0.58 0.59 0.39 0.46 0.47 0.46 0.69
0.69 0.58 0.70 0.36 0.53 0.41 0.40 0.35
0.35 0.58 0.53 0.46 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.41 0.46
0.35
0.97 0.97 1.03 0.75 0.97 0.93 0.87 0.75 0.75 0.75
0.91 0.75 0.97 0.75 0.81 0.75 0.75 0.91 0.75 0.65 0.72 0.87 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.44 0.65 0.69
0.59
LKS
IXV
USV
HSFD
MAKS
AFLEX
BOR-4
PRE-X
ORYOL
PLATO
FESTIP
BURAN
VKA-23
HYFLEX
ORFLEX
KLIPPER
EXPERT
Mig-105
HERMES
PHOENIX
SPIRAL-OS
MUSTARD
SOCRATES
Silverbogel
JunkersRT-8
BUMERANG
SangerII/HORUS
OKB-Racketoplan
Whitworth Pyramid
1987 Present 2004 1956 2007
1933 1984 1994
F I G U R E 2.11 –
AHP results showing a quantitative disciplinary comparison for the major international LRV programs.
space access systems design
35
36 loveneesh rana
results, the comprehensive review of the LRV vehicles also showed sig-
nificant interconnections and overlapping occurring in these programs
throughout the history. Most programs were undertaken simultane-
ously or in a sequence to advance the knowledge of hypersonic flight
and advance enabling technologies. This trend is recognized by track-
ing the evolution of these programs in the following series of Figures
for each group. This helps to visualize how the programs utilized
knowledge gained in the past and helped advance the state of the art
in technical and design domain.
∠ Multi-disciplinary design integration assessment: The main focus

of the AHP model has been to assess disciplinary specialization of the
LRV case-studies. Developing this analytical framework required an
extensive literature review followed by development of a structured
data-base specific for each case-study. It was found that the informa-
tion available for the US based programs in public domain include a
wider body of literature than other international case-studies. Most
sources found were related to the DD or PD phase results, while the
CD phase was found weak on the available literature in public domain.
These literature sources are where the initial design decisions related
to selection of vehicle configuration and subsystem technologies could
be found. As a result, a secondary survey was conducted only for
the US based LRV programs where the main focus was to access the
amount of information available for CD phase. To measure the CD
phase related information, following set of information criteria were
defined that are characteristic of the CD phase assessment.
i. DI: Information available related to the design phases.
ii. DR: Information available related to the individual disciplines.
iii. DM: Information available related to the disciplinary analysis meth-

ods.
iv. MDA: Information available related to the muldi-disciplinary anal-

ysis and disciplinary integration logic.
v. SZ: Information available related to the sizing logic implemented

in the MDA.
vi. SS: Information related to the solution space development show-

ing alternate design concepts and solution space assessed during
the CD phase.
Since most documentation found for the case-studies is restircted to

the detailed design or hardware data, a measuring scale was defined to
distinguish if a literature source address the above defined information
X-37 Family
V E H IC L E
X-37B
O P E RA T IO N A L
X-40
X-37A
SNC DreamChaser
TE C H N OL O G Y
D E M O N ST RA T OR
X-38 CRV
RE-ENTRY F
SWERVE
MCDONNELL EXPERIMENTAL VEHICLES
BGRV
Alpha-Draco (WS-199D) AMaRV
NASA LIFTING BODIES
M2-F2 HL-10
X-20 Family
F L I G H T T ES T
X-24A/PILOT X-24B
X-23/PRIME
ASSET USAF START X-24C/FDL-8 X-34

FDL LIFTING BODIES
X-20 Dyna Soar
Lockheed MRS FDL-5 FDL-7 HL-20

HYWARDS X-33
RTTOCV Concepts
NAA NASA RLV
Astrorocket
GR O UN D T E ST
Bell BRASS Astro
ROBO
Lockheed ROC Convair
ILRV Concepts ALSV Concepts

Bell BOMI TAV Concepts
Tsien Spaceplane Pioneer Pathfinder
Concept ALFRED J. EGGERS Jr.,
Boeing Rockwell Lockheed
H. JULIAN ALLEN, RASV
and GD Triamese GD Concept GD
STANFORD E. NEICE
Mcdonnell
FDL ILRV Boeing
P A P ER S T U D I ES
SILVERVOGEL Dornberger/Ehricke Concept Rockwell
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
F I G U R E 2.12 –
Evolution of LRV programs in the USA.

37
38
loveneesh rana
USV
TECH NOLOGY
DEMONSTRAT OR
IX-V
PRE-X
EXPERT
JUNKERS RT-8
SANGER II/HORUS FLPP
FLI GHT TEST

Bumerang
Whitworth
Pyramid MUSTARD
SILVERVOGEL FESTIP
GROUND TEST
SOCRATES
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
F I G U R E 2.13 –
Evolution of LRV programs in Europe.
BURAN PROGRAM
O P E RA T IO N A L
V E H IC L E
D E M O N ST RA T OR
TE C H N OL O G Y
BOR--5
F L I GH T T ES T
Mig-105
BOR-3
BOR-2
BOR-1
KLIPPER
GR O UN D TE ST
Spiral OS
MAKS
SPIRAL 50-50
ARCHITECTURE CONCEPT
VKA-23 Design2
SPIRAL 50-50 PROGRAM
VKA-23 Design1
LKS
P A P ER S TU D I ES
ORYOL
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
F I G U R E 2.14 –
criteria for CD phase or DD/PD phase. Following scale identifies three Evolution of LTV programs in
levels specific to design phases: Soviet Union and Russia.
∠ Criteria Score = 0: No information is found for a information criteria.
∠ Criteria Score = 0.5: Information found for the specific criteria is

from the DD/PD phase or is related to the hardware for specific
subsystem.
∠ Criteria Score = 1: Information found for the criteria is from the CD

phase level assessment and provides insight on the major design
decisions.
In this manner, the perfect case in terms of the CD specific informa-
tion would be where all categories would receive a score of 1 in all
information criteria. Figure 2.15 shows the interpretation of each in-
formation criteria for all three score levels. On this basis, the US based
40 loveneesh rana
Design Asessment Evaluation Factors Definition

DI Design Information Available
DR Disciplinary Results/Data Information
DM Disciplinary Methods Infromation
MDA MDA & Disciplinary Integration Logic
SZ Sizing Logic
SS Solution Space and Alternate Design Evaluation
Note: If CD Level Infromation is not available (ie DI = 1) , then DR and DM are based on Detailed Design or vehicle’s hardware data.
Score Values Interpretation

DI DR DM MDA SZ SS
Basic CD phase, Complete CD level first order Integrated MDA CD based sizing Solution space
1 = CD
Mission req. to disciplinary results methods, with disciplinary logic from the development
vehicle concept, for major design Focus on most dependencies and MDA, identifying
Several Vehicle disciplines at CD impotant data connection. Focus on feasibility and
configurations. level. paramters. convergence logic. constraint.
PD/DD level info, Partial disciplinary PD/DD level high- Incomplete MDA, Sizing for Trade several
0.5= PD/DD
Assumed vehicle analysis results, fidelity methods, Partial imrpoving CD configurations,

configuration and Information for Focus on accuracy interrelation phase results. No design soln
technology sub-system for improving between space.
decisions. hardware. efficiency. disciplines.
0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
F I G U R E 2.15 –
LRV programs were assessed scores for which are shown in Figure Information criteria defined for
2.16. As made clear from the assessment of the CD information cri- assessment of CD level
teria, the LRV case-studies show that this design phase is very poorly information available for each
documented. The first criteria, DI is of special relevance as it primar- case-study. Perfect score = 1 is
ily represents if any literature source is found that can be assigned representative of
specifically to the CD phase level assessment. Rest other criterias are comprehensive account of CD
then in turn look at particular information categories that represents level information.
characteristics of CD phase assessment. Disciplinary Results and Dis-
ciplinary Methods criteria can be found in substantial literature for the
PD/DD phases but the last three criteria are significant to primarily for
the CD phase and are found in very few sources.
Overall, this survey shows a design-weak nature of the information
found for the case-studies reviewed. This is in contrast to the AHP
survey results that finds a discipline-strong trend in most case-studies
where individual disciplines are assessed for the influence and contri-
bution to the hypersonic knowledge realm.
2.2.2 Launch Vehicles (LV)

Launch vehicles are the primary enablers for the space industry and
have been in service ever since the launch of Sputnik in 1957. The size,
capability and performance of the LVs since the first V-2 have grown
significantly, where the mighty Saturn-V represents the most powerful
DI DR DM MDA SZ SS
DreamChaser
X-37
X-38
X-34
X-33
Pioneer Pathfinder
HL-20
TAV
SWERVE
ALSV
RASV
X-24C/FDL-8
STS
X-24B/FDL-7
Reentry-F
BGRV
FDL-5
ILRV
X-24A/SV-5P/PILOT
X-23/SV5D/PRIME
HL-10
ASSET
M2-F2
RTTOCV
Alpha Draco
X-20
ROBO
HYWARDS
BRASS
BOMI
Tsien Spaceplane
PERFECT
0 0.5 1.0 0 0.5 1.0 0 0.5 1.0 0 0.5 1.0 0 0.5 1.0 0 0.5 1.0
F I G U R E 2.16 –
CD assessment results for the US based case-studies.
41
42 loveneesh rana
launch capability with the capacity to reach the Moon, see Figure 2.17.
But still, not much has changed on a fundamental design level. To this
day, majority of the launch vehicles are operated on a one-time-use
basis; a primary reason for the high costs of space launch economics.
In this regards, reusability has become one of the most sought-after
trait to achieve for the industry that could allow several magnitudes of
reduction in SAS operations costs.
160000 120
F I G U R E 2.17 –
140000
100 Significant examples of LVs
120000 from the early days of the space
80 industry.
100000
Payload to LEO (kg)
Height (m)
80000 60
60000
40
40000
20
20000
0 0
Sputnik Vanguard Vostok-2M Scout Saturn I Atlas-Centaur Voskhod Titan IIIC Proton-K Saturn V Tsyklon-2 Soyuz-U
8K71PS
1957 1957 1960 1961 1961 1962 1963 1965 1965 1967 1967 1968
Payload to LEO
Traditional users of the LV capability has primarily been the gov-

ernment agencies (USAF, NASA, Soviet Space Agencies etc) which
contracted out the development and manufacturing of the product to
the commercial industry partners (Lockheed, Martin Company, Boe-
ing etc). Thus the LVs were developed explicitly for the governmnet
purposes and consequently, the cost of operations was a government
issue. This operational scenario changed in early 2000s when private
companies like United Launch Alliance were allowed to operate the
LV where the government agencies were paying customers and not
the primary operators. This shift led to emergence of new players
in the market in more recent times where a number of new compa-
nies are starting to address the launch capability in various capacity.
NewSpace Ventures[47] is an online compendium of NewSpace prod-
ucts and companies which lists 600 plus companies from all over the
globe in its database. The website shows currently 46 new companies
address the Launch Vehicle market segment.15 Startups like Vector, 15
This does not include major estab-
ARCA, REBEL Space,Rocket Lab and others are developing smaller lished market players like ULA or
SapceX but only new emerging compa-
scale LV capability that address mainly cube-sat and lower payload nies.
market segment.
With the current developments in the LV market, it is seen that that
the commercial industry is now approaching the reusability and cost
reduction issues in a practical manner rather than focusing only on

developing a fully reusable SSTO capability. SpaceX and Blue Origin
are the major influence in this approach where both companies have
already proven successful recovery of the first stage of a vertical launch
vehicle. SpaceX in particular has recovered the first stage by vertically
landing on a sea-barge or on land in 13 missions as of now, where two
missions have flown previously recovered first stages.
Types of LV Considered
Since with current state of the industry, several LV options are avail-
able and further improvements seems likely to result in a fully reusable
system, this research study would thus focus on the execution of the
primary sizing implementation for the LRV segment of the SAV while
the LV segment would be selected as combination of pre-sized stages,
as specified in Section 1.2.3. The primary reason for this approach is
to keep the number of trade-studies for the SAS within the reasonable
scope of a PhD research. Additionally, sizing the LRV stage using the
application of the SAS-GDSP at hierarchy level-2 would also demon-
strate the generic nature of solution implementation. To this effect, this
section would only limit the discussion of the LVs to the SAV systems
level and would not address LVs design disciplines. Thus, following
discussion focuses on selection of the LV options possible by combi-
nation of individual stages and not by the subsystem disciplines like
propulsion, stability etc. like done for the LRVs in previous section.
There are several ways to categorize launch vehicles, usually based
on payload capacity or the number of stages. In this research study, the
classification scheme applied is based on the level of reusability of the
vertical LVs. The main reason to follow this approach is to address the
near-term availability of the LVs considering currently existing tech-
nology. Following three type of vertical LVs are thus identified:
1. Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV): Most common and prevalent cate-

gory. Eg. ULA Atlas-V.
2. Partially Reusable Launch Vehicle (PRLV): Currently operational and

in-development vehicles that can recover atleast first stage of a multi-
stage LV. Eg. SpaceX Falcon 9.
3. Fully Reusable Launch Vehicle (FRLV): An extrapolation of current

PRLVs based on assumption of a recoverable second stage or using
just the first stage of PRLVs to boost a LRV stage to orbit.
In addition to the examples given for each category, several other con-
figurations can be extrapolated by addition of solid-rocket boosters
with the first stage or an external expandable fuel tank attached to the
44 loveneesh rana
Recoverable
Expendable
Expendable
Expendable
Expendable
Recoverable
Expendable
Recoverable
Recoverable
Recoverable
Recoverable
Expendable
Expendable
Expendable
Expendable
FRLV PRLV ELV
F I G U R E 2.18 –
LRV in place of the second stage of the LV. These scenarios are shown Types of LV considered as
in Figure 2.18. various combination of
constituent stages.
LVs in the TSTO-VTHL
Considering the case for the VTHL-SAS configuration, the role of
the LV is to boost the horizontal landing reentry stage to the orbit. In
this regard, the reentry vehicle acts as a payload for the launch vehicle,
which impose further constraints for the SAS configuration. Moss and
Dorrington[48] recognize this system’s effect as follow:
Whilst spacecraft design alone introduces considerable technical chal-

lenge, the technology involved in the launch will often amplify the com-
plexityâĂŤimposing many additional mission and design constraints...Of
particular concern to the user, in relation to spacecraft design, are the
constraints that the launcher imposes on the mission. These arise espe-
cially in terms of payload mass and size, but also include the selection
of launch sites and launch windows, the launch environment as well as
issues of safety and reliability.
These constraints are used while matching the sized LRV concepts
with the options recognized for the LV options. In this manner, a SAS
concept is assembled where several trade options are feasible. The
F I G U R E 2.19 –
Launch vehicle design process.
The decisions taken at this stage
decide the success or failure of
a project. Reproduced from
Rowell and Korte[49]
SAS-GDSP would then assess all feasible SAS options to select the
most optimum design point.
This marks the end of the review and discussion of the VTHL case-
study. Following is the review of the design synthesis methodologies
used in the conceptual design phase.
2.3 Review of Design Synthesis Methodologies Synthesis

a: the composition or combination of
An aerospace vehicle design synthesis process16 is a systematic way to parts or elements so as to form a whole
b: the combining of often diverse
conceptually design the complex vehicle systems by considering the conceptions into a coherent whole; also:
interdisciplinary integration among primary design disciplines. Gen- the complex so formed
- Merriam-Webster
erally, a synthesis approach includes a set of analysis methods for main 16
Legacy synthesis approaches are man-
design disciplines and a synthesis process logic to integrate the meth- ual or handbook type approach and
ods in a cohesive simulated environment, thus providing conceptual are referred as Synthesis Methodologies
while Modern synthesis approaches are
design of a flight vehicle system. Figure 2.19 from a NASA technical computerized programs and referred as
memorandum report by Rowell and Korte[49] shows the launch vehi- Synthesis Systems
cle conceptual design process, highlights how the the design decisions
taken during the CD phase decides the technological and operational
aspects of the vehicle. These decisions influence the final success or
failure of the product and must be forecasted based on informed de-
cision making. Clearly, this capability is most desired by the chief
decision maker.
Although, majority of flight vehicle design synthesis approaches are
primarily oriented towards aircraft design, the multi-disciplinary inte-
gration logic can be applied to the SAS design by specifying the condi-
tions and constraints applicable for the space environment. Coley[50]
observes certain parallels between aircraft and spacecraft domain which
46 loveneesh rana
serve to highlight the similarity in design fundamentals, see Figure

2.20.
AIRCRAFT DOMAIN CONCEPT SPACECRAFT DOMAIN

F I G U R E 2.20 –
Flight profile Mission architecture Comparisons between the
moon
cruise
descend luna r orbit aircraft and spacecraft domains
hold Mission
leo show parallels observed
description
approach
takeoff lan d
between the aircraft domain
Earth
and the spacecraft domain by
Breguet range equation Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
mission
propulsion
Coley[50].
requirement aerodyn amics
𝑳
𝑽× 𝑫 𝑾𝒊 Fundamental 𝒎𝟎
𝐑𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 = × 𝐥𝐧 ∆𝐕 = 𝒈 × 𝑰𝒔𝒑 × 𝐥𝐧
𝒈 × 𝑺𝑭𝑪 𝑾𝒇 equations 𝒎𝒇
mission requirement
propulsion structures a nd orbital mecha nics structures
materials and materials
Loftin s constraints Koelle s constraints

stall speed and
program scale
power loading
landing field
length
Feasible solution
match point spaces
feasible space
programs
wing loading time
The history of aircraft design philosophy could be traced back all

the way to 1809 when Sir George Cayley[51] first proposed an air-
craft design archetype. Also known as Cayley’s Design Paradigm, it
states that all design functions like aerodynamics, propulsion, stability
& control et al are distributed distinctly over different hardware and
subsystems. Based on this philosophy, conventional subsonic aircrafts
have been designed to this day by first optimizing individual hardware
for its own functions and then integrating them together in one flight
vehicle system. Cayle’s design paradigm assumes that the subsystems
are decoupled with weak interconnections among them. Contrary to
this assumption, a hypersonic flight vehicle is a fully integrated sys-
tem (due to the constraints imposed by the extremely harsh operating
environment) where the integrated system performs all the required
functions, Figure 2.21. Clearly, a hypersonic vehicle design shows sig-
nificant interdependence between constituent subsystems where one
subsystem could have significant affect on the overall system design.
The Aerospace Vehicle Design (AVD) Laboratory is an exotic and
unique research environment that primarily focuses on advancing the
state of the art in conceptual design practices of flight vehicle systems.
Through cumulative and continuing research efforts of several gen-
erations of researchers, AVD has been expanding and developing an
expansive library of valuable data and knowledge, applicable to con-
ceptual design synthesis. Several AVD members (Chudoba, Huang,
Coleman, Gonzalez, Omoragbon, Oza et al) in the past have studied
and reviewed the legacy and modern synthesis methodologies in great

details. Author finds it more effective to leverage the work of previ-
ous AVD members which entails the synopsis and key features of 126
unique synthesis systems developed over the last 50 years, rather than
reviewing every system on his own. To this effect, the next section ad-
dresses classical synthesis methodologies and modern synthesis sys-
tems to identify the requirement specifications for SAS-GDSP.
F I G U R E 2.21 –
Hypersonic Vehicle is a fully
integrated system unlike
Subsonic/Supersonic Vehicles.
The coupling interconnection
between elements is high due to
extreme operating conditions.
Reproduced from Czysz[52]
Figure 22. Integration Improvements of the Structural Concept of Joining Two Individually
Optimized Structures
In kerosene-based fuel aircraft, the fuel can be stored in any shape and has no thermodynamic
∠storage requirements. Also reducing duplicated structural functioning, the shape of the lifting
Synthesis Systems Evolution(Chudoba)[9]: Chudoba provides a his-
surfaces is radically different from the passenger carrying volume. In a hypersonic aircraft, the
fuel environmental
torical review ofrequirements
the flightcan be more
vehicle severe than
design for the passengers,
synthesis systems and and the volume
tracks
comparable. Thus, there is little difference from the fuel and passenger volume requirements.
the evolution in design approaches. A hierarchy of five generations
This volume must then be distributed into the lowest drag, highest lift, and highest air capture
shape.
of synthesis systems is developed, based on increasing proficiency at
integrating multi-disciplinary effects, see Table 2.3."The classification
2.5
scheme Operational
selectedand Hardware Perspective
distinguishes the multitude of vehicle analysis and
An airbreather has a very
synthesis approaches according different exittoflight
theirpath than a rocket
modeling (see Figurethereby
complexity, 23). The
airbreather does not carry its own working fluid (fuel and oxidizer) on board. It must collect
expressing
and process the their limitations
atmosphere and potential.“[25]
as its working fluid. In that process it must fly at speeds and
altitudes that permit
The first four capturing the working
generations fluid fromsystems
of synthesis the atmosphere efficiently,
address while not
chronolog-
exceeding practical constraints. Gliding atmospheric entry is generally above the 200 psf
ical
curve.and modeling-complexity
Brayton cycle analysis (Sectionevolution
VII) showsof thatdesign
a speedapproaches
boundary exists from
where
supersonic
year 1905diffusion must begin
to present if effective Brayton
day capability, cycle performance
highlighting primary is to be maintained.
characteris-
That boundary is approximately co-incident with the duct pressure boundary. Accelerating
tics of will
aircraft each class.
usually flyThis includes
close to the 1,000 classical
psf boundarydesign approaches
to maximize developed
the available thrust minus
drag. The cruise
primarily corridoraircraft
towards is a goal sizing.
sought, where engine thrust for best ISP just equals the total
drag. That match can be very elusive.
The transition from Class II to Class III represents first use of com-
puter automation in the design environment. These early design method-
ologies are found to focus on the selected discipline-specific analysis
31
but lack the multidisciplinary integration that is later implemented
manually. Lovell comments, “initial computer applications were confined
to aspects of structural analysis and wing design. There was some resis-
48 loveneesh rana
Class Design Develop Time Characteristics

Definition
Class I Early Dawn Until 1905 Trial and error approach, experiment, no systematic methodology
Class II Manual Design 1905-1955 Physical design transparency, parameter studies, standard aircraft
Sequence design handbooks
Class III Computer 1955-Today Reduced design cycles, detailed exploration of the design space,
Automation discipline-specific software programs
Class IV Multidisciplinary 1960-Today Computerized design system, MDO, data sharing, centralized design
Integration
Class V Generic Design Future Configuration independent, sophisticated design synthesis of a

Generation user-defined aircraft, true inverse design capability, KBS
T A B L E 2.3 –
Classification of aerospace
tance to the use of computers in initial project design because of the complex design synthesis approaches by
decision-making process involved. However, they enabled more detailed anal- Chudoba[25]
yses to be made and hence allowed a greater range of carpet plots with addi-
tional overlays to be prepared to show the effects of configuration variables on
performance [53]"
Class IV synthesis systems are identified to involve multidisciplinary
integration with the disciplinary analysis, but are limited in applica-
tion to a single-point design optimization and mostly applicable to
one specific vehicle configuration. Majority of synthesis systems upto
Class IV are applicable only for subsonic aircrafts while only selected
few address Space Access Vehicles. Synthesis systems like CzyszâĂŹ
Hypersonic Convergence[52] and PrADO Hy.[8] are identified as sig-
nificant methodology implementations from Class IV type systems.
The assessment leads Chudoba to define the requirements for a Class
V - Generic Synthesis Capability, which is identified as a design process
rather than a design tool. In this regards, the focus here is on developing
the capability over its application. The primary emphasis in this class
is on the application of a modular and dedicated disciplinary methods
libraries for integration of multi-disciplinary effects. Table 2.4 provides
the list of class IV design approaches reviewed by Chudoba, where
highlighted approaches provide partial synthesis capability towards
SAS.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, current dissertation focuses on devel-
opment of a Class V synthesis capability. The main specification for
SAS-GDSP identified from this review is that the primary emphasis for
developing the SAS-GDSP must be on the underlying process, strategy
and logic of the the capability to enable identification of feasible design
solution space.
T A B L E 2.4 –
Class IV design synthesis
systems. Highlighted systems
show partial applicability
towards VTHL SAS
50 loveneesh rana
SAV Synthesis Systems Review(Huang) [7]

Huang expands on Chudoba’s synthesis systems review with an in-
depth assessment of 115 aircraft, helicopter, missile, and launch vehicle
design synthesis methodologies. This comprehensive review assesses
the overview of the development history, design logic, module eval-
uation, and software development description of synthesis method-
ologies, concluding with the advantages and disadvantages of every
methodology. Huang notes that only a few synthesis systems are Significant Manual SAV synthesis
17
applicable for SAVs, identifying selected non-integrated or manual methodologies reviewed by Huang:
K.D. Wood[54] P. Czysz[52], W.E.
SAV design methodologies17 and computer-based synthesis systems18 . Hammond[2], J.L. Hunt[55]
Huang lists these top-level inferences from the assessment, defining
the then state of the art(circa 2004):
18
Computer-based SAV synthesis systems
– Design synthesis systems are the heart of aerospace vehicle design orga- reviewed by Huang:
nizations (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, etc). The development of a PrADO-Hy[8], SSSP[56]
synthesis system is a demanding task and requires large research activities.
– Most of the synthesis systems are developed for aircraft design. Very few
SAV design synthesis systems exist. Especially, there is a lack of efficient
design synthesis systems for highly integrated SAV-type vehicles because
the Cayley‘s design paradigm is no longer valid.
– Synthesis is the key to close (converge) the design through iterations. Ma-
jor synthesis systems estimate design sensitivities and support optimizing
flight vehicle configurations, but only a few synthesis systems are capable
of delivering a proof of convergence. The main drawback of current syn-
thesis systems, especially for SAVs, is that they are not able to efficiently
define the design space and prove design convergence.
– Many design synthesis systems tend to have a common structure with

different computational procedures. However, the design methodologies of
synthesis systems are not transparent. There is a lack of efficient computer-
ized synthesis systems and multi-disciplinary interaction at the conceptual
design level.
– Current design synthesis systems tend to develop a new system for each
new application. There is no generic synthesis system for the SAV concep-
tual design.
– Some systems utilize design statistics (PIANO, AAA) but lack having
available a dedicated CD-Knowledge-Based System for SAV design.
– Managerial decision-making power using a synthesis system is often un- 19

Mathematical Modeling, Multidis-
derestimated and not understood. ciplinary Analysis and Optimization,
Knowledge-Based System, and Generic
The review identifies common characteristic traits of synthesis sys- Concepts
tems 19 and highlights the inability of existing methodologies in com-
prehensively addressing each trait. Huang notes, "The survey clearly
shows that the current conceptual design capabilities available for the
design of SAVs are design method and software limited rather than
computer limited." This conclusion led Huang to define following stan-
dards that a Class-V synthesis system must be capable to adopt:
1. Generic Design Capability
2. Multi-Disciplinary Design Capability
3. Dedicated SAV Conceptual Design Knowledge-Based System (SAV

CD-KBS)
4. Multi-Disciplinary Design Optimization (MDO)
5. Database Management System (DMS)
Based on these specifications, Huang developed a synthesis methodol-

ogy for a sub-orbital case-study (a HTHL-SAV; OU-XP) to demonstrate
the solution concept feasibility. Huang’s solution proposes to divide
the overall mission profile into several sub-sections and synthesizes the
vehicle for each mission phase. Following this, the final step assembles
the vehicle for the complete mission profile. Huang also employs a cost
analysis for the case-study for a sub-orbital tourism based scenario.
The key insight from Huang’s review following the standards spec-
ification for Class-V synthesis system is the inclusion of a Knowledge-
Based System and Database Management System in the conceptual
design synthesis application. These specialized systems expand the
capability of synthesis systems to control utilization of parametric data
and design methods within a multi-disciplinary framework. This ca-
pability allows the expansion of the synthesis system’s applicability
scope in addition to the disciplinary methods.
∠ Aircraft Conceptual Design Methodologies Review(Coleman): Coleman[27]

in continuation of Chudoba and Huang, surveys aircraft design syn- 20
see section 3.1
thesis systems applicable at conceptual design. He divides the air-
craft conceptual design phase in three distinct chronological steps,
(1) Parametric sizing, (2) Configuration Layout, and (3) Configura- 21
Manual sizing processes reviewed by
tion Evaluation. Coleman recognizes parametric sizing as the vital Coleman:
Wood[57], Corning[58], Nicolai[59],
first step where disciplinary technology and vehicle configuration are Loftin[60], Tornbeek[61], Stinton[62],
combined using a multi-disciplinary framework to provide first feasi- Roskam[63], Raymer[64], Jenkinson[65],
Howe[66], and Schaufele[67]
bility assessment of vehicle’s size and scale. He defines sizing process
composed of six fundamental elements20 and identifies two major cat- 22
Computerized sizing processes reviewed
egories of sizing processes. Following this, Coleman provides details by Coleman:
AAA[63], ACES [68], ACSYNT[69],
of logic, application and interpretation of 11 manual21 and, 7 com- ASAP[70], FLOPS[71], PrADO[8] and
puterized22 sizing processes in a process library, complemented by Hypersonic Convergence[52]
Nassi-Shneiderman(NS) structograms representation for each synthe-
sis system. In addition to process library, Coleman also developed
52 loveneesh rana
a methods library consisting of disciplinary methods found as either

parts of a synthesis system, or as standalone analytic methods found
in literature.
AVDsizing
Mission requirements
Range
Payload
Field Requirements
Geometry and configuration assumptions

Gross Configuration
Propulsion system
Structural and systems constants
Constraints
Iterate over any independent design Approach
speed
variable Feasible solution
space
Cru
ise
Iterate for each t specified

Required
(T/W)TO Current Design Point
Aborted Landing OEI
2nd Segment Climb OEI

Geometry
-off
Take
Current (W/S)TO (W/S)TO

Constraint Analysis: T/W=f(W/S)
Trajectory
Trajectory:
ff=f(trajectory,aero,propulsion)
Weight budget: compute OWEw
Volume budget: compute OWEv
Iterate Spln until OWEw and OWEv converge
Fundamental Sizing Steps

Trajectory Convergence Constraint
OEW estimation Sizing Logic
Analysis Logic Analysis
F I G U R E 2.22 –
Coleman applies the results from the review to define the AVDSizing Fundamental AVDSizing logic
(AVDS) logic based on the methodology of Paul Czysz’s Hypersonic based on Paul Czysz’s
Convergence[52], see Figure 2.22. Coleman comments, “Most sizing Hypersonic Convergence[52]
processes, converge weight only (i.e. compute the fuel and empty weight for methodology. Reproduced from
a given trajectory), then volume is checked as an inequality constraint...by Coleman[27].
using volume as equality constraint instead of an inequality constraint the
sizing problem can be reduced to fewer fundamental design variables. Nu-
merically, the reduction of one design variables (via 1 additional equation,
volume) is not significant. However, for design space visualization this tech-
nique has proven useful for increasing the physical understanding of the de-
sign space for both unconventional and conventional aircraft....Formulated in
this manner, the fundamental process is applicable to any fixed wing aircraft
or launcher with changes in the disciplinary methods and geometry module
when appropriate.“
Coleman then applies the AVDSizing logic in a computerized MDA
synthesis system referred as AVDS, that is composed of a MATLAB
based modular structure where the disciplinary methods are indepen-

dent MATLAB files combined in a systematic MDA. A wide spectrum
of conventional and unconventional transonic aircrafts and hypersonic
cruise vehicles case-studies are executed to demonstrate the generic
application of the system.
The main finding of the review remains that parametric sizing as-
pect of conceptual design synthesis is stagnated and ignored in the cur-
rent literature. The key specification for SAS-GDPS recognized from
this review is that a synthesis capability must have distinct systems for
handling disciplinary methods and integration processes that are uti-
lized in execution of the parametric sizing. Combined with Huang’s
specifications, it becomes apparent that a Database Management Sys-
tem would be the ideal choice to manage these libraries.
∠ Survey of Synthesis Systems in terms of System Capability (Gonza-

lez, Omoragbon and Oza): Gonzalez[26], Omoragbon[72] and Oza[11]
review 11 By-Hand synthesis methodologies23 and 9 Computer-Based 23
By-Hand synthesis methodologies re-
synthesis systems24 based on the system capability criteria. The review viewed by Gonzalez, Oza, Omoragbon:
Wood[57], Corning[58], Nicolai[59],
criteria measures the “capability of synthesis systems to characterize, Loftin[60], Tornbeek[61], Stinton[62],
analyze, and solve classical and new/novel aerospace problems" and Roskam[63], Raymer[64], Jenkinson[65],
Howe[66], and Schaufele[67]
is broken into six categories shown in Figure 2.23. The review assesses
Table 2-5 Literature Survey Criteria – System Capability
System Capability
1. Integration & Connectivity 24
Computer-Based synthesis systems
a Can assess each hardware technology independently reviewed by Gonzalez, Oza, Omoragbon:
b Can assess multiple disciplinary effects for each hardware AAA[63], ACSYNT[69],
2. Interface Maturity FLOPS[71], PrADO[8], Hypersonic
Convergence[52], AVDS[27], pyOPT[73]
a Can combine hardware technologies to form a vehicle
and Model Center
b Can combine hardware technology disciplinary effects
3. Scope of Applicability
a Conceptual design phase applicability
b Product applicability
4. Influence of New Components or Environment
a Modular hardware technologies
b Modular mission types F I G U R E 2.23 –
c Modular disciplinary analysis methods System capability criteria used
5. Prioritization of Technology Development Efforts
a Able to match hardware technology disciplinary models to problem requirements
by Gonzalez, Oza and
b Data management capability Omoragbon to assess the
6. Problem Input Characterization current state of the art synthesis
a Methodological problem requirements system capability. Reproduced
from Gonzalez[26].
2.2.2the
Representative Synthesis
selected synthesis Systems
systems for each category and identifies the need
for a database management system (DBMS) in aerospace synthesis as
The synthesis systems reviewed using the criterion detailed in the previous section
a significant requirement. Following this crucial capability identifi-
are listed in Table
cation, 2-6 and Table 2-7.
the Computer-Based Table systems
synthesis 2-6 represents by-handtoaircraft
are reviewed assess design
processes classically found in design text books and short courses. Table 2-7 represents
computer-based synthesis systems. The selected systems range from those developed for
use in academia to industry. The listing of both by-hand and computer-based synthesis
systems is meant to be a representative cross section of aircraft conceptual design
methodologies. A comprehensive listing of the synthesis systems reviewed by Chudoba,

54 loveneesh rana
their capability to address the DBMS implementation. This is done by

defining additional list of data management criteria shown in Figure
2.24. Model Center and pyOPT are shown to have the highest degree
of data management capability as Gonzalez notes, “The database man-
agement system in each case has been designed not to connect pieces
to solve a specific problem, but instead to connect pieces to solve a
user-defined problem." This aspect is identified missing in classical
aircraft synthesis systems and is proposed as the highlight capability
to be introduced in the next generation of the synthesis systems.
The final conclusion from the review is stated as follows, “One of the
major takeaways has been that the systems able to model the widest variety of
and integrate these results through the use of the DBMS as the backbone of the analytical
problems have a database management system that is able to adapt its struc-
framework.
ture Huang problem,
for a given (Huang 2006) goesCenter
Model one stepasfurther and state
the prime the following:
example. The open and
adaptable
Thenature
desiredofdataintegration
management frameworks
system notlikeonlyModel
stores Center while allowing
and manipulates
for easynumerical
connection data belonging to physical design parameters, but it also
between new and legacy tools, do not have any structure
controls the utilization of the design methods library. Additionally, it is a
or format for analysis
communication in and
platform of themselves.
for the They areThe
inter-discipline modules. created withof the re-
availability
a robust DMS facilitates data transfer, reduces data transcription errors,
quirement
and that
allows a synthesis
the designerspecialist knows from
to use different the outset
computing what heand
environments wants to
model, widely
how he distributed
wants to teams.
model it, and how everything should be connected.
This means that
The resulting listingwhile data aconnections
represents can be easily
database management mademeant
approach between analysis
for integrated
modules, the question of which modules to choose for a given problem is still
data storage, transfer and management, see Table 2-11.
solely a function of user experience[26]."
Table 2-10 System Capability – Data Management Survey Criterion
Data Management Criterion

a Easy to create, change, delete, and view projects and project data. F I G U R E 2.24 –
b Accommodates all project types and project information Data Management criterion
c Supports entry of annotative comments and appending documents, images, and links for project
d documentation
Accommodates hundreds/thousands of projects
assesses the capability of
e Supports data import from your existing systems and databases Computer-Based synthesis
f Supports data export to your existing systems and databases
systems to manage and transfer
g Supports dependency links among projects
h Provides data cut-and-paste, project cloning, and data roll-over data within the system.
i Provides completeness/error checks and data warnings Reproduced from Gonzalez[26].
j Allows multiple portfolios and portfolio hierarchies (parent-child links)
k Allows dynamic portfolios (portfolios defined based on latest project data)
l Provides search, filter, and sort
m Provides data archiving
n Provides statistical analysis of historical data (e.g., trend analysis)
After reviewing each synthesis system in terms of their System Capability metrics,
it can be seen that one of the main difference between the by-hand and computer-based
The review leads to specification for creation of a system that ap-
systems is the management of data. The by-hand methodologies layout a framework for
proaches aircraft synthesis from a data management approach similar
to
an Model Center.butThe
analytic process, system
the actual in reference
connection was discipline
of data from createdtoasdiscipline,
a collabo-
and
rative effort among three researchers at the AVD lab and is referred
discipline to system is left to the synthesis specialist. Due to the nature of computer-based
as the AVDDBMS (also referred to as simply the DBMS). The DBMS
systems, the analytic framework, as well as the data connections have been decided a
is not a design synthesis, instead it is a prototype implementation
priori. provides
that Each computer-based
the unique system is the result
capability of this implementation
of developing custom for a specific
tailor syn-
thesis systems specific to the problem. The software is executed in MS-
ACCESS using the VBA and SQL programming language and acts as
35
a warehouse of the modules that are the basic building blocks of a syn-
thesis MDA. The user selects problem specific components from this
warehouse-type setting and combines them together by following a
systematic step by step process to create unique synthesis MDA based
on problem specific demands. The DBMS implementation demon-
strates a fundamental paradigm shift in the way traditional design has
been approached till now and is recognized as a Class V synthesis
capability for the flight vehicle synthesis systems.
The DBMS was applied to demonstrate the aforementioned unique
capability as a part of the AFRL Summer Faculty Fellowship Program
by Chudoba and Gozalez[74]. An AFRL initiative, the generic hy-
personic vehicle (GHV) study was used as the verification case-study
to validate the results of the DBMS by Gonzalez. The DBMS results
showed general agreement with the GHV reference data. System’s
potential was recognized by the USAF as the Fellowship Program ex-
tended to a research contract with AVD LLC., where the system was
further applied for the follow-up phases of the GHV study[74]. The
DBMS development process, GHV verification results and further de-
tails of the system are found in the PhD dissertations of Gonzalez[26],
Omoragbon[72] and Oza[11].
The primary take-away from this review is the significance of the
data management application in a Class V synthesis capability and the
significance of the application of a system with the functional features
like that of the AVDDBMS
∠ Synthesis systems review synopsis and lessons learned: The reviews

by Chudoba, Huang, Coleman, Gonzalez, Omoragbon and Oza pro-
vide a comprehensive account of the evolution and current state of the
art of the flight vehicle synthesis capabilities, covering a total of 126
synthesis approaches. The reviews also act as an accelerating platform
to gain the fundamental understanding of the synthesis systems and
their applications in the aircraft and the SAS domain. Following dis-
cussion provides an overview synopsis of the reviews discussed above:
1. A Class V synthesis capability is distinctly identified as representa-

tive of the current state of the art. The primary aim while develop-
ing a Class V synthesis capability is on the underlying development
process, strategy and logic of the capability. Further, the Class V
synthesis capability must be generic in logic and be applicable to a
wide array of flight vehicle configurations, rather than one specific
class. Thus, a Class V SAS synthesis capability must be applicable
to the four primary categories defined in Section 1.1.1 in Chapter 1.
2. A state of the art Class V synthesis capability must be able to gen-

erate and screen a comprehensive design solution space for the CD
56 loveneesh rana
phase, consisting of design concepts satisfying the required mission

objectives. A design solution space is developed through the trades
conducted for the primary design drivers that constitute the prod-
uct being designed. Clearly, this requires that the Class V capability
for the SAS must be able to execute trades for elements at hierarchy
level-2 and level-3, and further define consistent comparative crite-
ria to access the design solution for the technical and business-case
feasibility.
3. In order to address the information-scarce nature of the CD phase,

a Data-Base system is identified as a crucial requirement for the
Class V synthesis systems. The Data-Base system is defined as a
proficient toolbox to catalog and store the information specific to
the past projects, vehicles and primary design disciplines. This in-
formation aids designer to make informed approximations and as-
sumptions for the multi-disciplinary framework execution, and to
define practical trade studies. For the SAS domain, the Data-Base
system must address elements belonging to hierarchy level-2 (the
SAVs) and hierarchy level-3.
4. Parametric sizing is recognized as the vital system capability that

is implemented in a mathematical framework to integrate the dis-
ciplinary methods in a multi-disciplinary process and implement a
convergence criteria to size the design concepts. In this aspect, dis-
tinct systems are required to manage a library of discipline-specific
analysis methods and the multi-disciplinary integration processes.
5. A Data Management System is shown to be a crucial capability

that enables a Class V synthesis system to model the widest vari-
ety of problems. This capability regulates the flow of information
within the parametric sizing execution, controls data transfer be-
tween involved disciplinary modules and implements utilization of
disciplinary methods in the multi-disciplinary framework. A robust
data management system is found missing in the flight vehicle syn-
thesis approach and has been applied in the AVDDBMS to develop a
prototype Class V synthesis system that for the first time enables the
designer to create tailor-made customized synthesis systems based
on project requirements.
2.4 Research Hypothesis Justification and System Specification
Based on the understanding gained from the comprehensive reviews

of the selected case-study and the research application domain, this
section specifies where and how this current research study contributes
to advancing the state of the art of the CD domain. This is addressed in
the first part and serves as the justification for the research hypothesis
presented in Chapter 1, section 1.2.3. The second part then provides
the specification for the SAS-GDSP solution, which also serves as the
main objectives of the research.
2.4.1 Commentary on the current CD capabilities and the Scope to

make an original research contribution:
The review of the existing synthesis capabilities provides an under-
standing of the current state of the art and the scope of the existing ca-
pabilities for the CD phase. The following discussion then recognizes
where and how this scope can be expanded, specific to the domain of
the SAS. This also serves as the justification of the primary research
hypothesis and specifically identifies the novel original contributions
of this dissertation to the field of aerospace design in general and the
multi-disciplinary sciences in specific.
The following traits have been identified
1. Majority of the existing synthesis systems are limited to the aircraft

domain while only very few synthesis approaches are available for
Space Access Vehicles. This is found true for the selected SAV class,
LRV systems, as shown through the comprehensive assessment of
the past LRV programs conducted in Section 2.2.1 where no compre-
hensive CD phase documentation is found for the 60 LRV projects
assessed.
2. Most synthesis approaches are found to belong to the Class IV cat-

egory and address a specific configuration. Hypersonic Conver-
gence, AVDS and DBMS are notable exceptional Class V capabili-
ties which do address a wide range of configurations and represents
the incremental development in the capability to address CD phase
more comprehensively to support the decision maker in forecasting
correct trends and foresee avoidable mistakes. The AVDS systems
has been built on the fundamental logic of the Hypersonic Conver-
gence’s generic design approach and improved on the capability to
produce effective design solution space and address much more de-
sign options. The DBMS is then the latest prototype platform which
expands the scope of the AVDS system by addressing synthesis in
further generic capability. It can custom build new synthesis sys-
tems and thus in a manner is a capability that can create Class IV
synthesis systems according to the specifications of the project.
Although DBMS addresses the design approach in a more generic
manner than the AVDS and the Hypersonic Convergence, it is still
in its developmental stages. As of now, it has been applied for siz-
ing only the atmospheric hypersonic case-studies utilizing a scram-
58 loveneesh rana
jet propulsion system[74]. Currently, the DBMS capability presents

a platform that has wide applicability but lacks maturation in terms
of the disciplinary methods and data-base required for sizing SAV
class vehicles. This is recognized as one of the primary original con-
tribution in terms of system development that is addressed through this
research study by developing the required Data-Base and Knowledge-Base
of disciplinary analysis methods library for the VTHL systems.
Hierarchy SAS-GDSP
Case
VTHL VTVL HTHL HTVL
( SYNTHESIS PROCESS (
Level = 1 A CLASS V
(SAS) Study
Hierarchy Vertical Blended Vertical

Horizontal Wing Lifting
Level = 2 Landing Body TakeOff
TakeOff Body Body
(SAV) Second Stage First Stage First Stage CLASS V
First Stage Second Stage
SYNTHESIS SYSTEM
• Hypersonic Convergence
• AVDS
Hierarchy
• AVD - DBMS
Level = 3
(SUBSYSTEMS)
(DISCIPLINES)
CLASS IV
SYNTHESIS
SYSTEMS
F I G U R E 2.25 –
3. Despite the generic nature and wide applicability of these synthe- SAS-GDSP increases the scope
sis tools, it is found that their capability is only applicable for inte- of CD assessment across vertical
grating subsystems disciplines to size and develop design solution hierarchy levels, a unique
spaces for a flight vehicle which exists at the hierarchy level-2 for capability missing from existing
the SAS, i.e. the SAVs. Although they can size both, the first stage synthesis approach.
and the second stage separately, these systems do not address the
topmost hierarchy level of the SAS with the same consistent process
and in the same cohesive manner as one system, as they do for the
SAVs at the second hierarchy level.
Hence, no Class V capability is found that is applicable at hierarchy
level-2 and hierarchy level-1 consistently . The proposed SAS-GDSP
in comparison presents a generic process that is applicable consis-
tently to hierarchy level-2 as well as hierarchy level-1 because it is
defined as a process and not necessarily a system (although a syn-
thesis system is a crucial part of it, the SAS-GDSP expands beyond
these synthesis systems). The SAS-GDSP thus proposes a best prac-
tice solution process that can be followed consistently for SAVs and
SASs, independently. This notion is developed in Chapter 3 and val-
idated for SAS hierarchy level-2 in Chapter 4 and for SAS hierarchy
level-1 in Chapter 5 with results.
In doing this, SAS-GDSP does increase the scope of CD phase vertically
across the SAS hierarchy. This aspect of the proposed solution is visual-
ized in Figure 2.25 and is recognized as the fundamental original ideology
contribution to the field of the multi-disciplinary sciences.
4. Cost is mostly addressed in a very passive manner during the CD

phase and is not actively used in making design decisions25 . This 25
None of Hyp Cov, AVDS or DBMS
is mainly because CD phase assessments are first order results and has cost capability right now. Although
DBMS platform provides capability
overlook many important factors that are important in assessing to add cost as a disciplinary analysis
total life-cycle cost eg. manufacturing, operations et al. As a result, method, it does not exist as such in its
current state
cost predictions in the CD phase are always unreliable and tend not
to be a significant design driver.
In contrast SAS-GDPS proposes to involve cost actively in the CD
process. This is done by assessing cost estimates and normalizing
it by the overall performance, then developing a solution space of
this cost-performance matrix measure for the CD solution phase.
In this manner, the accuracy of the cost phase is secondary as cost
is now not used to predict overall cost estimates of the design but
instead used as a comparative criteria in trade studies. The funda-
mental idea here is that even though cost estimates may be inac-
curate to a certain degree, they are equally not true for all solution
concepts considered. The primary intention is to not find the cheap-
est or the best performing vehicle but instead the one that gives
best performance-per-capita. By including cost and mission analysis,
the SAS-GDSP expands the scope of CD in horizontal direction and
adds even more value to the results of CD that can help decision
maker even further. This recognized as the second fundamental original
ideology contribution to the field of the conceptual design practices.
2.4.2 System Specifications/Objectives:

The above discussion has shown the major features that the SAS-GDSP
is required to address in order to effectively provide a comprehensive
CD assessment capability for a generic SAS. The following traits have
been identified as the basic tenets of a best-practice design tool and
serve as the logical guidelines for this research.
∠ Physics based parametric modeling capability
∠ Systems level configurational assessment
∠ MDA based sizing implementation
∠ Fixed mission design convergence (with total system convergence

proof)
∠ Solution space screening

60 loveneesh rana
∠ Cost-performance optimal design selection
The primary objective of this dissertation as stated initially is to ad-

vance the practices and capabilities of early design synthesis method-
ologies as applied to space access systems engineering, aimed at di-
rectly supporting the chief decision maker to add maximum value to
the product. The specific objectives are defined which also act as the
specifications for the SAS-GDSP:
1. Develop a generic design synthesis process applicable for all SAS

configuration; SAS-GDPS.
2. Demonstrate applicability of the SAS-GDPS at the hierarchy level-2

for LRV segment of SAV level, proving SAS-GDPS as a generic Class
IV synthesis methodology.
3. Develop a comprehensive data and knowledge library addressing

primary disciplinary categories for LRV type SAVs.
4. Demonstrate applicability of the SAS-GDPS at the hierarchy level-1,

proving SAS-GDPS as a generic synthesis process capable of synthe-
sizing all generic SAS class.
5. Develop a disciplinary analysis methods library applicable for dis-

ciplines involved in the VTHL type SAS and verify the solution
process along the selected design case-studies.
This chapter has provided a comprehensive review of the selected

SAS case-study, the VTHL systems. Development of the AHP based
analytical model for disciplinary assessment of the world-wide LRV
programs is in itself a prototype approach to capture and quantify the
knowledge contributions by legacy programs. Further, review of the
design synthesis systems recognize the current capabilities for the CD
phase and provides a significant understanding of where the current
research study can contribute to advance the state of the art for the
CD assessment capability. Following this the last section identifies the
primary requirements for the SAS-GDSP and major specific objectives
of the dissertation.
The next chapter will explain the solution process developed to sat-
isfy these primary objectives.
Chapter 3
LOGICAL SOLUTION ARCHITECTURE
Logical Architecture describes how a solution works, in terms of function and
logical information. It is used to show a static view of the solution implying con- ∠ Warren Weinmeyer,
nectivity between the elements and/or a dynamic view of the solution describing An introduction to fundamental architec-
the process flow. ture concepts
PowerPoint Slides
Section 3.1
This chapter proposes the logical buildup to the solution. In the System Modules
first section, the primary top-level system modules for the SAS-GDSP1 What is developed ?
solution are defined, providing a static view of the process. The sec- • Static view of the solution.
ond section then describes the overall development process for the • #3 Top-Level Constituents
primary system modules. The overall process is composed of four • SAS-GDSP = SASDB + SASKB + SASPP
distinct System Development Processes (SDPs) leading to the creation
Section 3.2
of the SAS-GDSP. The third section describes the interconnection of
System Development Process
the systems module and development processes providing the overall
How is it developed ?
Logical Solution Architecture for the SAS-GDSP. The proposed solu-
• Dynamic view of the solution
tion is a four-step process that is generic in nature as every constituent • #4 Steps to Develop SAS-GDSP.
module and development process is independent of the vehicle cate- • SASMission > SASTech > SASMDA > SASScreen
gory or the system hierarchy level and is thus applicable to all four
primary SAS categories. Section 3.3
SAS-GDSP: Logical Solution
Generic Design Process
3.1 Identifying Top-Level System Modules • Overall solution concept.
• Interconnection between “System
The review of the synthesis approaches in Chapter 2 provides a base- Modules” and “System Development
line understanding of the primary requirements for the SAS-GDSP. Processes”.
Following a top down approach here, the first step is to identify the
primary modules that could be described as top level constituents of F I G U R E 3.1 –
the proposed solution. Three primary system modules are defined Chapter-3 Overview
next as; 1) Data-Base (DB) Module, 2) Knowledge-Base (KB) Module,
and 3) Parametric-Processing (PP) Module. The first two modules,
namely, DB and KB are developed by utilizing the organization struc- 1
SAS-GDSP:Space Access Systems -
ture in the JabRef Central Library (see, Section 2.1.2) while the third Generic Design Synthesis Process
module, PP is developed through an application of the first two mod-
ules.
3.1.1 Data-Base Module : VTHLDB

A significant common aspect of all of the design methodologies re-
viewed is that the conceptual design phase requires inputs and initial
62 loveneesh rana
guess estimates based on past projects with similar missions require-

ments. The conceptual design phase is the first step where the vehi-
cle is defined in terms of gross configuration selection, basic physical
characteristics (gross mass, volume, size, etc.) and sub-system selec-
tion. The only input for this stage are the initial mission requirements
which usually tend to be defined by the customer. Therefore, the ma-
jority of the initial inputs are best guess estimates based on trends and
physical aspects of past projects of similar nature. To facilitate this
demand, a VTHL-dedicated library is required to make best guess es-
timates at system and sub-systems level. This library is an organized
collection of structured data pertaining to VTHL elements belonging
to the first three hierarchy levels.
It must be noted here that the specific definition of ‘Data‘ and ‘Data-
Sources‘ in Section 2.1.1 was done to this purpose. Data is defined as
specific information applicable to one particular case, thus pertaining
to specific vehicles (SAVs), design disciplines (aerodynamics, propul-
sion, structures etc.) or components (engines, control surfaces etc.)
from past projects. The JabRef Central Library and the classification of
literature sources was primarily implemented to organize and enable
rapid access to the data-sources that represent main sources of VTHL
data. Additionally, the survey of LRV programs done in Section 2.2.1
resulted in a structured data-base formulation for the LRV vehicles
and related subsystems. Similarly, data-sources addressing specific
existing and past LVs and related subsystems are also included in the
VTHLDB .
As an example, a source in the VTHLDB addresses one or more of
following:
• Look-up tables of standard physics based data.

(Eg. Standard atmospheric tables, propellant properties etc.)
• Physical Characteristics of Vehicles, sub-systems and components.

(Eg. Overall physical properties of vehicles like the X-20[75] (TOGWX-20 ,
Planform AreaX-20 ), the Space Shuttle (STS) (VolSTS , Wetted AreaSTS )
etc.)
• Performance estimates of vehicles and subsystems from the past

programs. (Eg. Dyna-Soar aerodynamic performance[76], Descrip-
tion and Performance of the Saturn V Guidance Navigation & Con-
trol system (NASA TN D-5869)[77])
• Test-results from past vehicle projects and technology programs.
It should be noted that the DB is the collection of raw data for elements
of a VTHL system and alone provides information about individual
LEGACY LRV VEHICLES GEOMETRY DATA LEGACY LRV VEHICLES WEIGHT DATA
Geometry Parameter Units STS X20 FDL-5LC X-24C FDL-7MC X20 BreakDown (lbs.) FDL-5LC Weight BreakDown (lbs.) X24C Weight BreakDown (lbs.)
Wings
MAIN MAIN
S (reference area) s q.ft 2690 345 527 787 231
b (span) ft 78.056 20.457 24.17 24.28 12.33 MAIN AERODYNAMIC SURFACES 2617 WING 1651.5
AR (asspect ratio) 2.265 1.213 0.875 0.743 0.658 WINGS 2244.31 BODY STRUCTURE 5048 FUSELAGE 9708.6
λ(taper ratio) 0.2 0.184 0 0.181 0 BODY 3790 TPS LANDING GEAR 1349.5
Λ_LE (leading edge sweep) deg 81/45 72.8 79 75 80
Λ_TE(trailing edge sweep) deg -10 10.4 0 0 -15
LANDING GEAR 393.01 ENVIRONMENTAL PROT 3106
C_Root(@Centerline) ft 57.44 34.47 51.33 55.12 36.92 6427.32 PROPULSION
C_Tip ft 11.48 NA 0 10 0 CONTROL SURFACES PROPULSION PROPULSION 1828
C (mean aerodynamic chord) ft 39.56 20.46 34.22 37.82 24.61
FIN 1152.7 MAIN PR0PULSION 1283 PROPELLANT SYSTEM 2639.4
Y ft 15.17 3.75 3.556 4.65 2.056
W/S reentry l b/s q.ft 89.5 44.7 51.2 34.2 49.5 RUDDER 385.69 RESERVE PROPELLANTS 542 4467.4
W/S landing l b/s q.ft 77.3 44.1 56.7 34 48.7 ELEVON 659.85 1825 TAIL 1592
Dihedral deg 3.5 0 0 0 -3.5 HYDROLICS 489.26 AVIONICS SURFACE CONTROLS 790.6
R_LE, normal to LE ft NA 0.33 0.25 NA 0.142
Body
2687.5 ORIENTATION CONTROLS 340.3 SUBSYSTEMS
L_total ft 122 35.3 50.38 74.83 38.67 PRIME PWR SOURCE 1642 INSTRUMENTS 99.2
L_ref ft 107.5 28.3 45 69.88 35 AVIONICS PWR CONVERSION 1063 HYDRAULICS 310.9
S_base s q.ft 365.7 38.1 46.4 39.17 19.5
TOTAL AVIONICS 2572 GNC 1377 ELCCTRICAL 509.4
S_bodyplanform s q.ft 1914.4 130 NA 636.82 NA
Max depth ft 19.32 5.54 7 10.31 4.35 INSTRUMENTATION 40 AVIONICS 200.7
Max Width ft 22 5.2 21.3 7.76 8.7 PAYLOAD COMMUNICATION 141 FURNISHINGS 360
R_nose ft 2.67 0.625 0.417 0.76 0.25 CARGO 1000 4604 AIR CONDlTlON 399.1
Vertical Fins
S_fin s q.ft 431.25 64.6 55.5 173.9 43.4
1000 SUBSYSTEMS 1879.3
b_fin ft 26.31 5.92 5.67 9.34 4.45 LAUNCH, RECOVERY, DOCK 1020 PAYLOADS
AR_fin 1.675 1.084 0.58 1 0.913 EXPENDABLES ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 1640 INSTRUMENTATION 1001
λ_fin 0.404 0.134 0.122 0.431 0.519
TOTAL EXP 2178.72 PERSONNEL PROVISIONS 782 PILOT 284
Λ_LE_fin deg 45 55/68 77/65.5 53.6 52
Λ_TE_fin deg 26.2 0 0 61.8 30 CREW STATION 280 OXYGEN 24.3
C_Root_fin ft 22.37 9.775 19.75 14.15 6.42 TOTAL 3722 RESIDUAL FLUIDS 99.2
C_Tip_fin ft 9.04 1.31 2.42 6.09 3.33 LAUNCH WT 6805.21 PAYLOAD PAYLOAD BAY PACKEAGES 999
V=(S_fin*l/S_ref*b) 0.0537 0.096 0.081 0.1871 0.161
R_Lefin(normal to LE) ft NA 0.25 167 0 1.6
LANDING WT 4233.21 PERSONNEL 1016 2407.5
Wetted Areas CARGO 4000 EXPENDABLES
Body s q.ft 6649 324.3 1259.7 1739 590 EXPENDABLES PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM 123.5
Wing(exposed variable geometry s q.ft 3486 575 160.3 531.36 77.6
IN-FLIGHT LOSSES 10415
Fins s q.ft 744 135 115 347.8 92
Others s q.ft 663 0 100.3 0 45.7 TOTALS TOTALS
Wing-Body intersection s q.ft 667.6 54.5 NA 57.97 NA MASS EMPTY 21368
Fin intersection s q.ft 27.4 7.8 15.1 9.66 NA LANDING WEIGHT 26300 OPERATING MASS EMPTY 22778
Other intersection s q.ft 320 NA NA NA NA
Swet=TOTAL (excludes base area) s q.ft 11,136 972 1459.9 2550.52 727.7
EMPTY WEIGHT 20381 INERT MASS 23777
S_base/Swet(exc base) 0.0328 0.0289 0.0318 0.0152 0.0268 LAUNCH WT 36715 LAUNCH WT 66003
T A B L E 3.1 –
cases2 . Table 3.1 shows example of geometric and weight data charac- Physical Characteristics Data
teristics of the some legacy LRV vehicles created as a part of VTHLDB . Sets of legacy LRV vehicles
Further similar data tables were created for the LRV design disciplines created through VTHLDB
2
A total of 403 references form the
and LVs and are given in the following chapters where required. VTHLDB .
3.1.2 Knowledge-Base Module : VTHLKB

Knowledge is an abstract term which can be used in many references
based on the implication and application of the concept. Everything
known can be called as knowledge in a very broad sense. In context
of this application, knowledge is defined in Section 2.1.1 as the generic
information that addresses more than one particular case. Hence the
literature source addressing information applicable to a class of sys-
tems or sub-systems is a knowledge source as it is applicable to all the
cases under that particular classification. These literature sources are
identified exclusively in the JabRef Central Library, thereby enabling 3
A total of 246 reference sources form
the VTHLKB .
to define and organize the VTHLKB library within the JabRef system3
by assigning specific keywords that help to scan and identify required
64 loveneesh rana
information.4 4
Standard Keywords like ‘Methods‘
As mentioned earlier, the CD phase assessment is primarily ad- and ‘Analysis‘ with each discipline
(‘Aerodynamics‘, ‘Propulsion‘ etc) help
dressed by a multi-disciplinary framework where first-order disciplinary to find and select the required methods.
analysis is integrated to establish concept feasibility. Hence, an ex-
ample for a primary type of knowledge then would be the classical
analytical equations found in most textbooks which are used as dis-
ciplinary analysis methods as they are correlating several variables in
an input-output type manner. When the inputs deck is specified for
a particular case, the output is solved for only that specific set of in-
puts. A basic example of this case is the well known rocket equation
which correlates vehicles mass-ratio and fuel energy (via variable Isp)
to calculate vehicle’s performance measure. It is a generic informa-
tion which can be applied to any specific selection of vehicle, fuel and
rocket engine, thus giving performance measure for that specific se-
lection of elements. Similarly, a generic aircraft design methodology
like Loftin or PrADO is an example of a multi-disciplinary knowledge
source. Coleman[27] identifies the significance of a ’process and meth-
ods library’ which is defined here as the Knowledge-Base as follows:
"A well organized and condensed Process Library and Disciplinary Methods
Library would provide the designer with a quick reference to the tools avail-
able, how and when to use them. Such a library would provide the elements for
a rapid adaptation of a design process to a new design problem to be solved."
A source in VTHLKB module addresses these types of information:
• Standard classical textbook-based disciplinary analysis methods.

(Eg. Rocket equation, trajectory analysis methods etc.)
• Existing empirical methods based on the data-correlation for a class

of vehicles or subsystems. These methods are usually created by
identifying characteristic generic trends observed by conducting tests
or analysis for a for several elements of a same group.
(Eg. Aerodynamic Characteristics of Reentry Configurations[78].)
• Design synthesis MDAs and integration processes addressing a class

of vehicles (i.e. a configuration)5 (Eg. Loftin, Hunt, Hypersonic 5
A Generic Class V MDA represents
Convergence AVDS etc.) a higher knowledge capability than a
Class IV which is only applicable for
one particular configuration. A Class
• Heuristics and general trends that indicate some charateristic fea- IV MDA is also a knowledge source
tures of a class and help make design decisions. These are different as it can be applied to size several
individual cases all belonging to same
from empirical methods since these are not quantified but are qual- configuration. An MDA developed for
itative description of non-tangible or salient aspects of vehicles. only one specific vehicle/project like
SSSP is then a type of DB source as it is
applicable only for one particular case.
The application of the KB module in developing empirical data-base

disciplinary methods and recognizing characteristic trends is shown
in Figure 3.2. The first plot is from a NASA technical report[79] where
EARTH-ORBIT
4
OPERATIONS
CONVENTIONAL LANDING
(MULTIPURPOSE MODULAR
3 SPACE & ENTRY VEHICLES)
MANNED MANEURABLE
L/D (PERFORMANCE)
ENTRY VEHICLES
SPACE RECOVERY
(COMBINED
GY
SPACE/ENTRY VEHICLES)
LO
NO
2
CH
TE
M-2, HL-10
PLANETARY MISSIONS
2
GEMINI APOLLO TECHNOLOGY

EARLY BALLISTIC
NOSE CONE MERCURY
0
1950 1960 1970 1980
APPLICATION OF KB
► Developing Empirical Methods from Data ► Generic Trends Recognition
F I G U R E 3.2 –
the flight determined aerodynamic performance test data for several Individual vehicle’s data and
legacy program was used by Saltzman, Wang and Iliff to “provide a characteristics when assessed
useful analytical framework with which to compare and evaluate new for a generic class can be used
vehicle configurations of the same generic family." The second part of to develop new methods and
the Figure shows generic characteristic trends for reentry vehicles is useful insights for future
taken from Loh[80]. application. The first plot is
reproduced from Saltzman et
al.[79] and the second part of
3.1.3 Parametric Processing Module : VTHLPP
the Figure is reproduced from
While ‘Data‘ is the information related to one specific entity, ‘Knowl- Loh [80]
edge‘ is continuum information that relates several specific entities
showing similar nature. This is the fundamental logic of defining a
class or a group and the definition of data and knowledge provided
here are backtracked from this logic. In the context of the MDA frame-
work, disciplinary methods analysis and empirical estimates are used
together to solve for individual subsystems under mission specific con-
straints where all these factors are governed by the primary objectives
for the mission. For example, a subsonic aircraft would confine to a
different set of constraints than a hypersonic test demonstrator and
hence the analysis methods used for a hypersonic propulsion system
analysis would also be based on a different set of physics. The meth-
ods and data for both mission classes cannot be interchanged, but can
be applied to different cases from the same class6 . Also these method- 6
A performance analysis method for
ologies and constraints are integrated together by a synthesis logic that subsonic aerodynamics can be used for
a Boeing-747 and Airbus A-380 but not
forms the multi-disciplinary framework. This combination of data and applicable for the Bell X-1
knowledge in a specific manner is recognized as the development step
66 loveneesh rana
for the Parametric Processing module.

Since parametric sizing is the most essential path-finding design
step during the CD phase assessment and is applied in the MDA
framework. The term sizing refers to the process of calculating the
fundamental physical characteristics of the vehicle, namely, size or the
geometry measures and the weights calculation. It is the first step
where mission requirements along with gross configuration concepts
and disciplinary assumptions are used for a first-order evaluation in a
multi-disciplinary analysis to identify the gross physical characteristics 7
Sizing application for the hypersonic
at the system and sub-system level.7 In Coleman‘s words, “Generally vehicles: “The design problem posed
speaking, sizing is an underdetermined system (more unknowns than equa- with hypersonic aircraft requires an
advanced sizing logic since the hyper-
tions). Therefore, we must assume certain unknowns constant and then solve sonic flight vehicle is a fully blended
the remaining. The solution for the specific sizing problem posed is called the geometry, where the blended body
sizing logic.“[27] must perform all functions (volume
generation, lift generation, integrated
propulsion, stability and control)“.
- Garry Coleman
F I G U R E 3.3 –
The top-level systems module
show the static view of the
SAS-GDSP solution with
interconnections between three
primary solution components.
The above discussed three modules are the primary top-level com-
ponents required to develop the SAS-GDSP. The interrelationship among
these modules is shown in Figure 3.3, where it can be seen that the DB
and KB modules feed into the PP module. The initial assumptions
stemming from the DataBase Library are made up of previous VTHL
projects. At the same time, the synthesis kernel8 is composed of sev- 8
See Section 4.3.3
eral disciplinary analyses modules working coherently towards sizing
a converged total system. These disciplinary methods and configu-
rational trends are residing in the Knowledge-Base Library. The two
libraries feed information to the VTHL Sizing tool which in itself is
the multi-disciplinary module processing that information (combina-
tion of Data and Knowledge) to converge design solution and generate
feasible solution-space.
F I G U R E 3.4 –
Although the most significant application of the PP module is found System Development Processes
in the creation of the MDA framework with the implementation of as building blocks of Logical
the sizing step, this module by definition can be utilized in domains Solution
outside the MDA framework as well, as further explained in the next
section.
3.2 System Development Process
The three System Modules define the top-level components of the SAS-
GDSP and provide a static view of the logical solution architecture
showing the connectivity between the primary modules. This section
now provides a dynamic view of the logical solution architecture in
four distinct system development processes leading to the develop-
ment of the primary three modules. The four distinct processes (SDP)
are representative of what needs to be done to develop the generic SAS
synthesis capability, based on the specifications defined in Section 2.4.
The four development processes are shown in a sequential order of
execution in Figure 3.4. Each phase leads on to the next in terms of
concepts and processes development. Next is the overview description
of each step.
3.2.1 Mission Analysis

Mission objectives are the first set of inputs that represent the pri-
mary performance requirements the vehicle must be able to achieve
(usually in terms of range, altitude, payload capacity etc). This no-
tion is the fundamental idea to begin the system development process
for the SAS-GDSP. The ECSS9 Secretariat of ESA-ESTEC produced a 9
European Cooperation for Space
series of ‘Standards‘ for management, engineering and product assur- Standardization
68 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E 3.5 –
Mission Analysis is identified as
the precursor step to the CD
phase by the ESA-ESTEC.
Reproduced here from the ECSS
Standard[81].
ance in space projects and applications, where the Project planning and
implementation[81] standard address the project phasing and the typ-
ical life cycle of a space project. This is shown in Figure 3.5 where the
Mission Analysis is shown as a Phase 0 step identifying the primary
needs of the project and a precursor to the Phase A, the CD/Feasibil-
ity phase. Wertz & Larson identify the same notion in the well-known
Space Mission and Analysis text[82] for ESA, NASA and DoD (see Table
1-2, in Section 1.2 of the text).
The SAS conceptual design should begin by developing initial mis-
sion concepts represented by the mission flight path parametrization,
based on these primary performance requirements. This aspect is ad-
dressed in the first SDP, the Mission Analysis.
Mission Analysis is defined as the first SDP where the primary
focus is to generate a parametric model of physics-based equations
composed of the most important flight path variables of each mission
phase. This section provides a parametric representation of the indi-
MISSION ANALYSIS
GRAVITY
TURN
βο
βBO 1
FIRST STAGE
BURNOUT
UPPER STAGE
BURNOUT
βBO 2
vBO 2
V EHICLE PARAMETERS
S
CD.
Isp
T
r
Ref Area
Drag Coefficient
Specific Impulse
Net Thrust
Mass Ratio
{ Primary Outputs
• Quntification of important mission

phases.
• Quantification of m
misison performance requirements.
• Identification of primary
vehicle paramters.
tb Burn time
θBO 1 Wo Liftoff Weight
θBO 2
F I G U R E 3.6 –
vidual mission segments i.e. launch, staging, orbit, reentry, descent, The parametric Mission
land etc., in terms of significant physical parameters. For example, Analysis distinctly recognize
the launch phase would be quantified in terms of delta V required to the primary design driving
achieve a specific altitude orbit. Similarly, the reentry phase is typ- variables that affect the most
ically dominated by the heating effects and therefore, variables like important mission performance
heat transfer rate and maximum temperature etc. become of primary requirements.
importance. The primary purpose of mission analysis is to identify the
most important physical effects that the influence and drive the design
solution.
Dergarabedian & Dyke in a 1963 report [83] provide a significant
design insight with the following words;
“The vehicle parameters can be divided into two categories: vehicle design
parameters and trajectory parameters... We usually think of mission in
terms of trajectory parameters and vehicles in terms of design parameters and
the problem becomes to relate the two.“
The main take-away from this insight is the distinct identification of the
primary design variable and the primary performance requirements.
Figure 3.6 shows the classical rocket equation as the primary mission
analysis equation for the boost or ascent phase of the launch vehicle.
Mission analysis provides the primary mission variables (as shown on
the right hand side of the Figure) required to characterize the perfor-
mance requirements of a launch vehicle. These performance variable
(referred to as the trajectory variable by Dergarabedian & Dyke) are
a function of the parameters that characterize the vehicle and its sub-
systems (which are shown on the left side of the Figure). In other
terms, the mission or trajectory variables identify the physics taking
place outside the vehicle. These variables are non-tangible parameters
that measure and quantifies how the tangible system performs in the
real-time physical realm.
The key parameters of this phase are indicative of the performance
70 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E 3.7 –
requirements of the vehicle. The equations are usually calculating a Various trajectory options exist
performance parameter as function of vehicle parameter. It must be for a SAS mission. The
noticed that every mission section could be executed in several ways highlighted options are
and therefore different combinations make a new mission, see Figure applicable for the VTHL
3.7. The focus here is to generically identify these phases using physics case-study.
based parametric equations which calculate flight path variables as a
function of vehicle based parameters.
3.2.2 Technology Requirement

The second SDP step is called the Technology Requirement. The fun-
damental notion of this step is the quantification of the subsystems’
technology requirements that can meet the mission performance needs.10 10
The subsystems here imply the
To that effect, this SDP takes the physical parametric model generated constituent elements. For a SAV, they
are the involved disciples while for a
in the Mission Analysis, back-tracks the vehicle parameters that repre- SAS, they are the constituent SAV that
sents primary design disciplines for respective subsystems and it does integrate together to form the SAS.
recognize the primary output required for each disciplinary analysis.
Since these parameters influence the design of the vehicle directly, they
represent the physics inside the vehicle that can be changed to provide output
as required by the mission parameters. Note that the information shown
in Figure 3.6 shows both the mission and the vehicle parameters.
Clearly, the vehicle design parameters for a vertical launch vehicle
describe the physical rocket and include such quantities as weights,
thrusts, propellant flow rates, drag coefficients, and the like. Der-
garabedian & Dyke further comment on the vehicle parameters as fol-
lows; “ A set of these parameters would serve as a basic set of specifications
with which to design a vehicle. Trajectory parameters include such quantities
as impact range, apogee altitude, and burnout velocity. A particular vehicle
system can perform many missions and any one mission can be performed by
many vehicles. We usually think of mission in terms of trajectory parameters
and vehicles in terms of design parameters and the problem becomes to relate
the two.“ Carrying on the example of velocity requirement, delta V of
the launch is dependent on mass ratio which is again dependent on in-
dividual mass components. In contrast, reentry heat analysis depends
on L/D, surface area, geometry etc.
The primary outcome of this step is the identification of subsystem
V EHICLE PARAMETERS
S
CD.
Isp
T
r
Ref Area
Drag Coefficient
Specific Impulse
Net Thrust
Mass Ratio
TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENT on SUBSYTEMS
S
CD.
= f (GEOMETRY)
= f (AERODYNAMICS)
Isp, T = f (PROPULSION)
r, tb = f (PERFORMANCE)
{ Primary Outputs
• Quntification of subsytem-level
technology requirement.
• Identification of primary
design disciplines.
tb Burn time Wo = f (STRUCTURE & WEIGHT) • Selection of disciplinary methods.
Wo Liftoff Weight
F I G U R E 3.8 –
Primary vehicle parameters
disciplines and respective disciplinary variables. These variables then
identified in Mission Analysis
provide guidelines with which the designer could now select disci-
are used to identify disciplinary
plinary analysis methods that compute those variables. As a result,
methods and quantify
this section identifies the technology required at subsystems level to
subsystems technology
meet the mission objectives.
requirements.
3.2.3 Hardware Selection
The next SDP is termed as the Hardware Selection. Primary notion

of this step is to use the information developed in the Technology
Requirement SDP representing the subsystems and integrate them to-
gether in a feasible working hardware unit. To implement the inte-
gration and feasibility, this step takes input from the previous step in
terms of the technology requirements for the subsystems and creates
an MDA that arranges and manipulates the disciplinary arrangement
(in form of information flow from one discipline to next) to match the
mission performance requirements identified in Mission Analysis.
The output generated here is a multi-disciplinary module that parametrizes
the individual disciplines and combines them together to provide first,
a selection and then, combination of subsystems. This is the execution
phase where the parametric sizing is executed such towards converg-
ing the solution to give the first estimates of vehicle hardware’s phys-
ical characteristics. The Mission Analysis and the Technology Require-
ments steps also provide constraints to assess feasibility of the concept.
At this stage the MDA creation and execution is implemented with
the main objective of creating a solution space topography of con-
verged design concepts. This is the critical outcome of the MDA frame-
work which is achieved by trading configuration, technology and mis-
sion parameters. The key idea is to identify and develop several design
concepts options that match the performance requirements of the mis-
sion, thus providing a range of solutions rather than a fixed design
point.
72 loveneesh rana
S
CD.
= f (GEOMETRY)
= f (AERODYNAMICS)
Synthesis MDA
Geometry
Propulsion
{ Primary Outputs
• Converged design concepts.

• Solution Space continuum.
Thrust, Burn time

Isp, T = f (PROPULSION) Structure
• Trades Studies
Vehicle Size
r, tb = f (PERFORMANCE)
Stage weight
Wo = f (STRUCTURE & WEIGHT) Aero Mach,
Altitude
Performance
F I G U R E 3.9 –
Disciplinary integration into
3.2.4 Cost-per-Performance Trade Space Screening
MDA synthesis to generate
The hardware selection SDP ends with the creation of multiple de- feasible vehicle hardware
sign concepts presented in a solution space topography. This serves as concepts and create solution
an input to the last SDP step of the process that performs cost analysis space continuum of converged
for the solution space consisting of a range of individual design points. vehicles.
The important aspect to note here is that in the traditional sense, cost
is usually performed outside the design loop. The usual practice is
to select a final design point from the solution space based on per-
formance/technology criteria and then perform cost analysis for that
final design point, thus providing an initial cost estimate. As it is seen
time and time again, the cost estimate at the conceptual design phase
is never accurate and thus holds low value in decision making pro-
cesses as a number of new factors are encountered in the preliminary
and detailed design phases. Consequently, this research follows a dif-
ferent approach since cost analysis is integrated into the sizing process
where cost is calculated for every feasible design point in the solution
space generated as the output of the previous SDP. In this manner, ac-
curacy of the cost figures is not the key but the relative comparative
trends differentiating design alternatives.
The primary purpose for including cost estimation during the CD
phase is to enable a consistent cost comparison among all the potential
vehicle solutions for those sized to perform the mission. The final cost
estimate for every design point is normalized by a non-dimensional
overall performance measure index. This marks the last step in the
baseline vehicle selection and it executes a cost-per-performance anal-
ysis to select the vehicle that provides the best cost-per-performance
results. That is the vehicle that performs best per cost unit. Total accu-
racy of the cost analysis in this application is of secondary importance
since the analysis is NOT done on one optimal vehicle alone but for the
vehicle continuum throughout the feasible solution space, thus mak-
ing a consistent-comparison among the valid design points throughout

the solution space continuum. Note that the intention is not to predict
the final cost (as cost estimates at the CD phase tend to be usually in-
accurate), but to identify the most performance/cost optimal vehicle.
Therefore, this final step chooses not the highest performing vehicle or
the cheapest but rather the one that adds maximum value for the price
while still delivering essential mission requirements.
3.3 Complete Logical Solution Architecture
The top-level System Modules (DB, KB, PP) are the primary compo-
nent element which represent the static view of the solution while
the SDPs (Mission-Technology-Hardware-Cost) are the execution steps
which represent the dynamic view of the solution. The significant as-
pect here is the generic nature as every constituent module and devel-
opment process is independent of the vehicle category or the system
hierarchy level and is thus applicable for all four primary SAS cate-
gories. The complete logical solution architecture for the SAS-GDSP
then is the combination of both these aspects.
F I G U R E 3.10 –
The four SDPs assemble into a sequential process where each step
Every SDP is made of elements
provides the input for the next. Since every SDP is generic in nature
from the Data, Knowledge and
and acts as a partial segment of the overall solution process addressing
Parametric processing module.
the CD phase assessment, each of the four SDP is representative of a
In this representation of the
process at the end of which certain deliverables are produced which in
Logical Solution Architecture,
turn serve as input to the next phase. Every phase is buildup using el-
the sequential order of four
ements from the data, knowledge and parametric modules that finally
SDPs is necessary.
comprise to the top level systems elements and tie up the processes
to the top-level modules. This then completes the logical solution ar-
chitecture discussion. Figure 3.10 first shows how all four SDPs are
composed of elements from the three system modules. This shows the
overall decomposability11 of the process. Next, it is shown that indi- 11
Decomposability in Software Testing:
vidual modules are then the sum of components from the four SDPs, 1. By controlling the scope of testing,
problems can be isolated quickly, and
see Figure 4.1. It must be noted here that the SDPs are sequential in smarter testing can be performed.
nature, but that the sum of their portions in the system modules is not 2. The software system is built from
independent modules.
sequential. This means that the order of the four SDP in Figure 3.10 3. Software modules can be tested
is necessary, but is not required or needed in the data, knowledge or independently in Software Testing
74 loveneesh rana
parametric elements in Figure 4.1.

When combined together, it can be seen that these steps demon-
strate a generic design synthesis process for the conceptual design
phase that is independent of the configuration or the hierarchy level.
This concept will be implemented and demonstrated in Chapters 4
and 5 next.
F I G U R E 3.11 –
The three modules are sum of
data, knowledge and process
elements executed in every SDP
step. This implies the
decomposable nature of the
solution process.
Chapter 4
PHYSICAL SOLUTION ARCHITEC-
T U R E I M P L E M E N TAT I O N O F T H E
S A S - G D S P F O R S AV A T H I E R A R C H Y
LEVEL 2
Physical Architecture refers to specific products, protocols, and data representa- ∠ Warren Weinmeyer,
tion where/when/if it is architecturally salient to do so. It is the least abstract An introduction to fundamental archi-
tecture concepts
representation and typically is very detailed.
PowerPoint Slides
The logical solution architecture of the SAS-GDSP as explained in

the last chapter is applied here for the hierarchy level-2 (the SAV) of the
the SAS. Only the LRV segment of the SAV is sized here to demonstrate
the application of the SAS-GDSP at hierarchy level-2.
The first section provides the general description of the LRVs, the
generic classes of the LRVs, the overall disciplinary trade matrix and
defines the LRV case-studies selected for the sizing study. This section
identifies the significant advantages of using the AVD Laboratory in-
house synthesis capability, the DBMS platform, as a part of the overall
SAS-GDSP.
The next section then provides an overview of the DBMS system to
give the reader a clear idea of how and in what segments of the SAS-
GDSP the DBMS is applied.
The third section provides the description of the physical solution ar-
chitecture for the LRV application. This entails a detailed description
of the four system development processes of the SAS-GDSP which
have been first introduced in the previous chapter.
The fourth section then provides the discussion of the results from the
application of the SAS-GDSP solution to the LRV case-studies.
4.1 SAV Case Study: LRV
The Lifting Reentry Vehicles (LRV) have been surveyed exhaustively

in the literature review, see Section 2.2.1, Chapter 2. The review cov-
ered 60 projects from the 1933 Sänger Silbervogel to the current under-
development vehicles across the globe. The first part of the review
covered a disciplinary assessment of the vehicles, while a subsequent
review surveyed the projects for the comprehensive documentation of
the CD phase assessment. The overall review covers extensive litera-
76 loveneesh rana
ture published for the LRV class of vehicles, and it is built upon the in-
formation provided by representative 172 literature sources. Through-
out this extensive survey, an in-depth understanding of the physical
and operational characteristics of LRV vehicles in general has been
gained. This understanding is utilized in the following section to exe-
cute the SAS-SGDP solution process as applied to the LRV class of the
SAVs.1 1
The other segment of the SAV hier-
archy class is the LVs which are not
parametrically sized like the LRV case
4.1.1 LRV Classes here but rather selected as a combina-
tion of multiple constituent stages.
Based on the geometric configuration variety, the LRV can be classified
in three following primary classes.
1. Wing-Body (WB): An aircraft like geometry configuration where LIFTING
the fuselage provides the main housing volume storing most of the BODY
payload and components, while the highly swept wing acts as the
primary lift producing hardware component. Most of the early LRV
designs were wing-body configurations (eg. Sänger‘s Silbervogel,
Dorberger & Ehricke‘s Bell studies, Bell BOMI, BRASS, X-20 etc).
Currently, the USAF X-37-B is the only operational LRV, also a wing WING
body configuration. BODY
2. Lifting-Body (LB): Lifting-body configurations are primarily all-body
vehicles which produce lift using the body, thus they do not require
wings. Some of the first attempts to use a lifting body dates back
to the early NASA lifting body programs in the 1960s. Since then,
numerous programs and studies have looked into employing LB
BLENDED
configurations for LEO and other missions. Two distinct types of BODY
LB configurations have been explored primarily based on the na-
ture of underside geometry of the body, namely, round bottom LBs
F I G U R E 4.1 –
(eg. HL-10, M2-F2, Bor-4, HL-20, X-23, X-24A during the early days
Three primary types of the LRV
of the NASA LB programs) and the flat-bottom LBs (eg. X-24B,
configurations.
FDL-5, FDL-7, Model 176). Flat bottom LBs demonstrate a higher
range performance capability compared to round bottom LBs.2 2
see Appendix B, Section A.1.2 for
further details
3. Blended-Body(BB): This LRV configuration is a blend of WB and LB
geometries, and it is defined as a vehicle having no clear dividing
line between the wings and the main body of the craft. A typical
feature present with the BB is the more substantial joining or blend-
ing feature between the wing and body compared to just a typical
fairing. The Boeing X-48 or X-45 are some of the most popular BB
configuration examples in the aircraft realm, while the application
of BB in the orbital LRV missions has been limited to a very few
concepts so far like the Lockheed D-21 and X-24C/L-301.
These three categories comprehensively cover the LRV class of SAVs.
Next is the description of the case-studies selection that will be used
TECHNOLOGY
RKT-1
RKT-2
RKT-3
MATERIAL
TPS
AL
RKT-1
RKT-2
LEVEL-1
PROPULSION
RKT-3
RKT-13
RKT-14
TRADES
EM Drive
ION-T
LEVEL-2
TRADES
F I G U R E 4.2 –
to demonstrate the application of the generic SAS-GDSP solution to Complete overall trade-matrix
the LRV class of the SAVs which lie at hierarchy level-2 of the SAS. showing primary and
Following that is a discussion of the possible trade studies that can secondary trades
be conducted within the LRV realm and identify what are the most
significant design drivers that affect the overall design solution.
4.1.2 Overall LRV Design Trade Matrix
The CD phase is defined as the most abstract design phase because of

the information scarce nature3 . At the beginning of the project, the de- 3
see Figure 1.13 in Section 1.2.1
signer is presented with just the primary objective of the vehicle, thus
giving him maximum design freedom for meeting the objectives. At
this stage, the design dashboard is the designer’s playground where
he is free to choose any tools, select any combination of the subsystem
78 loveneesh rana
technology and look for mission capability trades that could lead to
even redefine the original mission objectives. A hypothetical exam-
ple clarifies this notion where the primary mission objective given to
the designer is to design a vehicle to for sub-orbital tourism purpose
for 2 crew and 4 passenger requirement with technology constraints
of using LOX/LH2 rocket propulsion. By conducting a truly compre-
hensive assessment, the designer might find out that a vehicle with 6
passenger capacity is more cost effective that the vehicle sized only for
the original requirements of 4 passengers. Clearly, this type of design
capability would enable the decision maker to comprehensively assess
all design options stemming from the mission-hardware-technology
domain towards better informed decisions. This multi-disciplinary de-
cision making is the primary responsibility of the CD team related to
exploring the design trade space across all domains related to the mis-
sion.
Based on the above discussion, an extensive amount of trades can
be conducted at various levels throughout the CD phase. As a con-
sequence, it becomes important to identify which trades are worth
exploring that actually provide the most comprehensive capability for
the overall vehicle product. In the present research context, an exten-
sive trade matrix, see Figure 4.34. have been executed. While some
trades have been found to show negligible effect on the overall design
solution, others do prove to be of significant value. The overall trade
matrix required to correctly explore an operational mission usually ex-
ceeds to tool and time limitation of the design team. Although such
trade matrix does always represent a multi-dimensional domain, it is
visualized here as a three dimensional matrix for visualization pur-
pose only in Figure 4.34. The following types of trade categories are
thus identified to be of immediate relevance for the current research
study:
1. Level-1 Highest of importance trades: These define the three primary

trade axes of Figure 4.34 that defines the overall trade space. In
context of the MDA and the sizing logic, this category represents
trades conducted for major design decisions. An example trade
would be the selection of the geometric configuration from the LB,
WB, or the BB geometry alternatives. The following sub-categories
exist at this highest level of the vehicle configuration trade matrix.
i. Trades for vehicle geometric configuration where several op-

tions are applicable for the vehicle class being considered. This
includes the overall vehicle configuration (WB vs LB vs BB)
for the LRV cases and identifies the overall hardware configu-
ration level design trade space. The primary questions asked
here is: “What overall vehicle shape is most beneficial for the
given mission objectives?“

ii. Trades for the subsystems level where several options can be
applicable for the primarily constituent components. This pri-
mary addresses the level of technology for major design dis-
ciplines like type of propulsion system, selection of the mate-
rial etc. For example, selection of a liquid rocket engine ver-
sus a hybrid rocket engine. The primary question addressed
in this category is; “ What technology is most beneficial for a
subsystem?“
iii. Mission trade space addresses various mission profiles to find
the most optimum trajectory or it identifies the correct primary
mission objectives similar to the case discussed in the example
above. The primary question asked here is: “What mission
profile is most beneficial for the given objectives? “
2. Level-2 Second of importance trades: These trades are found secondary

in their impact on the overall solution space as they trade on indi-
vidual parameters under each option of the Level-1 trades. As seen
in Figure 4.34, combinations of the different values in the set of ge-
ometric parameters (LEA, SPATULA , TAU etc) applicable to one
configuration (LB, WB, or BB) results in a specific vehicle shape.
For example, among the LB configuration option, the selection of
the cross-sectional base area affects the overall geometric proper-
ties of the vehicle. A similar logic can be applied to the other two
primary trade matrix dimensions.
4.1.3 Application of DBMS in SAS-GDPS

It is found that the formulation of the primary three dimensional ve-
hicle configuration trade matrix provides a valuable insight that signi-
fies the multi-disciplinary nature of the CD phase assessment and the
associated complexity involved. As a consequence, the trade matrix
contains a significant amount of combinations and permutations that
can be explored at sub-systems and systems level, a sheer quantity of
trades which are beyond the scope of this research investigation. In
order to effectively explore the design solution space whilst focussing
on the most important trades, the AVD Laboratory synthesis capabil-
ity, the AVD-DBMS, is the choice for the present research investigation.
The AVD-DBMS has been included in the review of synthesis systems
in Chapter-2, and it is identified as a state-of-the-art Class V synthesis 4
Four steps of the SAS-GDSP solution
capability. Figure 4.3 presents the schematic that describes how and defined in Chapter 3 (see Section 3.2):
where the DBMS is utilized within the overall SAS-GDSP methodol- 1. Mission Analysis
2. Technology Requirement
ogy. 3. Hardware Selection
The four primary System Development Processes4 are explained in 4. Cost-per-Performance Screening
80 loveneesh rana
VTHL – GDSP SYSTEM Legend :
Contribution towards AVD-DBMS

Advantages of Using AVD-DBMS
VTHL - DB
VTHL LIBRARIES
MODULES ( 1 + 2 )
 VTHL Vehicles, Case Studies. Perf Data,

Trends, Disciplinary Data  VTHL Vehicle Database
 Disciplinary Methods  Disciplinary Test Data
 New Configurations  New Case Studies
VTHL - KB  Extend Mission Addressing Capability
 Disciplinary Methods, Design Case
Studies, Configuration Trends
MISSION ANALYSIS
 Fundamental Physics Eqn
 Mission and Vehicle
Parameters Identification
Vehicle Parameters
Product
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
 Provides structure to store methods

TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENT  Provides integration platform environment
 Coding efficient (pre defined standards)
 Vehicle Parameter Matching AVD
MODULES ( 1 + 2 + 3 )
 Disciplinary Methods Methods

Selection DBMS
Disciplinary Methods  MDA Logic Flexibility
 Improved data-management
Performance Analysis
HARDWARE SELECTION
Process
 MDA – Development
 Sizing
 Convergence
Design Soln Space, Vehicle Perf Output

 Contribute Cost Methods
COST-per-PERFORMACE  Integrate with the sizing MDA
(post convergence)
 Design Solution Space
Cost Analysis
 Cost-Perf Trade Optimum
F I G U R E 4.3 –
Schematic showing the benefits
Chapter 3 where the ‘Technology Requirements‘ includes the recognition
of using the AVD-DBMS for the
of the most important discipline parameters and selection of the first
SAS-GDPS and contributions of
order analysis methods solving for the respective parameters. The next
the SAS-GDPS towards growth
step, the ‘Hardware Selection‘ then represents combinations of primary
of the DBMS.
disciplines into an integrated MDA to develop a sizing framework.
The DBMS is applicable towards these two steps in the overall process
as it provides a generic platform to store and assemble primary disci-
pline methods into a modular sizing code. The DBMS is a generic plat-
form which assembles a sizing logic by collecting primary constituents
of an MDA into a problem specific sizing code. Before the VTHL SAS
research study, the DBMS has only been only applied for a hypersonic
airbreather demonstrator study conducted as a part of a contract be-
tween the AVD LLC. and the USAF hypersonic department[74]. As a
consequence, the methods, data, and efficiency of the system has been
evolved to only the hypersonic cruise class of vehicles.
Thus, using the generic DBMS kernel for the VTHL SAS research in-
vestigation demonstrates the versatility of the DBMS. The application
of the DBMS for the present research study also enhances the DBMS
discipline method library, and further improves the scope of the sys-
tem towards its application for future cases of LRV studies. The VTHL
SAS specific discipline methods library and MDA adjustments further
demonstrate the novel forecasting capability of the system towards a
true generic system with the goal of correctly trading permutations

of LRV options like single-stage-to-orbit versus two-stage-to-orbit and
others. The next section provides an overview of the main features
and primary components of the DBMS system.
4.1.4 LRV Case-Studies Selection

This research investigation applies the proposed generic SAS-GDSP
solution through the DBMS system to size two LRV case-studies. This
implementation will be demonstrated along the sizing of three case-
studies. Each case-study is sized for a fixed LEO reentry mission
which enables a consistent comparison amongst the alternatives con-
sidered. The case-studies are described as follows;
1. Verification Case using The Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar: The X-20 Dyna-
Soar is sized for the purpose of verification and validation of the
results generated by the SAS-GDSP.
2. Generic Case using the Lifting Body: Exploration of design solution

space for the LB configuration is addressed. Selected geometric
trades (leading edge sweep, cross section area, spatular width etc.)
are executed to explore and visualize the sensitivities of the config-
uration concept choice as a continuum in the overall design solution
space.
3. Generic Case-2 using the Wing Body: Exploration of design solution

space for the generic WB configuration is executed in this case.
The technology trades (engine and fuel types) and geometry trades
(three different WB geometry shapes) are executed to observe the
effect of technology and geometry trades combinations on the over-
all design solution space.
The selected LRV case-studies are sized following the four step process
of the SAS-GDSP solution concept which is described in the previous
Chapter. The ‘Mission Analysis‘ step is used to analyze an orbital reen-
try flight path which is common for all three case-studies. The DBMS
is engaged for the execution of the next two steps as described earlier.
The final step of measuring the ‘Cost-per-Performance‘ is then used to
select the most pertinent design solution category among the generic
categories of the Lifting Body solutions.
4.2 DBMS
The Aerospace Vehicle Design (AVD) Laboratory at the University of

Texas at Arlington has recently developed and currently utilizes a pro-
prietary prototype Data Base Management System (DBMS) that pro-
vides the unique capability of developing custom-tailored sizing codes
82 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E 4.4 –
(Microsoft Access)
Overall breakdown of the
Layer
GUI
72 Modules 65 Input Forms
20,232 Lines of Code system elements in the
AVD-DBMS. Reproduced here
(Microsoft Access) from Gonzalez[26]
Database
Layer
109 Data Tables 214 Saved Queries

Analysis
(MATLAB)
Layer
CMDS
Methods
Output per
Library
Problem
specific to the problem at hand. This section provides an overview de-

scription of the DBMS synthesis capability, its primary components
and execution process followed by its application for sizing the LRV
segment of the VTHL system. This latest incarnation of the AVD
Laboratory synthesis methodology and software has been developed
through the collaborative research effort of Gonzalez[26], Omoragbon[72]
and Oza[11]. Further details of the system and its development process
are found in the dissertations of the aforementioned researchers[11, 26,
72]. F I G U R E 4.5 –
.
4.2.1 DBMS System Overview AVD-DBMS is a special type of
CMDS for specific application
The DBMS is not a design synthesis program in itself, rather, it is a soft- towards flight vehicle synthesis
ware that creates unique MDA sizing codes. The process is executed system. Each of the top-level
in Microsoft ACCESS. The technical reference library, methods library, component is build by using
historical vehicle database, and sizing process architecture database fundamental building blocks:
are managed with this system. The physics-based VTHL SAS sizing ∠ Reference Form
methodology or MDA is created using this system. The system is pri- ∠ Variable Form
marily executed in three layers, details of which are shown in Figure ∠ Tree Structure.
4.4. Following description of the DBMS system now provides a brief
explanation of the major components and is taken from Gonzalez[26].
Fundamental Building Blocks: Reference Form, Variable Form,

Tree Structure
The DBMS is fundamentally developed by following the logic of
a Complex Multidisciplinary System (CMDS) which is composed of
three primary functional information classes, namely; 1) Product, 2)
Analysis Process, and 3) Disciplinary Methods, see Figure 4.5. Each

component is made of three types of the building block input mecha-
nisms referred to by Gonzalez as the utility modules. These modules are
the basic elements through which the user interacts with the system.
F I G U R E 4.6 –
DBMS Building Block-1:
Reference Input Form.
Reproduced here from
Gonzalez[26]
The first building block, the Reference Input Forms is used to capture
the data and knowledge from the reference source material. Figure
4.6 shows a reference input form from the DBMS and identifies two
input sections used to store and index the relevant information that is
applied in the system.
The second building block is the Variable Input Form that is used to
store, track, select and classify input and output variables within the
system. This mechanism ensures that duplicate variables are not cre-
ated within the system and thus provides the ability to manage the
variables throughout the analysis framework. Three specific informa-
tion categories are assigned to each variable, 1) a Unique Syntax that
shows how the variable appears in the system, 2) Units associated with
each variable (SI unit system is followed), and 3) a brief description of
the variable. Figure 4.7 shows the variable input form with description
of main segments as they appear in the system.
The third building block mechanism is the Input Tree Diagrams which
provide a hierarchy structure to rapidly select various options and de-
velop a vehicle, mission, operation or technology assessment. “The
Tree View control displays a hierarchical list of Node objects, each of
which consists of a label and an optional bitmap. A TreeView is typ-
ically used to display the headings in a document, the entries in an
index, the files and directories on a disk, or any other kind of infor-
mation that might usefully be displayed as a hierarchy.“[84] Figure4.8
shows the tree structure for its three main application in the system
84 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E 4.7 –
DBMS Building Block-2:
Variable Input Form.
Gonzalez[26]
and describes the selecting mechanism to form a specific vehicle, mis-

sion or operation by selecting several nodes for each.
Primary Components: Product, Process, Methods

The three primary components of a CMDS are discussed with the
following which are generated by using the fundamental building
blocks. These describe the three separate classes of information nec-
essary to characterize a vehicle synthesis system. Each component is
discussed and shown in terms of first, the generic functional informa-
tion concept it represents, and second the implementation of the con-
cept in the DBMS Access software. The first component is the Product
which represents the vehicle and is comprised of three parts, namely;
1) Hardware, 2) Operational Events, and 3) Operational Requirements.
Figure 4.9 shows an overview of each generic category and what it en-
tails in relation to a flight vehicle.
F I G U R E 4.8 –
DBMS Building Block-3: Input
Tree Structure. Reproduced
here from Gonzalez[26]
Gonzalez[26] defines these three parts as follows:

“Functional Subsystem - Individual hardware components added in or-
der to achieve one or more primary functions.
Operational Event - Operational attribute that is time dependent.
Operational Requirement - Operational attribute that is time indepen-
dent.“
Figure 4.10 shows the Product Input Form as it appears in the DBMS
and indicates the associated fields for each constituting part of the
product with corresponding generic categories. As shown in the fig-
ure, the Hardware, Operational Event, and Operational Requirements
input mechanism is done via the Input Tree subform. “In addition to
the selection of individual components using the Input Tree subform, it
is also necessary describe the dependencies between the components.
F I G U R E 4.9 –
Two such relationships are defined using the Function Mode and Trajec-
Functional Concept of the
tory Segment Mapping Subform“[26], this is shown in the pop-out block
Primary Component-1: Product.
in Figure 4.10. The second primary component of the DBMS is the
Analysis Process and “is defined as any information relating to the over-
Gonzalez[26]
all organization and integration of an Aerospace Synthesis System.
The Analysis Process is broken into two classes of information: Sys-
tem Elements, and Disciplinary Elements.“[26]. Figure4.11 shows the
functional concept of the Analysis Process and the provides the basic
description of the constituting categories as defined by Gonzalez[26].
Figure4.12 shows the implementation of the concept breakdown in
the MS Access as implemented in the DBMS for each category of the
Analysis Process. The System Process Variables are the most important
variables that controls and regulates the flow of the data in the MDA
framework. They make up the objective function and are iterated un-
til the objective function is satisfied, thus providing the mathematical
convergence proof of the feasibility of the overall solution. The Disci-
plinary Variables are the primary top-level outputs of the involved dis-
ciplines. They are regulated by the Process Variables for each iteration.
Figure4.12 shows the four main windows of the Analysis Process where
it can be seen that the Systems Process Variables are selected in the top-
left box and Objective Function (Error Function box in bottom left corner
of the figure) is made of System Process Variables. The box in the middle
shows the sequential selection of the primary design disciplines and
the box on the top-right corner shows the Disciplinary Process Variables
for each disciplines. The third and final primary component of the
DBMS is the Disciplinary Method. Figure 4.13 shows the functional de-
composition of this component into three main parts along with the
description of each constituent as defined by Gonzalez[26]. This com-
ponent primarily relates to the ability of the DBMS to handle and store
individual disciplinary methods in the system. In order to consistently
86 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E 4.10 –
MS Access implementation of
the Primary Component-1:
Product. Reproduced here from
Gonzalez[26]
handle the data flow among the disciplines and to be able to com-
bine the disciplines in the overarching MDA framework defined by
the Analysis Process, the Disciplinary Method is associated to the Product
component identifying at which product node does the disciplinary
method is applied. The Disciplinary Variables define the involved vari-
ables that the method is made up of and further specify the input and
output variables for each method. The Analysis part of the Disciplinary
Method (see Figure 4.13)component contains the system of equations
or the empirical data that connects input and output variables.
Figure 4.14 shows the Disciplinary Methods form as seen in the MS
Access system of the DBMS which manages the three components de-
scribed above in the functional decomposition. The analysis aspect of
the method is stored in an MATLAB file external to the DBMS which
contains only the analysis portion of the method using the input, out-
put and internal variables involved in the method’s analysis. The input
and output variables for each method is defined and associated with
the method internally in the DBMS. With this setup, the system acts
as patching mechanism that connects disciplines only in terms of the
input/output variables among various disciplines while not being in-
fluenced by the analysis implementation.
This marks the end of the discussion of the primary components
of the DBMS system which represents the fundamental kernel thus
building blocks for a synthesis system. By following a warehouse
type analogy the DBMS selects various building blocks and assembles
F I G U R E 4.11 –
them together based on problem specific requirements to custom build Functional Concept of the
unique sizing codes for every problem. This is a fundamentally new Primary Component-2:
approach of addressing flight vehicle sizing in a MDA framework dur- Analysis Process. Reproduced
ing the CD phase assessment and provides enhanced control over the here from Gonzalez[26]
creation of custom-tailored sizing codes unique to the specific prob-
lem at hand. This ability is found to be especially advantageous in
exploring the overall trade matrix which has been explained earlier in
Section 4.1 as the modular nature gives the designer a superior control
over individual building blocks and ability to switch or trade where
required.
4.2.2 Execution of the DBMS to develop Customized Sizing Codes
The DBMS system is assembled and managed in the MS Access where

it is executed in four sequential steps to finally create a custom flight
vehicle sizing code. The four executable steps are, 1) Matching, 2)
Selecting, 3) Arranging, and 4) Generation. All four steps are imple-
mented in the DMBS through an Input Form Mechanism where the pri-
mary top-components, Product, Analysis Process and Disciplinary Meth-
ods are combined in a step-wise manner. The four steps makes sure
that the parametric connections and the data-structure is formulated
correctly. At the end of the fourth step, Generation, the DBMS pro-
duces a sizing code which is a custom tailored and stitched form of
disciplinary methods MATLAB files that are connected via the para-
metric connections defined in the DBMS.
The process of creating a synthesis sizing code begins by initiating a
new architecture. The first step is the Matching step where the vehicle’s
hardware, mission and operations are specified by selecting a prede-
88 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E 4.12 –
MS Access implementaion of
the Primary Component-2:
Analysis Process. Reproduced
here from Gonzalez[26]
fined product. Also a part of the Matching step is the selection of the
Analysis Process, which is selected from a predefined template. Once
the vehicle and analysis process template are chosen, the next step pro-
vides the user with a list of disciplinary methods which produce the
output variables as required in the Analysis Process variables. This is
a user dependent step where the user has to make sure that the meth-
ods chosen are consistent with the vehicle and analysis process. For
this study, the methods have been created specific to the architectures
and so are created by the user.
Once the methods are selected for each design discipline, the DBMS
moves to the next step, Arranging, where the trajectory segments are
asked to be placed in the sequence of mission profile. This sequence
stitches the performance methods in a sequence such that the total
weight ratio and fuel fraction for the entire mission trajectory can be
calculated. Also the Arranging step makes sure that no two methods
are being executed for the same flight phase for the same disciplines
and thus provides user with option to specify the filter for how and
where each method must be executed. This is specifically done for
the Aerodynamic methods where the methods specific to the Mach
number range are assigned.
The Generation step is the next and last step of the process where
a variable based check is implemented for the entire product arrange-
ment, disciplinary methods and variables such that no inconsistent
variable selection happens. Once this check is found to be satisfied,
F I G U R E 4.13 –
Functional Concept of the
Primary Component-3:
Methods. Reproduced here
from Gonzalez[26]
the DBMS has arranged all the disciplinary variables in a sequential

order of execution following the logic defined in the Analysis Process
for each disciplines. At the end of this step, the system selects the
MATLAB analysis files for each disciplines that are stored on a server
space and stitches them together in the variable execution logic de-
fined in the MS Access system. Thus the final MATLAB based flight
vehicle sizing code is generated. User now needs to input the required
disciplinary values as demanded by the disciplinary methods. The
overall execution process is presented here in Figure 4.15 in the Nassi-
Schnidermann diagram format which shows specific instructions for
each execution step. In addition to the process flow, a systems archi-
tecture map is produced by McCall (AVD member) that specifies each
step and its primary constituent components, see Figure 4.16.
4.3 SAV Physical Solution Architecture
Following the description of the DBMS platform, this section provides

specific details of the four System Development Processes (SDPs) of the
SAS-GDSP. The logical description of these four steps and their specific
outputs have been described earlier in Chapter 35 . The four sequential 5
See Section , Figure
SDPs in the order of their execution are as follows; 1) Mission Analysis,
2) Technology Requirement, 3) Hardware Selection and 4) Cost-per-
Performance Solution Space. It must be noted that while the logical
description of the four steps is generic in nature and hence in theory
could be applied to any SAV or SAS, the following description of each
90 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E 4.14 –
MS Access implementaion of
REFERENCE INFO PRODUCT the Primary Component-3:
SPECIFICATION FOR
THE METHOD Methods. Reproduced here
from Gonzalez[26]
MISSION
SPECIFICATION FOR
INPUT VARIABLES THE METHOD
OUTPUT VARIABLES
OPERATION
SPECIFICATION FOR
THE METHOD MATLAB ANALYSIS FILE
step is specific to the LRV case. Clearly, the equations, methods, and
analysis explained below represent a specific application of the four
generic steps and would be different in case these steps are applied to
another class of flight vehicle or system, like a transonic or supersonic
aircraft.

This process addresses a generic mission profile for a LRV system and
models the equations depicting critical trajectory phases. The equa-
tions derive a physical model that is composed of “Vehicle Parameter“
and “Trajectory Parameters“. The emphasis here is to identify the ve-
hicle design parameters and intermediate relationship between Vehi-
cle and Physical parameters which dictates the Trajectory Parameters.
Several noted authors like Low[85], Vinh[86], Miele[87], Galman[88] et
al. describe the mathematical setup to characterize the physical model
for a reentry mission profile and equations setup derived here is based
on these. It can be seen that the same parametric and physical affects
can be quantified in several ways, depending on the initial parameter
selection. For example, while one designer would use reentry veloc-
ity as the primary variable to setup a performance equation, the other
could use a ratio of reentry velocity to satellite velocity to derive the
same performance equation but in a slightly different form. To this
effect, the intention here is to use the simpler form of the equation and
hence a composite mathematical setup is assembled, as follows.
Reentry Flight Path: Orbit to Horizontal Landing

AVD-DBMSArchitecture Building User guided User directed
structuration allocation/
Matching Assignment assignment
Project Vehicle: Identify Vehicle Hardware Attributes and where order from input
Mission Path Sections and map where individual hardware is is important options
operational
Auto User
Hardware Attributes Selection: generated by Specified
Configuration, S&C, TPS, Propulsion System Type the system Input
References
New Reference Mission Profile Selection:
Speed Range, Trajectory Phases
Title, Document Type
Operations: Selection of operational aspect
Publication Year, Notes, (no effect on the sizing code)
Authors, Index
Function Mode Mapping: Assign each attribute function a
unique hardware element
Methods
New Method Trajectory Segment Mapping: Map all hardware elements
Title to the trajectory phases in which they are active
Discipline System Process: Select a pre-existing synthesis process

logic (based on HC till now) or create a custom new
Input Variables
System Process Variables: Define dependent and
Output Variables independent variables that control the synthesis logic and
are used to implement convergence criteria.
Constraints
Error Function: Composed of system process variables
Hardware to execute convergence logic
Mission Dependent Variables Check: Verify that dependent
variables are used in error function and are given as
Operation output from disciplinary analysis.
Process Disciplines: Define design disciplines in the order
disciplinary execution takes place.
New Process Disciplinary Process Variables: Define outputs from
Process Name every discipline that is used as input for any other
discipline
System Process
Selection
Variables
Hardware Function Mode: Shows the mapping of unique
Disciplines hardware elements to trajectory phases
Path to Architecture Generation

Disciplinary Process Matched Disciplinary Methods:
Variables Automated display of methods matched with Disciplinary
Process Variables list for involved disciplines
Error Function Disciplinary Methods Selection: User selects disciplinary
Definition methods from matched methods
Dependent Variable Matched Performance Methods:

Automated performance calculation methods matched with
Check trajectory phases
Project Vehicle Performance Methods Selection: User selects performance
methods from matched methods
New Vehicle
Arranging
Project Vehicle Name
Hardware Trajectory Segment Order: Shows trajectory phases
Mission
Conflict Resolution: System identifies conflict based on
Operation overlapping of multiple modes or methods for the same
hardware
Function Mode
Interpolation: Conflict based on data interpolation
Trajectory Segment
Multiple Methods Per Function Mode: When multiple
Architecture Generation discipline methods are selected for same function mode.
Assign method switch with a constraining variable to
New Architecture identify method’s applicability range
Multiple Modes Per Function: When multiple modes are
Matching selected for same function. Assign modes switch to identify
in what range each mode is functional.
Selecting Generation
Arranging Common Methods Input Variables: System identifies

variables that are created by a disciplinary method but are
Generating not classified as disciplinary process variables.
Disciplinary Process Output Variables to Add: User selects
variables to add to disciplinary process variables list and redo
Arranging segment
Adjust Disciplinary Process Output
Input/Output Variable Mapping Results

GENERATES SIZING PROGRAM IN MATLAB FILES MODULES

91
F I G U R E 4.15 –
Execution process flow in the DBMS.
92
loveneesh rana
AVD-DBMS ARCHITECTURE Architecture

SYSTEM MAPPING Database
Matching Selecting Arranging Generation
Project System Hardware Matched Conflict Common Code

Matched Trajectory Input/
Vehcile Process Functions Perf. Resolution Method Generation
Methods Segment Output
Mode Methods Identificatio Input (Next)
Order Variable List
n Variables
Disciplinary Dependent Selected Multiple Multiple Add

Error Selected Assembly
Hardware Mission Operation Variables Disciplines Process Variable Function Mode Name Performanc Methods/ Interpolate Modes Per Disciplinary Input File
Function Driver File File
Variables Check Methods Function Process O/p
e Methods Func Mode
Operating Operating Selected

Mode
Requirment Requirment Conflict
Select
Conflict
Controlling
Variable
Method
Primary User Selection by
Start Automated Variable
Blocks Selected Value
F I G U R E 4.16 –
This systems architecture map was created by McCall in an AVD internal study. The map identifies automation characteristics of each
module and the various layers of systems elements in the DBMS.
F I G U R E 4.17 –
Reentry is a crucial section of the mission profile in determining the A generic reentry profile
vehicle system configuration and involved subsystems. Galman[88] mission path with main
provides a composite path to analyze reentry from orbit to landing characteristic features of each
for lifting reentry vehicles. The entire reentry trajectory is divided in segment. The description and
distinct phases, as follows: figure are reproduced from
Galman[88]
• Orbit Ejection
• Initial re-entry
• Transition to Equilibrium Glide
• Equilibrium Glide
• Maneuvering
• Approach and Landing
Figure 4.17 shows the overall description of the generic mission path
for a reentry trajectory. The text shows describes the primary physical
characteristics specific to each phase is reproduced here from Galman.
What follows now is the equations setup that provide a mathemati-
cal parametric model for each section. The equations are taken from
various literature sources as mentioned above.
Orbit Ejection to Initial Re-entry

A vehicle in a circular satellite orbit at altitude rs has orbital velocity
Vs , given by:
r
µ
Vs = (4.1)
rs
94 loveneesh rana
This velocity is a measure of vehicle’s total kinetic energy, which

has to be completely dissipated before landing, usually in form of to-
tal heat encountered by the vehicle over the full course of the reentry
trajectory. The mission profile phase from orbit ejection to initial re-
entry, is the flight path traversed by the vehicle in the region above the
atmosphere and is analyzed using Kapelerian orbit mechanics. This
region does not involves any drag effects and hence no heating issues
are addressed.
For a low-circular orbit(LEO), orbit ejection is performed in form of a
de-orbit burn by imparting an instantaneous velocity decrements, Vi
in a direction directly opposing the orbital velocity. This decrement,
Vi , depends on the conditions desired at the initial re-entry point in
terms of flight path angle and altitude at re-entry point. These initial
re-entry conditions determine the nature of flight profile in the atmo-
spheric region, which is the most crucial phase of the trajectory and
is discussed further under equilibrium glide. If the entry conditions
( Alte , Ve and γe ) are fixed, the delta-V required to initiate the reentry
is computed through the methods provided by Vinh[86] and Low[85].
First, the conditions after the maneuver are computed as:
1 1
V12 = Ve2 + 2µ ( − ) (4.2)
rs re
Ve re cos(γe )
cos(γ1 ) = (4.3)
V1 rs
The delta-V is then determined as
∆V 2 = Vs2 + V12 − 2Vs V1 cos(γ1 ) (4.4)
Generally accepted standard is to use γ1 = 0, leading to a tangential

reentry burn. The reentry velocity and, the imparted deburn Delta-V
magnitude depends on the orbital altitude. Thus, a vehicle approach-
ing from a higher orbit would reenter at higher speeds and thus would
encounter similar reentry conditions at higher altitude. For a given re-
entry altitude, the minimum Vi is indicated at γe = 0 degrees, while the
required Delta-V increases if reentry is performed at a lower altitude
as the atmospheric density increases. Figure 4.18 shows variation of
Delta-V requirement against reentry flight path angle γe for different
orbital and reentry altitudes.
Initial Reentry and Transition to Equilibrium Glide

The orbit ejection phase is followed by the recovery phase, also
called as initial re-entry. It does characterizes conditions before the
vehicle enters the atmosphere assuming the equilibrium glide. During
Entry Velocity Variations with Flight Path Angle & Orbital Altitude
Altreentry = 300,000 ft Altreentry = 400,000 ft
Alt Orbit = 500 nmi

Alt Orbit = 500 nmi
Alt Orbit = 200 nmi

Alt Orbit = 200 nmi
Alt Orbit = 100 nmi
Alt Orbit = 100 nmi
F I G U R E 4.18 –
the initial reentry or recovery phase, the local radius of curvature of The reentry velocity depends on
flight path is found using the following equation by Galman[88]: the entry altitude, entry flight
path angle and the initial orbital
ρV 2 altitude. When reentring from a
V2 e
r o = e ( 2 − 1 ) −1 (4.5) higher orbital altitude, the
g η
reentry velocity increases for a
where, parameter η = W
is called as vehicle parameter or lift fixed reentry altitude. While,
CL Sre f
loading coefficient, and relates to other significant vehicle design pa- the minimum reentry velocity
rameters, ballistic coefficient, β and L/D as follows6 : required to not skip is seen at
γ = 0 independent of the
orbital and reentry altitude. The
E
β= = Ballistic Coefficient (4.6) Delta-V then is representative of
CD Sre f
the retro-rocket used to initiate
W
η= = Lift Loading Coefficient (4.7) the deorbit burn.
CL Sre f
β
=η (4.8)
( L/D ) 6
η and β essentially describe the same
The heating effects become dominant during recovery phase, as physical aspect of the vehicles. While β
is used more prominently for ballistic
maximum heat flux depends on the vehicle parameter CLW
S and is vehicles, η is more prominent for the
re f
independent of L/D. It is due to this reason that recovery is made lifting vehicles
with max CL . Although, maximum heat flux and deceleration loads

experienced during the recovery, the loads are not restrictive to the
design variables as these conditions are exceeded in the equilibrium
glide phase and are discussed further in next phase. Transition from
the recovery phase to the equilibrium phase is to be made by reduc-
ing CL and maintaining constant altitude flight path. This is done to
avoid the vehicle from following a skipping trajectory. The following
equations describe the transition to equilibrium glide mode.
96 loveneesh rana
ḣ = 0 (4.9)
−D
V̇ = (4.10)
m
Equilibrium Glide
Following the transition from the initial re-entry recovery phase, the
vehicle can be commanded to execute a gliding decent or a follow a
skip-path depending on the conditions targeted at the beginning of the
recovery phase. Since the skip phase is subjected to higher heat flux,
a simplified glide path is considered here. The equilibrium glide path
represents the conditions where the vehicle’s lift and centrifugal forces
balance the gravity force. Consequently, this is characterized by small
flight path angle, (−2 << γ << 2) and negligible time rate change of
flight path angle (γ̇ = 0).
This phase provides calculations for the major performance vari-
ables for the overall reentry path as the maximum flight path is tra-
versed in this phase. Additionally the vehicle experiences maximum
heat flux in this glide phase and thus the constraints applied to this
phase overcomes the heating constraints in the recovery phase.
The equilibrium glide velocity is calculated as a function of altitude
and η as:
v
u g Rearth
Veq = t (4.11)
u
g Rearth ρ h
1+ 2(W/CL Sre f )
Acceleration along the glide path is found using following relation:
g(1 − V̄ 2 )
| a| = (4.12)
L/D
Veq
where,V̄ = p (4.13)
g Rearth
and glide time is :
s
1 Rearth 1 + V̄e 1 + V̄
t glide = ( L/D ) ln (4.14)
2 g 1 − V̄e 1 + V̄
Ventry
where,V̄e = p (4.15)
g Rearth
downrange is given by:
1 − V̄ 2

1
Range glide = ( L/D ) ln 2
(4.16)
2 1 − V̄e
The cross range calculation is done by following the approach pro-

vided by Vinh[86] which is based on a close approximation formula
first given by Eggers[20]:
( L/D )2 (π 2 )
CrossRange glide = sin(2σ ) (4.17)
48
where σ is the bank angle, which for the above equation is optimum at
45 degrees. Vinh uses above equation to determine a more complicated
function which uses a power series expression to solve for optimum
bank angle.
Approach and Landing The approach and landing phase is dominated

by the maneuvering capability of the vehicle. The primary perfor-
mance measure of interest in this flight phase is the landing velocity
which is given by Galman by following equation:
s
2
Vlanding = (W/CL Sre f ) (4.18)
ρ
Primary Design Drivers

With the above equation sequence, it can be seen that the most sig-
nificant design variables that are representative of the physical charac-
teristics of the vehicle are the Lift Loading Coefficient η, and vehicle’s
lift-to-drag ratio (L/D)
W
Lift Loading Coefficient : η = (4.19)
CL Sre f
The η is a composite function that is representative of total vehicle

weight, lift coefficient and planform area. This identifies following
primary design disciplines for involved parameters as;
• Vehicle’s Geometric Configuration: §re f
• Aerodynamics: L/D
• Structure and Weight: W
Additionally, the on-board propulsion system is used to perform de-

orbit burn from the orbital altitude to the reentry altitude. The deorbit
burn measure is dependent of the choice of orbital and reentry param-
eters as shown in the Figure 4.18 earleir in this section.
Selecting Model Mission for the Case-Studies

98 loveneesh rana
International Space Station

F I G U R E 4.19 –
Propulsive
Deorbit Burn Simplified reentry mission
profile selected for sizing the
km LRV case-studies. The Deorbit
00
it
=4
Orb
ALT and Equilibrium glide paths are
= 120 km
ALT Reentry -1.5
o
γ Reentry = the most significant phases that

Landing cover the overall performance
Site
and constraints implementation
for the entire mission trajectory.
With the above discussion of the main mission phases, it can be seen
that the equilibrium glide phase is the most significant portion of the
overall flight profile as most of the performance and constraint param-
eters are primarily calculated in this section. Based on this logic, a sim-
plified mission profile is selected here which is used for the LRV case-
studies. Only the deorbit and equilibrium glide paths are calculated
in the performance analysis as they are the two most significant seg-
ments that impact the overall vehicle’s performance and constraints.
The mission selected for the case-studies is a notional ISS resupply
mission. The LRV case-studies thus execute a deorbit burn from the
orbital altitude of the ISS (400 km) and enters the Earth’s atmosphere
at an altitude of 120 km. The entry flight path angle at this point is as-
sumed to be -1.5 degrees. The mission objective is to carry a minimum
payload of 450 kg ( 1000 lb) and 1 crew member. The selected mission
profile and mission path values are shown in the Figure 4.19.
The design variables identified in this first step are used to deter-
mine the primary design disciplines. The disciplines are then solved
for major disciplinary variables which are essential for sizing the ve-
hicle. The disciplinary analysis methods solving for these primary
variables are described next.
4.3.2 Technology Requirement

This section is tasked to provide a match for a range of design pa-
rameters amongst the primary design disciplines. Following then the
appropriate disciplinary methods are selected that results in calcula-
tion of primary design driving parameters. The disciplinary methods
are derived from the knowledge block of the VTHLKB and has been
manually coded in MATLAB. The variable selection and matching of
methods is handled by the AVD-DBMS system. The disciplinary meth-

ods and their respective input/output variables are stored in the Dis-
ciplinary Methods component of the DBMS and are selected in the
Analysis Process component of the DBMS platform for sizing the LRV
case-studies. Following five primary disciplines are selected for sizing
the LRV case-studies;
1. Geometry: Calculates the overall geometric properties of the vehi-

cle. Methods used range from the analytical geometric relations
of standard shapes (cone, cylinder, ellipse etc), empirical geomet-
ric relations and trends form established studies like Hypersonic
Convergence[89] and empirically derived parametric geometries us-
ing geometry modeling tools like NASA OpenVSP7 . 7
http://www.openvsp.org/
2. Aerodynamics: Calculation of primary aerodynamic coefficients (CL ,

CD , L/D etc) for subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic flight regime
based on empirical data derived for already trimmed WB, LB and
BB vehicles. This method takes into account the stability of the
vehicle for the selected mission trajectory.
3. Propulsion: Calculation of thrust available for an off-the-shelf rocket

engine based on standard textbook method.
4. Performance Matching: Calculation of primary performance values

for the deorbit and equilibrium glide flight path. Based on the equa-
tions derived in Mission Analysis step.
5. Weights and Volume Budget: Calculates overall weights and volume

budgets of the primary hardware components based on parametric
relationships.
The following describes each of the disciplinary analysis methods. The

MATLAB analysis codes for all the disciplinary methods are provided
in the Appendix B.
Geometry Disciplinary Analysis

This section describes the development of geometry configurations
as used in the LRV case-studies. The geometry analysis is the first dis-
cipline that defines the overall shape of the vehicle which is then used
to calculate its aerodynamics and execute further disciplines. Several
methods are used to define the geometry as per the characteristic of
the vehicle. Kc̈hemann‘s tau defines the slenderness of the vehicle, and
it is recognized as the primary geometric parameter that relates total F I G U R E 4.20 –
volume with the planform area as follows: τ = Vtotal /S1.5 pln Variation of Tau for three
This relationship is of significance as τ is used to scale the vehicle unique lifting body
based on both volume and planform area. This scaling technique is configurations shows the effects
significant as it relates the volume and area as compared to the usual of volumetric scaling.
100 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E 4.21 –
method of photographic scaling which scales only the area. In this Analytical geometric
manner τ represents a unique geometry profile. Czysz describes the relationships are defined for
importance of τ in the Hypersonic Convergence[52, 90] as follows: several cross-section profiles by
“While working at the McDonnell Aircraft Company, the author (Czysz) was Czysz which are used here to
introduced to a unique approach to determining the geometric characteristics define analytical geometry
required by hypersonic configurations for different missions and propellants. methods as function of Tau.
Normally, to increase its volume, a vehicle is made uniformly larger (magni-
fied), as in photographic scaling. That is, all dimensions are multiplied by a
constant multiplier factor. This means that the configuration characteristics re-
main unchanged except that it is larger. The wetted area is increased by the
square of the multiplier, while the volume is increased by the cube of the multi-
plier. In view of how the similitude parameter is defined, this scaling can have
a very deleterious impact on the size and weight of the design when a solu-
tion is converged...This method used the cross-section geometry of highly swept
bodies to increase the propellant volume without a significant increase in wet-
ted area...This method (scaling by τ) used the cross-section geometry of highly
swept bodies to increase the propellant volume without a significant increase in
wetted area.“
Czysz[52, 90] provides analytical relationships between various geo-

metric parameters that are used to define a series of geometry profiles
with varying base-area for lifting bodies. Figure 4.21 shows various
vehicle cross section shapes defining the parametric relationships for
geometry profiles. The parametric geometric relationships provided
by Czysz are limited to the planform leading edge angle of 78 degrees
which is a correct sweep angle for reentry gliders.
NASA open source geometry modeling software, OpenVSP is uti-
lized as the primary geometry generation tool as it provides a flexible
platform to build parametric geometries. The process of building a ge-
ometry configuration begins with selecting the desired configuration,
a Lifting Body (LB) or Wing Body (WB). Then a cross section shape is
F I G U R E 4.22 –
Generation of geometric data
with the OpenVSP analysis.
chosen and fixed model is generated.

Once the VSP file is prepared, an in-house analysis script utilize
the calculation tools in VSP to generate a data table. The analysis
script generates values of tau, volume, wetted area, frontal area etc.
and makes a feasible geometry map. The geometry map also shows
the sensitivity of the geometry to the changing geometric parameters.
This allows the configuration behind the lookup table to be tuned for
related disciplinary parameters. This process is highlighted below in
Figure 4.22.
Note that each point in the above plot defines a unique outer mold
shape for the given geometry profile. The last step in this process
is filtering through the data and interpolating to a specific value of
tau and planform for a single point. This is done through the formal
geometry “method“ script in the MATLAB. The method selected is
essentially a table lookup function.
Aerodynamic Method Analysis

The aerodynamic discipline calculates the primary aerodynamic char-
acteristics of the vehicle as function of the geometric parameters for
the different flight regimes the vehicle is operating. The methods used
here range from subsonic to hypersonic Mach number, and they are
derived from empirical correlations for maximum trimmed L/D for a
specific τ and induced drag coefficient (L‘). The data for the method
was generated initially at the McDonnel Douglas Company during
the HyFAC studies[89] and the data are provided in the form of charts
showing empirical relationships between various geometric parame-
ters. This is a very expensive and accurate data set that was produced
from extensive wind tunnel experimental tests on trimmed vehicle ge-
102 loveneesh rana
MACH L(induced)
0.009384 0.717261 Equations for CL_alpha for transonic region
0.317811
0.613777
0.872743
0.692473
0.698864
0.705235
0.0220
0.0218
0.0218
0.0216 y = 0.0038x + 0.017
F I G U R E 4.23 –
0.0216 0.0214
1.020713 0.711549 0.0214
1.304371
1.563389
1.809997
0.711697
0.715
0.718196
0.0212
0.0210
0.0208
Series1
Poly. (Series1)
0.0212
0.0210
0.0208
Series1
Linear (Series1)
Creation of MATLAB lookup
0.0206 0.0206
2.019606 0.730779 = -0.0049x 2 + 0.0138x +
y0.0204
2.192114
2.438645
0.768291
0.799604
0.0202 0.012
0.0200
0.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000
0.0204
0.0202
0.0200
tables using aerodynamic data
2.623409 0.855833 0.0000 0.5000 1.0000 1.5000
2.808275 0.887114
2.980706
3.264107
3.547561
0.943337
1.005855
1.055898
graphs for aerodynamic
0.0250 0.0220
3.769374 1.099672
3.978778
4.163619
4.3731
1.162151
1.199669
1.243437
0.0200
0.0150 Series1
0.0218
0.0216
0.0214
0.0212
methods.
0.0210 Series1
4.730448 1.318467 0.0100 2 per. Mov. 0.0208 Poly. (Series1)
5.026183 1.380991 Avg. (Series1) 0.0206
5.395916 1.443553 0.0050 0.0204
y = -0.0042x 2 + 0.0116x +
5.654626 1.512295 0.0202
0.0136
5.975052 1.568594 0.0000 0.0200
0.0000 5.0000 10.0000 15.0000 0.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000
6.246172 1.618631
6.615956 1.668719
ometry shapes and has been proven reliable in multiple sizing exe-
cutions by Chudoba[90], Coleman[27], Gonzalez[26] et al. The data is
converted to lookup tables for application in the MATLAB analysis file.
Figure 4.23 shows this process, while Table 4.1 shows the parametric
relationships and primary aerodynamic equations among geometric
and aerodynamic parameters.
T A B L E 4.1 –
Aerodynamic methods primary
Propulsion Method Analysis parametric relationships.
A simple liquid rocket engine analysis is applied based on the stan-
dard textbook method by Sutton[91]. Rocket Performance analysis re-
lations for the on and off design point determine the Isp and thrust
available T. An engine deck of 14 existing upper-stage rocket en-
gines has been created where physical characteristics of each rocket
engine is stored. Then any of the engine can be selected by using a
switch variable that enables the analysis method to calculate the frac-
ENGINE_NAME HM7B VINCI RL10A-1 RL10A-4 RL10C-1 RL60 LE-5B2 CE-7.5 CE-20 YF-75 YF-75D RD-0146 S5.92 S5.80
ENGSELECT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Status In Production In Production In Production
Origin France France USA USA USA USA Japan India India China China Russia
Propellant LO2/LH2' LO2/LH2' LO2/LH2' LO2/LH2' LO2/LH2' LO2/LH2' LO2/LH2' LO2/LH2' LO2/LH2' LO2/LH2' LO2/LH2' LO2/LH2' N2O4 / UDMH' N2O4 / UDMH'
Oxidiser 'LO2' 'LO2' 'LO2' 'LO2' 'LO2' 'LO2' 'LO2' 'LO2' 'LO2' 'LO2' 'LO2' 'LO2' 'N2O4' 'N2O4'
Oxidiser density 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141 1442 1442
Fuel 'LH2' 'LH2' 'LH2' 'LH2' 'LH2' 'LH2' 'LH2' 'LH2' 'LH2' 'LH2' 'LH2' 'LH2' 'UDMH' 'UDMH'
Fuel Density 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 791 791
PERFORMANCE
ALT_REF(km) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
AISP_REF(s) 445 465 410 451 450 465 447 454 443 438 442 451 327 302
THRUST_REF (N) 62000 180000 68000 99000 101000 250000 150000 73500 200000 785000 88000 98000 19610 2950
AEXIT (m^2) 0.77 3.63 0.64 1.84 1.63 3.80 12.56 1.91 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.22 0.55 3.46
AE_AT 83.1 240 40 84 130 80 110 80 100 80 80 210 153 153
PC_RKT(atm) 35.5 59.2 23.7 38.5 43.0 81.5 37.2 59.1 5.2 36.3 40.5 78.0 95.7 8.7
PC_RKT(N/m^2) 3599996 6000000 2400004 3899999 4356975 8257988 3769290 5990334 526890 3678098 4099610 7899297 9700004 880000
PE_RKT (atm) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
GAMMA_RKT 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
OF_RKT 5.14 5.8 5 5.5 5.5 6 5 5.05 5 5.2 6 6 2 1.8
GEOMTERY
WENG(N) 1618.7 5395.5 1285.1 1648.1 1863.9 4885.4 2844.9 4267.4 5768.3 5395.5 5395.5 2383.8 735.8 3041.1
WENG(kg) 165 550 131 168 190 498 290 435 588 550 550 243 75 310
LENGTH (m) 2.1 4.2 1.73 2.3 2.22 2.25 2.8 2.14 2.2 2.8 2.8 2.2 1.03 1.2
DIAMETER (m) 0.99 2.15 0.9 1.53 1.44 2.2 4 1.56 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.84 2.1
EFFICIENCY
THRUST/WENG 38.30 33.36 52.91 60.07 54.19 51.17 52.73 17.22 34.67 145.49 16.31 41.11 26.65 0.97
LENGTH/DIA 2.12 1.95 1.92 1.50 1.54 1.02 0.70 1.37 1.47 1.87 1.87 1.83 1.23 0.57
T A B L E 4.2 –
tion thrust (as specified by the user) that is provided by the selected Deck of liquid rocket engines
engine. With this implementation, the need to size the engine (rubber created to be used as a quick
engine) is eliminated and existing off-the-shelf technology engines can switch method with standard
be quickly selected. The engine dry weight and volume are also used textbook propulsion analysis.
in the weights and volume estimation method which allows the sizing
code to accommodate for the size and weight of the engine inside ve-
hicle’s geometry mold. Table 4.2 shows the upper-stage engines used
for this analysis.
Performance Matching
Performance matching is fundamentally based on the primary per-
formance relations described in the prio Mission Analysis step. The
only difference here is that it is primarily used with vehicle subsys-
tem parameters that are calculated in the geometry, aerodynamics and
propulsion disciplines. The performance matching step therefore pro-
vides a measure of the main performance attributes required by the
vehicle to match the mission objectives. In this manner, it is used as a
check on the overall sizing code to calculate the total amount of fuel
required to perform the mission.
Weights and Volume Budget

This is the last discipline which calculates the total weight and vol-
ume for the vehicle based on the above outputs stemming from all
other disciplines. The method used here is a modified version of the
parametric relations given by VDK and Czysz[92] for the second stage
of a TSTO vehicle. The method calculates the vehicle’s weight and vol-
ume budgets using a set of coefficients that account for the technology
104 loveneesh rana
level by the use of empirical coefficients that account for the thermal
protection system in the total structure of the vehicle and other fixed
systems to calculate the empty weight of the vehicle. An additional
volume estimate is used to account for the volumes of subsystem,
which is used to calculate a second estimate of vehicle’s empty weight.
Through these two independent calculations of the total empty weight
of the system, the weight and volume method provides a way to imple-
ment a unique convergence criteria on the system which is explained
in next section. The primary equations and coefficient‘s values are
shown in the Figure 4.24 taken from [92].
F I G U R E 4.24 –
Primary Weight and Volume
The engine coefficients are not used as engine weight and
volume is taken from selected rocket engine. budget equations as given by
VDK and Czysz. The engine
EMPIRICAL COEFFICIENTS
parameters and equations are

not used here and taken from
Table 4.2 for selected rocket
engines.
ESTIMATE
WEIGHTS
ESTIMATE
VOLUME
The individual disciplines calculated here are combined next in a

specified manner to create a synthesis sizing code.
4.3.3 Hardware Selection

This section provides details how to generate the multi-disciplinary
analysis (MDA) process logic which combines the disciplinary meth-
ods analysis explained in the previous section. The MDA is applied

to size the vehicle to identify first physical characteristics estimates of
key variables such as weight, volume, and physical dimensions. Such
information is vital to any feasibility investigation.
The sizing logic and related disciplines arrangement is shown using
the Nassi-Shneiderman diagram in Figure 4.26. The sizing methodol-
ogy used for this study is based on a constant mission sizing logic. The
logic and general approach used is the constant mission sizing logic of
Hypersonic Convergence by Czysz[52]. It is a first order sizing applica-
tion where the most critical design parameters are recognized and em-
ployed to find a design solution space of converged design points. It
represents a multi-disciplinary analysis tool-set where key technology Weight Budget
parameters are recognized. These parameters are used to characterize WFix + WENG + WOPER
OEWW =
1 Wstr
the whole vehicle system, allowing technology forecasting studies, -
1 + µa OEW
- FWSYS
mission exploration studies, design feasibility studies and more. This OWE = OEW + WPAY + WCREW
sizing-based forecasting approach is used to measure the design with Volume Budget
current day available industry capability versus future technology. In VTotal - VSYSTEMS - VENG - VCREW - VVOID
OEWV =
WR - 1
the process the system identifies if there is any specific requirement ρppl * g
which can cause the program to fail in later stages (show stopper as- Wing Loading
sessment). The complete MDA developed in the present context is W TOGW
=
S Spln
a modular structure implementation, composed of individual disci-
plinary analysis methods and the integration process. Objective Functions
OWEV - OEWV = 0
The sizing logic is implemented through the Analysis Process compo-
W TOGW
nent of the DBMS where the fundamental independent and dependent ( )Guess - =0
S Spln
systems variables are defined. The independent variables (planform
area and wing-loading) are the initial input to the system which are fed F I G U R E 4.25 –
into the geometry methods to start the sizing analysis. The disciplines The essential objective function
are then executed for a fixed value of vehicle slenderness parameter must be satisfied for executing
τ in the following orderly sequence; geometry, aerodynamics, propul- the fundamental convergence
sion, performance and weights and volume. The dependent variables logic.
(TOGW and weights estimate from weight and volume method) are
calculated at the end which are then used with the independent vari-
ables to satisfy the objective function. Through this iterative process
when the objective function is satisfied, a converged vehicle is obtained
for which the primary disciplinary results have been calculated.
The vehicle’s planform area and wing-loading are the primary in-
dependent variables that are iterated until a converged design solution
is achieved. The designer provides an initial guess estimate of these
variables which feeds into the MDA framework. The geometry mod-
ule acts as the ‘gearbox‘ of the synthesis system where the vehicle’s
geometry could be scaled using just τ which accounts for weight and
volume effects collectively . For a fixed τ, the geometry module passes
vehicle’s geometric characteristics to the aerodynamic analysis method
which calculates lift and drag values for the vehicle for a specified
106 loveneesh rana
AVDSIZING
Sizing Logic Convergence Logic
Mission requirements
Vtotal
Reentry Mission Profile ISS Crew/Cargo Operations
Deorbit Boost
Lifting Reentry Increasing τ τ= 1.5
Spln
Horizontal Landing
Lifting Reentry
Equilibirium Glide Geometry & Configuration Assumptions
Small Flight Path Angle Glider Configuration: Delta WB / LB
ALT(Orbit) = 400 km (ISS) Propulsion System: Lid Rocket (LOX/LH2)
ALT(Reentry) = 120 km Iterate Vehicle Slenderness τ1, τ2, τ3
Reentry γ = -1.5o
Geometry: f(τ, RN, ᴧLE)
∆γ = 0 Analytical geometry buildup Geometry definition
International Space Station
Propulsive
Output: Vtot, Areas, L, Dia as function of Tau
Deorbit Burn
0 km
Performance Analysis / Trajectory
ff, WR = f(trajectory, aero, propulsion) SYSTEMS PROCESS VARIABLES
= 40
Orbit
ALT
= 120 km
ALT Reentry -1.5
o
γ Reentry =
Landing
Site
INDEPENDENT W/S Spln
OEW estimation: Wstr , Weq, Wsys, etc. DEPENDENT OWEW OWEV TOGW
Volume required estimation: Vpay Vfuel, Vsys, Objective OWEV - OWEW = 0

Single Design Point Convergence
W TOGW
Vvoid, etc.
Functions ( )Guess - =0
Multiple Design Point Solution Space
Weight Budget S Spln

WFix + WENG + WOPER
OEWW = Solve OEW from Weights and Volume budgets ,
1 Wstr
- - FWSYS for Spln and W/S until Objective
. fn is met
1 + µa OEW
OWE = OEW + WPAY + WCREW

Iterate Spln and TOGW until convergence
Volume Budget
VTotal - VSYSTEMS - VENG - VCREW - VVOID
Constraint Analysis : heating, W/S limits for
OEWV =
WR - 1
constraints
ρppl * g
Construct Carpet Plots
Solution Space Topography
F I G U R E 4.26 –
Fundamental logic of the sizing
mission profile. The aerodynamic results are passed to the propul-
methodology implemented into
sion module next which calculates the required thrust for a selected
a software called AVDSIZING .
propulsion type. The performance calculation method is then applied
to find the fuel fraction and vehicle’s mass ratio for the overall mission
trajectory. The results from the geometry, aerodynamics, propulsion,
and performance matching modules are used to assess the vehicle’s
weight and volume. For a given vehicle slenderness parameter (τ), the
planform area and wing loading are iterated through the total design
process until weight and volume available equal weight and volume
required. The algebraic sizing process solves for weight and plan-
form area simultaneously through converging weight and volume for
a given set of design variables.
As the system is sized for one τ by iterating the independent vari-
ables, an outer sweep of τ thus provides a means to develop a solu-
tion space of converged vehicles which are sized to the same mission.
The sizing code is created by the DBMS as a modular structure of the
MATLAB script files for disciplinary analysis and a central input file to
specify the required disciplinary and mission variables input values.
These variables are iterated with τ in the outer sweep to size multiple
vehicle concepts and develop design solution continuum. The pro-

cess is further made clear in the execution case-studies in Section 4.4.
The LRV case-studies are sized using this generic sizing methodology
where the geometry or the aerodynamic method is adjusted according
to the shape of the configuration.
The final outcome for this step is the sizing of a converged vehicle
concept and subsequent creation of a solution space which provides
a continuum of the vehicle design solution space topography. These
vehicles are all sized to meet the initial mission objectives specified,
and hence they establish the physical and technical feasibility at this
point. The next step then develops an estimate of the total cost for each
vehicle in the solution space and calculates an overall performance ef-
ficiency index. With these two estimates, the solution space is revisited
and each vehicle concept is now measured for a cost-per-performance
measure.
4.3.4 Cost/Performance
With the sizing results and solution space definition available, this last
step of the solution process estimates the life-cycle cost for the LRV
concept continuum and it normalizes with the overall performance
efficiency factor to scan the technically feasible solution space for the
most cost beneficial design solutions. For this purpose, the current sec-
tion addresses two parts. The first part is the estimation of total cost,
while the second part is the formulation of the overall performance
measurement factor.
Total Cost Estimate

The cost estimation model used here is based on D. E. Koelle’s Hand-
book of Cost Engineering and Design of Space Transportation Systems with
TransCost 8.2 Model Description[93]. Transcost model is a widely ac-
cepted cost estimation model which calculates overall life-cycle cost of
space access systems by breaking down the total life-cycle cost into
several smaller segments. Each segment estimates the cost associ-
ated with a life-cycle phase starting from development phase to all
the way into operations. Each cost estimate (referred to as submodels
by Koelle) is derived based on empirical Cost Estimating Relationships
(CER) which are quite simple equations providing cost estimates of a
system or an element based on the respective mass. The cost submod-
els used here address three major life-cycle phases, namely; 1) Devel-
opment Cost (not calculated for the existing off-the-shelf engines), 2)
Production cost (calculated for engines and LRV vehicle), and 3) Direct
Operations Cost (includes Ground Operations and Flight Operations).
The estimated costs are in the unit ‘work-years’ (WYr) which is defined
108 loveneesh rana
as “the total company annual budget divided by the number of pro-

ductive full-time people [93].” Since the primary use of this step is to
have the cost estimates for the purpose of estimating the overall value
of a product8 , the WYr unit is used here and will not be converted 8
It must be noted that this last step
measures the cost-per-performance
to the dollar amount (Koelle provides a conversion factor for this pur-
for the entire solution space and thus
pose which is neglected in this research). A total of 12 different cost provides an estimate of the overall
factors, f 0 – f 11 are used in the Transcost model which are used to value for the vehicles. The goal here is
to predict the life-cycle cost, but instead
derive the CERs to estimate the required costs for elements (engines, to find which design concept provides
propulsion module etc) and the systems (vehicles, stages etc). The cost the most performance for the minimum
factors used in this section are listed below: cost and not the one that costs the
minimum. This is referred to here as
the value impact of each vehicle over
• f 0 – project systems engineering and integration factor; the entire solution space
• f 1 – technical development standard correlation factor;
• f 2 – technical quality correlation factor;
• f 3 – team experience factor;
• f 4 – cost reduction factor from Learning factor;
• f 6 – cost growth factor;
• f 7 – parallel organization factor;
• f 8 – country productivity factor;
• f 10 – techn. progress cost reduction factor;
• f 11 – commercial cost reduction factor.
These factors form the CERs for the LRV are discussed next.
Values of cost factors used for LRVs:
∠ f 0 = 1.04
∠ Total Life-Cycle cost Model ∠ f 1 = 1.1
∠ f2 = 1
The total cost of the LRV vehicle is composed of three main sub-
∠ f 3 = 1.3
models, namely; 1) Development Cost, 2) Production Cost, and 3) Op- ∠ f 4 = 0.58
erations Cost; ∠ f 6 = 1.3
∠ f 7 = 1.2
∠ f8 = 1
CostTot = Dev.CostTot + Prod.CostTot + Ops.CostTot (4.20) ∠ f 9 = 1.08
∠ f 10 = 0.8
Following then are the CERs for each submodel; ∠ f 11 = 0.5
∠ Development costs The total development cost for the LRV is calcu-
lated of only the LRV stage and does not include the cost of on-board
rocket engines. It is given by the following equation:
Total development cost = f 0 HVW f 6 f 7 f 8 (4.21)
where
HVW = 1.420 M0.35 f 1 f 2 f 3 f 10 f 11 (4.22)
∠ Production costs The total production cost of the LRV is calculated

for the on-board liquid rocket engines and the LRV stage vehicle. It is
given by the following equation:
Total Production cost = f 0 ( FET + FVW ) f 9 (4.23)
where, Liquid Rocket Production Cost FET , and the LRV Stage Pro-
duction Cost FVW , are calculated as follows;
FET = 2.29 M0.545 f 4 f 8 f 9 f 10 f 11 (4.24)

0.606
FVW = 5.83 M f 4 f 8 f 10 f 11 (4.25)
∠ Operations Cost Koelle defines Direct Operations Cost as composed

of following elements,
• Ground Operations
• Materials & Propellants
• Flight Operations
• Transport & Recovery
• Fees & Insurance
Of these elements, only the Ground Cost and the Flight Operations
cost are included to calculate the Operations Cost for the LRVs. The
following set of CERs are given by Koelle for these elements;
DOC = COPS + C M (4.26)
where, the Ground Operations cost, COPS and the Flight Operations
Cost, C M are given by the following set of equations;
COPS = 12.24 M0 0.67 L−0.9 f 4 f 8 f 11 (4.27)

−0.65
C M = 60 L f4 f8 (4.28)
M0 is the TOGW at the takeoff and L is
Once the total cost is calculated, the next and final step is to calcu- the launch rate, L = 25 flights per year
late the overall performance of the LRV concept. For this purpose, assumed flight rate here.
a performance efficiency index is calculated which provides a holis-
tic measure of the overall performance of the LRV vehicles. With this
parameter, the total vehicle cost is normalized with the performance
efficiency factor to define a value index for the vehicle. The perfor-
mance efficiency factor and other performance indicating parameters
are defined next.
110 loveneesh rana
Primary Performance Measuring Indices

Having completed the total cost calculation, the next step is to de-
fine critical performance measuring indices that holistically define the
LRV’s overall efficiency and benefits. This is done to enable a con-
sistent comparison among LRV vehicles of varying shape, size and
disciplinary trades. The following three holistic index parameters are
defined which are composed of vehicle‘s primary physical parameters
and thus represents a much broader range of desired physical charac-
teristics and performance capabilities of the vehicle than the constitut-
ing parameters9 : 9
Just like the Kücherman‘s slenderness
parameter τ is a better indicator of
1. Performance Efficiency Index: This index was first introduced by Eg- the geometry as it involves volume
and planform area, two significant
gers et al. in 1956 in a landmark study[20] that provided one of the geometric characteristics, than a simple
first comparative analysis standards for the hypervelocity vehicles. length/diameter parameter that is also
Eggers defines an overall performance measuring factor following used to define the slenderness of the
geometry. Similarly, these performance
the logic of the classical Breguet Range Equation for aircraft. The measuring indices are composed of
performance index is composed of gross performance parameters major vehicle parameters like L/D,
Isp etc. and include more information
as shown in the following equation: about the vehicle‘s overall efficiency
and performance.
Per f E f f = ( L/D ) ∗ Ventry /Vsatellite ∗ g ∗ Isp /Vsatellite (4.29)
2. Volumetric Efficiency Index: This index defines the overall volumetric

efficiency of the geometry and indicates its efficiency to store the
maximum volume in minimum surface area.
2/3
VolE f f = VTotal /SWetted (4.30)
3. Structural Efficiency Index: Czysz, Bruno and Chudoba[52, 90] define

a structural efficiency term, ISTR . This variable correlates the total
structural weight of the vehicle to the wetted surface area. This
factor is representative of the manufacturing capability of the in-
dustry.10 10
Czysz provides IStr limits estimate
for the current and future industry
IStr = WStr /SWetted (4.31) capability, circa 1980 which is used as a
constraint factor for the solution space.
4.3.5 Software Implementation

The Physical Solution Architecture of four steps of the SAS-GDSP so-
lution is described at this point. As mentioned earlier, the execution
of step-2, ‘Technology Requirement‘ and step-3, ‘Hardware Selection‘ is
implemented with the DBMS while the rest of the solution is imple-
mented independent and outside of the DBMS. Figure 4.27 shows the
overall software execution of the complete SAS-GDSP solution.
It must be mentioned again that the SAS-GDSP is proposed as a
step-wise executable process and not a standalone system. Therefore,
the execution of the complete process implements various software
CENTRAL F I G U R E 4.27 –
LIBRARY SAS-GDSP software suite shows
SM - 1 & SM - 2
JabREF PDF, PPT, WORD, WEBPAGES

execution of four SDPs
DATA BASE KNOWLEDGE BASE comprised of 3 SMs.
SDP - 1
SM - 3
AVD
DBMS
SDP - 2 & SDP - 3
SM - 3
SIZING
CODE
100
ANCREW
TAU
X20: ANCREW vs TAU
0.18
#Design Points = 63 SM : SYSTEM MODULES
0.19 TAU
Solution
90 0.20
1. DATA-BASE
0.21
0.22
0.23
80 0.24
0.25
0.26
7.00
70
2. KNOWLEDGE-BASE
6.00
Spln , m 2
ANCREW
Space
60 5.00
Spln = 32.05 m2, W/S = 1463 N/m2 4.00
50
3. PARAMETRIC PROCESSING
3.00
X-20 Glider + Trans-stage

40
2.00
X-20 Glider
30
1.00 Effective Spln = 42.30 m2, Effective W/S = 1891 N/m2
Closest Design Point
20
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
W/S, N/m2
SDP : SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

POST PROCESS 1. MISSION ANALYSIS
Perf., Cost., Constraint 2. TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS
3. HARDWARE SELECTION
4. COST-per-PERFORMANCE
SDP - 4
SM - 3
COST-per-PERFORMANCE
6
VTHL using FRLV (Falcon - 9 Block5 type)
# 10
# 369 Design Options
5.51
5.505
VTHL TOGW
Fully Reusable future Falcon-9 type LV
5.5
5.495
Space
Design
5.49 Optimum n. TOGW
• Mi t
• Min Cosf
Per
5.485 • Max
pment)
L (develo
5.48
LV-VTH ance
than PR
er Cost VTHL Perform ption)
• High all m LV-VTH
L
50 Over nt Assu L and FR
• Lesser eight (Inhere
LV-VTH
45
W
VTH • Same n for PR
3.334
V optio
40
L TO
3.3335
Th e LR
r)
35
TAL • 3.333
can diffe
r. T (WY # 10 4
PE L COS
30 3.3325
RF 3.332
TA
THL TO
25
3.3315
20 3.331 V
systems. Clearly, the SAS-GDSP solution represent a cross-platform

software integration implementation. For the present study, following
software capabilities were employed:
• JaBREF (stores PDFs, PPTs, Webpages, Word)

112 loveneesh rana
• MS Office Suite (Word, Excel, Access, OneNote)
• MATLAB (for processing)
• OpenVSP (for modeling geometry)
• Adobe Illustrator (for image processing)
Figure 4.27 shows the stepwise execution of the Logical Solution Archi-
tecture of the SAS-GDSP explained in the Chapter 3 and is a represen-
tative of the overall Logical Solution Architecture concept visualized
in Figure 4.1. Next section describes the execution of the SAS-GDSP
solution for the proposed LRV case-studies.
4.4 SAS-GDSP Application Results
This section describes the implementation of the Physical Solution Ar-

chitecture of the GDSP solution as described above. Three distinct case-
studies are executed here for the generic ISS resupply mission which
is described in the section 4.3.1, see Figure 4.19.
The first case-study is the sizing of a legacy LRV program, the X-20
Dyna-Soar. This case-study is executed with the aim to perform a ver-
ification and validation of the results obtained from the GDSP solution
process by comparing against the legacy data. The X-20 is primarily
a case-study for technical verification and validation of the methods
selected and not to explore the performance-to-cost solution space for
a new design. Thus, this case-study follows only the first three steps of
the generic GDSP solution process and the cost-per-performance im-
plementation is not executed here.
The second case-study then implements the GDSP solution for a generic
Lifting-Body (LB) configuration where the complete GDSP solution
is executed to explore the design continuum solution space for the
generic LB configuration. An analogous case-study is also imple-
mented for a generic Wing-Body (WB) configuration in the third case-
study. Both of these The generic case-study is executed for the same
mission objective of LEO reentry from ISS altitude for a 1 person crew
and 450 kg of payload requirements. The common mission objective
then provides a base-line for consistent comparison among generic
configurations for varying shape, size and technology implementation.
4.4.1 Verification Case: The Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar

This case-study focuses on a legacy program from the days of the space
race between the USA and the USSR. The era of competition to con-
quer space saw leaps and bounds in space related technology in the
span of only a few years. In the years following the space race, the
industry saw a halt in the rapid progress. The X-20 Dyna-Soar was the
first industrial scale program initiated in 1957 to develop the first LRV
as a routine access to orbit capability. The program saw many highs,
acquiring new knowledge of the hypersonic regime, and it was the
largest program in the country. Then with the inception of the Gemini
program as the precursor to the Apollo, the direction of the govern-
ment turned towards the easy to understand, but low on performance,
ballistic capsule designs. The X-20 was canceled in late 1963, citing rea-
sons that the program lacked a clear direction and mission definition.
It would not be until 20 years that the Space Shuttle would execute the
same mission objectives and be the first LRV program.
Since the X-20 shows a data and knowledge rich history, this case-
study acts as the perfect example for the verification of the sizing re-
sults obtained by the application of the SAS-GDSP solution. With this
first case-study the focus is primarily on the validation of the methods
and process used for sizing a well-known legacy LRV study. Thus,
with this case, only the first three steps are applied to demonstrate
the capability of the solution process to develop a technology feasibil-
ity solution space. The last step of measuring the cost-per-performance
solution space is not applied to this study as the X-20 was primarily an
exploration case which was pushing the boundary of the hypersonic
knowledge available at the time. The logic of applying the cost-per-
performance step is to explore the business-case solution space for a
project. Thus, this last step will be applied for generic case-studies
exploring the design solution space for the lifting and wing body con-
figurations.
Case-Study Description The X-20 Dyna-Soar was the first operational-
F I G U R E 4.28 –
Dyna-Soar Program phases and
Vehicle Layout
vehicle initiative to apply all of the then available high-speed knowl-

edge onto a single program with practical applications. Since the early
114 loveneesh rana
1950s, the USAF had been involved in hypersonic glider research ac-
tivities under separate projects like BOMI, HYWARDS, and ROBO
[31, 75]. In 1957, the USAF defined the X-20 program, combining the
previous studies of BOMI, ROBO and HYWARDS under one umbrella.
Boeing was awarded the contract to develop the X-20 glider while The
Martin Company was selected to develop the expendable booster. The
program was to be developed in multiple stages; each stage’s mission
requirements becoming sequentially more demanding. Phase one of
the program was aimed to deliver a conceptual test vehicle as a test
bed for the boost-glide operation. This stage of the program was sup-
posed to be a proof-of-concept, validating the feasibility of the tech-
nology and hardware. The second stage of the program would deliver
a sub-orbital mission capable vehicle with limited capabilities over a
restricted range of around 5000 nmi. This stage was a single-person
vehicle. The third and final stage of the program aimed at developing
the first-of-it-kind hypersonic, global range, strategic bomber/recon-
naissance system. This variant would attain orbital speeds and per-
forms single and multi-orbit missions. The vehicle at this stage had
multiple versions with multi-person crews and mission profiles to ex-
ecute a variety of operations that included servicing satellites in orbit,
crew transportation, and re-supply missions. The main objective of the
Dyna-Soar program was to obtain hypersonic flight data and experi-
ence to develop a space bomber with global range.
The name “Dyna-Soar“ stands for Dynamic-Soaring. Dynamic-soaring
is a flying technique most commonly used by birds and hang-gliders to
save energy while covering maximum range. The X-20 was designed
to use this method to gain energy by crossing between air masses of
different velocity due to changing atmospheric density layers. The X-
20 was supposed to be the first space-plane in an era that was later
dominated by capsule designs operated under the Mercury, Gemini,
and Apollo programs.
The X-20 was a VTHL system configuration. The Titan II and Titan
IIIc boosters would provide the launch and orbital access capability
in subsequent phases of the program. The glider was a horizontal
landing low delta-wing design, as shown in Figure 4.28. The stability
and control during re-entry was provided by the winglets and elevons;
there was no conventional vertical tail. A new super alloy—Rene 41—
was used for the framework of the vehicle. Molybdenum sheets cov-
ered the bottom surface as TPS. A general layout of the vehicle had
the pilot compartment, followed by equipment bay used to house the
payload (scientific and reconnaissance equipment, weapons etc.). The
orbital variant had an extended pilot compartment allowing for a four-
person-mid-deck. The vehicle retained the upper-most rocket stage
from the launcher (Titan IIIC) for in-orbit maneuvers and de-orbital
burns for reentry. This propulsion module, called a transtage, was

jettisoned prior to decent into the atmosphere[31].
Sizing Logic and Disciplinary Methods Overview
F I G U R E 4.29 –
Multidisciplinary analysis
approach applied for sizing
X-20 case-study
The sizing methodology is shown in Figure 4.29, where the pro-

gram logic and disciplinary breakdown is represented in the order of
execution. A first-order geometry estimate is the beginning point of
the procedure where the geometry method is an analytical method
defined by simplifying the vehicle configuration into elementary ge-
ometry components. The overall geometric properties are calculated
as a function of the vehicle slenderness parameter τ (τ = Vtotal /S1.5
pln ).
The geometry feeds into discipline specific modules in the following
order of execution: aerodynamics, propulsion, performance analysis,
and finally weight and volume estimates. Weight and volume balanc-
ing acts as the heart of the process. The planform and wing-loading
are iterated for a given τ until the weight and volume available equal
the weight and volume required. The disciplinary methods used are
summarized in Table 4.3.
Single point convergence

A single-point convergence design study is executed. The single-
point was for a fixed value of τ = 0.23; a value of 0.23 was calculated
as a rough approximation from the original X-20 three-view drawings.
The convergence logic iterates planform area and wing loading until
the objective function is satisfied. The result is a converged vehicle so-
lution, the results for which are shown in the Figure 4.30. The vehicles
defining variables are shown here, identifying the overall vehicle con-
figuration characteristics and performance. Between all the disciplines,
the sizing process calculates 27 primary outputs. Each one is a variable
116 loveneesh rana
Discipline Application Description Reference
Geometry
General Configuration Configuration buildup by means of elementary

elements: semisphere, half-cylinder, truncated
cone, etc.
Aerodynamics
Subsonic, Supersonic, Empirical McDonald Douglas aerodynamic HyFac[94],

and Hypersonic relations for estimating lift-to-drag ratio Coleman[27]
( L/D )max , lift curve slope CLα , induced drag
factor L0 , and zero lift-drag coefficient CDo
Propulsion
Rocket Performance Off and on design point analytical relations for Sutton[91]
determination of Isp and thrust available T
De-Orbit Analytical relation for the de-orbit problem Low[85]
identifying ∆V and entry velocity, Ve , as a
function of entry flight path angle, γe and
de-orbit parking orbit r p
Cross-Range Analytical relation for cross-range Vinh[86]

determination as a function of a constant
optimum bank angle φopt and L/D
Down-Range Analytical relation for determination of max Galman[88]

down-range as a function of L/D and
atmospheric starting glide velocity
Glide Relations for small flight path angle glide from Miele[87]
re-entry to landing
Aerothermodynamics
Max Heat Flux Max heat flux correlation as a function of glide Galman[88]
weight W, coefficient of lift CL , planform area
S pln , and nose radius r N
Weight and Volume
Weight Empirical relations for the identifying of weight Czysz[52]

contributions
Volume Empirical relations identifying volume required Czysz[52]
T A B L E 4.3 –
Summary of methods used in
that iterated for every combination of planform and wing-loading. It the X-20 MDA
is noted that there is a total of 201 variables involved in one sizing iter-
ation when including those internally used within the disciplines, see
F I G U R E 4.30 –
Figure 4.31. Given the large quantity of data available, it is impractical Single Design Point Solution is
to illustrate and discuss all results. Therefore, only the most signifi- obtained by iterating on S pln
cant variables that represent the overall design solution and provide a and W/S while converging on
holistic representation of the case-study are presented. The following Weight and Volume.
sections address these primary design drivers.
Multi-point Design Solution Space

As mentioned before, the Küchermann slenderness parameter τ
along with planform area defines and controls the overall geometry
properties of the vehicle[90]. For a single point design solution, plan-
form area is iterated along with wing loading to converge the sizing
process. Further iteration on τ and other mission parameters popu-
lates a solution space consisting of individually converged total vehi-
cle design points. The overall design solution space provides a carpet
plot visual aid that is of significant value for the decision maker during
the early design phase. Figure 4.32 shows the overall solution space
generated for the X-20 vehicle by iterating on τ and Crew size.
As seen in the figure, the carpet plot consists of a total of 63 design
points where each vehicle is a converged solution similar to the case
shown in the previous section. Every design point accounts for ap-
proximately 200 variables and produces 27 disciplinary outputs. Ad-
ditionally, both the X-20 glider and the glider with tran-stage lie within
the solution space. Further, it can be seen that the X-20 glider lies on
the τ = 0.22 line and slightly above the crew size equal to one case.
The closest design point sized to the mission constraints of the origi-
nal X-20 glider is also recognized on the carpet plot. This nodal point
on the carpet plot is the closest solution concept to the original that
was sized in the multi-point iteration.
Constraint implementation
Following the generation of the solution space carpet plot, the next
step is to identify the limiting constraints that define the feasible de-
sign options. Two principle constraints are considered; they are max
118 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E 4.31 –
Total number of internal and
heat flux and TPS, and lift-off vehicle max payload. These constraint
external variables involved in a
limits are implemented and visualized in Figure 4.33.
single point convergence.
The constraints for maximum heat flux during the equilibrium glide
section of the trajectory is provided by Glaman[88] in terms of the wing
loading and nose radius, see equation 4 in Galman[88]. The TPS tech-
nology level identifies the constraining regions. When assuming the
thermal protection system technology level of the Space Shuttle[95],it
provides a wider valid region than the solution space, thus it does
not affect the current developed solution design space for the X-20.
Assuming a reduced technology level, one equivalent to that of the
X-20 program era, it can be seen in figure 4.33 that the solution space
decreases significantly. The TPS technology level limits the feasible
design space to a max crew size of 3 and τ = 0.23.
The second constraint is recognizing the payload limit of the Titan-
IIIC launch vehicle. The Titan-IIIC was selected as the primary launch
vehicle for the X-20 glider in the early 1960s[31]. The Dyna-Soar pro-
gram was canceled before the first flight of the launch vehicle. As can
be seen clearly from Figure 4.33, the launch vehicle ability also reduces
the overall solution space significantly. However, although the feasible
design solution space reduces significantly after application of those
constraints, both configurations, the X-20 glider and the glider with
trans-stage, still lie comfortably in the feasible design space. The sec-
ond phase of the X-20 program was planned with a higher performing
mission profile and increased crew member capacity. Consequently,
vehicles of this increased payload capability would not lie in the solu-
tion space shown with Figure 4.32 and 4.33.
It is important to mention again that the X-20 program was the first
F I G U R E 4.32 –
large scale industrial-level program for the development of an opera- Single Design Point Solution is
tional LRV vehicle and occurred more than two decades before the first iterated for τ and other mission
flight of the STS. Most of the technology, knowledge, data, and even parameters for developing a
the test-facilities developed during the X-20 program found applica- design solution space. Each
tion in the follow on generations of lifting body programs, eventually design point is a converged
leading to the development of the Space Shuttle. This is further con- vehicle solution concept.
firmed by several noted authors, historians, and researchers[31, 75, 95–
98] as almost every account of the history and development of the STS
program mentions the X-20 program as a major contributor towards
the Space Shuttle vehicle.
The X-20 was the pathfinder for its time that produced invaluable
data and knowledge. Multiple new technologies were developed dur-
ing the life-time of the X-20 to successfully develop the first operational
LRV. Sadly, that had to wait for more than 20 years owing to political
reasons. Geiger states; “the X-20 Dyna-Soar died not from technical insuf-
ficiency but from political disfavor."[31]. Houchins further confirms and
adds to the impact of the cancellation of the X-20 program: “Dyna-
Soar was not a technological failure. It could have flown. On the other
hand, Dyna-Soar’s cancellation marked the collapse of the Air Force’s
political-economic efforts for a hypersonic boost-glider, illustrating the
need for a rapid and clear consensus of purpose, single-minded and
politically astute leadership, and the near-term attainment of advanced
technology."[97]. Both Geiger and Houchins present detailed and well-
documented accounts of the complicated political-economic circum-
stances leading to the cancellation of the X-20 program and its impact
on the space industry had it been developed during the 1960s.
The present study further reestablishes the feasibility of a forgotten
120 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E 4.33 –
program through a parametric assessment of the technical feasibility Constraints applied based on
and advanced capability the X-20 could have provided. This could TPS system technology and LV
have helped the industry leapfrog historical progress had the admin- weight constraints.
istration provided the required timely support. In this account, the
X-20 presents a case-study that the present generation of planners and
designers need to acknowledge and learn in order to avoid making
the same mistakes which could possibly result, again, in a potential
decline of the current re-usability space progress, the likes of which
was experienced through the decades following the Apollo program.
4.4.2 Generic Case-1: The Lifting Bodies

The X-20 case-study shows the capability of AVDSIZING to effectively
converge the multi-disciplinary framework and size a vehicle concept
that is physically feasible and meets the required mission objectives.
Further, the X-20 case-study also shows how the system is used to
perform sweep on τ to develop a solution space continuum contain-
ing infinite converged vehicles while trading on a mission parameter
(number of crew in the X-20 case) to size multiple converged vehicles.
The constraint implementation is used to define the feasible design
space. This case-study thus shows the power of the highly modular
and customizable synthesis system to effectively explore the design
solution space along all three primary trade dimensions. Figure 4.34
is repeated here from first Section to remind the reader of the primary
trade dimensions. This figure is a found to be a significant visual TECHNOLOGY
tool to realize the real scale of the infinite possibilities that could be
RKT-1
RKT-2
explored in the conceptual design phase. RKT-3
MATERIAL
TPS
AL
This case-study thus defines a generic configuration in an attempt RKT-1

RKT-2
LEVEL-1
PROPULSION
RKT-3
TRADES
to cover some of those possibilities and show numerically how the true RKT-13
RKT-14
EM Drive
ION-T
scope of the CD phase is often gone unnoticed to a specialist who is not

involved in the primary exploration phase of the design environment. LEVEL-2
TRADES
Case-Study Description
Lifting body configuration represents a class of geometry that has
F I G U R E 4.34 –
the same generic shape but can have various geometry profiles by
Complete overall trade-matrix
variations in geometry parameters like the shape of the base-area,
showing primary and
flat/round bottom, leading-edge angles etc. A first order assessment
secondary trades
of the sensitivities of general shape parameters of the vehicle on the fi-
nal vehicle performance is a powerful capability attribute to this multi-
disciplinary sizing methodology and implementation. This study demon-
strates this effect of the general shape and geometric parameters’ trades
along with other two trade dimensions. The possible geometric varia-
tions for a generic lifting body configuration and how they are applied
to create specific geometry profiles are shown in Figure 4.35.
F I G U R E 4.35 –
Parametric variations in generic
lifting body configurations and
development of specific
geometry profiles.
Geometry Profiles, MDA and Disciplinary Methods The ge-

ometry profiles are developed using analytical and empirical analysis
methods to calculate the overall geometric properties of the vehicle.
The geometry analysis is the first discipline that defines the overall
shape of the vehicle which is then used to calculate its aerodynam-
ics and execute further disciplines. Two distinct methods are used to
define the geometry as per the characteristic of the vehicle.
Czysz[52],[90] provides analytical relationships between various ge-
ometric parameters that are used to define a series of geometry profiles
122 loveneesh rana
with varying base-area for lifting bodies. The parametric geometric re-
lationships provided by Czysz are limited to a planform leading edge
angle of 78 degrees which is a correct sweep angle for reentry gliders.
F I G U R E 4.36 –
Fundamental logic of the sizing
methodology executed in
AVDLB MDA framework.
OpenVSP is utilized as the second primary geometry generation

tool as it provides a flexible platform to build parametric geometries.
The process of building a geometry configuration begins with selecting
the desired configuration and the lifting body is the selected primary
configuration chosen for the present study. Then a cross section shape
is chosen and a fixed model is generated. Both the processes are de-
scribed in detail earlier in the Section 4.3.2, ‘Technology Requirements‘.
Following the geometry profiles creation, an integrated synthesis
procedure is developed along the line of the sizing logic of the AVDSIZING
with generic lifting body configuration shape, see Figure 4.36. Each ge-
ometry profile is executed through the MDA framework, solving for
primary design-disciplines of aerodynamic, propulsion, performance,
trajectory, and weights calculations, as discussed previously in Section
4.3.3. The analysis methods for involved disciplines is similar to the X-
20 disciplinary methods. Table 4.4 provides a summary of the involved
disciplinary methods.
Trade Matrix Implementation

The X-20 case-study addressed a legacy vehicle design which had a
fixed geometry configuration with fixed mission objectives and tech-
nology requirements. Contrary to that, the generic LB geometry case-
Discipline Application Description Reference
Geometry
LB Generic Hypersonic Convergence and OpenVSP Czysz[52]

Configuration methods implemented for execution of
geometry parameters trades
Aerodynamics
Subsonic, Supersonic, Empirical McDonald Douglas aerodynamic HyFac[94],

and Hypersonic relations for estimating lift-to-drag ratio Coleman[27]
( L/D )max , lift curve slope CLα , induced drag
factor L0 , and zero lift-drag coefficient CDo
Propulsion
Rocket Performance Off and on design point analytical relations for Sutton[91]
determination of Isp and thrust available T
De-Orbit Analytical relation for the de-orbit problem Low[85]
identifying ∆V and entry velocity, Ve , as a
function of entry flight path angle, γe and
de-orbit parking orbit r p
Cross-Range Analytical relation for cross-range Vinh[86]

determination as a function of a constant
optimum bank angle φopt and L/D
Down-Range Analytical relation for determination of max Galman[88]

down-range as a function of L/D and
atmospheric starting glide velocity
Glide Relations for small flight path angle glide from Miele[87]
re-entry to landing
Aerothermodynamics
Max Heat Flux Max heat flux correlation as a function of glide Galman[88]
weight W, coefficient of lift CL , planform area
S pln , and nose radius r N
Weight and Volume
Weight Empirical relations for the identifying of weight Czysz[52]

contributions
Volume Empirical relations identifying volume required Czysz[52]
T A B L E 4.4 –
Summary of methods used in
study provides a wide range of design solutions which are addressed the X-20 MDA
here. While the X-20 design point was iterated on τ and number of
crew to explore the X-20 design solution space and mission capability
124 loveneesh rana
range, the LB configuration is assessed for fixed mission objectives of

1 crew member and a fixed payload of 450 kg (the payload of the X-20
mission). Then, a range of other trades are all applied to the geome-
try configuration, mission trajectory variables, and technology trades
(by changing the rocket engine and fuel type). This execution study
covered a large range of trades that finally resulted in an enormous so-
lution space of 636 converged design concepts. It must be noted here
that each design point has been sized in a similar manner as described
in the single point design convergence of the X-20 case-study. That
is, each design point has been iterated for planform and wing loading
until the convergence criteria was met. Clearly, every design point is a
converged design concept that calculated more than 200 internal and
external disciplinary variables where each has around 30 disciplinary
outputs.
The overall trade space description is provided in the Table 4.5. As
shown in the table, a τ sweep serves as the primary trade variable
for volumetrically scaling the vehicle shape, while the other trade pa-
rameters are defined specifically based on the constraints of the disci-
plinary methods and execution capability and data-handling capacity
of the software (MATLAB, OpenVSP etc.). The iteration variables are
shown with the range of iteration while the number in the brackets
denotes the number of steps of the iteration for the specific variable11 . 11
For example, as seen in the first
Every trade study is first developed as an independent architecture in column TAU range is 0.14 - 0.3 while (8)
denotes the number of iteration of TAU
the AVD-DBMS which provides a MATLAB executable sizing code of
several MATLAB scripts. These are patched together by the variables
connection specified in the DBMS. The trades definition is specified in
the primary input file in the MATLAB code structure based on how
the architecture was setup in the DBMS.
The following section now describes the results and discussion of the
trade space execution.
Results Interpretation
As mentioned earlier, a large amount of data has been generated
from the LB case-study. A total of 636 converged design solutions
emerged out of the study, where each design point has calculated
around 200 variables and every trade study has been an independent
architecture execution. The common aspect of all the 636 converged
vehicles is the underlying mission objective, since all of the architec-
tures have been executed to carry 1 crew member and 450 kg of pay-
load mass for a LEO reentry mission.
The results obtained until this point in the GDSP solution process are
representative of the execution of the first three steps. The Mission
Analysis, Technology Requirements, and Hardware Selection steps have
been executed at this point, and the hardware specification for 636
HC_1 HC_2 HC_3 HC_4 HC_5
Vsp_1 Vsp_2 Vsp_3 INCREASING
HALF-ELLIPSE FULL-ELLIPSE DIAMOND HALF-DIAMOND TRAPEZOIDAL
HALF-ELLIPSE ROUNDED-ELLIPSE ROUNDED-CONE SPATULAR WIDTH
GEOMETRY
TRADES 0.05 0.8
T A B L E 4.5 –
Overall Trade space description of the 636 converged design solutions for the generic LB case-study.
125
126 loveneesh rana
feasible design concepts has been obtained. The next step then im-
plements the execution of the Cost-per-Performance analysis, where the
total cost for all 636 vehicles has been calculated following the method-
ology described earlier.
SINGLE DESIGN POINT

Tau = 0.23
Geometry: f(WRN࢓LE for X20
Analytical geometry buildup
Output: Vtot, Areas, L, Dia
S_pln
Design Summary
29.93 m^2 Independent Mission Constraints
F I G U R E 4.37 –
W/S 1470.7 N/m^2 Variable # Crew 1
Performance Analysis / Trajectory
TOGW 44014 N W_cargo 450 kg
ff, WR = f(trajectory, aero, propulsion)
W_str 13966 N Weights
Results Visual showing
Single Design Point Convergence

OEW estimation: Wstr , Weq, Wsys, etc.
OWE 42931 N
Volume required estimation: Vpay Vfuel, Vsys, l 8.9 m
Vvoid, etc.
b 5.65 m
Solve OEW from Weights and Volume budgets
for Spln and W/S until Objective
. fn is met
Iterate Spln and TOGW until convergence

, S_Wet
V_tot
144.6 m^2
37.66 m^3
Geometry
measuring variables.
L/D hyp 2.2
Constraint Analysis : heating, W/S
constraints
CrossRange 2133 km Performance
DownRange 33382.3 km
TOGW
)
yr
( W ff
VO ST F_e
L_e
ff CO ER
P
Since every architecture is executed independently, the result for

every architecture is stored in a MATLAB data file which has all the
primary design data for all the vehicles sized under the respective
trade study. Once the converged sizing results are obtained, the out-
put MATLAB file is executed as a structured data-set for a series of
equations which is called the post-processing. This post-processing
is concerned with the total cost and the derived performance calcula-
tion. The performance efficiency factor, the volumetric efficiency and
the others are calculated here as the overarching representative of the
holistic measure of each vehicle. These efficiency factors along with a
few primary variables like take-off gross weight (TOGW) etc are then
extracted from each architecture and assembled together for the defi-
nition of an overarching solution space. Three dimensional plotting is
found to be the most effective visual aid where three (or four) of these
significant variables can be compared simultaneously thus providing
LB Holistic Measure
LB Holistic Measure
LB Holistic Measure
TAU - HCBase- DeltaV
TAU - HCBase - Engine
TAU - HCBase - Reentry(altitude)
TAU - HCBase - Spatula
TAU - HCBase- DeltaV TAU - VSPBase (@ LEA72o)
TAU - HCBase - Engine TAU - VSPBase (@ LEA74o)
TAU - HCBase - Reentry(altitude) TAU - VSPBase (@ LEA76o)
TAU - HCBase- DeltaV TAU - HCBase - Spatula TAU - VSPBase (@ LEA78o)
TAU - HCBase - Engine TAU - VSPBase (@ LEA72o)
TAU - HCBase - Reentry(altitude) TAU - VSPBase (@ LEA74o)
TAU - HCBase - Spatula TAU - VSPBase (@ LEA76o)
TAU - VSPBase (@ LEA72o) TAU - VSPBase (@ LEA78o)
TAU - VSPBase (@ LEA74o)
F I G U R E 4.38 –
a holistic comparison capability for a consistent comparison for all 636 Parametric variations in generic
vehicles simultaneously. lifting body configurations and
First, a demo of the result is shown in Figure 4.37 which contains development of specific
data for only one trade study, where the three measuring axis are vi- geometry profiles.
sualized, and the individual design points are shown. The plots are
overlayed over the same axis as seen in the Figure 4.38.
The final results for all the trade-studies are now plotted together
in one continous solution space. This solution space contains data
for all 636 converged design solutions. The best solution based on
the three axis would be the one that has the least weight (TOGW),
maximum volumetric efficiency and least cost/performance (note that
Cost/Pereff is the inverse of Perf/Cost which is same as miles-per-
gallon or miles-per-dollar number for road vehicles). It can be seen
that vehicles sized by the OpenVSP geometry method with a 78 degree
leading edge angle are most favorable on these measures.
Figure 4.39 shows the results for all vehicles combined where the
best design point identified on all three measures corresponds to an
elliptical LB body with 78 degree leading edge angle.
4.4.3 Generic Case-2: The Wing Bodies

128
Holistic Measure
LB Holistic Measure
loveneesh rana
TAU - HCBase- DeltaV

TAU - HCBase - Engine
TAU - HCBase - Reentry(altitude)
TAU - HCBase - Spatula
TOGW (N)
Desirable Design Solution Space: BEST DESIGN OPTION:
• Minimum TOGW OpenVSP
• Minimum Cost/Perf FULL ELLIPSE 78o
• Maximum Volume efficiency
y
Cos
t(WY fic ienc
rs) / c Ef
Perf um etri
. Eff
icien Vol
cy
F I G U R E 4.39 –
Overall Trade space description of the 636 converged design solutions for the generic LB case-study.
Similar to the generic LB case-study, an exploratory case was exe-

cuted for the generic wing-body configuration as well. Three different
WB geometry configuration profiles are created using OpenVSP ge- -1
ile
rof
ometry method, see Figure 4.40. The MDA logic and the disciplinary
onP
rati
methods used were same as the the LB case-study. igu
Conf
WB
Trade Matrix Implementation
The geometry trades conducted are for vehicle configuration pro-
e-2
file and leading edge angle (LEA). A technology trade is performed
Profil
tion
through the variation of fuel and oxidizer type. This is achieved by
gura
selecting an off-the-shelf engine from the engine deck as explained in onfi
W BC
the propulsion discipline description. Each trade study and the cor-
responding details are summarized in Table 4.6. Note that the range
of τ and leading edge angles are dependent on the constraints im-
plemented by the geometry profile shape and OpenVSP model. The - 3
o file
n Pr
variation of the ranges is primarily due to the numerical limitation of
ratio
the geometric solver in VSP analysis script. Although the maxima and on figu
W BC
minima of the τ and LEA are different, the number of steps for both
in all geometric iterations are the same. The total number of design F I G U R E 4.40 –
points sized for this study are 540 as shown in the Table 4.6. Each WB Configuration profiles
of these points is a converged design solution which is executed by a created using OpenVSP
iteration of planform and wing laoding area as explained above. Thus
a huge amount of data was generated for primarily three geometry
profiles. This is addressed in the next section.
Results
Following the sizing of all 540 single point design solution a de-
sign solution continuum is prepared that addresses the overall big-
ger picture configuration level solution space. This is different from
the individual design-points solution space obtained by trading tau
and planform since here several inherently different design options
are considered. Figure 4.41 shows example of a design solution con-
tinuum for geometry profile 2 with all trades of engines and reentry
altitudes.
The overall solution space continuum as shown in the Figure 4.42
the effect of certain trades on the three performance metrics. The re-
lationship between wing loading and structural weight is positive and
increasing with a distinct difference between two sets of data which
correspond to different engines using different fuel types. Rotation of
the solution space to show the performance index reveals that not all
points along those lines are equal and there is a wide spread of per-
formance related to engine ISP, L/D and reentry velocity. The range
of values for each vehicle shape are also different (denoted by color)
130 loveneesh rana
T A B L E 4.6 –
Different trade studies
investigated
which is attributed to a difference in feasible tau ranges for each shape.

This is a feature of a geometry type and cannot be greatly influenced
by modifying the geometry i.e. a cylinder has higher volumetric effi-
ciency than a half cylinder.
WB GEOMETRY - 2 Leading Edge Angle variation

1.6 GEO = 2, ALLE = 72
for same outer mold shell
DESIGN SOLUTION SPACE
1.4 # DESIGN POINTS = 180 GEO = 2, ALLE = 75 72o
75o
GEO = 2, ALLE = 78
78o
Performance Index
1.2
0.8
0.6
Optimum Design Solution Space:

0.4
• Maximum Performance Index

0.2
1600
• Minimum wing Loading
1800
2000
• Minimum WSTR 2.8
2.75
2200 2.7
2.65
2.6
Wing L 2400
2.5
2.55
# 10
4
oading, 2600
2.4
2.45
W (N)
W/S(N/m 2 2800 2.35
Weight Structure, str
)
F I G U R E 4.41 –
When examining the specific wing body geometry solution space, Creation of overall solution
there exist an optimal solution at the minimum wing loading, struc- space for a geometry profile.
tural weight and highest performance index. This area is denoted by Similar design solution
the red circle and is populated by both 78 degree and 75 degree lead- continuum is generated for all
ing edge angle vehicles. The highest performance is associated with three geometry profiles.
the 78 degree leading edge although this solution space shows that the
75 degree vehicles are not much further away and could be an alter-
native if further studies show an advantage to lower angles. There are
higher performance index vehicles but at the cost of much higher wing
loading and structural weight seen in the middle of the solution space.
Determining if the extra performance is worth the extra weight and
wing loading depends on the decision drivers and required margins.
4.4.4 Summary
This chapter has demonstrated the application of the SAS-GDSP so-
lution to the LRV class of SAVs. Three case-studies are executed and
the final results are shown in the powerful design solution space to-
pography which contains a vast number of individual design points.
Trades on all three primary dimensions of Technology-Configuration-
Mission have been conducted. To consistently measure such a large
132
loveneesh rana
No. of Design Point # 540
No. of Design Point # 540

• Trends Observed on 2-D plot.
• Well behaved Data along
Wing laoding & Wstr
• Data-spread along Performance index.

• Based on trades on Eng (Isp), L/D and VE
F I G U R E 4.42 –
Overall solution space continuum for 540 converged WB design points. A well behaved trend is seen in 2-D view primarily due to the
choice of propulsion system. A more distributed data-spread is seen along performance axis.
number of design options, hollistic performance indices are defined

which serve as the overarching parameters and provide an hollistic
comparison amongst the various options.
This type of solution spaces are significant during the CD phase as-
sessment as they provide the decision maker with the capability to
rapidly scan across the feasible design solutions landscape and select
a region of specific design concepts.
Chapter 5
PHYSICAL SOLUTION ARCHITEC-
T U R E I M P L E M E N TAT I O N O F T H E
S A S - G D S P F O R T S T O - V T H L AT H I -
ERARCHY LEVEL 1
The VTHL class of SAS is a compound system, made up of vertically
launching ballistic rockets and horizontally landing lifting reentry ve-
hicles . The LRVs have been sized following the SAS-GDSP solution by
implementing the AVD-DBMS platform introduced in Chapter 4. This
has established the applicability of the solution at the second hierarchy
level of the SAS where the two SAV types (LRVs and LVs) do exist.
Now, this chapter applies the generic SAS-GDSP solution to the SAS
level for the VTHL class.
5.1 The VTHL Case-Study
The VTHL type SAS class selected for this research investigation is the
TSTO case where the LV and the RV are two separate systems. As
previously justified Chapter 11 , this decision has been primarily based 1
see Section 1.2.2
on the historical trends observed and the current state of the industry.
The following reasons were identified as the primary motivation for
selection of a TSTO-VTHL system:
• SSTO-SAS are not feasible with the current state of technology. Lessons
from past projects show that this category requires extensive addi-
tional R& D effort and a paradigm shift in several technologies.
• Horizontal launch systems share similar drawbacks to SSTO-SAS

and they are not the most economically feasible near-term solution.
• Partially reusable vertical launch vehicles are currently under devel-

opment with a tremendous growth rate. They are causing market
disruption and may prove to be cost effective. These systems are on
a faster trajectory to achieve full system reusability than developing
a SSTO launch system.
• Legacy ballistic reentry vehicles are simpler to design and manu-

facture, but they show restricted overall performance and limited
mission operations capabilities.
• Lifting reentry vehicles are high performance vehicles with a vast

range of mission capabilities. These vehicles perform horizontal
landing on a runway and are most suitable candidate for tourism
and commercial market of the future. Additionally, LRVs have been
study extensively in the past and are currently being investigated
by space entities all over the globe.
Livingston[14], Andrews et al[15] and Diessel et al[16] in the past stud-

ies provide comparative assessments of horizontal and vertical launch
modes showing that the vertical launch mode is the preferred mode
considering near-term launch capability. Dissel concludes,“if a near-
term launch capability is desired, the fully reusable TSTO rockets are
close competitors with the airbreathing vehicles and are the next logi-
cal improvement over current rocket launch systems."[16]
Additionally, the recent success of the commercial company SpaceX
in successfully reusing just the first stage of a vertical launch rocket
booster makes the vertically launching rocket boosters as even more
lucrative option. Considering these facts, a TSTO-VTHL system ap-
pears to be the next logical step towards achieving a fully reusable
SAS.
Thus, the TSTO-VTHL systems addressed in this chapter are com-
posed of the vertically launched LVs and the horizontally landing LRV
vehicles (that are sized in the previous chapter) as the building blocks
for the top-most SAS level. The considered LVs are discussed next,
and are representative of existing or near future LV capability.
5.1.1 Selection of the LV types

The launch vehicles cases are selected based on the current technol-
ogy availability and are composed of the existing or assumed to be
developed in near future launch elements. The base elements for the
LVs are the constituting stages. The industry is already using a first
stage reusable LV capability, which is currently being provided by
the SpaceX[99] with its Falcon 9 rocket. Blue Origin[100] is another
private company that shows promise on this front. It has already
demonstrated vertical landing of its sub-orbital New Shepard rocket on
November 23, 2015 and is currently developing the orbital New Glenn
rocket where the first stage is proposed to be reusable, similar to the
New Shepard suborbital launch vehicle that preceded it[101]. SpaceX
in particular has been leading the way in partially reusable launch
capability as the company continues to carry out first stage landings
on every orbital launch when allowed by the mission’s fuel margin re-
quirements and have demonstrated the reuse of a previously recovered
first stage on March 30, 2017 for SES-10 mission[102]. Clearly, partial
reusability capability can be considered now as an off-the-shelf tech-
136 loveneesh rana
nology. Extrapolating on this trend, a future variant is assumed which

is referred to as a Falcon 9 type LV with both stages recoverable. Next,
F I G U R E 5.1 –
Falcon-9 type Falcon-9 (Current) Atlas V Multiple sets of LVs could be
seen for each category
Recoverable
composed of various
Expendable
Expendable
Expendable
Expendable
constituting elements. One
Recoverable representative case-study is
selected from each category.
Expendable
Recoverable
Recoverable
Recoverable
Recoverable
Expendable
Expendable
Expendable
Expendable
FRLV PRLV ELV
three primary categories of vertical launch LVs are defined based on

the reusability capability as seen in the Figure 5.1. The figure shows
multiple options of LVs decomposed into constituent launch elements
in each category. In order to address the entire spectrum of reusability
aspect of the LVs, three LV case-studies are selected for this research
from each category. They are described as follows;
1. Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV): Most common and prevalent cate-

gory. Case-Study Selected - ULA Atlas-V.
2. Partially Reusable Launch Vehicle (PRLV): Currently operational and

in-development vehicles that can recover atleast first stage of a multi-
stage LV. Case-Study Selected - SpaceX Falcon 9 FT version.
3. Fully Reusable Launch Vehicle (FRLV): An extrapolation of the current

PRLVs based on the assumption of a recoverable second stage. The
first stage is assumed same as the Falcon 9 while the second stage is
an advanced reusable version of current second stage of the Falcon
9 launch vehicle. Falcon 9 Block 5 is the next version of the Falcon 9
launch vehicle which is currently under production and serves as a
model, Case-study Selected - A future Falcon 9-type LV with both
stages reusable.
The selected case-studies are representative vehicles from each class

and are used in this research in the execution of SAS-GDSP at hier-
archy level-1, the VTHL system. Figure 5.2 provides the overview
description of each case-study selected. Note that the assumed future
Falcon 9 vehicle has a lower LEO payload capacity since some fraction
of the fuel is reserved for vertically landing the stage similar to what
is being done currently with the first stage.
(LV Case-Study 1) (LV Case-Study 2) (LV Case-Study 3)

Falcon-9 B5 type (Future) Falcon-9 FT type (Current) Atlas V
Height 70 m Mass 549,054 kg Height 70 m Mass 549,054 kg Height 58.3 m Mass 334,500 kg
Diameter 3.7 m Payload 11,000 kg Diameter 3.7 m Payload 10,800 kg Diameter 3.81 m Payload 18,810 kg
to LEO to LEO to LEO
Second stage #1 Merlin 1D++ Second stage #1 Merlin 1D+

Recoverable
Length 12.6 m Expendable Length 12.6 m

Second stage #1 RL10A (Centaur)
Diameter 3.66 m
Expendable
Diameter 3.66 m
Length 12.68 m
Empty mass 4,000 kg Empty mass 4,000 kg
Diameter 3.05 m
Thrust 934 kN Thrust 934 kN
Empty mass 2,316 kg
Isp 348 sec Isp 348 sec
Thrust 99.2 kN
Fuel LOX / RP-1 Fuel LOX / RP-1
Isp 450.5 s
Fuel LH2 / LOX
First stage #9 Merlin 1D++ First stage # 9 Merlin 1D+
Length 42.6 m Length 42.6 m First stage 1 RD-180 (Atlas CCB)
Diameter 3.66 m Diameter 3.66 m Length 32.46 m
Empty mass 22,000 kg Empty mass 22,000 kg Diameter 3.81 m
Thrust 8,451 kN Thrust 7,607 kN Empty mass 21,054 kg
Isp 282 sec Isp 282 sec Thrust 3,827 kN(SL)
Fuel LOX / RP-1 Fuel LOX / RP-1 Isp 311.3 s (SL)
Fuel RP-1 / LOX
Recoverable
Recoverable
Expendable
FRLV PRLV ELV

* Case-1 Performance and Physical characteristic values are approximated values based on the current Falcon 9 Full Thrust version.
** Vaccuum Isp values are used for the Second Stage and Sea-Level values for the First Stage.
F I G U R E 5.2 –
Representative vehicles and
their characteristic physical and
performance values as selected
5.2 SAS-GDSP Methodology for Hierarchy Level-1: VTHL from each category as the
representative case-studies.
The SAS-GDSP solution is generically applying the four steps, namely;
1) Mission Analysis, 2) Technology Requirements, 3) Hardware Selec-
tion and 4) Cost-per-Performance Solution screening. These four steps
are applicable to the VTHL configuration where the entire VTHL is
considered as one system. These steps are explained here for the Hi-
erarchy Level-1 application.
138 loveneesh rana

The Mission Analysis step acts as the fundamental guide to distinctly
identify the primary performance parameters and the corresponding
primary design variables that affect the performance requirements.
With this step, the designer gains a physical understanding of the sys-
tem through a parametric model. The goal is yet not to solve the
equation since at this stage not enough information is available about
the system. Instead the focus is to derive the fundamental parametric
relationships that explore the sensitivity of the gross or highest-of-
importance design drivers.
The Mission Analysis step has been executed for the LRV application
in Section 4.3.1 where an elaborate system of equations has been pro-
viding guidance. The complete VTHL system is composed of both, the
vertical takeoff and the horizontal landing phases. The system of equa-
tions developed for the reentry mission profile in the previous chapter
is included here by definition. The vertical takeoff phase is addressed
next.
Dergarabedian and Dyke[83] provide a simplified first order estimate
for launch vehicle mission performance analysis which is used here.
The mission profile considered is made up of a simplified set of equa-
tions that characterize an expandable ballistic launch vehicle.2 . 2
The mission profile for a reusable
Primary performance measures of a multistage ballistic launch ve- launch vehicle implies additional
equations that are not discussed here
hicle mission profile are derived from the rocket equation. since the LV options are not sized
like the LRV options. When sizing
the LV cases as done with the LRVs,
the vertically landing phase must be
Vi = Ii g ln(ri ) (5.1) considered as it implements further
constraint on the LV subsystems.
where,
Ii : stage i specific impulse; thrust divided by flow rate of fuel;
g : gravitational constant
ri : stage i burnout mass ratio; initial mass divided by burnout mass;
Vi : velocity added during stage i;
Following section now provides equations for the burnout veloc-
ity, burnout altitude, burnout surface range and the total range of the
laucnh vehicle mission.
∠ Stage Burnout Velocity: Burnout velocity for a stage is depending

on trajectory parameters like stage burnout time (tb ) and burnout ve-
locity angle (β b ) related by following set of equations;
Vb = V ∗ − VL (5.2)
where term VL is the total velocity losses, is calculated as sum of grav-

ity loss (Vg ) , drag loss (Vd ) and the nozzle-pressure loss (Va ). These
are calculated by simplified equations provided by Dergarabedian and
Dyke[83] in terms of constant coefficients, as follows;
VL = Vg + Vd + Va (5.3)
2
1 βb
Vg = ( g tb − K gg ) 1 − K g (1 − ) (5.4)
r (90o )
CD Sre f
Vd = Kd (5.5)
Wo
Va = Ka (5.6)
where, terms K gg , K g , Kd and Ka are constant coefficients which are

provided as functions of vehicle parameters like Isp , CD and take-off
To
thrust to weight ratio ( W o
) in several graphs.
∠ Stage Burnout Altitude: Burnout altitude is another important pa-

rameter that defines the payload capacity of the launch vehicle. A
closed-form expression is used here to calculate the distance traversed
by an ideal rocket in vertical flight (constant g, no drag, constant spe-
cific impulse) and then finding burnout altitude by including flight
losses similar to burnout velocity case. Following equations are used
∠ Burnout Surface Range: Then, burnout surface range and total

range of the vehicle are found by equations
βb
xb = 1.1 h∗ (5.7)
(90o )
V∗
R = D ( e B g − 1) (5.8)
where terms D and B are constant coefficients as well.

With the above set of parametric equations, it is seen that the pri-
mary vehicle performance drivers are the propellant Isp, mass ratio
To
(r) and take-off thrust to weight ratio ( Wo
). Rest other parameters can
be derived in terms of these parameters. These parameters will thus
be considered while evaluating the cost-per-performance of the VTHL
system.
5.2.2 Technology Requirements

The Technology Requirement step of the generic SAS-GDSP is aimed at
identifying the essential technology elements at the subsystem level.
At this point in the process, the essential subsystems that are required
for a full system integration have been identified through the Mis-
sion Analysis step. For the VTHL system, the subsystem level is the
SAV level that includes the LRV and LV options. Thus, the technol-
ogy requirements for the VTHL system are implied on its constituting
140 loveneesh rana
components, the LRVs and LVs.

The LRVs have been sized in the previous chapter and a design so-
lution space for all of the converged vehicles has been obtained. The
LV options are considered here in the form of the three case-studies
selected in Section 5.1.13 . In this context, the required technology for 3
In an ideal case scenario, the LVs
the subsystem is already selected at this step but have not yet been would be sized similar to the LRVs
using the same template as imple-
integrated together. mented for the LRV cases. This step
This is done with the next step. is skipped here to confine the scope
of the research. The application of the
SAS-GDSP for the LRV cases validate
5.2.3 Hardware Selection its application at the SAV level and thus
is applicable to the LV segment of the
Hardware selection is essentially the matching of subsystem compo- SAVs.
nents to define the physical feasibility of the overall system and to

develop a solution space of feasible design options. For the VTHL sys-
tem, the subsystem elements are the LRV and LV options. The LRVs
have been sized in the previous chapter and the overall solution space
of the lifting body LRVs is used here. The three LV case-studies are
representative of the second subsystem element and the selection of
LV options.
The next step is to find feasible combinations of both these element
options that represent the design solution space for the overall VTHL
system. It must be noted that the total number of the lifting body LRV
designs obtained in Chpater 4 was 636 and the number of LV options
is 3. Thus, a total of 1908 VTHL combinations are possible. Of course,
not all the options are going to result in a feasible design. In order
to find the feasible VTHL design solution space, the pre-selected LV
cases are used to implement a selection criteria for the sized 636 lift-
ing body LRVs. The primary selection criteria used for this purpose
are discussed next where each criteria acts as a filter to select the LRV
design solutions that can fit with the LV options. The first two criteria
are necessary requirements while the third criteria is optional. These
are described as follows:
∠ Overall LEO capacity of the LVs : This implies the weight carrying
limit for each LV case. The lifting body LRV design solution space
is first filtered for this criteria in each LV case.
∠ The geometry constraint of the LVs : The base diameter of the lift-
ing body LRVs is selected as the imposing constraint. The LRV
design options that pass the first criteria are then screened for this
second criteria. The diameter of the LVs cross-section is the limiting
constraint and the LRV design options that exceed the LV cross-
sectional diameter are rejected at this step.
∠ Overall fairing volume capacity of the LVs: This criteria assumes

the constraint that the lifting body LRV must be able to fit inside
the fairing of the LV. Once the total weight and the LV cross-section
are imposed, the fairing volume constraint further reduces the total
number of feasible LRV design solutions which can be integrated
with the selected LRV designs.
After the application of the above defined criteria, the total number of
possible VTHL design solutions is obtained. This is theoretically same
as the sizing step of the previous chapter where the subsystems are
integrated in the MDA framework to generate the total number of the
feasible design solutions.
5.2.4 Cost-per-Performance Solution Screening

The total cost analysis for the three LV case-studies is addressed here.
The total cost of the VTHL system is calculated as sum of the total
cost of the LRV and the LV segment. The total cost for the lifting
body LRVs has already been calculated in the previous chapter. The
following description addresses cost model for the LV segment.
Values of cost factors used for LV cost
estimates:
Total Life-Cycle cost Model for LV ∠ f 0 = 1.04
∠ f 1 = 1.1
The overall cost estimate model of the LV element of the VTHL sys-
∠ f2 = 1
tem is also taken from D. E. Koelle’s Transcost Model and calculates the ∠ f 3 = 1.3
same three submodels as done for the LRVs, namely; 1) the Develop- ∠ f 4 = 0.58
∠ f 6 = 1.3
ment Cost4 , 2) the Production Cost, and 3) the Operations Cost. ∠ f 7 = 1.2
∠ f8 = 1
∠ f 9 = 1.08
Total Cost LV = Total Dev.Cost LV + Total Prod.Cost LV + Ops.Cost LV ∠ f 10 = 0.8
∠ f 11 = 0.5
(5.9) 4
This submodel is only executed for
the first LV case which is the system
Koelle provides cost estimating relationships (CERs) for expendable that is assumed to be fully reusable.
and resuable LVs which are used for corresponding elements. Follow- The other cases are already developed
vehicles and their development cost is
ing next are the CERs for each submodel as applied for individual LV not calculated.
cases.
∠ Development costs The total development cost is estimated only for

the first case which is an assumed future, fully reusable capability.
Following equations are used for the Vehicle Development Cost (VB)
and the Engine Development Cost (EL):
Total development cost = f 0 ( HEL + HVW ) f 6 f 7 f 8 (5.10)
where,
HEL = 277 M0.48 f 1 f 2 f 3 f 8 HVB = 803.5 M0.385 f 1 f 2 f 3 f 8 f 10 f 11 (5.11)
∠ Production costs The total production cost for the LRV is calculated
for the liquid rocket engines (EP) and the LV stage vehicle. It is given
142 loveneesh rana
by the following equation:

n n
Total Production cost = f 0N ∑ FVP + ∑ FEP f9 (5.12)
1 1
where N is the number of stages or system elements, n is the num-

ber of identical units per element. Production cost estimates for Liq.
Rocket Production Cost FET , and the LV Stage Production Cost FVP ,
are calculated as follows;
FEP = 1.2 M0.535 f 4 f 8 f 11 (5.13)

0.59
FVP = 1.84 M f 4 f 8 f 10 f 11 (5.14)
∠ Operations Cost Koelle defines Direct Operations Cost as composed

of following elements,
• Ground Operations
• Materials & Propellants
• Flight Operations
• Transport & Recovery
• Fees & Insurance
Of these elements, only the Ground Cost and the Flight Operations
cost are included to calculate the Operations Cost for the LRVs. Fol-
lowing set of CERs are given by Koelle for these elements;
DOC = COPS + C M (5.15)
where, the Ground Operations cost, COPS and the Flight Operations
Cost, C M are given by following set of equations;
COPS = 12.24 M0 0.67 L−0.9 f 4 f 8 f 11 (5.16)

C M = 60 L−0.65 f 4 f 8 (5.17)
M0 is the TOGW at the takeoff and L is
the launch rate, L = 25 flights per year
assumed flight rate here.
Total Cost Estimate and Performance Measure of the VTHL
System
Once the total cost of the LV cases are calculated, the total cost of the
complete VTHL system can be then estimated as; Total CostVTHL =
Total Cost LV + Total Cost LRV where, Total Cost LRV has been calculated
in the previous chapter. The total cost estimate for the entire system is
a unit of relative measurement, which is used for comparing various
VTHL system options.
The final step now is to calculate the overall performance of the

VTHL system options. For the LRV case-studies, three performance
indices were defined, namely; 1) Per f E f f , 2)VolE f f , and3) IStr . These pa-
rameters are representative of the how efficiently does the LRV per-
form, how efficiently does the LRV incorporate total volume and how
efficiently does the LRV incorporate total weight, respectively. A sim-
ilar measure of overall performance for the VTHL system can now be
defined by including a performance factor representative for the LV
along with the LRV performance indices.
The Mission Analysis step for the LV identified the significant primary
design drivers. Of these, the two non-dimensional parameters, thrust-
to-weight ratio (To /Wo ) and the mass-ratio (mo /mb ) of the LV are se-
lected and multiplied with the Per f E f f factor of the LRV stage to define
an overall performance index of the VTHL system. The selection of
these LV parameters is based on their non-dimensional form that can
be easily accommodated with the non-dimensional LRV performance
efficiency factor. Thus, the overall performance index for the VTHL
system is defined as follows;

To
( IPer f )VTHL = LRV Per f r (5.18)
Wo LV
With the performance index and total cost calculated for the VTHL
system, the overall design solution space for the VTHL solutions can
be assessed which allows the selection for the most optimal design
concept. The next section discusses the results obtained for the VTHL
design solutions.
5.3 Results
Each LV case has been matched with the LRV options that met with
the LV constraint limits, thus resulting into a feasible VTHL system
solution space. The cost and performance analysis conducted assess
the VTHL options for each LV case. The final results are interpreted
for the overall VTHL system and thus are affected by the design sensi-
tivities of the LRV options as well. This aspect must be considered at
all times since the comparisons are conducted for each LV based VTHL
systems and might mislead to the interpretation as solely based on the
LV. Total of 1172 VTHL design concepts are addressed next for each
LV based VTHL configuration.
5.3.1 LV-based VTHL systems comparison

Figure 5.4 shows the first solution space for the VTHL cases that uti-
lized a current Falcon 9 type Partially Reusable Launch Vehicle (PRLV).
144 loveneesh rana
Total 344 VTHL system design solutions have been identified in this
solution space5 . As seen in the figure, the boxed region identify as the 5
This means that 344 LRV options met
region of the most optimum design points which show maximum sys- with the Falcon 9 payload weight and
fairing diameter constraint.
tem performance, minimum system cost and minimum total weight.
Next, the results for the VTHL systems employing a future Falcon
9 type6 Fully Reusable Launch Vehicle (FLRV) case are shown in Fig- 6
Based on assumed values for Falcon 9
ure5.5. A total of 369 VTHL design solutions are addressed in this Block 5 type LV.
solution space and the region of most optimum design solutions is

identified along with comparisons with the PRLV based VTHL. As
seen in the figure, the overall cost of this case is higher than the PRLV
based VTHL solutions. This is partly due to the fact that the cost
model calculated LV development cost for only this LV case (since this
capability is yet not available). Additionally the overall performance
is also seen as slightly lesser than that of the PRLV-based VTHL solu-
tions. This factor again is influenced by the LRV options along with
the LV type. Also, the overall weight of this case is considered same as
that of the PRLV LV and this might be cause the overall performance
of the VTHL systems to be dropped. Additionally, the LRV options for
this case are not necessarily the same ones as that with the PRLV case.
This limitation of the synthesis system is still being addressed and is
such due to the complex data structure arrangement of the synthesis
system. The data is extracted in several layers, first for the single point
LRV convergence, then for the multi-point design solution space, fol-
lowed by the cost and performance analysis on the solution space and
matching with the LV constraints and finally merged with the cost and
performance of the LV options for the overall VTHL results.
Finally, the last batch of results are addressed for the Atlas V type
fully Expandable Lauch Vehicle (ELV) based VTHL systems. Figure
5.6 visualize the overall solution space for the ELV-based VTHL sys-
tems that contains 459 design points. This is primarily due to higher
LEO payload capacity of the Atlas V LV. The region of optimum design
points has most design solution points for this case. Additionally, it
must be noted that the ELV based VTHL solutions have the maximum
total VTHL cost among all three LV based VTHL systems and show
minimum overall VTHL performance. On an average, the ELV based
VTHL show around 50 percent reduction in the overall system perfor-
mance while cost 300 percent more than the other two VTHL types.
This trend clearly highlights the advantage of employing a reusable
LV for any type of LRV configuration.
5.3.2 Summary
The SAS-GDSP solution has been applied for the VTHL SAS category
in this chapter. The VTHL systems design solution spaces has been
generated that contain 1172 VTHL solution concepts. The results are
discussed based on the LV type used in the VTHL system but compare
the overall SAS performance and cost estimates. This implementation
validates the generic capability of the SAS-GDSP at the top-most hi-
erarchy level. This capability is a prototype synthesis process which
increases the CD assessment scope vertically across system hierarchy
levels and provide the decision maker with valuable insights on sys-
tems and subsystems level. The results compare a large number of
design options and hence, certain anomalies are seen which are being
addressed currently.
The primary contribution from this chapter is the demonstration of a
truly state-of-the-art multidisciplinary capability. The solution space
provides a powerful tool that lets the decision maker scan across mul-
tiple design options.
It must be noted here that the disciplinary methods applied within
the LRV case-studies are bound by the VTHL range of technology-
mission-operations domains and are only applicable to this specific
class of SAS. The SAS-GDSP solution process however is a unique CD
methodology that is generic in nature and is applicable to all other SAS
categories if the appropriate disciplinary methods and mission profile
analysis is applied.
146 loveneesh rana
Lifting Body LRV Solution Space

F I G U R E 5.3 –
The LRV design solution space
generated in the previous
chapter is now screened for
constraints implied by the LV
selected. Falcon 9 case is shown
by the block that contains all
the LRV options that can be
integrated with the Falcon 9
vehicle. The necessary
requirements to fit the LV have
been implemented by first two
criteria.
Lifting Body LRV Selection

VTHL SOLUTION SPACE

VTHL using PRLV (Falcon - 9) F I G U R E 5.4 –
6
# 10
5.505
# 344 Design Options PRLV Based VTHL Solution
space compares all VTHL
5.5
options that use Falcon 9 LV
and Lifting Body LRVs. Note
VTHL TOGW
5.495
5.49
that the total number of design
points in the boxed region
5.485
overlap due to a high density of
5.48 design points in the limited
pace
sign S
60
55
um De OGW
50 Optim in . T 2480 solution space. The total
VTH 45 •M
Cost
2475
LT 40 • Min 2470
number of design points in the
OTA Perf Yr)
• Max
2465
ST (W
35
L
L CO
2460
PER 30
TOTA
2455
F 25
20 2445
2450
VTHL
optimum region are more than
two, as it might appear.
VTHL SOLUTION SPACE

VTHL using FRLV (Falcon - 9 Block5 type)
F I G U R E 5.5 –
# 10 6
# 369 Design Options The overall results are in

5.51
comparison with the PRLV
5.505
based VTHL systems. Similar to
the PRLV based VTHL solution
VTHL TOGW
Fully Reusable future Falcon-9 type LV

5.5
5.495
space, the optimum design
Design
Space solution region here also
5.49 Optimum in. TOGW
•M st
• M in
• Max
Co
Perf
contains multiple design
5.485
pment) solutions and must not be

(develo
-VTHL
an PRLV formance
5.48
o st th misjudged by the visual
er C Per
• High l VTHL Assumption) RLV-VTHL
50
r Overal t F
• Lesse eight (Inheren HL and
LV-VT limitation of the high density
45
W
VTH • Sam e n for R
P 3.334
40
o p ti o
L TO RV
3.3335
TAL
35
• The L er. 3.333
Yr)
OST (W solution space.
# 10 4
P can diff
30 3.3325
ERF C
TOTAL
3.332
25
VTHL
3.3315
20 3.331
VTHL SOLUTION SPACE F I G U R E 5.6 –

VTHL using ELV (Atlas V)
The overall results show the
# 459 Design Options
drastic reduction in overall
VTHL performance at a
significant increase in the total
VTHL TOGW
systems cost.
Optimum Design Space

• Min. TOGW
• Min Cost
• Max Perf
acity
• Greater Paload Cap
st
• Highest Total Co
• Lowest Total Perf.
VTH • Min. TOGW
LT
OTA
LP
ERF (WYr)
VTHL TOTAL COST
Chapter 6
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS
This dissertation produced several significant original contributions to
the field of aerospace and the multi-disciplinary sciences. They are
addressed as follows;
Original Contributions in Ideology
∠ The Generic Design Synthesis Process for the Space Access Systems
(SAS-GDSP)1 is a novel approach that contributes to the ideology of 1
See Chapter 3
the multi-disciplinary sciences, flight vehicle synthesis and the con-
ceptual design assessment practices. The proposed solution process
expands the scope of the conceptual design synthesis practices ver-
tically and horizontally. The vertical expansion refers to the capa-
bility of the solution process in assessment of the SAS at Hierarchy
Level-1 as a generic system. The horizontal expansion is the inclu-
sion of the Mission Analysis and the Cost-per-Performance Solu-
tion Screening steps in the conceptual design practices, beyond the
technology-hardware integration.
∠ The SAS-GDSP is a generic process which shows its application at

the Hierarchy Level-1 for the SAS and at the Hierarchy Level-2 for
the SAV. This dissertation also serves as a template for implement-
ing the SAS-GDSP solution for the other SAS categories. The three
Systems Modules and four System Design Processes are generic in
nature and can be implemented for any SAS or SAV category.
∠ The AHP quantitative model2 produced for the assessment of the 2

See Chapter 2
LRV projects is a novel and generic approach to effectively capture
top-level knowledge from the legacy programs.
Original Contributions in Data, Methods and Sizing Imple-

mentation
∠ The literature review for the VTHL systems3 resulted in creation 3

See Chapter 2
of an expansive and organized central library containing more than
600 literature sources. The library is classified with the standard
defined keywords that makes it easily accessible and practically us-
able for sharing with the research community. Extensive database
and knowledge base have been created from this library.
∠ The dissertation produced the most comprehensive account for the

LRV cases. The AHP model uses information from more than 172
literature sources and provides a quantified summary that can be
of guidance to the discipline specific researchers. The 60 LRV pro-
grams were assessed for primary disciplinary knowledge contribu-
tion. This process was greatly benefited with the valuable data and
knowledge bases of the AVD laboratory that provided a treasure
trove of exotic aerospace literature to the author. In return, the au-
thor feels equally satisfied to be able to advance this exotic data rich
capability even further.
∠ The execution of the SAS-GDSP has been verified for hierarchy

level-14 and hierarchy level-25 . This extensive process required 4
See Chapter 5
development of new discipline analysis methods for primary de- 5
See Chapter 4
sign disciplines. The research has been significantly benefited from
the existing AVD-DBMS platform. The DBMS provides a state-of-
the-art modular synthesis capability that enabled the author to take
the research to an exceptional level of creating mammoth amount
of data and information. The synthesis activity resulted in sizing
more than 7006 LRV design concepts. This first level of LRV sizing 6
This includes total number of design
enabled to compare more than 1100 distinct VTHL options across points converged for the X-20 and LB
cases
the board consistently. It must be mentioned here that the results
presented in this dissertation represent less than half of the total
sizing executions implemented as the first seventy percent of the
design studies were a big learning curve that the author had to go
through. The primary design folder shows a total memory storage
of 106 GBs of data content and still show a lot of scope to further
explore new design solution spaces and develop new trends.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] NASA, “Systems Engineering Handbook,” in Systems Engineer-
ing, 6105:p. 360, 2007
[2] Hammond, W.E., Design Methodologies for Space Transportation

Systems, volume 1, AIAA, 2001
[3] Secretariat, E., “Space engineering Space system data repos-

itory,” , 2011
[4] Fortescue, P., Swinerd, G. and Stark, J., Spacecraft systems

engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 2011
[5] Benson, T., “Teamwork in Aerospace,” , 2017, URL

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/TeamAct/
background.html
[6] Brown, C.D., Elements of spacecraft design, Aiaa, 2002
[7] Huang, X., A Prototype Computerized Synthesis Methodology for

Generic Space Access Vehicle (SAV) Conceptual Design, Ph.D. thesis,
2005
[8] Heinze, W., Ein Beitrag Zur Quantitativen Analyse Der Tech-
nischen Und Wirtschaftlichen Auslegungsgrenzen Verschiedener
Flugzeugkonzepte Fur Den Transport Grosser Nutzlasten, Ph.D. the-
sis, 1994
[9] Chudoba, B. and Heinze, W., “Evolution of generic flight

vehicle design synthesis,” in Aeronautical Journal, 114(1159):pp.
549–567, 2010
[10] Haney, E., Data Engineering in Aerospace Systems Design & Fore-
casting, Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Arlington, 2016
[11] Oza, A.R., Integration of a Portfolio-based Approach to Evaluate

Aerospace R and D Problem Formulation Into a Parametric Synthe-
sis Tool, Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Arlington, 2016
[12] Rana, L. and Chudoba, B., “Design Evolution and AHP-based

Historiography of Lifting Reentry Vehicle Space Programs,” in
AIAA SPACE 2016, p. 5319, 2016
[13] Moon, M., “Air Force reveals difference between ULA and
SpaceX launch prices,” URL https://www.engadget.com/2017/
06/16/us-air-force-spacex-ula-launch-costs/,Accessed:
August2017
[14] Livingston, J.W., “The Case against Horizontal Takeoff

Launch Vehicles,” in 15th AIAA International Space Planes and Hy-
personic Systems and Technologies Conference, p. 2640, 2008
[15] Andrews, J.E., Wolfert, M., Lund, E. and Andrews, D.G.,

“Comparison of Vertical and Horizontal Takeoff Hybrid Launch
Systems to Address Responsive Space Needs,” in Space 2005, p.
2005, 2005
[16] Dissel, A.F., Kothari, A.P. and Lewis, M.J., “Comparison

of horizontally and vertically launched airbreathing and rocket
vehicles,” in Journal of spacecraft and rockets, 43(1):pp. 161–169,
2006
[17] Loh, W.H., Re-entry and Planetary Entry Physics and Technology:
I/Dynamics, Physics, Radiation, Heat Transfer and Ablation, vol-
ume 2, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012
[18] Sanger, E. and Bredt, J., “A Rocket Drive For Long Range
Bombers,” Technical report, Deutsche Luftfahrtforschung, 1944
[19] Ley, W., Rockets, Missiles, and Men in Space, Viking Press, 1968
[20] Eggers Alfred, J., Julian, A.H. and Neice Stanford, E.,
“A Comparative Analysis of The Performance of Long-Range
Hypervelocity Vehicles,” in NACA Research Memorandum, Wash-
ington: National advisory committee for Aeronautical, 1955
[21] Love, E.S., “Manned lifting entry,” in , 1966
[22] Love, E.S., “Factors influencing configuration and performance

of multipurpose manned entry vehicles,” in Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets, 1(1):pp. 3–12, 1964
[23] Love, E.S., “Earth Orbital Logistics Spacecraft: Performance As-

pects and Vehicle Concepts,” Technical report, SAE Technical
Paper, 1968
[24] Love, E.S., “Reentry Vehicles: General Concepts and Opera-

tional Modes,” in Six Lectures, pp. 16–52, 1962
[25] Chudoba, B., Development Of A Generic Stability And Control

Methodology For The Conceptual Design Of Conventional And Un-
conventional Aircraft Configurations, Ph.D. thesis, Cranfield Uni-
versity, 2001
152 loveneesh rana
[26] GONZALEZ, L., Complex Multidisciplinary System Composition

for Aerospace Vehicle Conceptual Design, Ph.D. thesis, 2016
[27] Coleman, G.J., Aircraft conceptual design-an adaptable parametric

sizing methodology, Ph.D. thesis, 2010
[28] Krafft Ehricke, M.F., Krafft Ehricke’s Extraterrestrial

Imperative, Collector’s Guide Publishing, 2009, URL
http://www.ebook.de/de/product/7699907/krafft_ehricke_
marsha_freeman_krafft_ehricke_s_extraterrestrial_
imperative.html
[29] Becker, J.V., “The Development of Winged Reentry Vehicles

1952-1963,” in from Richard T. Layman Personal Files, NASA., 1983
[30] Geiger, C.J., “History of the X-20A Dyna-Soar. Volume I.”

Technical report, DTIC Document, 1963
[31] Godwin, R., Dyna-Soar: Hypersonic Strategic Weapons System,

volume 35, Burlington, Ont.: Apogee Books, 2003
[32] Hallion, R. and Schweikart, L., The hypersonic revolution:Vol

1 From Max Valier to Project PRIME (1924-1967), volume 3, Air
Force History and Museums Program, 1998
[33] Hallion, R. and Schweikart, L., The hypersonic revolution:

Vol 2 From Scramjet to the National Aero-Space Plane (1964-1986),
volume 3, Air Force History and Museums Program, 1998
[34] Hallion, R. and Schweikart, L., The hypersonic revolution:

Vol 3 The Quest for the Orbital Jet: The National Aero-Space Plane
Program (1983-1995), volume 3, Air Force History and Museums
Program, 1998
[35] Hallion, R.P., “The history of hypersonics: or," Back to the

future-again and again,” in 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
and Exhibit, 2005
[36] Siddiqi, A.A., The Soviet space race with Apollo, University Press
of Florida, 2003
[37] Siddiqi, A.A., Challenge to Apollo: the Soviet Union and the space
race, 1945-1974, NASA, 2000
[38] Rose, B., Secret Projects: Military Space Technology, Midland Pub-
lishing, 2008
[39] Launius, R.D., “Assessing the legacy of the Space Shuttle,” in

Space Policy, 22(4):pp. 226–234, 2006
[40] Launius, R.D. and Jenkins, D.R., Coming Home: Reentry and
Recovery from Space, Government Printing Office, 2012
[41] Launius, R.D. and Gillette, A.K., “Toward a history of the

space shuttle. An annotated bibliography,” in , 1992
[42] Dick, S.J. and Launius, R.D., Critical issues in the history of
spaceflight, Government Printing Office, 2006
[43] Satty, T.L., The analytic hierarchy process, New York: McGraw-
Hill New York, 1980
[44] Hirschel, E., “Historical Perspective on Programs, Vehicles

and Technology Issues,” in Critical Technologies for Hypersonic Ve-
hicles Development, RTO-AVT-VKI Lecture Series, 2004
[45] Hirschel, E. and Kuczera, H., “The FESTIP Technology De-

velopment And Verification Plan,” , 1998
[46] Osborne, L., Brummond, J., Hart, R.D., Zarean, M. and

Conger, S.M., “Clarus: Concept of operations,” Technical re-
port, 2005
[47] Tucker, J., “NewSpace Ventures,” , 2017, URL http://

mission-control.space/newspace_ventures
[48] Moss, J.B. and Dorrington, G.E., Launch Vehicles, pp. 221–
250, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2011, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.
1002/9781119971009.ch7
[49] Rowell, L.F. and Korte, J.J., “Launch vehicle design and op-
timization methods and priority for the advanced engineering
environment,” in , 2003
[50] Coley, M.D.J., On Space Program Planing: Quantifying the effects

of spacefaring goals and strategies on the solution space of feasible pro-
grams, Ph.D. thesis, 2017
[51] Cayley, S.G., “On Aerial Navigation,” in Nicholsons Journal, Vol.

24-25, 1809
[52] Czysz, P., HYPERSONIC CONVERGENCE: Volumes 1 - 3, vol-

ume 93, Saint Louis University, Parks College, 1992
[53] Lovell, D., “Some experiences with numerical optimisation in

aircraft specification and preliminary design studies,” in 12th
International Congress of the Aerospace Sciences, Munich October,
1980
[54] Wood, K.D., Aerospace Vehicle Design - Volume II: Spacecraft De-
sign, volume 2, Johnson Publishing Company, 1964
154 loveneesh rana
[55] Hunt, J.L., “Hypersonic Airbreathing Vehicle Design, Focus on

AERO-SPACE PLANE,” in Hypersonics, Volume I: Defining the
Hypersonic Environment, Birkhauser Boston, 1989
[56] CONVAIR, “Space Shuttle Synthesis Program (SSSP) Final Re-

port No. GDC-DBB70-002,” , 1970
[57] Wood, K.D., Aerospace Vehicle Design - Volume I: Aircraft Design,

volume 1, Johnson Publishing Company, 1964
[58] Corning, G., Supersonic and Subsonic Aeirplane Design, Univer-

sity of Maryland, 1953
[59] Nicolai, L.M., Carichner, G. and Malcolm, L., Funda-

mentals of Aircraft and Airship Design: Volume 1, Aircraft Design,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2010
[60] Loftin Jr, L.K., “Subsonic Aircraft: Evolution and the Match-
ing of size to Performance, NASA 1060,” Technical report,
NASA, 1980
[61] Torenbeek, E., Synthesis of subsonic airplane design, Delft Uni-

versity Press, 1982
[62] Stinton, D., The design of the aeroplane, volume 9600, Blackwell
Science Oxford, UK, 2001
[63] Roskam, J., Airplane Design: Preliminary Calculation of Aerody-

namic, Thrust and Power Characteristics. Determination of Stability,
Control and Performance Characteristics: Far and Military Require-
ments. Airplane Cost Estimation, Design, Development, Manufactur-
ing and Operating, Roskam aviation and engineering corporation,
1990
[64] Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA

(American Institute of Aeronautics & Ast, 2006
[65] Jenkinson, L.R., Simpkin, P. and Rhodes, D., Civil jet aircraft
design, American Insitute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1999
[66] Howe, D. and Rorie, G., Aircraft conceptual design synthesis,

Professional Engineering Pub., 2000
[67] Schaufele, R.D., The elements of aircraft preliminary design, Aries

Publications Santa Ana, 2000
[68] Bargetto, R., M.B. and Garbolino, G., “Aircraft Configu-

ration Analysis/Synthesis Expert System: A New Approach to
Preliminary Sizing of Combat Aircraft,” in ICAS 88-1.11.2, pp.
1645–1649, 1988
[69] Myklebust, A., Jayaram, S. and Gelhausen, P., “Acsynt-a

standards-based system for parametric computer aided concep-
tual design of aircraft,” in AIAA Paper, 92:p. 1268
[70] Ladner, F. and Roch, A., “A summary of the design synthesis

process,” in Society of Aeronautical Weight Engineers Paper, 907,
1972
[71] McCullers, L., “FLOPS: Flight Optimization System,” in Pro-

ceedings of Recent Experiences in Multidisciplinary Analysis and Op-
timization, Hampton, Virginia, 1984
[72] Omoragbon, A., Complex multidisciplinary systems decomposi-

tion for aerospace vehicle conceptual design and technology acquisition,
Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Arlington, 2016
[73] Perez, R.E., Jansen, P.W. and Martins, J.R.R.A., “pyOpt:

a Python-based object-oriented framework for nonlinear con-
strained optimization,” in Structural and Multidisciplinary Opti-
mization, 45(1):pp. 101–118, Jan 2012, URL https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00158-011-0666-3
[74] Bernd Chudoba, A.G., “Air-Launched REACH-1 Hypersonic

Demonstrator Solution Space Screening: Final Presentation, Air
Force Summer Faculty Fellowship Program (SFFP),” Technical
report, High Speed Systems Division, Air Force Research Labo-
ratory (AFRL), WPAFB, 2015
[75] Geiger, C.J., “Strangled Infant: The Boeing X-20A Dyna-Soar,”

in Hypersonic Revolution Vol. 1, 1:pp. 185–377, 1998
[76] Lesko, J., “Dyna-Soar aerodynamic performance,” in JOINT

CONFERENCE ON LIFTING MANNED HYPERVELOCITY AND
REENTRY VEHICLES April 11-14, 1960, 1960
[77] Haeussermann, W., “Description and performance of the Sat-

urn launch vehicle’s navigation, guidance, and control system,”
in , 1970
[78] Penland, J.A. and Armstrong, K., “Aerodynamic Charac-

teristics of Reentry Configurations,” , 1957
[79] Saltzman, E.J., Wang, K.C. and Iliff, K.W., “Flight-

determined subsonic lift and drag characteristics of seven lifting-
body and wing-body reentry vehicle configurations with trun-
cated bases,” in , 1999
[80] Loh, W.H., Re-entry and Planetary Entry Physics and Technology:
II/Advanced Concepts, Experiments, Guidance-Control and Technol-
ogy, volume 3, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013
156 loveneesh rana
[81] ECSS-Secretariat, “Space Project Management, Project plan-

ning and implementation,” , 2009
[82] Larson, W.J. and Wertz, J.R., Space mission analysis and design,
1992
[83] Dergarabedian, P. and Ten Dyke, R., “Estimating Perfor-

mance Capabilities of Boost Rockets,” in Mathematical Optimiza-
tion Techniques, p. 33, 1963
[84] MSDN, “Visual Basic: Windows Controls - TreeView Control.”

, 2016, URL https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
aa443492(v=vs.60).aspx.
[85] Low, G.M., “Nearly circular transfer trajectories for descend-

ing satellites,” Technical Report Technical Report R-3, Number
19980235550, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
1959
[86] Vinh, N.X., Busemann, A. and Culp, R.D., Hypersonic and

Planetary Entry Flight Mechanics, The University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor, 1980
[87] Miele, A., Flight mechanics: Volume 1: Theory of flight paths,

Addison-Wesley, 1962
[88] Galman, B.A., “Some fundamental considerations for lifting

vehicles in return from satellite orbit,” in Planetary and Space Sci-
ence, 4:pp. 399–410, 1961
[89] Czysz, P., “Hypersonic Convergence AFRL-VA-WP-TR-2004-

3114,” , 2004
[90] Paul A Czysz, C.B. and Chudoba, B., Future Spacecraft Propul-
sion Systems and Integration, Springer/Praxis, 2017
[91] Sutton, G.P. and Biblarz, O., Rocket propulsion elements, John
Wiley & Sons, 8th edition, 2010
[92] Czysz, P. and Vandenkerckhove, J., “Transatmospheric

launcher sizing,” in Scramjet propulsion, Reston, VA, American In-
stitute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2000,, pp. 979–1103,
2000
[93] Koelle, D.E., “Handbook of cost engineering and design of

space transportation systems,” in TransCost Systems, Ottobrunn,
Germany, 2013
[94] McDonnell-Douglas Corp.: Advanced Engineering,

“Hypersonic Research Facilities Study. Volume II Part 2 Phase I
Preliminary Studies Flight Vehicle Synthesis,” Technical Report
NASA-CR-114324, NASA, 1970
[95] Jenkins, D.R., Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space
Transportation System: The First 100 Missions, Specialty Pr Pub &
Wholesalers, 2001
[96] Logsdon, J.M., “Space-Shuttle Decision-Technology And Polit-

ical Choice,” in Journal of Contemporary Business, 7(3):pp. 13–30,
1978
[97] Houchin, I. et al., The Rise and Fall of Dyna-Soar: A History of

Air Force Hypersonic R&D, 1944–1963., Ph.D. thesis, Auburn Uni-
versity, Auburn Alabama, 1995
[98] Houchin, R.F., “Hypersonic Technology and Aerospace Doc-

trine,” in Air Power History, 46:pp. 4–17
[99] “Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, Hawthorne, Cal-

ifornia, U.S,” , 2017, URL http://www.spacex.com/
[100] “Blue Origin, LLC., Kent, Washington, United States,” , 2017,

URL https://www.blueorigin.com/
[101] Bergin, C., “Blue Origin introduce the New Glenn orbital
LV,” , 2016, URL https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/09/
blue-origin-new-glenn-orbital-lv/
[102] Graham, W., “SpaceX conducts historic Falcon 9

reflight with SES-10, Lands booster again,” , 2017,
URL https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/
spacex-historic-falcon-9-re-flight-ses-10/
[103] Jacobsen, A., Operation Paperclip : the secret intelligence program

to bring Nazi scientists to America., New York: Little, Brown and
Company., ISBN 0316221058
[104] AviationWeek, “US Aviation Week 2008 Person of the Year:

Qian Xuesen,” in Aviation Week and Space Technology, 2008
[105] EHRICKE, K.A., “MX-2276 Advanced Strategic Weapon Sys-

tem. Preliminary Global System Study,” Technical report, DTIC
Document, 1955
[106] Postle, R., Decreval, R., Isenberg, J., Cheng, H., Gill,
W., Hanawalt, A., Landphair, L., McKowen, P., Pallone,
A. and Roehrs, F., “MX-2276 Advance Strategic Weapon Sys-
tem. Aerodynamics,” Technical report, DTIC Document, 1955
158 loveneesh rana
[107] Agency, A.S.T.I., “BRASS Bell Reconnaisance Aircraft Weapon

System,” Technical report, DTIC Document, 1957
[108] Hansen, J.R., “History of’space plane’concepts at Langley

Aeronautical Laboratory 1952-1957,” in Journal of the British In-
terplenetary Society, 1987
[109] Geiger, C.J., “Termination of the X-20A Dyna-Soar,” in History

of Aeronautical Systems, 1964
[110] Heppenheimer, T.A., The space shuttle decision: NASA’s search

for a reusable space vehicle, volume 4221, JSTOR, 1999
[111] Bono, P. and Gatland, K., “Frontiers of space.” in Frontiers of

space., by Bono, P.; Gatland, K.. New York, NY (USA): Macmillan,
248 p., 1, 1969
[112] Fuller, R.., “ASTRO Concept,” in Astronautics & Aeronautics,

1964
[113] Fellenz, D.W., “Reusable aerospace passenger transport -

Study of incremental development approaches Summary re-
port,” Technical report, NASA-TM-X-53595, 1967
[114] Akridge, C.M. and Fellenz, D.W., “Design considerations

for orbital transport systems,” Technical report, Advanced Sys-
tems Office, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA, 1967
[115] Hoey, R.G., Testing Lifting Bodies at Edwards, Citeseer, 1994
[116] Kempel, R.W., Painter, W.D. and Thompson, M.O., “Devel-

oping and flight testing the HL-10 lifting body: A precursor to
the Space Shuttle,” in , 1994
[117] Reed, R.D. and Lister, D., Wingless flight: the lifting body story,
University Press of Kentucky, 1997
[118] McDonnell, “McDonnell ASSET : Fact Sheet,” Technical re-

port, McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 1964
[119] DRAPER, A. and SIERON, T., “Evolution and develop-

ment of hypersonic configurations 1958Ů1990, Final report,” in
ADA242768, 1991
[120] NASA, “Space Shuttle Summary Report, Revision 1,” Technical

report, NASA, 1969
[121] Dore, “Aircraft Design and Development Experience Related to

Reusable Launch Vehicles,” in AAS, AAS Science & Technology,
1969
[122] Martellucci, A., “Maneuvering Aerothermal Technology

(MAT) Program. Data Bibliography.” Technical report, Science
Applications Inc., Wayne, PA, 1981
[123] Astronautica, E., “Boost-Glide Re-entry Vehicle,” URL

: http://www.astronautix.com/b/boostglider-entryvehicle.html
[online access August, 2016], 2016, URL http://www.
astronautix.com/b/boostglider-entryvehicle.html
[124] Most, M., “FINAL REPORT for Re-entry "F" Nose Vibration
and Shock Test,” Technical report, NASA, 1967
[125] Wood, W.A., Riley, C.J. and Cheatwood, F.M., “Reentry-F

Flowfield Solutions at 80,000 ft.” in , 1997
[126] Air Force, F.D.L., “Air Force Systems Command, Technol-

ogy Program Plan: NHFRF,” Technical report, Wright-Patterson
AFB, OH, Jan. 1977
[127] Pace, S., Engineering design and political choice: the space shuttle
1969-1972, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
1982
[128] Lulla, K., “An Overview of contributions of NASA Space

Shuttle to Space Science and Engineering education,” in 39th
COSPAR Scientific Assembly, volume 39 of COSPAR Meeting, p.
1124, July 2012
[129] Hepler, A.K. and Bangsund, E., “Technology requirements

for advanced earth orbital transportation systems. Volume 2:
Summary report,” Technical report, NASA, 1978
[130] Day, D., “Fire in the sky: the Air Launched Sortie Vehicle of
the early 1980s,” , 2016, URL http://www.thespacereview.com/
article/1569/1
[131] Schneider, S.P., “Flight data for boundary-layer transition at

hypersonic and supersonic speeds,” in Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, 36(1):pp. 8–20, 1999
[132] Johnson, L. and Mora, C., Sandia National Laboratories: A His-

tory of Exceptional Service in the National Interest, Sandia National
Laboratories, 1997
[133] Kuperman, G.G., “Information Requirements Analyses for

Transatmospheric Vehicles,” Technical report, DTIC Document,
1992
160 loveneesh rana
[134] Gonzalez, D., Eisman, M., Shipbaugh, C., Bonds, T.

and Tuan Le, A., “Proceedings of the RAND Project AIR
FORCE Workshop on Transatmospheric Vehicles,” Technical re-
port, DTIC Document, 1997
[135] Talay, T.A., “The HL-20 Personnel Launch System,” in AIAA

Space Programs and Technologies Conference, Huntsville, AL, pp. 24–
27, 1992
[136] EHRLICH, C.F., “HL-20 concept-Design rationale and ap-

proach,” in Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 30(5):pp. 573–581,
1993
[137] Center, N.L.R., “HL-20 Model for Personnel Launch

System Research: A Lifting-Body Concept,” URL:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HL-
20.html [online access August, 2016], June 2011, URL
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/
HL-20.html#.V7G85igrJbU
[138] Chiara, G.D., “From HL-20 to Dream Chaser,” , 2012
[139] Global, R., “Rocketplane Global, Inc.” URL:

http://www.rocketplane.com/ [online access August, 2016],
URL http://www.rocketplane.com/
[140] Zubrin, R. and Clapp, M.B., “Black Horse: One Stop to Orbit,”
, 1995, URL http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/im/magnus/bh/
analog.html
[141] FAA, “Reusable Launch Vehicle Programs And Concepts,” ,

1998
[142] Freeman, D.C., Talay, T.A. and Austin, R.E., “Reusable

launch vehicle technology program,” in Acta Astronautica,
41(11):pp. 777–790, 1997
[143] Sumrall, J., Lane, C. and Cusic, R., “VentureStar tmĚ reap-
ing the benefits of the X-33 program,” in Acta astronautica,
44(7):pp. 727–736, 1999
[144] GAO, “Status of the X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle Program,” ,

1999
[145] Barton, G.H. and Tragesser, S.G., “Autolanding trajectory

design for the X-34,” in AIAA Paper, (99-4161), 1999
[146] Sullivan, R.B. and Winters, B., “X-34 program overview,”

in Proceedings of the 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference and Exhibit, AIAA Paper, volume 98, p. 3516, 1998
[147] Sygulla, D., Klädtke, R., Püttmann, N. and Graft, E.,

“X-38, CRV and CRV Evolution Program Overview and Euro-
pean Role,” in Acta Astronautica, 48(5):pp. 859–868, 2001
[148] Aerospazio, A., “International cooperation on X-38 and crew

return vehicles (X-38/CRV) for the International Space Station,”
, 1998
[149] Labbe, S.G., Perez, L.F., Fitzgerald, S., Longo, J.M.,

Molina, R. and Rapuc, M., “X-38 integrated aero-and
aerothermodynamic activities,” in Aerospace science and technol-
ogy, 3(8):pp. 485–493, 1999
[150] NASA, “NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: X-38 Prototype Crew

Return Vehicle,” , 2014, URL http://www.nasa.gov/centers/
armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-038-DFRC.html
[151] Erbland, P., “Current and near-term RLV/Hypersonic vehicle

programs,” in RTO/AVT VKI Lecture Series on ŞCritical Technolo-
gies for Hypersonic Vehicle DevelopmentŤ, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 10–
14, 2004
[152] Paez, C.A., “The development of the X-37 re-entry vehicle,” in

AIAA Paper, 4186:p. 2004, 2004
[153] Grantz, A.C., “X-37B orbital test vehicle and derivatives,”

in AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Expositio, n AIAA-2011-7315,
2011
[154] Taylor, F.W. and Howard, R., “Dream Chaser TM for Space
Transportation: Tourism, NASA and Military Integrated on a
Atlas V,” in , 2008
[155] McAlister, P., “CCiCap Announcement Summary Portfolio,”

, 2012, commercial Spaceflight NASA Headquarters
[156] NASA, “NASA Awards International Space Station Cargo

Transport Contracts,” URL: https://www.nasa.gov/press-
release/nasa-awards-international-space-station-cargo-
transport-contracts/ [online access August, 2016], Jan. 14
2016
[157] SNC, “Sierra Nevada Corporation Success-

fully Completes Dream Chaserő Study with
German Aerospace Industry Partners,” URL:
http://www.sncorp.com/AboutUs/NewsDetails/749 [on-
line access August, 2016]
162 loveneesh rana
[158] Meyer-Allyn, M., Metts, J., Anderson, D., Johnson, J.

and Quinn, G., “Dream Chaser Thermal Control System: An
Overview,” in 42nd International Conference on Environmental Sys-
tems, p. 3452, 2012
[159] Meyer-Allyn, M., Metts, J., Anderson, D., Johnson, J.

and Heldmann, M., “Dream Chaser Environmental Control
and Life Support System: An Overview,” in 42nd International
Conference on Environmental Systems, p. 3453, 2012
[160] Zea, L., Over, S., Klaus, D., Tanner, J. and Stroud, K.,
“Development of a Cockpit Architecture for the Dream Chaser
Orbital Vehicle,” in 42nd International Conference on Environmental
Systems, p. 3421, 2012
[161] Story, G., Zoladz, T., Arves, J., Kearney, D., Abel, T. and
Park, O., “Hybrid propulsion demonstration program 250 K
hybrid motor,” in Proc. 39th AIAA/ASME/ASEE JPCE, Huntsville,
AI, pp. 23–28, 2003
[162] Tolle, H., “Review of European aerospace transporter stud-

ies(European aerospace transporter, fundamental concepts and
development),” in Space Technology Conference, Palo Alto, CA, pp.
120–128, 1967
[163] Sänger, E. and Bredt, J., A rocket drive for long range bombers,
Cornog, 1944
[164] Sanger-Bredt, I., “The Silver Bird story: a memoir,” in Essays

on the History of Rocketry and Astronautics, Vol. 1, volume 1, pp.
195–228, 1977
[165] Sanger, E., Rocket Flight Engineering, National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, 1965
[166] Sanger, H.E. and Szames, A.D., “From the Silverbird to Inter-
stellar Voyages,” in 54th International Astronautical Congress of the
International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of
Astronautics, and the International Institute of Space Law, pp. IAA–
2, 2003
[167] Flightglobal, “Bumerang,” in FLIGHT Global International

Magazine, 23 March 1972
[168] Heyman, J., “Cancelled Projects: ERNO Bumerang,” in Trios

Space Information News Bulletin Vol. 38, 2012
[169] Hoffmann, H., “The space laboratory: A European-American

cooperative effort,” Technical report, NASA, 1981
[170] Herholz, J., “European Space Transportation System Projects

since 1998,” The 9th International Mars Society Conference,
Washington DC, 3-6 Aug 2006
[171] Sacher, P., “The Engineering Design of Engine/Airframe In-

tegration for the SÄNGER Fully Reusable Space Transportation
System,” Technical report, DTIC Document, 2010
[172] Heribert Kuczera, P.W.S., Reusable Space Transportation

Systems, Springer-Verlag GmbH, 2011, URL http://www.ebook.
de/de/product/8269163/heribert_kuczera_peter_w_sacher_
reusable_space_transportation_systems.html
[173] GAO, “AEROSPACE PLANE TECHNOLOGY Research an De-

velopment Efforts in Europe,” , July 1991
[174] Ransom, S. and Hoffmann, D.I.R., “PLATO - A European

Platform Orbiter Concept,” in Science & Technology, p. 9, 1990
[175] Ransom, S., Hoffmann, R. and Un-

ternehmensgruppe Raumfahrt, Messerschmitt-
Bölkow-Blohm GmbH (MBB), O., PLATO: a Euro-
pean platform orbiter concept ; AeroTech 89, National Ex-
hibition Centre, Birmingham, 31.10.-3.11.1989, MBB UO
PUB, Zentrale Berichtsstelle, Technisch-wissenschaftliche
Information, Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm, 1989, URL
https://books.google.com/books?id=e8i0PgAACAAJ
[176] David, W.G., “Space vehicle radiators,” , October 27 1970, uS

Patent 3,536,278
[177] Gerald, D., Philip, S. and Thomas, W., “Space vehicles,”

, February 20 1968, URL https://www.google.ie/patents/
US3369771, uS Patent 3,369,771
[178] FLIGHT, “Economic Space Transport,” in FLIGHT International,

March, 1966
[179] Krige, J., Russo, A. and Sebesta, L., A history of the European
Space Agency 1958-1987, JSTOR, 2000
[180] Cretenet, J., “Hermes vehicle,” in Acta Astronautica, 12(11):pp.

949–958, 1985
[181] Bayer, M., “Hermes: Learning from our mistakes,” in Space Pol-
icy, 11(3):pp. 171–180, 1995
[182] Perrier, P., “Major lessons learned in hypersonic design of

Hermes,” in Aerothermodynamics for space vehicles, volume 367,
p. 603, 1995
164 loveneesh rana
[183] Chaumette, D. and Cretenet, J.C., “Hermes thermal pro-

tection system overview,” in Acta Astronautica, 16:pp. 391–399,
1987
[184] Jouhaud, F., “Closed loop reentry guidance law of a space

plane: Application to Hermes,” in Acta Astronautica, 26(8):pp.
577–585, 1992
[185] Kuczera, H., Sacher, P. and Dujarric, C., “FESTIP system

study-An overview,” in AIAA 7th International Space Planes and
Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Norfolk, Virginia,
1996
[186] Kuczera H, J.C., “The Major Results of the FESTIP System

Study,” in 9th International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems
and Technologies Conference , Norfolk, VA, USA, 1 - 5 November
1999
[187] Immich, H. and Caporicci, M., “Status of the FESTIP rocket

propulsion technology programme,” in AIAA paper, pp. 97–3311,
1997
[188] Immich, H. and Caporicci, M., “FESTIP technology develop-

ments in liquid rocket propulsion for reusable launch vehicles,”
in AIAA Paper, (1996-3113), 1996
[189] Dujarric, C., Caporicci, M., Kuczera, H. and Sacher,

P., “Conceptual studies and technology requirements for a new
generation of European launchers: Paper IAF-97-V. 3.03ŮŞa
FESTIP status reportŤ,” in Acta astronautica, 41(4):pp. 219–228,
1997
[190] Bayer, M., “Description of the FESTIP VTHL-

TSTO System Concept Studies,” in unpub-
lished study report URL: http://thehuwaldtfamily.
org/jtrl/research/Space/Launch/Vehicles/FESTIP-FESTIP-Two Stage
To Orbit Launch Vehicle, Bayer. pdf
[191] Sacher, P.W., “European experimental test vehicle options,”

in Air & Space Europe, 3(1):pp. 85 – 91, 2001, URL http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1290095801900231
[192] Ackermann, J., Breteau, J., Kauffmann, J., Ramusat, G.

and Tumino, G., “The road to the Next-Generation European
Launcher - an overview of the FLPP,” in ESA Bulletin, 123:pp.
6–12, August 2005
[193] Gérard, Y., “FLPP Re-entry In-Flight Experimentation: cur-

rent status of the Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV),” in
57th International Astronautical Congress, International Astronauti-

cal Congress (IAF), 2006
[194] Barrio, A.M. and Sudars, M., “EXPERT-The ESA experimen-

tal Re-Entry Test-bed. Trajectory and mission design.” in AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Portland, OR, USA,
2011
[195] Ratti, F. and Gavira, J., “EXPERT-The ESA experimental re-

entry test-bed: System overview,” in AIAA, 7224:p. 2009, 2009
[196] Baiocco, P., “Pre-X experimental re-entry lifting body: design

of flight test experiments for critical aerothermal phenomena,”
Technical report, DTIC Document, 2007
[197] Chavagnac, C., Moulin, J. and Guedron, S., “The Hy-

personic Pre-X Vehicle: Current Status,” in Space Technology-
Abingdon, 23(2-3):pp. 153–164, 2003
[198] Baiocco, P., Guedron, S., Plotard, P. and Moulin, J., “The
Pre-X atmospheric re-entry experimental lifting body: Program
status and system synthesis,” in Acta Astronautica, 61(1):pp. 459–
474, 2007
[199] Russo, G., De Matteis, P., Sabatano, R., Richiello, C.

and Marino, G., “USV: Unmanned Space Vehicle,” in Memorie
della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 79:p. 863, 2008
[200] Russo, G., “USV Status 2011: New Steps Ahead,” in 17th AIAA
International Space Planes and Hypersonics and Technologies Confer-
ence, San Francisco, USA, volume 11, p. 14, 2011
[201] Tumino, G. and Gerard, Y., “IXV: the Intermediate eXperi-

mental Vehicle-Europe among the world players in atmospheric
reentry,” in ESA bulletin, 128:pp. 62–67, 2006
[202] Ratti, F., Gavira, J., Thirkettle, A.C., Thoemel, J. and

Ritter, H., “Instrumentation on board the European Experi-
mental Re-entry test bed EXPERT,” in ESA-ESTEC, 2010
[203] SPACE.com, “European Mini-Space Shuttle Aces 1st Test

Flight,” URL: http://www.space.com/28520-europe-launches-
mini-shuttle-ixv.html [online access August, 2016]
[204] Miyazawa, Y., “Current Status of Japanese Aerospace

Programs–Focusing on the High Speed Flight Demonstration,”
in Automatic Control in Aerospace 2004, p. 25, 2005
166 loveneesh rana
[205] Maita, M. and Kobayashi, S., “Japanese Spaceplane and Hy-

personic Technology Program overview-Progress of 1995-1996,”
in Space Plane and Hypersonic Systems and Technology Conference,
p. 6005, 1996
[206] Weiland, C., Aerodynamic Data of Space Vehicles, Springer Sci-

ence & Business Media, 2014
[207] Shirouzu, M. and Yamamoto, M., “Overview of the HYFLEX

Project,” in AIAA, International Space Planes and Hypersonic Sys-
tems and Technologies Conference, 7 th, Norfolk, VA, 1996
[208] Inouye, Y., Fujii, K., Takizawa, M., Takaki, R., Watan-
abe, S. and Ito, T., “Flight results of HYFLEX onboard mea-
surements,” in AIAA, International Space Planes and Hypersonic
Systems and Technologies Conference, 7 th, Norfolk, VA, 1996
[209] Shirouzu, M., Ishimoto, S., Miyazawa, Y. and Yanagi-

hara, M., “Development of hope-x and high speed flight ex-
periment,” in NAL Research Progress 1998, 2000:pp. 8–11, 2001
[210] Yanagihara, M. and Munenaga, T., “High speed flight

demonstration project,” in Proc. 24th Annu. Allerton Conf. Cir-
cuits and Systems Theory Congress of International Council of the
Aeronautical Sciences, pp. 2004–7, 2004
[211] Ishimoto, S., Shirouzu, M., Kochiyama, J. and Fukui,

T., “Modification of HOPE-X aerodynamic configuration,” in
International Symposium on Space Technology and Science, 22 nd,
Morioka, Japan, pp. 1109–1113, 2000
[212] JAXA, “"H-II Launch Vehicle". Launch Vehicles and

Space Transportation Systems.” JAXA Website URL:
http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/rockets/h2/index.html [on-
line access August, 2016]
[213] Matthews, H., The Secret Story of the Soviet Space Shuttle, pub-
lisher not identified, 1994
[214] Pesavento, P., “Russian Space Shuttle Projects, 1957-1994, Part

3,” in Spaceflight, 37(7):pp. 226–229, 1995
[215] Hendrickx, B. and Vis, B., Energiya-Buran: the Soviet space

shuttle, Springer Science & Business Media, 2007
[216] Astronautica, E., “Raketoplan,” URL:

http://www.astronautix.com/r/raketoplan.html, [online
access August, 2016]
[217] Astronautica, E., “Spiral OS,” URL:

http://www.astronautix.com/s/spiralos.html, [online access
August, 2016]
[218] Website, “Buran - Reusable soviet space shuttle.” URL:

http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-
desc.php [online access August, 2016]
[219] Astronautica, E., “LKS-Chelomei spaceplane,” URL:

http://www.astronautix.com/l/lks.html, [online access Au-
gust, 2016]
[220] Anfimov, N., Kostromin, S.F., Kuczera, H., Sacher, P.W.

and Bayer, M., “ORYOL-FESTIP Cooperation: Comparison of
Concepts and First Conclusions,” in 8th International Space Planes
and Hypersonic Systems and Technology Conference, Paper No. AIAA,
pp. 89–1544, 1998
[221] Skorodelov, V., ““Experimental aerospace system MAKS-D”,”

in G. Lozino-Lozinskiy, A. Bratukhin, op. cit, pp. 308–311, 1996
[222] Hempsell, M. and Parkinson, B., “MAKS - Eastern Promise

?” in SPACEFLIGHT, Vol. 35, March 1993
[223] Lanshin, A. and Sosounov, V., “Russian Aerospace Com-

bined Propulsion Systems Research and Development Program
(" ORYOL-2-1"): Progress Review,” in Space Plane and Hypersonic
Systems and Technology Conference, p. 4494, 1996
[224] Kostromin, S., Romashkin, A. and Efanova, G., “Study

On Validation Of Design Principles Of The ORYOL Space Trans-
portation System,” in , 1996
Appendix A
L RV A H P S C O R E S J U S T I F I C AT I O N
A.1 US LRV Case-Studies Assessment: Tsien SpacePlane -

SNC Dream Chaser
The AHP model developed for the assessment of the LRV case-studies
is applied to assess the LRV programs initiated in the United States
of America, beginning with the 1949 Tsien’s spaceplane concept, to
the current day SNC Dream Chaser. A brief overview of every case-
study is provided along with the AHP scores to identify the major
contributions, and rationalize the disciplinary criteria scores assigned
to every case-study. An evolution pattern is observed while assem-
bling the LRV data-base as many case-studies are connected together,
either under a common program structure, or through development
and application of technology from one program to other. This com-
monality and connection is discussed with the results to chart the LRV
design and technology evolution. Readers are advised to consult the
common legend given in Figure A.1, while reading the AHP result’s
and LRV evolution’s visualization .
F I G U R E A.1 –
Legend for reading the AHP
model scores and LRV
evolution plots
A.1.1 1950s: The X-20 Family
Beginning of the US based LRV programs can be traced back to the

period following operation Paperclip when, “Germans, primarily scien-
tists but also engineers and technicians, were brought to the United States
from Nazi Germany."[103] Sänger’s Silvervogel design was brought to
the US as part of operation paperclip, when Hsue-shen Tsien, a USAF
colonel at the time, was “sent by the Army to Germany to investigate
the progress of wartime aerodynamics research. Qian investigated re-
search facilities and interviewed German scientists including Wernher
von Braun and Rudolph Hermann"[104].
Later, while working at Califormnia Institute of Technology in 1949,
Tsien conceptualized a hypersonic research vehicle to be developed
into a transcontinental rocket-liner[32]. Although the concept was not
feasible with the technology available at the time [38], it is one of the
first few proposals to document a lifting reentry concept applied to F I G U R E A.2 –
space access system. Contemporary with Tsien; Ehricke and Dorn- 1950s: LRV Evolution
berger developed several LRV concepts in early 1952 while working
at Bell Aircraft[28]. These designs became the basis of the Bell BOMI
concept, one of the first LRV projects undertaken by a major aerospace
manufacturer of the time. BOMI was selected by the USAF in 1954
for the detailed design analysis, to investigate design and develop-
ment problems associated with hypersonic flight regime[105]. Un-
der the USAF designation MX-2276, BOMI addressed detailed tech-
nical assessment of vehicle’s aerodynamics, structure, propulsion and
trajectory analysis, providing valuable guidelines for an operational
LRV[106]. Lessons learned during BOMI design development led the
USAF to assign Bell with further investigation of a manned, hyper-
sonic glide weapon system, under project BRASS in 1956. Bell im-
proved on the BOMI design through wind tunnel tests and other ex-
perimental testing in propulsion, structures, aerothermodynamics and
thermal management disciplines[107]. BRASS incorporated these changes,
and further tested and developed several state-of-art technologies in
these four disciplines, with major emphasis on thermal active cooling
techniques and effect of various propellant combinations [40]. Around
the same time, the USAF initiated studies to develop a piloted hy-
personic Rocket Bomber(ROBO) and received proposals from Con-
viar, Douglas, Lockheed, NorthAmerican, Bell and Martin. Bell led
the project, with experience gained during the research and experi-
ments conducted for BRASS, which was also the basis of Bell’s pro-
posal for the ROBO[38]. While ROBO and BRASS were targeted to-
wards developing an operational hypersonic weapon system, it was
realized that operational environment beyond 100 nmi was essentially
unknown. and needs to be understood before an operational vehicle
170 loveneesh rana
could be developed. The USAF initiated project HYWARDS in 1956

for this purpose, with two very different vehicle concepts from NASA
Langley(headed by Becker) and NASA Ames(headed by Allen and
Eggers)[108]. HYWARDS studies contributed significantly towards
understanding the aerodynamics and thermal characteristics of the hy-
personic vehicle design. Hallion’s quote further highlights HYWARDS’
contribution:
“This was the first clear delineation of the possibility of aerodynamic design fea-
tures which could significantly alleviate the heating and ease the hotâĂŤstruc-
tures problems. Later application of these principles to actual flight systems was
first made in the X-20 and they are also obviously applied in the current Space
Shuttle."[32]
F I G U R E A.3 –
In 1957, the USAF decided to consolidate the details of BRASS, HY- 1950s: AHP Results
WARDS and ROBO programs into three steps of one single program
under official designation X-20, later known as DynaSoar shortened for
Dynamic-Soaring[75]. This was one of the biggest venture undertaken
by the USAF to develop a LRV. The X-20 program produced critical
research breakthroughs that influenced future generations of LRV de-
signs and technology. The program was cancelled in 1963, just two
months before the manufacturing phase began and the effort had al-
ready reached a budget of $410 million[40]. X-20 has been studied and
documented extensively by several historians and engineers alike as
it is one of the ’what-if’ programs that showed tremendous potential.
Geiger, [30, 75, 109] Houchins [97] and Godwin[31] have addressed X-
20 program in great detail, thereby providing valuable contributions

of the program that was utilized in LRV programs of the 1960s which
directly influenced the development of the Space Shuttle. These ac-
counts, along with several other historiography literature, mention the
X-20 as a major milestone in the history of hypersonic research devel-
opment. Rose remarks this as following:
“Dyna-Soar was certainly a very advanced piece of engineering, with many
systems and innovations that would find their way into future aircraft and
spacecraft."
Independent and contemporary of the X-20 program was McDonnell’s

Alpha-Draco, developed for the USAF as a part of the WS-199 project.
It was a research vehicle to explore the feasibility of the boost-glide
mission. Officially designated as WS-199D, Alpha-Draco yielded im-
portant data on the aerodynamics of hypersonic flight. Hallion de-
scribes the importance of Alph-Draco in following quotes:
“ Alpha Draco was a little-known but significant step on the road to under-
standing the aerodynamic, heating, and maneuvering challenges of hypersonic
flight." It anticipated later programs to acquire a data base on hypersonic reen-
try conditions, vehicle behavior, and flow characteristics (particularly boundary
layer transition from laminar to turbulent flow, and its impact upon heating
rates)."[35]
The main highlight of the 1950s was the X-20 program for LRV
design, which combined all previous efforts into one program. The
final years of the decade witnessed a large number of ground tests
and research activities undertaken towards understanding the hyper-
sonic environment, and developing technology to meet the challenges
imposed by the X-20 mission requirements. The AHP results for this
decade are shown in Figure A.3
A.1.2 1960s: The Lifting Bodies

Momentum gained with the X-20 program during the late 1950s was
carried on in the early 1960s. While the X-20 evolved from Sänger’s
Silvervogel concept employing a delta-wing configuration, the lifting
body design emerged from the feasibility and performance studies by
Allen, Eggers and Neice[20]. Although the lifting body configuration
was examined by the USAF in the late 1950s under some preliminary
studies, the real development of this design began during the early
1960s, which was also a declining phase for the X-20 program. Hallion
comments on this transition of interest as follows:
“In June 1962, X-20A faced sniping criticism from partisans within the USAF
Space Systems Division (SSD) favoring development of a rival–a small piloted
lifting body for satellite inspection and space logistics known as SAINT II.
Though Dyna-Soar weathered this storm while SAINT II itself succumbed, it
was clear that Dyna-Soar was losing its appeal."[32]
172 loveneesh rana
Further discussion of LRV programs of the 1960s is addressing the

families of vehicles developed in a common program.
The RTTOCV Family NASA funded studies in 1962 for a "Reusable

Ten Ton Orbital Carrier Vehicle" (RTTOCV), which represents a group
of concepts by leading aerospace companies of the time. Several of
these proposals were refined version of proposals submitted for ROBO
and X-20 programs, while others like Douglas Astro were derived from
the lifting body configurations developed by the NACA in the late
1950s. Heppenheimer describes some of the candidate concepts con-
sidered under RTTOCV study as follows:
“This study, called "Reusable Ten Ton Orbital Carrier Vehicle," awarded con-
tracts of $428,000 to Lockheed and of $342,000 to NAA....Subsequent studies
investigated additional alternatives and pursued design issues in greater depth.
In 1965, General Dynamics defined a concept for a reusable second stage that
had the shape of a lifting body...These studies concluded that, without exception,
rocket engines were preferable to airbreathers for first-stage propulsion."[110]
Martin’s Astrorocket[111] and Douglas’ Astro[112] are notable propos- F I G U R E A.4 –

als under RRTOCV family which show advanced understanding on 1960s: LRV Evolution
systems feasibility and technology requirements for a fully reusable
SAS. Reference [113] and [114] are NASA technical memorandum from
1967. They provide an overview of some of these concepts and lessons
learned from a system feasibility point of view. Ultimately, they were
influential while selecting vehicle configuration for the Space Shuttle[110].
Since no detailed technical reports could be located for any of these
proposals in the public domain (most likely due to company propri-
etary reasons), this group is considered as one case-study in the AHP
model. FigureA.5 visualizes some important concepts reviewed under
this family.
NASA Lifting Body Program

The NASA lifting body program began in 1962 with the M2 lifting
body developed by Alfred J Eggers and associates at NASA Ames.
Hoey describes this period as follows:
“From a NASA perspective, at least, the lifting body program had its beginnings
in the studies of H. J. "Harvey" Allen, Alfred J. Eggers and others at the NACA F I G U R E A.5 –
Ames Aeronautical Laboratory in the early to mid-1950s into the blunt body Concepts studied under
reentry principle and the concept of lifting reentry from space. This predated RRTOCV program
Dyna-Soar. And it was these studies, plus roughly contemporary ones at the
NACA Langley Aeronautical Laboratory on wingless lifting shapes, that led R.
Dale Reed, a young engineer at the Flight Research Center, to advocate a flight
research program involving lifting bodies."[115]
What began as a wooden half-cone shell, quickly evolved to M2-

F1 following a series of wind-tunnel tests by adding control surfaces,
and further to rocket powered M2-F2 and M2-F3 following a series of

modification augmented by the flight test data from M2-F1. The M2
lifting body program was complimented by NASA Langley’s HL-10
in 1964, developed to test safe reentry landing techniques[116]. Both,
M2 and HL-10 programs were significantly successful in demonstrat-
ing feasibility of lifting body configuration as a potential LRV and
provided benchmark results in aerothermodynamics and subsystem
disciplines for lifting bodies. The flight test data and lessons learned
from these programs were critical in influencing many design features
in the Space Shuttle[38, 40]. Hallion quotes:
“Clearly the M2 and HL-10 efforts constituted an important approach to hy-
personic flight technology, even though they themselves never approached hy-
personic velocities."[33]
While NASA Langley was still performing test flights for HL-10, an-
other lifting body project, the X-24A was initiated at Edwards under
the NASA-USAF collaboration in 1965. The USAF has been inde-
pendently testing lifting bodies since the late 1950s, which evolved
into the START program in the early 1960s. The X-24A was based F I G U R E A.6 –
on Martin SV-5P lifting body, which was originally designated as the Vehicle configuration evolution
PILOT under the USAF START program[115]. In this regards, X- under NASA lifting bodies[117]
24A/SV-5P/PILOT represents one of the first major joint venture be-
tween NASA and USAF. Major contributions of the X-24A were in the
discipline of subsystems development by improving on the stability
and control features of the lifting body design. Accomplishment of
the X-24A are better expressed in the following quotes:
“Flight testing of the X-24A led to one significant accomplishment: the SV-5
shape was the only one evaluated in actual free-flight at hypersonic, supersonic,
transonic, and subsonic velocities. Like the M2-F3 and HL-10, the X-24A
demonstrated that shuttle-type hypersonic vehicles could make precise landings
without power.."[33]
The X-24B, the last vehicle in NASA’s lifting body program was
started in 1971 and had more in common with the flat-bottom FDL-7
than previous NASA lifting bodies(M2,HL-10 and X-24A). It is dis-
cussed in next sub-section with other LRV programs from 1970s.
With the X-24B, NASA concluded a very successful lifting body pro-
gram as development of the Space Shuttle began in the early 1970s.
The lifting body program contributed significantly to the Shuttle, with
vehicle configuration selection in the early design phase and with sta-
bility and control during reentry, in the final design. Apart from the
technical success, the lifting body program was also successful in using
off-the-shelf technology for most parts, while developing a new config-
uration and improving on the vehicle design implementation rapidly.
This could be an important lessons for those programs where high-
demanding technology was the main cause of failure. It is no surprise
174 loveneesh rana
that after four decades, the only LRV design currently under devel-
opment, the SNC Dream Chaser, which is a direct decedent of HL-20
which had its roots in the lifting body program from 1960s. Figure A.6
shows vehicle evolution under NASA’s lifting body program along
with the number of test flights.
The START Program The START program was officially defined by

the USAF following cancellation of the X-20 program in 1963. It was
scheduled to test three lifting body vehicles namely; ASSET, PRIME
and PILOT. Of these three, PILOT was merged with the NASA lifting
body program as X-24A and is discussed earlier. ASSET and PRIME
were precursor to PILOT and were solely under the USAF command
with no direct involvement of NASA.
The ASSET lifting body[118] had its roots in the late 1950s when
the USAF classified division, the Flight Dynamics Laboratory (FDL)
at Wright-Patterson AFB, was given the responsibility for the aerody-
namic, performance and aerothermodynamic tasks of the X-20[119].
The ASSET lifting body was essentially the forward 4 feet of the X-20
glider, developed with the primary goal of supporting the X-20 pro-
gram in the disciplines of arothermodynamics and structures & mate-
rials development. Instead, by the time ASSET was ready for its first
flight in September 1963, the X-20 was already in its final days and was
eventually cancelled three months later[40]. ASSET carried on with ex-
tensive ground testing and eventually six test flights under the newly
defined START program. Hallion’s account of the ASSET and PRIME
in "The Hypersonic Revolution - Vol.1"[32] is the most comprehensive
description of these programs and provides valuable insights into the
development process and important contributions. Following excerpts
provide some overview of the significance of ASSET:
“ASSET had great application to future systems because it demonstrated the ap-
plication of refractory materials on hypersonic vehicles; proved that the United
States possessed a theoretical base and facility network capable of supporting
the aerodynamic and thermodynamic design of such craft; and improved con-
fidence in ground testing and theoretical predictive methods, particularly as
involved preventing dynamic and aeroelastic problems on hypersonic vehicle
designs....ASSET offered the first practical experience the aerospace community
had with an actual lifting reentry vehicle returning from space at near-orbital
velocities. Truly it was the pathfinder of lifting reentry...ASSET provided a
wealth of data that contributed to the development of more advanced materials
(primarily composites and carboncarbon) that would be available when Space
Shuttle development began later in the decade."[32]
ASSET was followed up by the PRIME, another lifting body configu-

ration developed with a goal to explore the problems of maneuvering
entry with emphasis on aerothermodynamics and subsystems disci-
pline. Manufactured by Martin under official designation SV-5D and
later referred as X-23, PRIME undertook several ground tests and three
test flights that produced wealth of valuable data and technology. A
complete list of PRIME’s contribution to the hypersonic research body
of knowledge is beyond the scope of the current paper. Hallion gives a
detailed explanation of specific contributions in trajectory reconstruc-
tion, aerodynamics, heat shield and structure, guidance & control, flap
actuation, environmental control, telemetry tracking & command, in-
strumentation and electrical subsystems categories. PRIME achieved
all its initial objective with such a spectacular success rate that the
development team cancelled two further planned launches and the
project was concluded[38]. Rose comments on ASSET and PRIME is
fitting to highlight the importance of these programs.
“It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of the ASSET and PRIME
tests to the development of the Space Shuttle. "[38]
FDL Lifting Body Contribution The contribution of the Flight

Dynamics Laboratory or FDL in the field of hypersonic research is rel-
atively unnoticed, given the important involvement of this organiza-
tion in major hypersonic programs like X-20, Alpha Draco, NASA Lift-
ing bodies, USAF START, the Space Shuttle, TAVs, BGRV and NASP.
Reference [[119]] identifies the involvement of FDL in the hypersonic
research development and comments“...the Flight Dynamics Laboratory
has been a major contributor to the understanding of hypersonic flow and pio-
neered the development of many innovative hypersonic vehicle concepts..."[119]
While supporting the X-20 program with the ASSET vehicle, FDL was
influential in selection of the flat-bottom type shape, which differed
significantly from the M2 round bottom body developed via the NASA
lifting body program[40]. This difference in the geometry trend is seen
to continue in parallel in both these programs until the X-24B emerges
as a converging point, which utilizes X-24A sub-structure with the
flat-botteomed FDL-7 outer mold-shape geometry[40]. Between 1964
and 1968, the USAF contracted Lockheed’s Skunk Works to design
a Mulitpurpose Re-usable Spacecraft(MRS). Lockheed’s designs bor-
rowed heavily from the X-20 and eventually evolved into the FDL-5, a
flat bottom lifting body based on FDL’s prior experience with similar
geometry configurations[38].
The FDL-5 is the only vehicle from the FDL lifting body series which
has been assessed by the AHP model in the present context, as it is the-
oretically one of the best performing lifting body design. The follow-
on designs like FDL-7, FDL-8 and McDonnell’s seminal model 176 are
represented through the X-24B and X-24C respectively. The impor-
tance of the FDL-5 is emphasized via the following quote:
“The configurations chosen for more complete assessment were generally those F I G U R E A.7 –
with the higher aerodynamic performance efficiency as well as geometric com- FDL-5 L/D comparison[119]
176 loveneesh rana
patibility with the payload bay of the space shuttle. One of the more unique
configurations developed was the FDL-5 series. The basic problem addressed in
this design was to eliminate the fins of the vehicle without degrading the hyper-
sonic L/D, the subsonic L/D and the hypersonic directional stability."[119]
This effect is shown in Figure A.7.

The FDL-5 geometry and design philosophy proved to be a criti-
cal design point in the series of lifting body evaluation. It provided
much critical insight regarding geometry configuration influences on
vehicle’s aerothermodynamic and stability performance. The FDL lift-
ing body vehicles were highly classified and not much information is
available in the public domain. Rose’s remark on FDL-5 confirms the
secrecy:
“Wind tunnel testing of models was undertaken and there have been claims
that the mock-up seen in two photographs actually shows a prototype vehicle
that was secretly flown between 1969 and 1973. Whether an FDL-5 vehicle was
built and tested remains unknown and, officially, the FDL-5 never progressed
beyond the mock-up phase.However, the enduring secrecy seems to suggest that
a black budget prototype is a distinct possibility."[38]
The ILRV Family

The USAF issued a number of design study contracts under the In-
tegral Launch and Re-entry Vehicle (ILRV) program during 1967-68.
The generic systems configuration would consist of a reusable single-
stage VTHL RLV with expendable propellant tanks, quite similar to the
Space Shuttle final design. Design proposals by Lockheed, General Dy- F I G U R E A.8 –
namics, McDonnell-Douglas and FDL were mostly based of the lifting ILRV Concepts
body second stage with differing launcher options for all the concepts.
The Lockheed Starclipper utilized the FDL-5 type flat bottom lifting
body as the orbiter stage with wrap-around drop tank[95]. FDL and
McDonnell-Douglas also used a flat-bottom lifting body as the orbiter
stage while the drop tank implementation was different than Starclip-
per [120]. General Dynamic’s proposed design, the so-called Triamese
was different from the rest in systems configuration implementation
as it utilized three identical reusable booster/orbiter element vehicles
rather than to develop two different booster and orbiter stages[121].
No original documentation could be located in the public domain for
any of the proposals since the program did not proceed beyond the
paper study phase since the proposals were considered too advanced
for the time. The similarity with the Space Shuttle in the program re-
quirement suggests a possible influence on the configuration selection
as the Shuttle program was initiated just three years later. Figure A.8
shows the concepts studied during ILRV program.
Experimental LRV projects: BGRV and Reentry-F In addition

to the lifting body evolution, a couple of experimental programs also
investigated the hypersonic environment and technology. A follow-on

to the 1957 Alpha-Draco, McDonnell’s Boost Glide Re-entry Vehicle
(BGRV) Model 122E, was developed from the earlier AMaRV missile
program to investigate maneuvering at hypersonic speeds after reen-
try into the atmosphere. The program was highly classified as the
bibliography of BGRV official reports in reference [[122]] classifies all
reports as confidential.
F I G U R E A.9 –
The following quote eloquently highlights BGRV’s contribution:
1960s: AHP Evaluation
“ BGRV served to provide much data on hypersonic maneuvering flight charac-
teristics. This data was of great value in developing later maneuvering re-entry
vehicles. Upon re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere, flight control was achieved
through the use of the aft trim flares and a reaction jet system commanded from
an on-board inertial guidance system instead of by aerodynamic controls."[123]
Similar to BGRV, Reentry-F was another experimental test vehicle

flown to furnish experimental data on boundary-layer transition and
heat transfer during reentry [124]. The data from this program are still
used to benchmark theory and ground test data for the past 20 years
[125].
These two experimental projects mark the end of discussion on the
1960s LRV programs. The evolution of this era is shown in Figure A.4,
while the AHP assessment scores are shown in Figure A.9. The lifting
body development continued under several programs in 1970s along
with establishment of the Space Shuttle program.
A.1.3 1970s - The Space Shuttle Decade

With the success of first moon landing in July of 1969, the US space
program was looking forward to a golden era of Space. After five more
178 loveneesh rana
successful manned moon mission, the Apollo program was terminated

in 1972, the same year as the Space Shuttle program was defined. Be-
fore discussing the Space Shuttle, the continuation of X-24 program
from NASA’s lifting body program is addressed with, Figure A.10.
Continuing the Lifting Body Development: X-24B and X-24C

As discussed under the NASA Lifting Body program in the sixties,
the development of X-24A began in 1965 within the START program,
merging the USAF lifting body efforts with NASA. The X-24A had it’s
last flight in 1971 leading to its successor, the X-24B. While the previ-
ous generation of lifting body at NASA were round bottom designs,
X-24B implemented the flat bottom design of FDL-7, a derivative of
FDL-5. The X-24B program was developed as a low-speed piloted
demonstrator for subsonic, transonic and supersonic testing used in
the Space Shuttle[38]. The program conducted 32 successful flights,
gathering important data for performance, handling qualities and sta-
bility & control characteristics. Following quote shows the significance
F I G U R E A.10 –
of X-24B:
1970s: LRV Evolution
“The X-24B program was very successful and produced a number of test flights
in a short time. This was attributed to using and the experienced engineering
and flight test team from significant number the X-24A vehicle..The X-24B
yielded Important information from all phases Of its flight and was the most
efficient aerodynamic vehicle of the lifting body series as attested to by the flight
test pilots."[119]
The X-24B marked the end of NASA’s lifting body program as the fol-
low on vehicle, the X-24C was undertaken by the USAF alone. While
the X-24B was based on the FDL-7, X-24C was an air-breather im-
plementation of the FDL-8 lineage[38]. Several configurations of X-
24C were explored by the FDL with scramjet and rocket powered ver-
sions, with the main goal to develop a new hypersonic scramjet-flight
demonstrator reaching speeds upto Mach 8. Although the X-24C was
cancelled due to tight budget constraints and the inability to identify
a pressing nearâĂŤterm need for the flight facility, it is still consid-
ered as a significant milestone-effort to combine scramjet propulsion
with a lifting body design, overall producing important data during
the ground tests. Hallion’s quote below is addressing the value of the
X-24C experimental data:
“Eventually, XâĂŤ24C gained the distinction Of being the most extensively
studied and analyzed "nonâĂŤflown" hypersonic vehicle."[33]
The X-24C program was also considered for a proposed hypersonic

testbed, the National Hypersonic Flight Research Facility (NHFRF), a
vehicle that could have modular-type experiments for materials and
various forms of propulsion, including scramjet test modules, imple-
menting hypersonic cruising. The NHFRF program showed promise
as several agencies expressed their interest in a next generation demon-

strator, but failed to win support and was cancelled in late 1970’s after
one test-flight.[126] The X-24C marked the end of the lifting body ef-
fort in the 1970s as the Space Shuttle took center stage.
The Space Shuttle Program Definition The space Shuttle pro-

gram was officially initiated in 1972 as the development continued
for the rest of the decade with conributions from almost all major
aerospace manufacturers. The Space Shuttle represents a converging
and pivot-point for the lessons learned and technical progress made
in the previous programs towards the first generation of an opera-
tional partially reusable LRV. Important contributions were made by
the Shuttle in all the disciplinary criteria which are still used as a
benchmark, particularly in the fields of rocket propulsion with SSME
and thermal management with its tiles-based TPS[110]. The Shuttle is
scored highly in all the discipline area as it was the first operational
LRV program that implemented latest technology and paved a path to-
wards the future generation of LRVs. The success of the program is an
issue of debate, as the main objective while defining the program was
to develop a reusable SAS that could provide a much less-expensive
means of access to space.[96] Subsequently, this primary program re-
quirement was not satisfied, as the Shuttle turned out to be much more
expensive compared to the original hopeful estimates[127]. The Shut-
tle program was retired in 2011, after 133 successful missions and two
failures of the Challenger at the launch and the Columbia during the
re-entry phases. Even though the Shuttle was not a commercial suc-
cess, it was the most advanced piece of technical ingenuity that played
a key role in assembling the ISS, the Hubble telescope and served as
the primary means of man-rated space access for the United States
for almost three decades. It is by far the most documented LRV pro-
gram; further specific details of its main contributions can be found in
reference [[128]].
Other LRV Efforts Several other LRV programs were initiated by

various institutions in the second half of the seventies, to further ex-
tend the capabilities of next generation SAS by utilizing the Shuttle
as the starting point[42]. A 1976 Boeing initiative, the RASV program
represents another such failed attempt. The company’s interest in the
reusable single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicle was“..based on the belief
that the reusable airplane type operation of earth orbit transportation vehicles
will allow considerable improvement in cost per flight and flexibility."[129]
The program was cancelled after the paper study phase when the
USAF started to focus its attention on the X-30 NASP. For further
details on the RASV program, readers are advised to refer Dick and
180 loveneesh rana
Launius[42].
The USAF continued with the research on small spaceplane de-
signs with the largely classified Air Launched Sortie Vehicle (ALSV)
program[38], another precursor to the X-30. Proposals were submitted
by Boeing, Rockwell and General Dynamics for the ALSV, which re-
sembled Shuttle’s configuration of a reusable LRV glider with expend-
able fuel tanks, but were launched by a modified aircraft as the first
stage. There is little information available regarding individual pro-
posals which hints that the program did not progress beyond paper
studies, as the performance of the ALSV was not particularly impres-
sive, while the technical challenges were daunting[130].
Following the lineage of experimental programs from the sixties,
the SWERVE program was a maneuvering reentry body based on a
slender cone configuration, with small wings and elevons[131]. Simi-
lar to the BGRV and Alpha-Draco programs, SWERVE provided much
of the aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic experimental data from
three test flights beginning in 1979[132]. Hallion recognizes the impor-
tance of these experimental vehicles in following quotes;
“ ...the greatest contribution of programs such as the BGRV, Reentry-F, SWERVE,

and FIRE (and, for that matter, the X-15 and even Shuttle later) was in high-
lighting the often great differences between predicted and actual performance,
and the great need for more accurate ground test facilities, simulation tech-
niques, and predictive tools..."[35]
The AHP assessment and the evolution of the 1970s LRV programs is
shown in Figure A.11.
F I G U R E A.11 –
1970s: AHP Evaluation
A.1.4 The LRV programs of 1980s

Two case-studies from the 1980s are considered as major contribution
towards the LRV evolution. First program was similar to the ALSV and
ILRV programs of the previous decade, as the USAF “..initiated a tech-
nology exploration program to examine small and easily maintained rocket-
powered air-and-ground launched advanced hypersonic systems..."[35]. This
group of concepts called Trans-Atmospheric Vehicles(TAV)[133] were
reminiscent of concepts proposed in the late 1960s and the early 1970s
for the Shuttle program. The TAVs were envisioned as a new type
of reusable launch vehicle with much broader operational capabilities,
and application towards multiple mission categories[134]. The follow-
ing quote by Rose support this notion further:
“It could take-off from normal runways as a conventional aircraft, it could be

boosted on a sub-orbital flight using a Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster (SRB), or
the TAV might be carried into orbit within the ShuttleâĂŹs payload bay. It
was to be powered by one large rocket engine and two turbojets with options to
reconfigure the propulsive system for different missions."[38]
A workshop held at RAND to examine the TAV’s mission, technical

and design feasibility issues had the following remarks:
“..Discussions at the workshop and subsequent investigations reveal that de-

spite the efforts of past programs, significant technology challenges remain,
especially in the areas of propulsion, thermal protection systems, and overall
vehicle integration...[134]"
Another important LRV program from 1980s is the HL-20 lifting body
envisioned as a Personnel Launch System(PLS) and later as a Crew
Emergency Return Vehicle(CERV) to provide manned crew return com-
plementing the Space Shuttle[135]. The vehicle was inspired by the
Soviet BOR-4 lifting body, a test vehicle under the Soviet Shuttle pro-
gram, the Energia Buran[38]. The NASA Langley personnel who worked
on the 1960’s lifting body program were also involved in the HL-20
development. the HL-20 conducted numerous aerodynamics investi-
gations to improve low-speed characteristics of the vehicle to enable a
horizontal runway landing. Further ground tests were conducted lead-
ing to a full-size mock-up model of the vehicle that furnished valuable
data[136]. The following quotes form NASA confirms the value of the
HL-20 research effort:
“..A significant amount of research effort has gone into experimental and com-
putational investigations of the baseline HL-20 shape. The goal has been to
amass a data base of information about this system to aid in management deci-
sions for PLS development..."[137]
Although the HL-20 was could not progress beyond the ground test-
ing phase during the early ’90s, it became the basis of the 2005 Dream
182 loveneesh rana
Chaser vehicle. This design is the only active LRV design to reach or-
bital capability is currently under development by the Sierra Nevada
Corporation. Chiara has addressed the evolution of Dream Chaser
from the HL-20 in reference [[138]] that was acquired by the author
from Chiara himself and is available on the internet, but is not pub-
lished officially in a journal or conference yet. The AHP assessment
results and the evolution of the TAV and the HL-20 program included
within the 1990s LRV case-studies are discussed next.
A.1.5 1990s: Reusable Launch Vehicles

The nineties started with the continuation of the HL-20 under the
CERV program and showed a revived interest in the LRV design. A se-
ries of technology-demonstrator programs initiated by NASA in 1995
included the X-38 for the CRV, followed by the X-33 demonstrator for
Lockheed Venturestar concept, and finally ended at the closure of the
decade with the definition of the highly secretive X-37 program. But
F I G U R E A.12 –
before these demonstrators, another concept that addressed the LRV
1980s Onwards: LRV Evolution
design in the first half of the decade was a private initiative by the
Pioneer Rocketplane, is discussed first.
The Pioneer-Rocketplane Pathfinder Family Pioneer Rocketplane[139]

proposed concept for the Black Horse vehicle in 1993. The design was
a match for the USAF TAV requirements, leading to paper studies at
the USAF Phillips Laboratory. The initial design was further improved
in the follow-up concept, the Black Colt, a one-crew SSTO launch vehi-
cle powered by turbofan and rocket engines[140]. “...Subsequent to the
TAV workshop, RAND performed an independent analysis of Black Horse’s
payload capability and found it could not reach orbit...[134]" The concept
design from Black Horse and Black Colt was further refined with the
Pathfinder Rocketplane design in 2001, but could not evolve beyond
paper studies phase.
NASA Reusable Launch Vehicle Efforts Sometimes around 1994,

the NASA Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program was initiated, that
resulted in four ’X-series’ spaceplanes namely the: X-33 and X-34 un-
der Reusable Launch Vehicle Program, and the X-38 for the CRV and
the X-37 for the OTV program[141].
The X-33 program was initiated as a part of the RLV program in
1995 as a testbed for developing technologies for an integrated RLV
design, paving the way for full-scale advanced commercial launch
system[142], see Figure A.13. Lockheed Martin offered a VTHL lifting
body concept based on the aeroballistic rocket, the VentureStar, and
was selected by NASA against proposals by McDonnell-Douglas and
F I G U R E A.13 –
NASA RLV technology
program schedule[142]
Rockwell [141]. The Venturestar proposed to use a linear aerospike

engine, metallic insulation, and several other features similar to their
Starclipper proposal[143]. Lockheed developed the X-33 as a technol-
ogy demonstrator for the Venturestar concept and employed compos-
ite materials to reduce vehicle weight. This was one of the key require-
ments to successfully develop the Venturestar. However, the composite
fuel tank failed during a testing in 1999 and it was concluded that com-
posite technology was not mature enough at the time for such use in
cryogenic reusable tanks[144]. This proved to be a fatal blow for the
X-33 as program ran into cost and schedule overrun and was finally
cancelled in 2001. The main lesson learned from X-33 was that the pro-
gram accepted multiple technology risks, overall resulting in program
failure. Related to the cryogenic composite tank and other aspects, the
X-33 proved to be of significant value for the structure and materials
discipline.
The next vehicle under the RLV program was the Space Shuttle-
inspired X-34 technology testbed[145], a development by Orbital Sci-
ences Corporation in 1996. It was planned to be an autonomuos vehi-
cle, powered by a completely new reusable Fastrac engine, capable of
reaching Mach 8 and performing 25 test flights per year[141]. The X-34
program too ran into cost and schedule overrun, similar to the X-33 as
two unpowered flight test-vehicles were built spending just under $112
million before the program was cancelled in 2001 with the X-33. The
following quotes by Sullivan show the main disciplinary contribution
from the X-34 program:
“..The technological developments included autonomous ascent, reentry, and
landing; composite structures; reusable liquid-oxygen tanks; rapid vehicle turnaround;
and a durable TPS. The versatile flight testbed could accommodate future ex-
periments, including space transportation and technology developments and
184 loveneesh rana
aeroscience experiments..."[146]
Following the cancellation of the HL-20, NASA began developing X-

24A derived X-38 research vehicle aimed at the development of tech-
nologies for a prototype emergency crew return vehicle(CERV). NASA
was supported by the European Space Agency(ESA) through the DLR
TETRA project for a common concept vehicle to satisfy their Space Sta-
tion crew transport needs[147]. The program developed three test pro-
totype vehicles conducting several autonomous test flights (horizontal
parafoil runway landings) and tested technologies, for disciplines such
as aerodynamics/aerothermodynamics, structures, TPS and flight con-
trol systems. European contribution to the X-38 program was found in
all technical areas as the X-38 established first transatlantic venture for
development of a reusable spaceplane[148]. The X-38 was eventually
cancelled in 2002 due to budget cuts and could not result in an op-
erational vehicle, but proved to be valuable for testing new structures
and TPS materials improving aerothermodynamics database. Further
details on the contributions by X-38 can be found in reference [149]
and [150] .
F I G U R E A.14 –
The X-37 program evolved out of the Boeing X-40 demonstrator for 1980s Onwards: AHP
the USAF Space Maneuver Vehicle(SMV) under the Military Space- Evaluation
plane Architecture program[151]. The first generation vehicle of the
program was the X-37A Approach and Landing Test Vehicle (ALTV)
and was used in drop glide tests in 2005-2006 by NASA[152]. The sec-
ond generation Orbital Test Vehicle(OTV) or the X-37B, was developed
and operated independently by the USAF and is currently operational,
but remains highly classified regarding the details of mission details.
The following quote by Grantz adequately represent the key technol-
ogy and disciplinary contribution by the X-37 program:
“...Several key technologies for reusable spacecraft were successfully demon-

strated in the areas of aerodynamics, aerothermodynamics, reusable solar arrays,
Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) and autonomous Guidance, Navigation, and
Control (GNC). The current system provides a demonstration platform for au-
tonomous spacecraft technologies, on-orbit environments for material and mi-
croelectronic characterization and re-entry environments for advanced TPS ma-
terials and concepts..."[153]
X-37 was the last LRV program initiated in the nineties and is the
only LRV vehicle currently operational. The 1990s were a tough pe-
riod for LRV programs where many bold initiatives were undertaken
to establish a reusable SAS, but only the X-37 evolved to an opera-
tional vehicle status. The lessons learned were expensive and difficult
but contributed immensely to hypersonic knowledge evolution. The
evolution for the LRV program from 1980 onwards is shown in Figure
A.12 and the AHP results for these case-studies are given in Figure
A.14 that includes the last case-study, the Dream Chaser, which is dis-
cussed next.
A.1.6 Post 2000: The Dream Chaser

The last US-based LRV case-study considered for this survey is the
2005 private initiative, SpaceDev’s HL-20 inspired lifting body vehi-
cle, the Dream Chaser[154]. The Sierra Nevada Corporation(SNC) ac-
quired SpaceDev and took over the Dream Chaser vehicle in 2008. Two
years later, Dream Chaser was selected for NASA’s Commercial Crew
Development (CCDev) Phase-1 program, as SNC continued with the
ground tests, and further modified the design supported by funding
and with technical cooperation from NASA[155]. The Dream Chaser
was eventually dropped form the CCDev contract in the last seletion
round and later selected under NASA’s Commercial Resupply Vehi-
cle program for a conract of six resupply missions to the ISS[156]. It
is expected to be operational by 2018, delivering cargo and science
experiments for NASA as the primary mission, although SNC is de-
veloping multiple variants for international customers as well[157].
The vehicle is developing and employing state-of-art technology in
most subsystems[158–161], while building on the crucial aerodynam-
ics knowledge base gained via the legacy HL-20 program. The AHP
analysis results for the Dream Chaser is given in Figure A.14 with rest
of the LRV programs form 1980.
A combined LRV evolution of the US-based case-studies is shown in
Figure A.15 summing up the discussion of the US LRV history. Track-
ing the evolution through these historical programs helps to visual-
ize, how the current Dream Chaser utilizes the hypersonic knowledge
186 loveneesh rana
gained with incremental gains in individual program. The following

section addresses the AHP assessment of the LRV efforts outside the
US with a brief overview of major programs.
A.2 International LRV Case-Studies Assessment: Silvervogel

- IXV
Outside the United States, numerous LRV programs have been under-
taken by several European and Asian countries. A total of 29 LRV case-
studies from USSR/Russia, ESA, Great Britain, Germany and Japan
have been assessed by the AHP model. In the following subsections,
ESA, Germany, and Britain are discussed collectively under the Euro-
pean LRV programs, followed by a brief discussion of LRV programs
in Japan and finally, Soviet/Russia.
A.2.1 European LRV Efforts

Several lifting reentry programs were initiated during the early 1960s
in Germany and Britain,[162] while post 1980s, ESA undertook several
LRV-based research projects and technology development programs.
The evolution of these European LRV case-studies is visualized in Fig-
ure A.16 and described in the further details as follows.
The German LRV Programs

The concept of hypersonic LRVs dates back to as early as the 1930s,
when Eugen Sänger in 1933 Germany, proposed the concept for Silber-
bogel(German for SilverBird) rocket plane. This was a definitive study,
establishing the feasibility of rocket propulsion with airplane-like lift-
ing configuration. Eugen was assisted by his future wife, Irene-Bredt,
in further refining the design details in the later half of the decade.
The vehicle was a rocket-propelled winged airframe, running on liquid
oxygen and kerosene. It was proposed to be launched from a rocket-
boosted sled to perform sub-orbital missions, reaching altitude of 100
miles, and achieving hypersonic speeds in order of Mach 10 during the
reentry[163]. The Silvervogel concept underwent several wind tunnel
and propulsion system tests by 1942 improving on the conceptual de-
sign studies. It was later found that vehicle would have generated
unacceptable levels of airframe heating due to the skip-glide trajectory
implementationa nd the low wing sweep angle, as this important issue
had not been fully appreciated by Sänger and Bredt, and would have
led to insurmountable problems if their project had gone forward[38].
The design concept was considered by Nazi Germany to be developed
into the Raketenbomber or ’rocket bomber’, but never evolved beyond
ground tests until 1963 as Junkers RT-8-01. Further details on the Sil-
F I G U R E A.15 –
US-based LRV Programs Evolution

187
188 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E A.16 –
verbird and the follow-on designs can be found in reference [[18]], European LRV Programs
[[164]] and [[165]], authored by Eugen and Irene Sänger. Evolution
Between 1961 and 1964, Eugen Sänger was working with JUNKERS
FLUG-ZEUG UND MOTORENWERKE (JFM) company in Munich on
the Silvervogel follow-on design studies, for a sled-launched two stage
space-plane system, the Junkers RT-8. Both, the first and second stages
were delta-winged LRV designs, equipped with LOX/LH2 engines.
The upper stage was a reversed version of the first stage launch vehi-
cle, with the low-mounted wing, having upturned tips like that of the
X-20 Dyna-Soar, and would be able to reach 300km altitude orbit[95].
Sänger was working on the RT-8 until the morning of his sudden death
in February 1964. The design went through several iterations under
Messerschmidt-Boelkow-Bloehm (MBB) as RT-8-02, but was eventually
dropped in 1969. Eugene Sänger’s work towards the LRV concept is
undeniably the most influential contribution by an individual. He ap-
plied the rocket science fundamentals developed by Esnault-Pelterie,
Goddard, Oberth and Tsiolkowski, into a practical concept, based on
the philosophy of the so-called “school of Vienna", where Valier, Von-
hoefft and Von Pirquet imagined aircraft capable of reaching orbital
velocities[166]. Sänger’s life was dedicated to the idea of realizing a
rocket-plane to access space. A detailed account of his work is docu-
mented by his son Hartmut Sänger[166], who describes the importance
of Sänger’s legacy in these words:
“Eugen Sänger, however, was one of these rare, gifted engineer-physicists whose
deep understanding of a technical knowledge which he partly created, com-

bined with a real talent for large-scale project management, could turn some of
these dreams into reality and, as such, help astronautics break the âĂIJscience-
fictionâĂİ barrier."[166]
Another major German LRV concept in the 1960s was the lifting
body design, Bumerang. Developed by ERNO through a series of
wind tunnel tests followed by unpowered flight tests, the Bumerang
followed the contemporary NASA Lifting Body program and con-
tributed to the Space Shuttle’s project-definition phase with McDon-
nell Douglas[167]. Major contributions made by the Bumerang were
in the disciplines of aerothermodynamics, thermal management, and
sub-systems as found in the detailed description in reference [[168]]
and [[169]].
In 1985, MBB began renewed studies of the Sänger spaceplane, this
time, a two-stage-to-orbit horizontal takeoff concept. The first stage
was a turboramjet powered delta-wing design, for boosting the or-
biter vehicle called HORUS, which was based on the CNES Hermes
vehicle[170]. The program was the reference concept of the German
Hypersonics Technology Program and achieved major results in disci-
plines of propulsion, structures & material, subsystems and aerothermodynamics[171].
However, the propulsion research was mainly concentrated on air-
breathing launch stage, which proved unsuccessful in developing a
feasible propulsion system and the program was terminated in 1995
due to budget cuts. Sänger II concept was also studied under the FES-
TIP program by ESA and further details of the vehicle system and
major contributions are found in references [[171]] and [[172]].
In 1987, ERNO and MBB started working on a winged LRV design
called The Platform Orbiter or PLATO for short. The program emerged
out of Europe’s desire to not be dependent on the US Space Shuttle for
orbital access, as PLATO was planned to be launched by European
Ariane 4 rocket from Kourou, French Guiana, and land horizontally
in southern Europe[173]. Several wind tunnel activities and trajectory
simulation models were developed for PLATO. However, the program
could not develop beyond these ground tests and was cancelled in
1990. References [[174]] and [[175]] are some of the best sources found
for this project, describing the research effort development under the
program.
PLATO concludes the discussion of LRV programs initiated in Ger-
many. Figure A.17 shows the AHP results of the Germany LRV pro-
grams along with the British concepts, Whitworth Pyramid and BAC
MUSTARD, which are discussed next.
The British LRV programs

Two British programs are seen to fit the LRV class and are analyzed
190 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E A.17 –
German & British LRV
here in the AHP model. The first study originated in 1954, an unusual
Programs: AHP Evaluation
pyramid-shaped design with a flat underside and short wings, was de-
veloped by Nonweiler following the development of his famous wave
rider concept. Rose[38] provides further details for this design devel-
opment, which suggests the vehicle made developments in aerother-
modynamics and subsystems disciplines through a series of wind tun-
nel tests, leading to various design modifications. The vehicle could
not evolve beyond that stage and was cancelled in 1960. During this
period, the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) was conducting studies
for developing a small British spacecraft using delta-winged designs.
Following on its initial hypersonic and spaceplane studies, the BAC
began work on the government funded studies aimed to develop a
reusable manned Orbital Transporter. Inspired by the American lifting
body design and the modular concept as implemented in the McDon-
nell Astro and Convair Triamese, program MUSTARD was defined
in 1962. The vehicle configuration resembled closely the Convair Tri-
amese design using three identical lifting-body stages. Although no
technical report has been available for MUSTARD, several FLIGHT
magazine articles and two patents filed by BAC[176, 177] in 1969, re-
flect that MUSTARD developed ground-test articles and made signifi-
cant progress in propulsion and aerothermodynamics disciplines[178].
The AHP results for these two programs are given in Figure A.17 with
German programs.
LRV programs from ESA The European Space Agency (ESA) was
established in 1973 following the reforms made to previous Euro-
pean space collaboration under ESRO and ELDO[179]. The LRV case-
studies evaluated for ESA represent a collective effort of several Eu-

ropean national space agencies from the 1980s onwards, starting with
the French program, Hermes.
The first LRV case study considered as a joint ESA project is the 1985
Hermes program, originated in the second half of the 1970s within the
French Space Agency CNES[180]. Inspired by the US Space Shuttle
and the X-20 programs[38, 181], the project started with the basic idea
of realizing a small manned space plane was a winged reusable re-
entry vehicle to be launched on top of the European Ariane-4 launcher.
Its sole original purpose was the transport of two to four astronauts
into low Earth orbit (LEO) as a kind of ’space taxi’ for autonomous
missions. However, since the beginning of the program, the need for
a European manned space capability was not clearly specified as the
basic requirements and underlying specifications were changed more
or less continuously. The focus of the program shifted from an oper-
ational space transportation system towards a manned experimental
space vehicle and finally a pure technology demonstrator before be-
ing cancelled in 1992 owing to the mass budget complications [181].
Bayer further elaborates; “..After years of development of Ariane 5 and
Hermes, the most basic requirement of the compatibility of the payload mass
with the launcher had still not been achieved despite the fact that the trans-
port of Hermes was one of the primary design missions of Ariane 5. In gen-
eral the configuration chosen for Hermes was not adequate for the multiple
demands posed on it, and the absolute size of the vehicle was too small for
the required functions..."[181] Although the program could not develop
a feasible SAS, a considerable amount of technology-specific research
was conducted while the program was active, especially in the disci-
plines of aerothermodynamics, thermal management and subsystems
development.[170, 182–184]
The Hermes configuration show uncanny similarity with the X-20
program as both programs shared similar mission requirements, de-
sign configurations and were cancelled due to similar reasons. The
program was a crucial learning curve for the ESA partners and has
been studied and documented extensively for major lessons learned in F I G U R E A.18 –
organizational, programmatic and technical aspects.[181, 182]. FESTIP Concept Studies and
Utilizing the lessons learned from the Hermes experience, ESA de- Final Selection. Reproduced
cided to perform a detailed concept investigations on a commonly from [185]
agreed basis among the participating nations, with closely related tech-
nology preparation under FESTIP. The primary objective was stated as:
‘‘..FESTIP will enable Europe to take decisions on the development of a next
generation launcher."[186] The FESTIP program was defined in 1994,
comprising a system study as the focal point, and five technology stud-
ies in the key technology areas[185]. Readers are reminded that the
five disciplinary criteria selected for the AHP model implemented in
192 loveneesh rana
this study were borrowed from FESTIP’s definition. The FESTIP pro-
gram played a key role in defining common goals among participating
agencies to provided a path for maturity of key technologies[187, 188].
Several vehicle concepts were analyzed during the initial configura-
tion selection phases as shown in Figure A.18. Following the initial
evaluation, concepts FSSC-15 and FSSC-16 were preferred on the basis
of technical feasibility and economic viability[45]. Technical feasibility
and mission performance were claimed to be achieved by all concepts
and further details on individual system concepts can be found in ref-
erences [[189]] and [[190]].
In 1998, the FESTIP team selected FSSC-15 HOPPER as the final con-
cept and decided to pursue detailed design work within planned Fu-
ture Launcher Technology Programme(FLTP), foreseen for 1999-2005.
Based on the configuration of the HOPPER concept, the German AS-
TRA program started developing the Phoenix test vehicle as the EXTV
option for FESTIP[191]. The main objective was to demonstrate fully
autonomous approach and landing for an RLV-like configuration, pos-
sessing relatively poor low-speed flying qualities.[151] In 2004, the ve-
hicle executed the only drop-test flight, executing a fully autonomous
landing. A part of the FLTP objectives was to develop and validate the
required technologies for the HOPPER vehicle. But unbalanced partic-
ipation in the program by various member states and the consequent
problems with implementing procedures resulted in the FLTP being
put on hold[192], and eventually canceled, along with the suborbital
HOPPER concept and its sub-scale test-bed vehicle, the Phoenix. An-
other testbed vehicle based on the Hopper’s configuration was the
SOCRATES program with goals to demonstrate most RLV mission
phases, from autonomous takeoff to abort capabilities.[151] Apart from
the major objectives and initial program definition requirements, not
much information is found on this proposed testbed, now assumed to
be abandoned after the cancellation of Hopper.
Following the FTLP debacle, the Future Launchers Preparatory Pro-
gramme(FLPP) was initiated in 2004 to prepare the next generation
of launchers, starting with system studies carried out under FESTIP.
During the next phase of the program, FLPP initiated “..a progression
of test vehicles to explore the physics of, and demonstrate the capability to
accomplish, controlled reentry flight..[193]. The first of these programs
was the European eXPEriment Reentry Testbed(EXPERT), intended to
gather data on reentry aerothermodynamic phenomena using a geo-
metrically simple, but highly instrumented non-maneuvering reentry
vehicle."[151] EXPERT was supported by several aerothermodynam-
ics facilities throughout Europe, equipped with 14 experiments pro-
vided by several scientific institutions all around Europe[194, 195]. EX-
PERT performed several flight tests as a precursor to the IXV technical
F I G U R E A.19 –
ESA LRV Programs: AHP
demonstrator, providing important data for aerothermodynamics and
Evaluation
thermal management disciplines.
Another program leading to the FLPP IXV began in late 2000 when
the French space agency, CNES, began with preliminary assessments
of a lifting testbed called the Pre-X. The main objectives were de-
fined to develop and demonstrate technologies in thermal manage-
ment, aerothermodynamics, and subsystems disciplines[196]. Follow-
ing the initial preliminary design period, Pre-X has undergone exten-
sive detailed design analysis and ground testings to develop the vehi-
cle, in order to comply with in-flight experiments plans[197, 198]. The
Pre-X configuration became the basis of the FLPP-IXV demonstrator.
A significant LRV effort under the FLPP initiative was the CIRA
(Italian Aerospace Research Center) program, PRORA-USV, “to de-
velop and flight test technologies critical to future-generation reusable
launch systems."[151] The vehicle conducted technology demonstra-
tion flights providing a valuable system and subsystem feasibility in-
sight. Ruso[199, 200] provides further details of the program’s main
objectives and major contributions to the disciplines of subsystem and
structures. These trends are also seen in the AHP results.
During the Period-1 stage of the FLPP program, the industrial sys-
tems team was tasked to select the most promising ongoing studies
for the Intermediate Experimental Vehicle (IXV). As mentioned earlier,
CNES Pre-X was selected as the optimum design and the IXV adopted
the external configuration of the Pre-X[201]. Multiple goals identified
for the IXV were: “..demonstrate hypersonic unpowered maneuvering reen-
try flight of a lifting configuration, serve as a test-bed for in-flight qualifica-
194 loveneesh rana
tion of vehicle subsystems and systems, and to provide another source of data
on fundamental hypersonic aerothermodynamic phenomena for validation of
tools, databases, and design processes.."[151] With these goals, the IXV
was to develop on the in-flight research conducted by the EXPERT
program[202]. The IXV flew on its successful maiden test flight in
2015, producing important aerodynamics and thermal data. The pro-
gram is scored high on aerothermodynamics, thermal management,
and subsystems disciplines and is planned for the follow-up flights
in 2019/2020[203]. The IXV is the last case-study considered for the
ESA-initiated LRV efforts, most of which saw fruition as technology
demonstrators for the next-generation reusable launch vehicle. The
AHP results for the ESA case studies are shown in Figure A.19.
A.2.2 LRV Efforts in Japan
F I G U R E A.20 –
HOPE-X Program Timeline[204]
The LRV research efforts in Japan are focussed under the HOPE(The
H-2 Orbiting Plane) program started in the 1980s by NASDA and NAL
(both now part of JAXA). Following the early paper studies, the devel-
opment plans led to the HOPE-X, a full-scale demonstrator for the op-
erational HOPE vehicle. “..Although the size and configuration of HOPE-X
duplicate the operational HOPE, its gross weight will be about two-thirds of
operational HOPE..."[205] Three experimental projects were defined ini-
tially during the early development plans that would lead to HOPE-
X as each project would focus on specific disciplinary development.
A fourth vehicle was added to the initial three experimental projects
during the later program stage. The HOPE-X program evolution and
experimental projects timeline are shown in Figure A.20, borrowed

from Miyazawa[204], and are explained in the following discussion.
The OREX flight experiment, first in the series of HOPE-X precur-
sors, was a blunt-cone shaped vehicle. After the early development
phase, the OREX vehicle flew successfully in 1994 and provided im-
portant aerothermal data (wall temperatures and heat transfer rates)
for the design of the TPS for HOPE[206].
The OREX was followed by the Hypersonic Flight Experiment or
HYFLEX, an unpowered lifting body that resembled the original HOPE-
X configuration, unlike the conical OREX. The main objective of the
HYFLEX was to explore guidance and control aspects of a lifting body
and to utilize the aerothermal data from OREX by testing the TPS
materials and structures[207]. HYFLEX conducted a successful flight
in 1996, testing the carbon-carbon heat shielding tiles that were in-
tended to be used on HOPE, and provided data on hypersonic lift-
ing, although the vehicle sank in the Pacific after splashdown before it
could be recovered[208].
F I G U R E A.21 –
Japan LRV Efforts under HOPE
Program
ALFLEX, the last experimental project planned under HOPE-X was

a one-third model of HOPE with a primary goal to develop an un-
manned landing system for HOPE-X. “The ALFLEX flight tests were
successfully conducted at Woomera in Australia in July and August of 1996
196 loveneesh rana
with the cooperation of Australian government. Approximately 20 flight tests

were done to evaluate guidance performance, aerodynamic characteristics and
performance."[205] Both, HYFLEX and ALFLEX are scored high on the
aerothermodynamics and subsystems disciplines for their contribution
in stability and control during the landing, while OREX is scored high
on the thermal management and aerothermodynamics disciplines.
In addition to the originally defined three experimental projects, the
High-Speed Flight Demonstration (HSFD) program was added later in
the HOPE-X program. The HSFD vehicle was a 25-percent scale test
model of HOPE-X, defined with an objective to test technologies for
the development of a future reusable launch vehicle.[209] The HSFD
program conducted successful test flights in two phases, “..Phase I to
verify an approach and landing system for the return flight of a winged re-
entry the vehicle that lands on a conventional runway, and Phase II to clarify
the transonic aerodynamic characteristics of a winged reentry vehicle..."[210]
The HSFD flight test played an important role towards aerothermo-
dynamics and sub-systems disciplines. The HSFD program is the last
Japan-based case-study assessed in the AHP model and further infor-
mation about the vehicles and test flight results are found in reference
[[210]].
Following the success of these experiments, HOPE-X design de-
velopment continued from 1996 to 2000 during which the configu-
ration changed from using wing-tip fins to twin canted fins on the
aft fuselage[211]. The HOPE-X vehicle was being developed to be
launched using the new H-II launch vehicle. However, due to launch
failure of the H-II vehicle in 1998 and 1999[212], the HOPE-X pro-
gram was frozen in the middle of 2000 and eventually cancelled in
2003[204]. HOPE-X is not included in the survey as the technology
projects defined under the HOPE-X program provide more specific
data and information than the unrealized HOPE-X.
The four case-studies from Japan are shown in Figure A.21 with
respective results from the AHP model.
A.2.3 LRV Efforts in Soviet USSR
The Soviet Union has been involved in the LRV design since as early
as 1956 when Myasishchev began studies for a manned spaceplane.
The primary objective was similar to the United States contemporary
program X-20; to execute piloted orbital military operations. This was
followed by a series of small VKA designs eventually leading to an
aerodynamically more efficient VKA-23 Design 2, after a major re-
evaluation of the initial faceted wave riding configuration Design 1[38].
Matthews elaborates further: “The second Myasishchev VKA-23 design
was an elegant-looking, porpoise-fuselage winged vehicle, similar to Japan’s
HOPE design of forty years later. In comparison to the faceted first design,
this version had a greater fuel load, much greater orbital maneuverability,
and dispensed with the landing skis."[213] The study reached detailed
design stages with selection of specific components for vehicle struc-
tures & materials, TPS and GNC disciplines.[214] The design could not
progress beyond ground test phase and was cancelled in 1960 leading
to the OKB-Rocketplane, which further explored the VKA’s program
objectives.[215]
The OKB bureau overtook VKA 1960s objective to develop a manned
military spaceplane to perform orbital reconnaissance and intercept
American satellites.[214] Several design concepts were studied includ-
ing X-20 look alike delta-winged configurations, the most prominent
one was the Racketoplan. The program conducted flight tests of aero-
dynamcally controlled vehicles, that came about two years before the
USAF START program. This was the first ever hypersonic reentry
test and provided important data that was utilized in various OKB
designs.[215] The Racketoplan was cancelled in 1965 as the Spiral be-
came focus of LRV concepts.[38] Further detailed information on the
project is found in reference [[37]] and [[216]]
Spiral OS refers to the first generation of a design concept in a se-
ries of the Spiral 50-50 family[217] which began in 1965 following the
cancellation of Racketoplan. The OS orbiter concept was a lifting body
configuration with flat bottom implmenting unique dihedral wings
and was the baseline design which evolved in test vehicles, the Mig-
105 and BOR family. The Sprial OS design was refined via wind-tunnel
tests, while the program underwent several organizational changes in
the early to mid 1970s. In 1975, the OS design was designated Experi-
mental Piloted Orbital Aircraft(EPOS) and referred to an atmospheric
flight test article, the Mig-105[38]. The vehicle incorporated several
design features and subsystems technologies from the OS design in-
cluding a flat bottom lifting body configuration. Mig-105 conducted
eight subsonic flights from 1976 to 1978 and were considered sufficient
to characterize the spaceplane’s subsonic aerodynamic characteristics
and air-breathing propulsion systems. Another important LRV re-
search project defined under the Spiral-family was the BOR(unpiloted
orbital rocketplane) family of test vehicles. BOR-1,-2 and -3 conducted
suborbital flight tests from 1968-1969 for the Spiral program. When
Spiral was cancelled in the wake of the Buran program, BOR-4 was al-
ready being developed to test heat shield materials, and was included
in the Buran program. BOR-4 conducted four successful test flights
where it confirmed the feasibility of the selected heat shield tile’s ma-
terials and provided important data on the acoustic environment dur-
ing launch and re-entry. BOR-4 was the last resulting vehicle from the
Spiral program which generated critical data, technology and momen-
198 loveneesh rana
F I G U R E A.22 –
USSR/Russian LRV Programs
Evolution
tum that was utilized in the Buran vehicle. However it was resurrected
in improved form in the 1980’s as the MAKS spaceplane.[37, 38, 217]
The following quote by Siddiqi highlight the importance of the Spiral
program:
“The Spiral project was huge, much larger than any of the previous spaceplane
programs in the Soviet Union, certainly rivaling and perhaps exceeding the
amount of effort the U.S. Air Force had invested in the Dyna-Soar program.
The rich historical legacy of spaceplane research in the USSR, leading all the
way back to the Sänger-Bredt studies in the late 1940s. served as a springboard
for the new project."[37]
The Soviet Shuttle program, Buran was established in 1976, in re-

sponse to the definition of the US Space Shuttle in 1972 and is as well
known as it’s American counterpart. Buran represents the pinnacle of
LRV effort in Soviet/Russian case-studies and developed and imple-
mented state-of-art technology in most subsystems. Buran conducted
only one unmanned orbital flight in its operational term and demon-
strated a fully-automated landing. Buran’s significance is highlighted
by the following quote:
“..The development of Buran went on 10 years. Ten years during which impor-
tant research tasks and experiments were carried out in various technical fields:
acoustics, thermodynamics, systems design, dynamics of flight on simulator,
design of the control panel, making of new materials, developing of methods
and equipment for the landing in automatic mode (flying laboratories), atmo-
spheric flight tests of the similar shuttle (another model of Buran with turbines,
BTS-002), outsides tests of the heat shield and aerodynamic tests on BOR-4 and
BOR-5 models, etc..."[218]
’Energiya-Buran: The Soviet space shuttle’[215] by Hendrix and Vis

and the internet website in reference[[218]] are some of the most com-
prehensive account of the program and must be referred for further
detailed information.
While the Buran program was in its peak during the late 1970s, Pro-
fessor Chelomei from OKB-52 developed designs of a manned space-
plane based on his earlier cancelled Raketoplan program. The design
was called the Light Space Plane (LKS) and plans for a prototype were
completed by 1980. The LKS final design “..had a launch mass of 25 met-
ric tons, including 4 to 5 metric tons of payload and 2 metric tons of maneu-
vering propellant. Maximum use was made of actual flight test data from the
MP-1 and M-2 sub-scale Raketoplan vehicles flown in the early 1960’s. Ma-
jor spacecraft systems were off-the-shelf items developed for the Almaz / TKS
space station (e.g. engine section, guidance elements, environmental control
system, thermoregulation system, heat shield, reusable equipment)...In 1980
the 25 volume technical specification for the complete LKS system was com-
pleted, a full-size mock-up was built, and a 15 volume construction plan for a
fleet of LKS orbiters was prepared."[219] Although the program reached
200 loveneesh rana
mock-up model stage showing a promising outlook in design feasibil-

ity, it was cancelled in 1983.
MAKS was a scaled down version of Buran, that emerged out of
studies from Project OK-M in the early 1980s. The highlight feature
of the MAKS concept was it’s capability to undertake a range of var-
ied missions and could be launched vertically using a booster or air-
launched atop a modified Antonov An-225. The air-launched pro-
posal evolved into a more sophisticated design which was selected as
the final MAKS configuration combining a reusable winged orbiter
and expandable fuel tanks. This design concept closely resembled the
ALSV program going on in the US around the same time. One of the
main technical achievement from MAKS was the Glushko RD-701 tri-
propellant engine, specifically developed for the MAKS program. The
propulsion system would initially use kerosene and LOX and then
switch to liquid hydrogen and LOX to provide a higher specific im-
F I G U R E A.23 –
pulse. For other sub-systems like the TPS material or the autnomous
ORYOL program concepts
reentry, MAKS utilized the research base developed in the Buran pro-
selected for comparison with
gram. The MAKS design reached mock-up model stage and most
FESTIP. Reproduced here from
of the hardware for the demonstrator, MAKS-D was completed[221],
[220]
when MAKS was cancelled in 1991 owing to national economic difficulties.[38,
222]
The ORYOL program was initiated by the Russian Space Agency
in 1993 as a research initiative to devise a stratergy for the develop-
ment of the next generation of reusable space transportation systems.
The study focussed on SSTO and TSTO orbital concepts based on a
winged flyback and expandable second stage as air-launched systems
were also considered through MAKS design.[223, 224] In terms of pro-
gram objective and approach, ORYOL shared many similarities with
the concurrent European FESTIP program, establishing an official co-
operation between the RSA and the ESA in 1995.[220] Both programs
assessed similar system configuration concepts independently consid-
ered before the cooperation. These system concepts were compared
and assessed against each other and “...led to a better understanding of
both sides’ approaches and requirements and to the recognition that the resp.
technical views are rather compatible."[220] Figure A.23 shows the concepts
compared from ORYOL and FESTIP. The program was finished in 2001 with
a general conclusion that best option to approach the next generation of space
transportation system was to develop partially reusable TSTO system with
flyback boosters and conventional rocket engines.[215]
The Kliper program was defined in 2004 as a replacement option
for the Soyuz spacecraft. The initial concept proposed for the vehicle
was a pure lifting body design that evolved to a lifting body with
fold-able wings following several iterations to meet the requirements
implemented by the upgraded Soyuz-2 rocket. Kliper had a unique
F I G U R E A.24 –
configuration, unlike previous lifting bodies it was short and stout Soviet/Russian LRV Programs:
with a detachable habitation and service module mounted behind the AHP Evaluation
glider. RSC Energia developed the design from 2006 onwards without
Russian government’s support and tried to seek private investment
but failed to do so, as the program has been officially halted since 2007
with no signs of revival.[218]
The Kliper marks the end of the discussion for the USSR/Russian
and the international LRV case-studies. The AHP evaluation of the
Russian case-studies are shown in Figure A.24 that compares the dis-
ciplinary and overall contribution.
Appendix B
D I S C I P L I N A R Y A N A LY S I S M E T H O D S
This section presents the MATLAB codes as used in the disciplinary
analysis for involved disciplines. The codes shown here only present
the analysis segment as the DBMS manages the input and output vari-
ables in the MS Access system. Once the sizing architecture is as-
sembled by specifying individual methods, DBMS inserts the variables
around the analysis code structure as specified within the architecture.
B.1 Geometry Methods
Three distinctly different geometry methods have been used for the
sizing analysis.
B.1.1 Geometry Calculation: X-20 Dyna-Soar
2 %* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3 %DynaSoar X20 Geometry D e f i n i t i o n
4 %Author : Loveneesh
5 %
*************************************************************************
6 % −−−− V a r i a b l e L i s t −−−−
7 %
*************************************************************************
8 % −−−−−−−−−−−−−−
9 % INPUT
10 % −−−−−−−−−−−−−−
11 % SPLN (m^2) G l i d e r planform a r e a
12 % TAU Glider slenderness r a t i o
13 % ALLE Leading Edge Sweep Angle
14 % DIA_NOSE (m) Nose Diameter
15 % LTD R a t i o G l i d e r t o t a l l e n g t h t o diameter o f h a l f
cylinder fuselage
16 % WTD R a t i o Wing t h i c k n e s s t o diameter o f h a l f
cylinder fuselage
17 %
18 % −−−−−−−−−−−−−−
19 % OUTPUT
20 % −−−−−−−−−−−−−−
21 % AL(m) V e h i c l e Length (m)
22 % DIA_FUSE (m) V e h i c l e Diameter
23 % BPLN(m) Span o f t h e v e h i c l e
24 % SWET(m^2) Wetted s u r f a c e a r e a
25 % SFSPLN R a t i o o f f r o n t a l a r e a t o planform a r e a
26 % SF (m^2) Frontal area
27 % AKW R a t i o o f wetted s u r f a c e a r e a t o planform a r e a
28 % AKW0 R a t i o o f wetted s u r f a c e a r e a t o planform a r e a
o f v e h i c l e without s p a t u l a
29 %
*************************************************************************
30 %% −−−− Input Fixed V a r i a b l e s −−−−

31 %
*************************************************************************
32 %SPLN = 32.716; % (m^2) or 3 5 2 . 1 6 f t ^2

33 %TAU = 0.22; % Orbiter slenderness r a t i o
34 ALLE = 72.4; % Leading Edge Sweep Angle
35 DIA_NOSE = 0.378; % or 1 . 2 4 f t
36 LTD = 2.48; % Length t o Diameter R a t i o
37 WTD = 0.13; % Wing T h i c k n e s s t o Diameter
Ratio
38 %
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
39 %
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
40
41 ALLE = degtorad (ALLE) ;
42
43 %% Volume t o t a l
44 VTOTAL = TAU* SPLN ^ ( 1 . 5 ) ;
45
46 % C a l c u l a t i n g Vtot e x p r e s s i o n i n terms o f f u s e l a g e diameter
DIA_FUSE
47
48 % 1 . Hemi−sphere a t nose
49 V1 = ( p i /12) * DIA_NOSE^ 3 ; %Vol . Sphere /2
50
51 % % 2 . Blunted h a l f −cone
52 % V2 = ( p i /48) * tan (ALLE) * DIA_FUSE^3 − 0.0112;
%Vol o f l a r g e r cone − Vol o f s m a l l cone with DIA_NOSE ( f i x e d
)
53 %
54 % % 3 . Half −Cylinder
55 % V3 = ( p i /8) * ( DIA_FUSE^3) * ( LTD − tan (ALLE) /2) ;
56 %
57 % % 4 . Wings ( as r i g h t t r i a n g l e s where l e n g t h = h a l f − c y l l 4 i n d e r )
58 % V4 = (LTD^2) *WTD* ( DIA_FUSE^3)/tan (ALLE) ;
59
60 Const = V1 − 0 . 0 1 1 2 ;
61 Var = ( p i /48) * tan (ALLE) + ( p i /8) * ( LTD − tan (ALLE) /2) +
(LTD^2) *WTD/tan (ALLE) ;
62
63 DIA_FUSE = ( ( VTOTAL−Const ) /Var ) ^ ( 1 / 3 ) ;

64
65 % diameter e r r o r check
66 % i f Var =0
67 % e r r o r ( ’ e r r o r i n c a l c u l a t i n g diamter ’ )
68 % end
69
70 %% C a l c u l a t i n g V e h i c l e Length and Span
71 AL = DIA_FUSE * LTD ;
204 loveneesh rana
72 BPLN = 2 * AL/tan (ALLE) ;

73 AR = BPLN^2\SPLN ;
74
75 %% C a l c u l a t i n g SWET, Wetted Area

76 A1 = ( p i /2) * ( DIA_NOSE^2) ;
77 A2 = ( p i * ( DIA_FUSE^2) ) / ( 2 * cos (ALLE) ) − ( p i * ( DIA_NOSE
^2) ) / ( 2 * cos (ALLE) ) ;
78 A3 = p i * DIA_FUSE * (AL − ( DIA_FUSE/2) * tan (ALLE) ) + ( p i /8)
* ( DIA_FUSE^2) ;
79 A4 = (BPLN−DIA_FUSE ) * (AL − ( DIA_FUSE/2) * tan (ALLE) ) ;
80
81 SWET = A1 + A2 + A3 + A4 + SPLN ;
82
83 %Volume Check
84 V2 = ( p i /48) * tan (ALLE) * DIA_FUSE^3 − 0.0112;
85 V3 = ( p i /8) * ( DIA_FUSE^3) * ( LTD − tan (ALLE) /2) ;
86 V4 = (LTD^2) *WTD* ( DIA_FUSE^3)/tan (ALLE) ;
87
88 VTOTAL = V1+V2+V3+V4 ;
89
90 % C a l c u l a t i n g SFSPLN
91 SF = ( p i /2) * ( DIA_FUSE/2) ^ 2 ; %% Recheck ? ?
92 SFSPLN=SF /(SPLN) ;
93
94 % Kw, S i z e F i n e n e s s R a t i o
95 AKW = SWET/SPLN ;
96 AKW0 = − 93.831 *TAU^3 + 5 8 . 9 2 0 * TAU^2 − 5 . 6 4 8 * TAU + 2 . 8 2 1 ;
97
98 % Kv , S i z e F i n e n e s s R a t i o ( Hypersonic Convergence pg 84 eq 43
Wing Body _typo
99 tau_inv = 1/TAU;
100 KV = 0 . 5 2 7 3 4 − 1.1714 * 10^ − 3 * t a u _ i n v + 5.4888 * 10^ − 4 *
t a u _ i n v ^2 − 8.2046 * 10^ − 5 * t a u _ i n v ^ 3 ;
101 DB = DIA_FUSE ;
102 SPLN_HT = SPLN * 6 8 / 3 5 2 ;
103 SPLN_VT = SPLN * 6 3 / 3 5 2 ;
B.1.2 Geometry Calculation: Generic Lifting Body Configuration us-

ing Hypersonic Convergence Relations
This method uses paramteric equations for several lifting body cross-
section profiles as derived in the Hypersonic Convergence. Each shape
is iterated by the ‘switch‘ function thus providing a modular method
to iterate on distinct geometry shapes.
1 % Geometry Hypersonic convergence shapes f o r a f i x e d sweep
2 % Author : Loveneesh
3
4 %% OUTPUTS
6 % AL m V e h i c l e l e n g t h
7 % ALLE r a d i a n s Sweep angle o f t h e l e a d i n g edge
8 % AR ASPECT RATIO
9 % BA_BASE R a t i o o f base width t o h e i g h t ( e )
10 % BPLN m Span o f t h e v e h i c l e
11 % CS_SPAT R a t i o o f s p a t u l a width t o span o f v e h i c l e without
spatula
12 % CSPAT m Span o f t h e s p a t u l a
13 % DB m Body Diameter
14 % SF m^2 F r o n t a l Area
15 % SFSPLN R a t i o o f f r o t a l a r e a t o planform a r e a
16 % SPLN_HT m^2 H o r i z o n t a l T a i l planform a r e a
17 % SPLN_VT m^2 V e r t i c a l T a i l planform a r e a
18 % SWET m^2 Wetted s u r f a c e a r e a
19 % TAU KüchemannŠs tau
20 % VTOTAL m^3 Volume o f t o t a l v e h i c l e
21
22 %% Global I n p u t s : SPLN
23 % L o c a l I n p u t s : E (= b/a ) , ALLE( = 7 8 ) , CS ( r a t i o c/s )
24 ALLE = 7 8 ;
25 ALLE = degtorad (ALLE) ;
26
27 %E = BA_BASE ; %BA_BASE i s given from in pu t f i l e
28
29 %% TAU and AKW r e l a t i o n s below a r e based on base shapes f o r ALLE

=78
30 % S e l e c t a base −a r e a shape with t h e GEO_C c o u n t e r from in pu t
file
31 SET = GEO_C ; %1 t o 7
32
33 s w i tc h SET
34 case 1
35 % s e t =1 E l l i p s e
36 %TAU = 0 . 4 8 2 6 . * E ; % 0 . 0 4 8 3 < TAU < 0 . 4 8 3 , 0 . 1 < E < 1
37 BA_BASE = TAU/ 0 . 4 8 2 6 ;
38 AKW = 2 . 4 0 4 . * TAU. ^ 2 + 2 . 9 2 0 . * TAU + 2 . 1 7 4 ;
39 KS = 0 . 2 4 1 3 ; %(= 0 . 2 4 1 3 f o r e l l i p t i c a l ) & ( = 0 . 1 5 4 f o r t r i a n g u l a r
)
40 case 2
41 % s e t =2 h a l f − e l l i p s e
42 %TAU = 0 . 2 4 1 3 . * E ; % 0 . 0 2 4 1 < TAU < 0 . 2 4 1 , 0 . 1 < E < 1
43 BA_BASE = TAU/ 0 . 2 4 1 3 ;
44 AKW = 2 . 2 2 6 + 2 . 9 1 7 * BA_BASE + 4 . 6 8 9 * BA_BASE . ^ 2 ;
)
46 case 3
47 % s e t =3 diamond
48 %TAU = 0 . 3 0 7 4 . * E ; % 0.0307 < TAU < 0 . 3 0 7 , 0 . 1 < E < 1
49 BA_BASE = TAU/ 0 . 3 0 7 4 ;
50 AKW = 2 . 1 7 3 + 1 . 8 7 2 * TAU + 8 . 0 2 3 * TAU. ^ 2 ;
51 KS = 0 . 1 5 4 ; %(= 0 . 2 4 1 3 f o r e l l i p t i c a l ) & ( = 0 . 1 5 4 f o r t r i a n g u l a r )
52 case 4
53 % s e t =4 h a l f −diamond
54 %TAU = 0 . 1 5 4 . * E ; % 0.0154 < TAU < 0 . 1 5 4 , 0 . 1 < E < 1
55 BA_BASE = TAU/ 0 . 1 5 4 ;
56 AKW = 2 . 2 2 6 + 1 . 8 6 5 * TAU + 1 5 . 3 8 7 * TAU. ^ 2 ;
58 case 5
59 % s e t =5 Blunted Cone ( E=Rn/Rb )
60 %TAU = 0 . 3 0 4 8 * E . ^ 2 + 0 . 0 1 8 7 5 * E + 0 . 0 4 8 2 6 ; % 0.4826 < TAU < 0 . 5 2
61 p = [ 0 . 3 0 4 8 0 . 0 1 8 7 5 (0.04826 −TAU) ] ;
62 p1= r o o t s ( p ) ;
63 BA_BASE = p1 ( p1 >=0) ;
64 AKW = 4 . 6 * BA_BASE. ^ 2 − 2 . 3 5 0 * BA_BASE + 4 . 1 1 1 ;
)
66 case 6
67 % s e t =6 Blunted Half Cone ( E=Rn/Rb )
68 %TAU = 0 . 1 3 8 1 * E . ^ 2 + 0 . 0 1 6 4 3 * E + 0 . 2 4 0 9 ; % 0.2409 < TAU < 0 . 2 5 8
69 p = [ 0 . 1 3 8 1 0 . 0 1 6 4 3 (0.2409 −TAU) ] ;
70 p1= r o o t s ( p ) ;
206 loveneesh rana
71 BA_BASE = p1 ( p1 >=0) ;
72 AKW = 5 8 . 5 9 2 * BA_BASE. ^ 2 − 2 5 . 7 7 5 * BA_BASE + 5 . 9 7 0 ;
)
74 case 7
75 % s e t =7 Trapezoid
76 BA_BASE = 1 ; %( Can be 1 , 1 . 5 , 2 )
77 i f BA_BASE == 1
78 AKW = 2 . 9 0 6 − 2 . 0 2 2 * TAU + 1 5 . 7 0 6 * TAU. ^ 2 ;
79 e l s e i f BA_BASE == 1 . 5
80 AKW = 3 . 0 1 3 + 0 . 7 0 6 * TAU + 5 . 4 3 8 * TAU. ^ 2 ;
81 e l s e i f BA_BASE == 2
82 AKW = 3 . 0 9 3 + 1 . 0 6 4 * TAU + 3 . 0 9 3 * TAU. ^ 2 ;
83 end
85 end
86
87 %% From here onwards t h e s p a t u l a r a d d i t i o n i s used from Coleman ’

s T h e s i s Method
88 % CS = 0 i s t h e r e g u l a r shape without s p a t u l a r advantage .
89 AKW = AKW. * ( 1 + ( CS * KS . / ( 1 + CS ) ) ) ;
90 AL = s q r t (SPLN . * tan (ALLE) . / ( 1 + CS ) ) ;
91
92 S = AL. / tan (ALLE) ;
93 CSPAT = S . * CS ;
94 BPLN = 2 * S + CSPAT ;
95 CS_SPAT = CS ;
96 DB = BPLN ;
97
98 SWET = AKW. * SPLN ;
99 SF = p i * BA_BASE . * ( S . ^ 2 ) + BA_BASE . * S . * CSPAT ;
100 SFSPLN = SF . /SPLN ;
101
102 AR = (BPLN. ^ 2 ) \SPLN ;

103 TAU = TAU;
104 SPLN_HT = 0 . 0 7 * SPLN ;
105 SPLN_VT = 0 . 0 7 * SPLN ;
106
107 VTOTAL = TAU . * ( SPLN . ^ 1 . 5 ) ;

108
109 %% This s e c t i o n implements checks on v e h i c l e dimensions .
110 % VTOTAL > ENGVOL
111 % VTOTAL
112
113 %ENGINE_NAME :HM7B VINCI RL10A−1 RL10A−4−1 RL10C−1 RL60 LE−5

B2 CE− 7.5 CE−20 YF−75 YF−75D RD− 0146 S5 . 9 2 S5 . 8 0
114 %ENGSELECT : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
115 %I n p u t s : ENGSELECT, ANENG
116
117 %i = ENGSELECT ;
118 %ENGINE_NAME = { ’HM7B VINCI ’ ’RL10A − 1’ ’RL10A−4−1’ ’ RL10C − 1’ ’
RL60 ’ ’ LE−5B2 ’ ’CE − 7.5 ’ ’CE− 20’ ’ YF − 75’ ’ YF−75D’ ’RD
− 0146 ’ ’ S5 . 9 2 ’ ’ S5 . 8 0 ’ } ;
119 %ENGLENGTH = [ 2 . 1 4 . 2 1 . 7 3 2 . 3 2 . 2 2 2 . 2 5 2 . 8 2 . 1 4 2 . 2 2 . 8
2.8 2.2 1.03 1.2];
120 %ENGDIA = [ 0 . 9 9 2 . 1 5 0 . 9 1 . 5 3 1 . 4 4 2 . 2 4 1 . 5 6 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 5
1.2 0.84 2 . 1 ] ;
121
122 %ENGLENGTH = ENGLENGTH( i ) ;
123 %ENGDIA = ENGDIA( i ) ;
124
125 %ENGVOL = ANENG. * ENGLENGTH. * ENGDIA . * ENGDIA ; %Volume occupied by
engine i s taken as a cuboid
B.1.3 Geometry Calculation: Generic OpenVSP Geometry Method

This method shows an example of how OpenVSP geometry model-
ing software was used to analyze various lifting-body and wing-body
geometries. First step was to create models in the OpenVSP, which
were then converted into data structure. A MATLAB script was then
coded to interpolate among geometry parameters. The code below is
an example of such MATLAB script. The interpolating variables were
changed according to the vehicle geometry shape as required by the
code.
1
2 % Geometry Hypersonic convergence shapes f o r v a r i a b l e sweep from

VSP
3 % Author : James Haley
4
5 %% OUTPUTS
7 % AL m V e h i c l e l e n g t h
8 % ALLE r a d i a n s Sweep angle o f t h e l e a d i n g edge
9 % AR ASPECT RATIO
10 % BPLN m Span o f t h e v e h i c l e
11 % CS_SPAT R a t i o o f s p a t u l a width t o span o f v e h i c l e without
spatula
12 % CSPAT m Span o f t h e s p a t u l a
13 % DB m Body Diameter
14 % SF m^2 F r o n t a l Area
15 % SFSPLN R a t i o o f f r o t a l a r e a t o planform a r e a
16 % SPLN_HT m^2 H o r i z o n t a l T a i l planform a r e a
17 % SPLN_VT m^2 V e r t i c a l T a i l planform a r e a
18 % SWET m^2 Wetted s u r f a c e a r e a
19 % TAU KüchemannŠs tau
20 % VTOTAL m^3 Volume o f t o t a l v e h i c l e
21
22 %% Global I n p u t s : SPLN
23 % L o c a l I n p u t s : E (= b/a ) , ALLE( = 7 8 ) , CS ( r a t i o c/s )
24
25 ALLE = 7 8 ; %must be i n t e g e r between 65 and 80

26 E = BA_BASE ;
27
28 % S e l e c t a base −a r e a shape with t h e SET v a r i a b l e

29 SET = GEO_C ; %1 t o 5
30
31 s w i tc h SET
32 case 1
33 % s e t =1 Rounded E l l i p s e
34 %s e t t h e nose r a d i u s ( nr ) t o e l i m i n a t e a parameter
35 nr = 0 . 1 ;
36 %load i n t h e data s t r u c t u r e
37 bcone = load ( ’ r o u n d e d e l l i p s e . mat ’ ) ;
38 bcone = bcone . r e s u l t s ;
39
40 %round t o n e a r e s t 0 . 0 3 i n nr t o f i t t a b u l a r data
208 loveneesh rana
41 nr = round ( nr / 0 . 0 5 6 2 5 ) * 0 . 0 5 6 2 5 ;
42
43 %f i l t e r geometry s e t based on l e a d i n g edge

44 bcone = bcone ( bcone ( : , 2 ) ==ALLE , : ) ;
45
46 %f i l t e r geometry t o t h e n e a r e s t nose r a d i u s t o base diameter

ratio
47 bcone = bcone ( bcone ( : , 3 ) ==nr , : ) ;
48
49 %f i l t e r geometry t o t h e n e a r e s t e c c e n t r i c t y
50 bcone = bcone ( bcone ( : , 4 ) ==E , : ) ;
51
52 %i n t e r p o l a t e between planform v a l u e s
53 TAU = i n t e r p 1 ( bcone ( : , 7 ) , bcone ( : , 5 ) ,SPLN) ; % i n t e r p o l a t e t o t h e
s e l e c t e d planform and s e l e c t t h o s e v a l u e s
54 VTOTAL = i n t e r p 1 ( bcone ( : , 7 ) , bcone ( : , 6 ) ,SPLN) ;
55 SWET = i n t e r p 1 ( bcone ( : , 7 ) , bcone ( : , 7 ) ,SPLN) ;
56 BPLN = i n t e r p 1 ( bcone ( : , 7 ) , bcone ( : , 8 ) ,SPLN) ;
57 SF = i n t e r p 1 ( bcone ( : , 7 ) , bcone ( : , 9 ) ,SPLN) ;
58 SFSPLN = SF/SPLN ;
59 AR = BPLN^2/SPLN ;
60 AL = (BPLN/2 − nr * BPLN) /tan ((90 − ALLE) * p i /180) + nr * BPLN ;
62
63 case 2
64 % s e t =2 Rounded h a l f − e l l i p s e
65 %s e t t h e nose r a d i u s ( nr ) t o e l i m a t e a parameter ( rounds t o
nearest table
66 %increment
67 nr = 0 . 1 ;
68
70 bcone = load ( ’ r o u n d e d h a l f e l l i p s e . mat ’ ) ;
72
73 %round t o n e a r e s t 0 . 1 1 2 5 i n nr t o f i t t a b u l a r data
74 nr = round ( nr / 0 . 1 1 2 5 ) * 0 . 1 1 2 5 ;
75

78

ratio
81
82 %f i l t e r geometry t o t h e n e a r e s t e c c e n t r i c t y
84
95
96 case 3
97 % s e t =3 t r a p i z o i d
98 %s e t t h e nose r a d i u s ( nr ) t o e l i m a t e a parameter ( rounds t o
nearest table
99 %increment
100 nr = 0 . 1 ;
101 e = 0.5;
102

104 bcone = load ( ’ t r a p i z o i d . mat ’ ) ;
106
107 %round t o n e a r e s t 0 . 1 1 2 5 i n nr t o f i t t a b u l a r data

108 nr = round ( nr / 0 . 1 1 2 5 ) * 0 . 1 1 2 5 ;
109

112

ratio
115
116 %f i l t e r geometry t o t h e n e a r e s t e c c e n t r i c t y ( base t o width

ratio )
117 bcone = bcone ( bcone ( : , 4 ) ==e , : ) ;
118
119 %f i l t e r geometry t o t h e n e a r e s t keystone l e n g t h r a t i o o f

trapizoid ( 0 to 1 )
121
127 SF = i n t e r p 1 ( bcone ( : , 7 ) , bcone ( : , 1 0 ) ,SPLN) ;
132
133 case 4
134 % s e t =4 rounded cone
135 bcone = load ( ’ roundedcone . mat ’ ) ;
137
138 E = E/2;
139 %round t o n e a r e s t 0 . 0 3 i n E t o f i t t a b u l a r data
140 E = round ( E / 0 . 0 3 ) * 0 . 0 3 ;
141

ratio
210 loveneesh rana

154 AL = (BPLN/2 − E * BPLN) /tan ((90 − ALLE) * p i /180) + E * BPLN ;
156
157 case 5
158 % s e t =5 h a l f rounded Cone
159
160 bcone = load ( ’ halfroundedcone . mat ’ ) ;
162
163 E = E/2;
164 %round t o n e a r e s t 0 . 0 3 i n E t o f i t t a b u l a r data
165 E = round ( E / 0 . 0 3 ) * 0 . 0 3 ;
166

ratio
179 AL = (BPLN/2 − E * BPLN) /tan ((90 − ALLE) * p i /180) + E * BPLN ;
181
182
183 end
184 ALLE = ALLE * p i / 1 8 0 ;
185
186 SPLN_HT = 0 . 0 7 * SPLN ; %RANDOM FOR NOW
187 SPLN_VT = 0 . 0 7 * SPLN ;
188
189 % FURTHER VARIABLES REQUIRED FOR OUTPUT
190 % DB Body diameter
191 % SPLN_HT
192 % SPLN_VT
193 % SPLN_W
B.2 Aerodynamic Methods
The aerodynamic analysis method is based on empirical correlations of

the data generated initially at the McDonnel Douglas Company during
the HyFAC studies[? ] and is modified here from the original plots
provided by Coleman[? ].
B.2.1 Subsonic Aerodynamic Analysis
1 % Aerodynamics A n a l y s i s o f Wing Body Reentry V e h i c l e s i n

SubSonic Range (M: 0 − 0 . 8 )
2 % Source : HYFAC( Phase−I , Vol − 2, Part −I I , pg 4 . 1 6 onwards ) /Hyp

Conv
3 % Author : Loveneesh
4
5 %%%%%%%%% Pre−A l l o c a t e Outputs %%%%%%%%%
6 ALDMAX= z e r o s ( s i z e (AMACH) ) ;
7 ALIND= z e r o s ( s i z e (AMACH) ) ;
8 CD0= z e r o s ( s i z e (AMACH) ) ;
9 CLA= z e r o s ( s i z e (AMACH) ) ;
10 CL= z e r o s ( s i z e (AMACH) ) ;
11 CD= z e r o s ( s i z e (AMACH) ) ;
12
13 %%%%%%%%% A n a l y s i s %%%%%%%%%
14
15 ALIND(AMACH <= 0 . 8 ) = 0 . 4 5 ; %from f i g 4 −19

16 ALDMAX(AMACH <= 0 . 8 ) = s q r t ( p i . * ( ECDF/4) . * ( ( BPLN. ^ 2 ) . /SWET) ) ; %
eq on f i g 4 − 13 , ECDF from t h e p l o t = 280
17 CD0(AMACH <= 0 . 8 ) = 1 . / ( 4 . * ALIND(AMACH <= 0 . 8 ) . * ALDMAX(AMACH <=
0.8) .^2) ;
18 %CLA(AMACH <= 0 . 8 ) = 0 . 0 2 4 ; %from f i g 4 − 19 , a l t e r n a t e
a n a l y t i c a l e q u a t i o n used i n s t e a d as shown i n n ex t s t e p
19 CLA(AMACH <= 0 . 8 ) =2 * p i . * AR. / ( 5 7 . 3 * ( 2 + s q r t ( 4 + ( (AR. / cos (ALLE
/2) ) . ^ 2 ) − (AR . *AMACH(AMACH <= 0 . 8 ) ) . ^ 2 ) ) ) ; %from HYFAC Ref
−1 ( Barnard Spencer )
20 CL = CLA . * AOA;
21 CD = CD0 + ALIND . * CL . ^ 2 ;
22
23 ALD = CL. /CD;
B.2.2 Supersonic Aerodynamic Analysis

6 CL= z e r o s ( s i z e (AMACH) ) ;
7 CD= z e r o s ( s i z e (AMACH) ) ;
8
9 %%%%%% R e g r e s s i o n Data %%%%%%%%%
10 AMACH_MAP= [ 1 . 5 , 2 . 0 , 4 . 5 , 5 . 0 , 6 . 0 , 1 2 . 0 , 1 8 . 0 , 2 4 . 0 , 3 0 . 0 ] ;
11 TAU_MAP= [ 0 . 0 1 1 1 , 0 . 0 1 8 5 , 0 . 0 2 7 , 0 . 0 3 6 4 , 0 . 0 4 6 8 , 0 . 0 5 8 , 0 . 0 7 ,
0.0828 , 0.0962 , 0.1103 , 0.125 , 0.1402 , 0.1561 , 0.1726 ,
0.1895 , 0.207 , 0.225 , 0.2435 , 0.2625 , 0.2819 , 0.3018 ,
0.3222 , 0.343 , 0.3642 , 0.3858 , 0.4078 , 0.4303];
12
13 ALDMAX_MAP= [ 8 . 8 2 9 , 8 . 3 5 1 , 7 . 7 9 9 , 7 . 1 8 1 , 6 . 6 1 2 , 6 . 1 8 3 ,
5.817 , 5.457 , 5.121 , 4.824 , 4.531 , 4.239 , 3.974 ,
3.721 , 3.465 , 3.22 , 2.98 , 2.735 , 2.49 , 2.254 , 2.02 ,
1.78 , 1.535 , 1.286 , 1.031 , 0.771 , 0.507;
14 8.708 , 8.145 , 7.582 , 7.019 , 6.527 , 6.154 , 5.787 , 5.418 ,
5.096 , 4.759 , 4.466 , 4.19 , 3.934 , 3.655 , 3.416 , 3.186 ,
2.967 , 2.7 , 2.504 , 2.283 , 2.126 , 1.956 , 1.773 ,
1.63 , 1.476 , 1.36 , 1.192;
15 8.676 , 8.148 , 7.621 , 7.093 , 6.582 , 6.178 , 5.8 , 5.446 ,
5.118 , 4.804 , 4.517 , 4.244 , 3.974 , 3.704 , 3.441 ,
3.193 , 2.958 , 2.708 , 2.465 , 2.228 , 1.996 , 1.763 ,
1.531 , 1.298 , 1.066 , 0.833 , 0.601;
16 8.682 , 8.059 , 7.436 , 6.915 , 6.487 , 6.053 , 5.65 , 5.322 ,
4.982 , 4.682 , 4.414 , 4.16 , 3.886 , 3.657 , 3.397 , 3.152 ,
2.924 , 2.703 , 2.521 , 2.338 , 2.143 , 1.968 , 1.816 ,
212 loveneesh rana
1.674 , 1.523 , 1.39 , 1.257;

17 7.842 , 7.407 , 6.973 , 6.539 , 6.109 , 5.704 , 5.346 , 5.032 ,
4.719 , 4.455 , 4.184 , 3.926 , 3.693 , 3.432 , 3.208 ,
2.982 , 2.753 , 2.551 , 2.331 , 2.126 , 1.932 , 1.738 ,
1.544 , 1.35 , 1.156 , 0.962 , 0.768;
18 5.674 , 5.43 , 5.154 , 4.845 , 4.53 , 4.261 , 4.025 , 3.825 ,
3.608 , 3.416 , 3.24 , 3.046 , 2.872 , 2.705 , 2.555 , 2.405 ,
2.277 , 2.12 , 1.988 , 1.864 , 1.726 , 1.601 , 1.476 ,
1.345 , 1.252 , 1.131 , 1.067;
19 5.669 , 5.43 , 5.154 , 4.845 , 4.53 , 4.261 , 4.021 , 3.785 ,
3.576 , 3.391 , 3.205 , 3.016 , 2.852 , 2.705 , 2.555 ,
2.405 , 2.26 , 2.12 , 1.98 , 1.847 , 1.719 , 1.588 , 1.455 ,
1.318 , 1.179 , 1.038 , 0.893;
20 5.669 , 5.43 , 5.154 , 4.845 , 4.53 , 4.261 , 4.021 , 3.785 ,
3.576 , 3.391 , 3.205 , 3.016 , 2.852 , 2.705 , 2.555 ,
2.405 , 2.26 , 2.12 , 1.98 , 1.847 , 1.719 , 1.588 , 1.455 ,
1.318 , 1.179 , 1.038 , 0.893;
21 5.669 , 5.43 , 5.154 , 4.845 , 4.53 , 4.261 , 4.021 , 3.785 ,
3.576 , 3.391 , 3.205 , 3.016 , 2.852 , 2.705 , 2.555 ,
2.405 , 2.26 , 2.12 , 1.98 , 1.847 , 1.719 , 1.588 , 1.455 ,
1.318 , 1.179 , 1.038 , 0.893];
22
23
24 % %%%%%%%%% Subsonic A n a l y s i s %%%%%%%%%
25 SWET = AKW* SPLN ;
26 ALDMAXS = s q r t ( p i . * ( ECDF/4) . * ( ( BPLN. ^ 2 ) . /SWET) ) ;
27 ALINDS = 0 . 4 5 ;
28 CD0S = 1 . / ( 4 . * ALINDS . * ALDMAXS. ^ 2 ) ;
29
30 %%%%%%%%% T r a n s o n i c A n a l y s i s %%%%%%%%%
31 SF=SPLN * SFSPLN ;
32
33 i f ( SF /(AL^2) < 0 . 0 1 5 )
34 DCDT_MAX= ( 1 . 3 8 6 2 * ( SF/AL^2) + 0 . 0 6 7 ) * SFSPLN *CDTW_COR;
35 else
36 DCDT_MAX= ( 0 . 9 5 3 6 * ( SF/AL^2) ^3 − 1.916 * ( SF/AL^2) ^ 2 + 1 . 3 6 5 1 * (
SF/AL^2) + 0 . 1 1 1 9 ) * SFSPLN *CDTW_COR;
37 end
38
39 %%%%%%%%% L e f t s i d e o f M1. 2 A n a l y s i s %%%%%%%%% Same f o r WB and

AB
40 CD0(AMACH >= 0 . 8 0 & AMACH < 1 . 2 ) = CD0S + DCDT_MAX. / 0 . 4 . * (
AMACH(AMACH >= 0 . 8 0 & AMACH < 1 . 2 ) − 0.8) ; % l i n e a r Drag r i s e
Y = Y0 + m( x−x0 )
41 ALDMAX(AMACH >= 0 . 8 0 & AMACH < 1 . 2 ) = 0 . 5 . * s q r t ( 1 . / ( ALINDS . *
CD0(AMACH >= 0 . 8 0 & AMACH < 1 . 2 ) ) ) ; % ( L/D) _max = s q r t ( cd0/K
’ ) Approximation
42
43 %%%%%%%%% Right s i d e o f M1. 2 A n a l y s i s %%%%%%%%% Same f o r AB
and WB
44 CD_2M=1/(4 * i n t e r p 2 (TAU_MAP,AMACH_MAP,ALDMAX_MAP, TAU, 2 . 0 , ’
s p l i n e ’ ) . ^ 2 * ALINDS) ;
45 CD_12M=CD0S+DCDT_MAX;
46 CD0(AMACH >= 1 . 2 & AMACH <= 2 . 0 ) =(CD_2M−CD_12M) . / 0 . 8 . * (AMACH
(AMACH >= 1 . 2 & AMACH <= 2 . 0 ) − 1.2)+CD_12M ; % l i n e a r Drag
f u n c t i o n Y = Y0 + m( x−x0 ) from M1. 2 t o M2
47 ALDMAX(AMACH >= 1 . 2 & AMACH <= 2 . 0 ) = 0 . 5 . * s q r t ( 1 . / ( CD0(AMACH
>= 1 . 2 & AMACH <= 2 . 0 ) * ALINDS) ) ;
48
49 %%%%%%%%% A n a l y s i s %%%%%%%%%
50 % CLA(AMACH >= 0 . 8 0 & AMACH < 1 . 5 ) = ( 0 . 0 2 2 − 0 . 0 2 ) . / ( 1 . 5 − 0 . 8 )
. * (AMACH(AMACH >= 0 . 8 0 & AMACH < 1 . 5 ) − 0.8) + 0 . 0 2 0 ; %Gary (WB)

51 CLA(AMACH >= 0 . 8 0 & AMACH < 1 . 2 ) = 0 . 0 0 5 2 . *AMACH(AMACH >=
0 . 8 0 & AMACH < 1 . 2 ) + 0 . 0 2 0 2 ; %L i n e a r
r e l a t i o n from e x c e l f i l e
52
53 %%%%%%%%% A n a l y s i s %%%%%%%%%
54 %CLA(AMACH >= 1 . 5 & AMACH <= 2 . 0 ) = 0 . 0 3 . /AMACH(AMACH >= 1 . 5 &
AMACH <= 2 . 0 ) . ^ 0 . 7 5 + 0 . 0 0 0 2 5 ; %Gary (WB)
55 %CLA(AMACH >= 1 . 2 & AMACH <= 2 . 0 ) = 0 . 0 0 9 8 . *AMACH(AMACH >= 1 . 2 &
AMACH <= 2 . 0 ) + 0 . 0 3 7 9 ; %L i n e a r r e l a t i o n from e x c e l
file
56 CLA(AMACH >= 1 . 2 & AMACH <= 2 . 0 ) = 0 . 0 1 1 2 . * (AMACH(AMACH >= 1 . 2
& AMACH <= 2 . 0 ) . ^ 2 ) − 0 . 0 4 5 2 . *AMACH(AMACH >= 1 . 2 & AMACH <=
2.0) + 0.0657; %Polynomial r e l a t i o n from e x c e l f i l e ,
updates by Loveneesh Fig4 −19 data
57 %ALIND(AMACH >= 0 . 8 & AMACH <= 2 . 0 ) = 0 . 4 7 ; %Approx Value
58 ALIND(AMACH >= 0 . 8 & AMACH <= 2 . 0 ) = 0 . 0 6 5 1 . * (AMACH(AMACH >=
0 . 8 & AMACH <= 2 . 0 ) . ^ 2 ) − 0 . 0 7 5 8 . *AMACH(AMACH >= 0 . 8 & AMACH
<= 2 . 0 ) + 0 . 4 0 8 3 ; %Polynomial e x p r e s s i o n from e x c e l f i l e
60 CD = CD0 + ALIND . * CL . ^ 2 ;
61 ALD = CL. /CD;
B.2.3 Hypersonic Aerodynamic Analysis

6
7 %%%%%% R e g r e s s i o n Data %%%%%%%%%

8 AMACH_MAP= [ 1 . 5 , 2 . 0 , 4 . 5 , 5 . 0 , 6 . 0 , 1 2 . 0 , 1 8 . 0 , 2 4 , 3 0 ] ;
9 TAU_MAP= [ 0 . 0 1 1 1 , 0 . 0 1 8 5 , 0 . 0 2 7 , 0 . 0 3 6 4 , 0 . 0 4 6 8 , 0 . 0 5 8 , 0 . 0 7 ,
0.0828 , 0.0962 , 0.1103 , 0.125 , 0.1402 , 0.1561 , 0.1726 ,
0.1895 , 0.207 , 0.225 , 0.2435 , 0.2625 , 0.2819 , 0.3018 ,
0.3222 , 0.343 , 0.3642 , 0.3858 , 0.4078 , 0.4303];
10
11 ALDMAX_MAP= [ 8 . 8 2 9 , 8 . 3 5 1 , 7 . 7 9 9 , 7 . 1 8 1 , 6 . 6 1 2 , 6 . 1 8 3 ,
5.817 , 5.457 , 5.121 , 4.824 , 4.531 , 4.239 , 3.974 ,
3.721 , 3.465 , 3.22 , 2.98 , 2.735 , 2.49 , 2.254 , 2.02 ,
1.78 , 1.535 , 1.286 , 1.031 , 0.771 , 0.507;
12 8.708 , 8.145 , 7.582 , 7.019 , 6.527 , 6.154 , 5.787 , 5.418 ,
5.096 , 4.759 , 4.466 , 4.19 , 3.934 , 3.655 , 3.416 , 3.186 ,
2.967 , 2.7 , 2.504 , 2.283 , 2.126 , 1.956 , 1.773 ,
1.63 , 1.476 , 1.36 , 1.192;
13 8.676 , 8.148 , 7.621 , 7.093 , 6.582 , 6.178 , 5.8 , 5.446 ,
5.118 , 4.804 , 4.517 , 4.244 , 3.974 , 3.704 , 3.441 ,
3.193 , 2.958 , 2.708 , 2.465 , 2.228 , 1.996 , 1.763 ,
1.531 , 1.298 , 1.066 , 0.833 , 0.601;
14 8.682 , 8.059 , 7.436 , 6.915 , 6.487 , 6.053 , 5.65 , 5.322 ,
4.982 , 4.682 , 4.414 , 4.16 , 3.886 , 3.657 , 3.397 , 3.152 ,
2.924 , 2.703 , 2.521 , 2.338 , 2.143 , 1.968 , 1.816 ,
1.674 , 1.523 , 1.39 , 1.257;
15 7.842 , 7.407 , 6.973 , 6.539 , 6.109 , 5.704 , 5.346 , 5.032 ,
4.719 , 4.455 , 4.184 , 3.926 , 3.693 , 3.432 , 3.208 ,
2.982 , 2.753 , 2.551 , 2.331 , 2.126 , 1.932 , 1.738 ,
1.544 , 1.35 , 1.156 , 0.962 , 0.768;
16 5.674 , 5.43 , 5.154 , 4.845 , 4.53 , 4.261 , 4.025 , 3.825 ,
3.608 , 3.416 , 3.24 , 3.046 , 2.872 , 2.705 , 2.555 , 2.405 ,
2.277 , 2.12 , 1.988 , 1.864 , 1.726 , 1.601 , 1.476 ,
214 loveneesh rana
1.345 , 1.252 , 1.131 , 1.067;

17 5.669 , 5.43 , 5.154 , 4.845 , 4.53 , 4.261 , 4.021 , 3.785 ,
3.576 , 3.391 , 3.205 , 3.016 , 2.852 , 2.705 , 2.555 ,
2.405 , 2.26 , 2.12 , 1.98 , 1.847 , 1.719 , 1.588 , 1.455 ,
1.318 , 1.179 , 1.038 , 0.893;
18 5.669 , 5.43 , 5.154 , 4.845 , 4.53 , 4.261 , 4.021 , 3.785 ,
3.576 , 3.391 , 3.205 , 3.016 , 2.852 , 2.705 , 2.555 ,
2.405 , 2.26 , 2.12 , 1.98 , 1.847 , 1.719 , 1.588 , 1.455 ,
1.318 , 1.179 , 1.038 , 0.893;
19 5.669 , 5.43 , 5.154 , 4.845 , 4.53 , 4.261 , 4.021 , 3.785 ,
3.576 , 3.391 , 3.205 , 3.016 , 2.852 , 2.705 , 2.555 ,
2.405 , 2.26 , 2.12 , 1.98 , 1.847 , 1.719 , 1.588 , 1.455 ,
1.318 , 1.179 , 1.038 , 0.893];
20
21
22
23 %ALIND(AMACH >= 2 . 0 ) =(2.5 − ALINDS) . / ( 1 2 . 0 − 2 . 0 ) . * (AMACH(AMACH >=

2 . 0 ) − 2.0)+ALINDS ;
24 ALIND(AMACH >= 2 . 0 & AMACH <= 4 . 0 ) = 0 . 0 8 1 . * (AMACH(AMACH >= 2 . 0
& AMACH <= 4 . 0 ) . ^ 2 ) − 0 . 1 5 1 5 . *AMACH(AMACH >= 2 . 0 & AMACH <=
4 . 0 ) + 0 . 5 1 9 9 ; % ? ? % add +ALINDS ;
25 ALIND(AMACH >= 4 . 0 ) = 0 . 1 6 8 5 . *AMACH(AMACH >= 4 . 0 ) + 0 . 5 2 5 5 ;
26
27 ALDMAX(AMACH >= 2 . 0 ) = i n t e r p 2 (TAU_MAP,AMACH_MAP,ALDMAX_MAP, TAU,
AMACH(AMACH >= 2 . 0 ) , ’ s p l i n e ’ ) ; %same f o r WB and AB
28
29 CD0(AMACH >= 2 . 0 & AMACH <= 4 . 0 ) = 1 . / ( 4 . *ALDMAX(AMACH >= 2 . 0 &
AMACH <= 4 . 0 ) . ^ 2 . * ALIND(AMACH >= 2 . 0 & AMACH <= 4 . 0 ) ) ; % ? ?
%Does ALDMAX a l s o go from 2 t o 4 even i f i t doesnt change
from 2 t o 12
30 CD0(AMACH >= 4 . 0 ) = 1 . / ( 4 . *ALDMAX(AMACH >= 4 . 0 ) . ^ 2 . * ALIND(AMACH
>= 4 . 0 ) ) ; % For AB add : + DBCD0. / s q r t (AMACH(AMACH >= 2 . 0 )
.^2 − 1) ;
31
32 CLA(AMACH >= 2 . 0 ) = 0 . 0 0 0 1 . * (AMACH(AMACH >= 2 . 0 ) . ^ 2 ) − 0 . 0 0 2 9 . *
AMACH(AMACH >= 2 . 0 ) + 0 . 0 2 4 3 ; %from e x c e l f i l e
33
35 CD = CD0 + ALIND . * CL . ^ 2 ;
36 ALD = CL\CD;
B.3 Propulsion Method
Liquid rocket propulsion analysis using pre-existing engines charac-

teristics. The analysis then modulates the thrust availability as per the
user input.
1
2 %Engine S e l e c t i o n
3 %V a r i a b l e ENGSELECT used t o s e l e c t an engine
4
5 %ENGINE_NAME :HM7B VINCI RL10A−1 RL10A−4−1 RL10C−1 RL60 LE−5

B2 CE− 7.5 CE−20 YF−75 YF−75D RD− 0146 S5 . 9 2 S5 . 8 0
6 %ENGSELECT : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
7
8 %% PRE−ALLOCATE OUTPUTS
9 AISP = z e r o s ( s i z e (THRL_VAR) ) ;
10 FT_AVAIL = z e r o s ( s i z e (THRL_VAR) ) ;
11 CFN = z e r o s ( s i z e (THRL_VAR) ) ;
12 OF = z e r o s ( s i z e (THRL_VAR) ) ;
13 ISP_ISPAVAIL = z e r o s ( s i z e (THRL_VAR) ) ;
14
15 %% ENGINE SELECTION PARAMETER

16 i = ENGSELECT ;
17
18 %% ENGINE DATA
19 ENGINE_NAME ={ ’HM7B VINCI ’ ’RL10A−1 ’ ’RL10A−4−1 ’ ’ RL10C−1 ’ ’
RL60 ’ ’ LE−5B2 ’ ’CE− 7.5 ’ ’CE−20 ’ ’ YF−75 ’ ’ YF−75D ’ ’RD
− 0146 ’ ’ S5 . 9 2 ’ ’ S5 . 8 0 ’ ’XX−NO−NAME’ } ;
20 AE_AT = [ 8 3 . 1 240 40 84 130 80 110 80 100 80 80 210
153 1 5 3 ] ;
21 AEXIT = [0.769 3.629 0.636 1.838 1.627776 3.7994 12.56
1.910376 1.76625 1.76625 1.76625 1.22 0.553896 3 . 4 6 1 8 5 ] ;
22 AISP_REF = [ 4 4 5 465 410 451 450 465 447 454 443 438 442 451
327 3 0 2 ] ;
23 ALT_REF = [ 1 0 0 e3 100 e3 100 e3 100 e3 100 e3 100 e3 100 e3 100 e3
100 e3 100 e3 100 e3 100 e3 100 e3 100 e3 ] ;
24 GAMMA_RKT = [1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 ] ;
25 OF_RKT = [5.14 5.8 5 5.5 5.5 6 5 5.05 5 5.2 6 6 2 1 . 8 ] ;
26 PC_RKT = [3599996.2 6000000.4 2400004.2 3899999.3
4356975.0 8257987.5 3769290.0 5990334.0 526890.0 3678097.5
4099609.5 7899297.0 9700004.4 8 8 0 0 0 0 . 0 ] ;
27 % PE_RKT = [ 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01];
28 % PE_RKT solved f o r using e q u a t i o n 3 −25 i n s u t t o n ed 8 and using
PC given
29 % above
30 PE_RKT =
[2376.80705909996 ,1007.39893688627 ,4116.90131624602 ,2539.10488810242 ,1611.23819518581 ,5728.17565368216 ,1730.0
31 THRUST_REF = [ 6 2 0 0 0 180000 68000 99000 101000 250000 150000

73500 200000 785000 88000 98000 19610 2 9 5 0 ] ;
32 WENG = [ 1 6 5 550 131 168 190 498 290 435 588 550 550 243
75 3 1 0 ] ;
33 ENGLENGTH = [2.1 4.2 1.73 2.3 2.22 2.25 2.8 2.14 2.2 2.8
2.8 2.2 1.03 1.2];
34 ENGDIA = [0.99 2.15 0.9 1.53 1.44 2.2 4 1.56 1.5 1.5
1.5 1.2 0.84 2 . 1 ] ;
35 OXIDISER = { ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’
LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’N2O4 ’ ’N2O4 ’ } ;
36 RHO_OX = [ 1 1 4 1 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141
1141 1141 1141 1141 1442 1 4 4 2 ] ;
37 FUEL = { ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’
’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’UDMH’ ’UDMH’ } ;
38 RHO_FUEL = [ 6 6 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66
791 7 9 1 ] ;
39
40 %% ALLOCATE VALUES BASED ON ENGINE SELECTED

41 ENGINE_NAME = ENGINE_NAME{ i } ;
42 AE_AT = AE_AT( i ) ;
43 AEXIT = AEXIT ( i ) ;
44 AISP_REF = AISP_REF ( i ) ;
45 ALT_REF = ALT_REF ( i ) ;
46 GAMMA_RKT = GAMMA_RKT( i ) ;
47 OF_RKT = OF_RKT( i ) ;
48 PC_RKT = PC_RKT ( i ) ;
49 PE_RKT = PE_RKT ( i ) ;
50 THRUST_REF = THRUST_REF ( i ) ;
51
216 loveneesh rana
52 ENGLENGTH = ENGLENGTH( i ) ;
53 ENGDIA = ENGDIA( i ) ;
54 WENG = WENG( i ) * 9 . 8 1 ;
55 ENGVOL = ANENG. * ENGLENGTH. * ENGDIA . * ENGDIA ; %Volume occupied
by engine i s taken as a cube
56
57 OXIDISER = OXIDISER { i } ;
58 RHO_OX = RHO_OX( i ) ;
59 FUEL = FUEL { i } ;
60 RHO_FUEL = RHO_FUEL( i ) ;
61
62 %% Rubber Engine R e g r e s s i o n data

63 OF_S = . . .
64 [5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5;
65 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6;
66 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
7];
67 FT_FTAVAIL_S = . . .
68 [0.198 0.205 0.214 0.227 0.237 0.249 0.260 0.271 0.285 0.304
0.332 0.371 0.405 0.436 0.464 0.507 0.548 0.598 0.649 0.694
0.746 0.787 0.822 0.851 0.879 0.914 0.951 0.985 0.999 1.000;
69 0.198 0.205 0.214 0.227 0.237 0.249 0.260 0.271 0.285 0.304
0.332 0.371 0.405 0.436 0.464 0.507 0.548 0.598 0.649 0.694
0.746 0.787 0.822 0.851 0.879 0.914 0.951 0.985 0.999 1.000;
70 0.198 0.205 0.214 0.227 0.237 0.249 0.260 0.271 0.285 0.304
0.332 0.371 0.405 0.436 0.464 0.507 0.548 0.598 0.649 0.694
0.746 0.787 0.822 0.851 0.879 0.914 0.951 0.985 0.999
1.000];
71
72 ISP_ISPAVAIL_S = . . .
73 [0.9845 0.9867 0.9867 0.9867 0.9867 0.9889 0.9889
0.9889 0.9889 0.9911 0.9911 0.9933 0.9933 0.9956
0.9956 0.9956 0.9978 0.9978 0.9978 0.9978 0.9978
0.9978 0.9978 0.9978 0.9978 0.9978 1.0000 1.0000
1.0000 1.0000;
74 0.9756 0.9756 0.9761 0.9778 0.9778 0.9778 0.9787
0.9798 0.9800 0.9804 0.9827 0.9844 0.9855 0.9867
0.9889 0.9892 0.9911 0.9927 0.9933 0.9942 0.9956
0.9956 0.9978 0.9978 0.9978 0.9978 0.9988 1.0000
1.0000 1.0000;
75 0.9662 0.9662 0.9662 0.9679 0.9685 0.9697 0.9707
0.9709 0.9720 0.9738 0.9755 0.9797 0.9805 0.9820
0.9842 0.9863 0.9873 0.9887 0.9910 0.9920 0.9932
0.9943 0.9955 0.9955 0.9966 0.9977 0.9978 0.9986
0.9999 1 . 0 0 0 0 ] ;
76
77 %% Atmospheric c o n d i t i o n − R e f e r e n c e P r e s s u r e − Design P o i n t
78 FLTCOND = f l t c o n ( ALT_REF , 0 , 0 , 0 ) ; % Assumed se a l e v e l
condition ?
79 PREF = FLTCOND. P ;
80
81 %% Compute Thrust a t Max Power
82 % Break Up CF i n t o p a r t s
83 AA = ( ( 2 . * GAMMA_RKT. ^ 2 ) . / (GAMMA_RKT− 1) ) . * ( ( 2 . / (GAMMA_RKT
+1) ) . ^ ( (GAMMA_RKT+1) . / (GAMMA_RKT− 1) ) ) ;
84 BB = 1 − ((PE_RKT. /PC_RKT ) . ^ ( (GAMMA_RKT− 1) . / (GAMMA_RKT) ) ) ;
85
86 % Compute CF
87 CFN = s q r t (AA . * BB ) + ( ( PE_RKT−P ) . / ( PC_RKT ) ) . *
AE_AT ;
88 CFN_REF = s q r t (AA . * BB ) + ( ( PE_RKT−PREF ) . / ( PC_RKT ) )

. * AE_AT ;
89 CFN_VAC = s q r t (AA . * BB ) + ( ( PE_RKT− 0) . / ( PC_RKT ) ) . *
AE_AT ;
90
91 % Compute Thrust A v a i l a b l e
92 FT_AVAIL = ANENG. * ( CFN. /CFN_REF ) . * THRUST_REF ; % A l l
v e c t o r p o i n t s w i l l = max t h r u s t
93
94 %% Compute I s p a t Max Power
95 CSTAR = AISP_REF . * G0. /CFN_REF ;
96 AISP_VAC = CSTAR . * CFN_VAC. /G0 ;
97 AISP = AISP_VAC−(CSTAR. /G0 ) . * ( P . /PC_RKT ) . * AE_AT ;
98
99 %% Assign Values t o O/F , Thrust , and I s p Zero Matrix

100 OF(THRL_VAR >= 0 . 1 9 8 & THRL_VAR <= 1 . 0 ) = OF_RKT
; % Assign O/ F _ r k t t o O/F range where V a r i a b l e t h r u s t
s e t t i n g i s 19.8% t o 100% , Outside o f t h i s range = 0 bc 0
vector
101 FT_AVAIL (THRL_VAR < 0 . 1 9 8 & THRL_VAR > 1 . 0 ) = 0; %
S e t Thrust A v a i l a b l e , o u t s i d e o f v a r i a b l e t h r u s t range , = 0 ,
a l l o t h e r s s t i l l = max t h r u s t
102 AISP (THRL_VAR < 0 . 1 9 8 & THRL_VAR > 1 . 0 ) = 0; %
S e t Isp , o u t s i d e o f v a r i a b l e t h r u s t range , = 0 , o t h e r w i s e i t
i s t h e same value everywhere
103 ISP_ISPAVAIL (THRL_VAR >= 0 . 1 9 8 & THRL_VAR <= 1 . 0 ) =
i n t e r p 2 ( FT_FTAVAIL_S , OF_S , ISP_ISPAVAIL_S , THRL_VAR(THRL_VAR
>= 0 . 1 9 8 & THRL_VAR <= 1 . 0 ) ,OF(THRL_VAR >= 0 . 1 9 8 & THRL_VAR
<= 1 . 0 ) , ’ s p l i n e ’ ) ; % Assign I s p v a r r i a b l e v a l u e s (
percentages ) to l o c a t i o n s of thrust generation
104
105 %% True I s p and Thrust a v a i l a b l e a t v a r i a b l e t h r u s t s e t t i n g s
( Each i s a matrix/Vector , f o r use c o n i s d e r as a t h r u s t /
i s p lookup t a b l e )
106 FT_AVAIL = FT_AVAIL . * THRL_VAR ; % S c a l e max t h r u s t t o
v a r i a b l e t h r u s t v a l u e s a t each l o c a t i o n o f t h r u s t output
107 AISP = AISP . * ISP_ISPAVAIL ; % S c a l e max I s p t o
v a r i a b l e I s p v a l u e s a t each l o c a t i o n o f t h r u s t output
108 %Rocket Engine
109 %DUCT_PRESSURE = 0 ;
B.4 Weights and Volume Budget Estimates
Weight and volume budget calculation is a modified form of the VDK

weights method.[? ] Since the propulsion system is not sized, this
method takes weight and volume of preselected engine from propul-
sion module.
1 %Author : Loveneesh
2 %VDK Weights P a r a m t e r i c Method modified f o r Fixed Engine
weight and Volume
3
4 %%%%%% A n a l y s i s %%%%%%%%%
5 i f WR < 1
6 WR
7 e r r o r ( ’WR < 1 v e h i c l e gained weight over t r a j e c t o r y ’ )
8 end
9
218 loveneesh rana
10 %ENGINE_NAME :HM7B VINCI RL10A−1 RL10A−4−1 RL10C−1 RL60 LE

−5B2 CE− 7.5 CE−20 YF−75 YF−75D RD− 0146 S5 . 9 2 S5 . 8 0
11 %ENGSELECT : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
12 i = ENGSELECT ;
13 %Engine Performance Deck
14 ENGINE_NAME ={ ’HM7B VINCI ’ ’RL10A−1 ’ ’RL10A−4−1 ’ ’ RL10C−1 ’ ’
RL60 ’ ’ LE−5B2 ’ ’CE− 7.5 ’ ’CE−20 ’ ’ YF−75 ’ ’ YF−75D ’ ’RD
− 0146 ’ ’ S5 . 9 2 ’ ’ S5 . 8 0 ’ } ;
15 AE_AT = [ 8 3 . 1 240 40 84 130 80 110 80 100 80 80 210 153
153];
16 AEXIT = [ 0 . 7 6 9 3 . 6 2 9 0 . 6 3 6 1 . 8 3 8 1 . 6 2 7 7 7 6 3 . 7 9 9 4 1 2 . 5 6
1.910376 1.76625 1.76625 1.76625 1.22 0.553896 3 . 4 6 1 8 5 ] ;
17 WENG = [ 1 6 5 550 131 168 190 498 290 435 588 550 550 243 75
310];
18 ENGLENGTH = [ 2 . 1 4.2 1.73 2.3 2.22 2.25 2.8 2.14 2.2 2.8
2.8 2.2 1.03 1.2];
19 ENGDIA = [ 0 . 9 9 2 . 1 5 0 . 9 1 . 5 3 1 . 4 4 2 . 2 4 1 . 5 6 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 5
1.2 0.84 2 . 1 ] ;
20
21 OXIDISER ={ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’
LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’LO2 ’ ’N2O4 ’ ’N2O4 ’ } ;
22 RHO_OX = [ 1 1 4 1 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141 1141
1141 1141 1141 1442 1 4 4 2 ] ; %i n kg/m^3
23 FUEL ={ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’
’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’LH2 ’ ’UDMH’ ’UDMH’ } ;
24 RHO_FUEL = [ 6 6 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66
791 7 9 1 ] ;
25
26 ENGINE_NAME = ENGINE_NAME{ i } ;
27 AE_AT = AE_AT( i ) ;
28 AEXIT = AEXIT ( i ) ;
29 ENGLENGTH = ENGLENGTH( i ) ;
30 ENGDIA = ENGDIA( i ) ;
31 WENG = WENG( i ) * 9 . 8 1 ;
32
33 OXIDISER = OXIDISER { i } ;
34 RHO_OX = RHO_OX( i ) ;
35 FUEL = FUEL { i } ;
36 RHO_FUEL = RHO_FUEL( i ) ;
37
38
39 %
*******************************************************************************
40 %% WEIGHT BUDGET OWE

41 WOX_WF = (1 − 1/WR) /FF − 1 ;
42 RHO_PPL=(WOX_WF+1) /(WOX_WF/RHO_OX + 1/RHO_FUEL) ;
43
44 AKSTR= ( 0 . 3 1 7 +EBAND) *TAU^ 0 . 2 0 6 ;

45
46 WOPER= 8 5 . 0 *ANCREW+FWPPRV*ANPAX;
47
48 WPAX = FWPAX*ANPAX;
49 WCREW = FWCREW*ANCREW;
50 WFIX = WUN+FWMND*ANCREW;
51 WPAY = WPAX+WCARGO;
52
53 WP = WENG*ANENG; %N
54
55 % WEIGHT BUDGET OWE=WSTR+WSYS+WOP+WCREW

56 OEW_W = (1+AMUA) * (WP + WFIX + WOPER) /(1 − (1+AMUA) * ( AKSTR * SPLN

^ 0 . 1 3 8 + FWSYS) ) ;
57 OWE_W = OEW_W + WPAY + WCREW;
58
59 %
*******************************************************************************
60 %% VOLUME BUDGET OWE

61
62 VTOTAL = TAU* SPLN ^ 1 . 5 ;
63
64 VFIX = VUN + AKVMND*ANCREW;

65 VSYS = VFIX + AKVS * VTOTAL ;
66 VPAY = ANPAX*AKVPAX + (WCARGO/RHO_CARGO/ 9 . 8 1 ) ;
67 VENG = ANENG * ( ( ( AEXIT + ( AEXIT/AE_AT) ) ) /2) *ENGLENGTH * 0 . 7 ; %0 . 7
assumes t h a t 70% englength i s i n s i d e t h e v e h i c l e
68 VCREW = (AKVCPRV+AKVCREW) *ANCREW;
69 VVOID = VTOTAL *AKVV;
70
71 OWE_V = (VTOTAL − VSYS − VPAY − VENG − VCREW − VVOID) / ( (WR− 1)/

RHO_PPL/ 9 . 8 1 ) ;
72 AIP = RHO_PPL/(WR− 1) ;
73
74 %
*******************************************************************************
75 %% WEIGHT AND VOLUME BREAKFORWN

76
77 OWE = OWE_W;
78 OEW = OEW_W;
79
80 WSTR = AKSTR * SPLN^ 0 . 1 3 8 *OEW_W;
81 AISTR = WSTR/(SPLN *AKW) ;
82
83 TOGW = OWE*WR;
84 WPPL = TOGW* (1 − 1/WR) ;
85 WFUEL = TOGW* FF ;
86 WOX = WOX_WF*WFUEL;
87 WP = WP;
88 WSYS = WFIX + FWSYS *OEW;
89 AMZFW = OWE+WPAY;
90 AMWE = OWE − WOPER − WCREW;
91 WMARGIN = OEW − (WOPER + WSYS + WSTR + WP) ;
92
93 VP = VENG;
94 VPPL = WPPL/RHO_PPL/ 9 . 8 1 ;
95 VFUEL = WFUEL/RHO_FUEL/ 9 . 8 1 ;
96 VOX = WOX/RHO_FUEL/ 9 . 8 1 ;

Rana Dissertation 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rana Dissertation 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rana Dissertation 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A PROCESS DEVELOPMENT STUDY

SYNTHESIS METHODOLOGY FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF

This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfillment of

The following members of the Committee approve this

Donald Wilson, Ph.D.

Susan Ferreira, Ph.D.

Dudley Smith, Ph.D.

Robert Taylor, Ph.D.

all rights reserved

Table of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

3 Logical Solution Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

3.1 Identifying Top-Level System Modules 61

4 Physical Solution Architecture Implementation of the

5 Physical Solution Architecture Implementation of the

5.3.1 LV-based VTHL systems comparison 143

6 Original Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

B Disciplinary Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

1.1 Primary SAS Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1 Chapter-2 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.17 Significant examples of LVs from the early days of the

3.1 Chapter-3 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.1 Three primary types of the LRV configurations. . . . . . 76

4.18 Reentry profile trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

5.1 Primary LV Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

A.3 1950s: AHP Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

1.1 SAS hierarchy levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1 List of Vehicles Surveyed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.1 Physical Characteristics Data Sets of legacy LRV

4.1 Aerodynamic methods primary parametric relationships. 102

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process

AVD Aerospace Vehicle Design Laboratory

CER Cost estimating relationship

DBMS Data Base Management System

GDSP Generic Design Synthesis Process

LEO Low Earth Orbit

LRV Lifting Reentry Vehicle

MDA Multi-Disciplinary Analysis

RFP Request for Proposal

SAS Space Access System

SAS-GDSP Space Access System-Generic Design Synthesis Process

SAV Space Access Vehicle

SDP System Development Process

SPG Space Planners Guide

SSTO Single Stage To Orbit

STS Space Transportation System aka The US Space Shuttle

TSTO Two Stage To Orbit

VTHL Vertical Takeoff Horizontal Landing

f0 TransCost systems engineering and integration factor

f1 TransCost technical development standard correlation factor

f2 TransCost technical quality correlation factor

f3 TransCost team experience factor

f4 TransCost cost reduction factor from Learning factor

f6 TransCost cost growth factor for schedule deviation

f7 TransCost parallel organization factor

f8 TransCost country productivity factor

f 10 TransCost technology progress cost reduction factor

f 11 TransCost commercial cost reduction factor

Alte reentry altitude

g Earth’s gravitational constant

Isp Specific impulse