Exploring the Design Space of a SpaceLiner-type,

Hypersonic, Point-to-Point Vehicle [draft]

Doug Coley, Loveneesh Rana
and Bernd Chudoba
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, 76019-0018

Determining the design space during the conceptual design phase is one of the most
important steps of design. It will have a lasting impact for better or worse throughout the
entire project. Unfortunately it is also one of the more difficult and definitely the most
misunderstood portions in the whole design process. This paper will look at a SpaceLinertype vehicle and our attempt to compare and utilize two different sizing methodologies to
determine the acceptable design space for its hypersonic, point-to-point mission.

I.

Introduction

ight now the main obstacle of space flight seems to be the high cost associated with it. Any efforts
R
into making a single, fully reusable aerospace plane that could fly the entire journey on its own are
unfortunately wishful thinking at this point. The technology just is not there yet so it is too big of a leap.
The SpaceLiner aims to provide us with a much needed stepping stone: a reusable two stage suborbital point
to point vehicle. The main idea behind the SpaceLiner and similar vehicle concepts is ...strongly surging the
number of launches per year and hence dramatically shrinking manufacturing and operating cost of launcher
hardware.? In this paper we will look at two different but hopefully complementary methods for the initial
sizing of such a system.

II.

History

A brief history of attempts to get into space or point-to-point quickly will go here to give context to the
SpaceLiner and similar vehicles mission.

III.

Application

This section will answer the question, why?, for both the SpaceLiners mission as well as our decision to
attempt to size it parametrically.

IV.

Approach

The approach of this paper is to first establish a comprehensive and accurate data-base of all the available
information on the wealth of knowledge that similar past projects have to offer. From this raw data we will
attempt to observe patterns and trends that will still apply today. We will need to draw from their lessons
learned on all of the past attempts so that we do not repeat the same mistakes. This will also accelerate our
learning so that we can make sure we are aware of all of the key factors in play.
PhD

Researcher, The University of Texas at Arlington.

Researcher, The University of Texas at Arlington.
Professor, Director AVD Laboratory, The University of Texas at Arlington.
PhD

1 of 4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

A.

Data-Base

This section will detail the structure of our data-base and how we were able to use it to keep track of all the
various sources we found and the information that they contained.
B.

Knowledge-Base

This section will show lessons learned and trends found from past attempts at systems similar to the SpaceLiner. It will also contain methods pulled from our sources with evaluations of each method and its application to our mission.
C.

Trade-Space

With our knowledge-base formed we are now aware of various trades that need to be run to fully visualize
the solution space for our mission. The trades fall into three categories: mission, design and technology. The
types of trends we plan to look at can be seen in Table 1. These trades will allow us to incorporate more
than simply a direct reverse engineering of the SpaceLiner into our results. We hope to be able to show if
alternative configurations would be equally viable options or even if there is a preferred arrangement.
Table 1. Trade-Space Concepts and Options

Type of Trade

Categories

Total Trade Options

Mission

Trajectory

Ballistic
Boost-Glide
Skip-Glide
Altitude Option 1
Altitude Option 2
50 PAX
100 PAX
Cargo
Direct Route
Land Avoidance
Wing-body
Lifting-body
Sweep Option 1
Sweep Option 2
TPS Option 1
TPS Option 2
LH2-LO2
Fuel Option 2

Altitude
Payload

Range
Design

Cross-section
Sweep

Technology

TPS
Fuel

D.

Sizing

This section will contain the information covering our two approaches to determining the first approximations
of the vehicle and launch system: the Space Planners Guide? and the sizing code of the Aerospace Vehicle
Design Laboratory at UTA.
1.

The Space Planners Guide

The Space Planners Guide,? henceforth referred to as simply the Guide, contains a way of sizing a vehicle
by iteratively stepping through a series of nomographs to obtain first order estimates of the systems weight,
range, power required, etc. Its sheer number of plots and lack of any kind of computer interface lead many to
label it as dated or not applicable. In reality, it contains very powerful methods that also contain built

2 of 4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 1. Example Nomograph for Determining the TPS Structure Weight.?

in flexibility that allow the application of the nomographs even today, almost 50 years later. The Guide is
full of built in assumptions in its nomographs that are important to keep track of but still allow for a quick
approach to determine the feasibility of projects and missions today. Several adjustments had to be made
to the configuration of the SpaceLiner to allow us to use the Guide as it is written but it could be modified
to handle the specifics of the SpaceLiners mission (parallel burn, sub-orbital operation, etc...).

Figure 2. Example of Data Flow Through Several Nomographs in the Guide.?

Figure 1 is an example of one such nomograph that can be found in the Guide. If you look closely you
can see the blue arrows that have been overlaid on the plot to show the flow and progression of data. In
this example, the user enters the plot along the x-axis with the previously determined weight of the reentry vehicle and can determine the weight of the required TPS depending on the type of vehicle (winged,
capsule, etc...). The same nomograph also contains two different checks, one against a previously determined volume and one against the given lift to drag ratio. If either of these checks fails the user returns
to a previous nomograph with an adjusted estimate for the inputs and repeats until the system has converged.
In Figure 2 you can get a better idea of the flow of data from one nomograph to another. Even someone
unfamiliar with the launch vehicles or all of the variables involved could walk through the plots and notice
trends and arrive at important values such as the initial geometry estimates or stage mass ratios. Now if you
put that in the hands of someone with knowledge of past launchers and current availability, you can quickly
see how they would be able to determine to a first order whether or not the entire set up is feasible or not.
2.

AVDsizing Parametric Sizing Code

This is the section that still has the most work to do. It will cover an in-house sizing code that has been
in development for many years. Figure 3 gives a visualization of the sizing method employed by the AVD
Lab. It is based on a convergence of the weight and volume of the vehicle. With some modifications it
should allow us to quickly compare hundreds of configurations and determine the solution space available
and recommended for further studies.
Figure 3. AVDsizing Methodology.?

V.

Results

So far the only results that we have obtained are those from the Guides sizing process of the SpaceLiner.
These will be expanded upon to include similar systems that might not line up with the specific SpaceLiner
mission concept. The results of the Guides sizing for both the range and the gross lift off weight of the
SpaceLiner are listed in Table 2.
This will be expanded upon and will also include the results and solution space plots from the AVDsizing
code. The code provides a more in depth look and will hopefully give us an idea on how accurate the Guide
can be when they are compared. If it all can be verified we have future plans of integrating some of the
Guides methods into the code itself to further enhance the codes capability and utility.

VI.

Conclusion

This section will contain our conclusions. We think we can show that the Guide is still viable today and
possess greater power in conceptual design that many modern attempts. We would also like to show that
it and our sizing code reach similar results and in that case we would like to integrate aspects of the Guide
into our code.
3 of 4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 2. Comparison of SpaceLiner Given Values With Those Calculated by the Guide

range
gross lift-off weight

total

from DLR

from the Guide

17000
1832.5

24076.0
1929.7

units

percent difference

km
Mg

34.45%
5.17%

References

4 of 4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics